Evolution? How?

Read "real life's" posts in which he asserts a necessary standard for those who prefer the preponderant evidence for a theory of evolution. The question is addressed to him because he has consistently played the game of claiming that one can choose between two equally plausible theses, one a thesis of creation, the other a thesis of descent from common ancestors through modification--both to explain the diversity of life forms on the planet.

As far as i'm concerned, "real life" has advanced not a single plausible piece of evidence for creation. On that basis, i have no reason to believe that the preponderance of evidence does not rest with a theory of evolution.

I've only answered at this length because of my personal regard for you, Neo. However, the question is addressed to "real life," who likes to play fast and loose with forensic technique, and to shift the burden of making the argument to his interlocutors, without making his own argument.

So, "real life" . . .

What is your unassailable circumstantial evidence for a creation, for a creator?

0 Replies

Hi Setanta,

I think you misunderstand my position, or at least have not characterized it correctly.

0 Replies

I understand quite well that you want to put others on a "proof" hotseat, in which you are personally unwilling to sit.

If you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it?

0 Replies

Then clear it up for us, rl - just what is your position, and by what criteria do you hold that position to be valid?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The secular reliance on the god of Chance is unavoidable in their explanations of the physical world in which we live.

You have your choice:

A) The universe was generated by Chance. A vast explosion threw huge amounts of matter into chaos. This matter arranged itself neatly by Chance into the functioning systems that we see.

(Where this matter and energy originally came from is something that they'd often rather not discuss.)

B) The universe was not generated by Chance.

---------------------

Again, the secular reliance on the god of Chance is unavoidable in their explanations of the origin of life.

You have your choice:

A) Life was generated by Chance. Molecules collided and this matter arranged itself neatly by Chance into functioning living systems.

(The lack of scientific proof of Spontaneous Generation and the lack of consistency with scientific law, along with the apparent suspension of the law of Entropy to accomplish this is something that they'd often rather not discuss.)

B) Life was not generated by Chance.

-----------------------

Once more, the secular reliance on the god of Chance is unavoidable in their explanations of the rise and development of complex life forms.

You have your choice:

A) Complex life forms were generated by Chance. Mutations (basically lucky accidents) gave some living organisms a distinct advantage over others. Successful minor modifications, instead of establishing a beneficial equilibrium, continued to occur in the very same line of descent, compounding and eventually by Chance became wholesale rearrangements of the organism's anatomy.

(That mutations are almost always either harmful or neutral in their effect, not beneficial, along with the uselessness of even some beneficial mutations without other beneficial mutations accompanying them is something that they'd often rather not discuss.)

B) Complex life forms were not generated by Chance.

Setanta wrote:

Read "real life's" posts in which he asserts a necessary standard for those who prefer the preponderant evidence for a theory of evolution. The question is addressed to him because he has consistently played the game of claiming that one can choose between two equally plausible theses, one a thesis of creation, the other a thesis of descent from common ancestors through modification--both to explain the diversity of life forms on the planet.

As far as i'm concerned, "real life" has advanced not a single plausible piece of evidence for creation. On that basis, i have no reason to believe that the preponderance of evidence does not rest with a theory of evolution.

I've only answered at this length because of my personal regard for you, Neo. However, the question is addressed to "real life," who likes to play fast and loose with forensic technique, and to shift the burden of making the argument to his interlocutors, without making his own argument.

So, "real life" . . .

What is your unassailable circumstantial evidence for a creation, for a creator?

real life wrote:

Hi Setanta,

I think you misunderstand my position, or at least have not characterized it correctly.

Setanta wrote:

I understand quite well that you want to put others on a "proof" hotseat, in which you are personally unwilling to sit.

If you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it?

Hi Setanta,

For starters, what I mean by that first of all is that I have not claimed to have unassailable evidence.

I fully expect an agnostic such as yourself to assail away. I don't expect that anyone changes their view very easily. I know I didn't.

0 Replies

Your opinion is well established, rl - where is any evidence FOR Creationism/ID - actual peer-reviewed, published, academically, scientifically, and forensically valid evidence?

While science doesn't claim to have "All the Answers" - if it had them all, there would be no need for science - what science does is say "We can see this, this, and this, which appear to be consistent with this, this, and, this, as well as this, this, and this. Therefore, by preponderance of the best available evidence, currently it is reasonable to conclude that the hypotheis "xxxx " conforms with observation, meets with the requirements of verifiability, repeatability, predictability, and most likely very closely approximates an accurate accounting of the state or condition of being pertinet to the phenomonon at study. Please stay tuned for further developments."

What Creationists/IDers say is "Science can't answer this, so it is plain science is wrong and God has to be the answer. The question is closed."

0 Replies

timber, Excellent summary between science and creationism. Faith is a strong pacifyer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You have your choice:

A) The universe was generated by Chance.
A) Life was generated by Chance.
A) Complex life forms were generated by Chance.

or

B) It was all by design, not by Chance.

Timber asked you to state your position, not to give us two choices from your limited view of reality.

Just because you say it's either this, or that, doesn't make it so. In point of fact, you have greatly oversimplified the true nature of things while at the same time making invalid assumptions and implying limits where they don't exist. The list of items you provide from which we must choose are so far off base from reality it's hard to know where to start to even deal with them.

For example, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the Universe, so I don't even know why it's in the list.

Evolution also doesn't say anything about the origin of life, except that it strongly implies that if natural selection and variation can take us from a replicative mollecule to a giraffe, then it might be able to bridge the first gap as well.

And then you harp on Chance, as though that were the only force in the universe at play, while the very heart of evolutionary theory, which you clearly don't understand, demonstrates that "chance" alone is *not* the only force which acts on the elements of the Universe, especially replicative biology. Natural Selection is a selective force, not random.

Now I think we should go back to Set's question, because you still have not answered it. Please state your position on things without making up things about the Universe which aren't true and then trying to get us to choose between them.

0 Replies

Try THIS on for size, rl

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I fully expect an agnostic such as yourself to assail away. I don't expect that anyone changes their view very easily. I know I didn't.

I am not an agnostic. Your expectations are a matter of indifference to me, and not germane to this discussion. Purely as a circumstantial matter, i would easily change my view were there plausible evidence which obviously trumped a theory of evolution.

I was referring to terms of proof which you had elucidated hundreds of pages ago when you started the "proof" nonsense--an assault on what others wrote, but which you have avoided yourself. You continue to dodge the question. My "view," as i have repeatedly stated, is that a theory of evolution has the preponderant evidence for a plausible explantion of the diversity of life forms on this earth.

So, i will ask you once again--and i suspect you will once again dodge this question--If you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it? No chance for you to use "unassailable" as your dodge there, it's not a part of the question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
I fully expect an agnostic such as yourself to assail away. I don't expect that anyone changes their view very easily. I know I didn't.

I am not an agnostic.

I am surprised to hear it.

I had rather thought that

MerriamWebster.com wrote:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

probably fit your position much better than

MerriamWebster.com wrote:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

(I usually refer to the Merriam Webster as the common standard when a definition is needed. I find that using the common definition is most useful, rather than insisting on a special definition which is not in common use. Do you not agree?)

Am I incorrect? Which definition fits your position more closely?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Try THIS on for size, rl

if he chooses not to, i wouldn't mind taking a shot.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Read "real life's" posts in which he asserts a necessary standard for those who prefer the preponderant evidence for a theory of evolution. The question is addressed to him because he has consistently played the game of claiming that one can choose between two equally plausible theses, one a thesis of creation, the other a thesis of descent from common ancestors through modification--both to explain the diversity of life forms on the planet.

Second of all, I have not claimed that there are two equally plausible theses. This is a mischaracterization of my statement.

My view of the two theses, briefly stated:

The two theses each start with an assumption.

One assumes eternally pre-existent matter. Matter/energy were not created -- they have simply 'always been'.

The other assumes eternally pre-existent God. Matter/energy had a starting point.

Everyone will admit going in that both of these assumptions are difficult, if not impossible for anyone to fathom or explain. But they are the assumptions which must underlie the two choices which we have.

If there was an eternally pre-existent God, then at least everything that follows has an adequate cause to explain it's occurence. If there exists a powerful, intelligent Creator, this could account for all we see.

If there was eternally pre-existent matter, everything that follows does not have an adequate cause to explain it's occurence. If there exists only matter and energy, this cannot account for all we see.

The two theses are not equally plausible.

0 Replies

real life, there are other options.

such as time and matter/energy beginning simultaneously so that "always been" loses meaning

also matter and energy could have had a starting point without a cause.

also matter and energy could have a starting point with a cause that involved no gods.

also the universe could be in some kinda time loop cycle that has multiple beginnings and endings

there are plenty more....

0 Replies

"real life," whether i am described as an agnostic or an atheist is not germane. A statement of the origin of the universe is not germane. You are, once again, dodging the question.

You attempted to dodge the question based on the use of the adjective unassailable, and now you attempt to divert the discussion to one of cosmic origins. This thread has evolution as its subject, not cosmic origins. When you have attempted to ridicule other people's points of view, the reference has been to evolution, not cosmic origins.

So, do you assert that a creation is a better alternative to a theory of evolution, or, if you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

i wouldn't mind taking a shot.

Open table, yitwail - feel free to chalk your stick and have at it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

....... A statement of the origin of the universe is not germane. ...........So, do you assert that a creation is a better alternative to a theory of evolution.......?

Do you not see the contradiction here? Creation is the origin of the universe.

0 Replies

RL,

Personally, I see no contradiction in Setanta's accusation that you are dodging his question.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you not see the contradiction here? Creation is the origin of the universe.

No, there is no contradiction in my statement that you are attempting to dodge the question by bringing up cosmic origins, nor in the question of whether or not the diversity of life found on this planet is a product of creation, or has evolved through a process of descent with modification from common ancestors. In fact, a great many of those described by the ranting creationist crowd as scientists who believe in creation, who are genuinely entitled by their credentials to be considered scientists, hold that the universe could be created, and that the subsequent events which lead to the formation of the earth and the rise of life are consequences of such a creation. Therefore, they do not deny an evolutionary process in the act of asserting a creation.

So, once again, "real life," do you assert that a creation is a better alternative to a theory of evolution, or, if you do not claim that the diversity of life on this planet is a product of a creation, how do you account for it?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[In fact, a great many of those described by the ranting creationist crowd as scientists who believe in creation, who are genuinely entitled by their credentials to be considered scientists, hold that the universe could be created, and that the subsequent events which lead to the formation of the earth and the rise of life are consequences of such a creation. Therefore, they do not deny an evolutionary process in the act of asserting a creation.

a little detail that gets omitted for the sake of a creationist foot-in-the door strategy, methinks.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know