Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[ERayR]

I have nothing against conjecture either. But science isn't about only conjecture. There needs to be some evidence for a claim to be accepted in science.

Say we see some one at the base of a mountain starting to hike. A little later we see him a third of the way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him hiking half way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him three quarters of the way up still hiking. Then finally at the top of the mountain at rest. Do you actually need to see every step he took before you conclude that he hiked up?

With your Bombardier Beetle example we have many intermediate(or steps) examples.

http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html

A trait may be tied to another trait without being of survival value itself. IE; Eye color. Eye color itself has no known survival value, but is tied directly to the amount of melanin an individual has. The amount of melanin is directly tied to Vitamin D production in the skin and that does have survival value.

Your hiking analogy would be much more illustrative of your argument if it had been a bear that started up the mountain and a person that showed up on top. But then we would be left to wonder just when the bear became a person or if the bear was still on the mountain and the person came from the other side. Details, details.

[ERayR]

I'd like to understand this more. Do you have any place in particular I should start? And what should I be looking for in particular? Are you saying that this is evidence of past creations before Adam or something else? Thanks!

Before Adam? It depends on whether you are a young earth creationist or not but yes there are evidences for some very ancient civilizations with some impressive technologies, both in terms of artifacts and in terms of legend.

http://www.amazon.com/Things-More-Myths-Mysteries-Marvels/dp/1931882789

Contains a bunch of things that do not fit the macro-evolutionary narrative

Also if you are able to ignore their premise of ancient aliens tampering with evolution then Von Daniken and other ancient alien theorists have an impressive catalog of artifacts and legends.

A cursory investigation of legends from India is quite impressive in describing some impressive technology and weapons of war.

The problem with some of this is that it is summarily dismissed and ridiculed by young earth creationists and evolutionists alike. It is probably the only thing the two camps can agree on. This all has to be hoax because it doesn't fit our constructs. Some is probably hoax but then so was the Piltdown Man. Instead of ignoring and ridiculing these things need some serious investigation. Creation myths (including macro-evolution) would probably need some revision. Instead if it doesn't fit push it off to the side and marginalize it.

http://www.amazon.com/Things-More-Myths-Mysteries-Marvels/dp/1931882789

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/AncientMan/The_Missing_Links_Display3.html

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/Out_Of_Place_Artifacts/OOPARTS_3.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/300-million-year-old-tooth-gear_n_2527424.html

This is just a quick sample and not even a very good one as I compiled it here on the fly. However, if it piques your interest start your own journey. Careful it can get contagious. If you want to discuss it out of the clutter of the board PM me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Before Adam? It depends on whether you are a young earth creationist or not but yes there are evidences for some very ancient civilizations with some impressive technologies, both in terms of artifacts and in terms of legend.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

Contains a bunch of things that do not fit the macro-evolutionary narrative

Also if you are able to ignore their premise of ancient aliens tampering with evolution then Von Daniken and other ancient alien theorists have an impressive catalog of artifacts and legends.

A cursory investigation of legends from India is quite impressive in describing some impressive technology and weapons of war.

The problem with some of this is that it is summarily dismissed and ridiculed by young earth creationists and evolutionists alike. It is probably the only thing the two camps can agree on. This all has to be hoax because it doesn't fit our constructs. Some is probably hoax but then so was the Piltdown Man. Instead of ignoring and ridiculing these things need some serious investigation. Creation myths (including macro-evolution) would probably need some revision. Instead if it doesn't fit push it off to the side and marginalize it.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

http://www.discovery...s_Display3.html

http://www.discovery.../OOPARTS_3.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_2527424.html

This is just a quick sample and not even a very good one as I compiled it here on the fly. However, if it piques your interest start your own journey. Careful it can get contagious. If you want to discuss it out of the clutter of the board PM me.

Great. Thanks for the links. I'll look as time allows. And thanks for the personal offer.

[danielwoods]

I stated, "However, when not one complete macro level evolutionary chain is ever seen anywhere, at anytime for any organism. Then yes. At least one sequential evolutionary chain would be necessary to establish that it is at least a plausible extrapolation."

You replied:

Categorically false. The dinosaurs are still with us. We just call them fried chicken.

http://www.wired.com...volutionexampl/

Dinosaurs being chicken isn't an example of macro-level changes. Further, where is the observable evidence again?

[Vance]

Say we see some one at the base of a mountain starting to hike. A little later we see him a third of the way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him hiking half way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him three quarters of the way up still hiking. Then finally at the top of the mountain at rest. Do you actually need to see every step he took before you conclude that he hiked up?

Yes. Who is to say that when "we" couldn't see him the hiker wasn't hitching a ride?

[Bikeemikey]

Because IMNSHO macro-evolution negates the fall and the need for an atonement. No fall - no atonement.

But given that you are alive and believe in the Fall and the Atonement (fully unnegated) then that is not a relevant concern.

Unless you are saying that you believe categorical indisputable evidence of macro-evolution would change you belief in the Atonement, God et al.?

Me, I live in a world that has the fall and atonement are fully functioning real things. The sudden reality of Evolution would not impact this!

So my question: Is your testimony and belief in the reality of the Fall and the Atonement contingent on the unreality of evolution?

Edited July 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[ERayR]

But given that you are alive and believe in the Fall and the Atonement (fully unnegated) then that is not a relevant concern.

Unless you are saying that you believe categorical indisputable evidence of macro-evolution would change you belief in the Atonement, God et al.?

Me, I live in a world that has the fall and atonement are fully functioning real things. The sudden reality of Evolution would not impact this!

So my question: Is your testimony and belief in the reality of the Fall and the Atonement contingent on the unreality of evolution?

Gotcha. Nope. My nature won't let me ignore it.

[Bikeemikey]

Gotcha. Nope. My nature won't let me ignore it.

Fair enough.

[Brian 2.0]

Before Adam? It depends on whether you are a young earth creationist or not but yes there are evidences for some very ancient civilizations with some impressive technologies, both in terms of artifacts and in terms of legend.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

Contains a bunch of things that do not fit the macro-evolutionary narrative

Also if you are able to ignore their premise of ancient aliens tampering with evolution then Von Daniken and other ancient alien theorists have an impressive catalog of artifacts and legends.

A cursory investigation of legends from India is quite impressive in describing some impressive technology and weapons of war.

The problem with some of this is that it is summarily dismissed and ridiculed by young earth creationists and evolutionists alike. It is probably the only thing the two camps can agree on. This all has to be hoax because it doesn't fit our constructs. Some is probably hoax but then so was the Piltdown Man. Instead of ignoring and ridiculing these things need some serious investigation. Creation myths (including macro-evolution) would probably need some revision. Instead if it doesn't fit push it off to the side and marginalize it.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

http://www.discovery...s_Display3.html

http://www.discovery.../OOPARTS_3.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_2527424.html

This is just a quick sample and not even a very good one as I compiled it here on the fly. However, if it piques your interest start your own journey. Careful it can get contagious. If you want to discuss it out of the clutter of the board PM me.

This looks cool. I want to check this out. I remember someone telling me once that there were some Egyptian stories about them battling out on some flying machines, maybe even with Moses. I've completely forgotten the reference but I'll see if I can scare it up. Thanks for the links.

On another note... I know all scientists aren't on board with macro-evolution. But are there scientists that are non-religious that don't believe in macro evolution? that don't find the evidence compelling? It's not that that would make it true or untrue... it's just that if the evidence is so lacking for macro evolution, then there should be plenty that don't buy into macro evolution regardless of religious belief.

It's sort of like the Book of Abraham arguments. When I hear about how the Egyptological evidence shows that Joseph Smith got this or that right, then I would suspect there would be some non-LDS Egyptologists who would also agree that JS got the same this or that right. I'm not saying I place my belief simply in the views of the majority, but it is troubling if the ONLY experts to agree with one way of looking at the evidence have "reason" to want to see the evidence that way.

I'm asking this honestly, because I don't have my finger on the pulse of scientific consensus, but with the section of scientists that DON'T believe in macro-evolution, are they all religious (believe in a creation story), or do we have agnostic/atheist scientists that also don't find macroevolution compelling?

[ERayR]

This looks cool. I want to check this out. I remember someone telling me once that there were some Egyptian stories about them battling out on some flying machines, maybe even with Moses. I've completely forgotten the reference but I'll see if I can scare it up. Thanks for the links.

On another note... I know all scientists aren't on board with macro-evolution. But are there scientists that are non-religious that don't believe in macro evolution? that don't find the evidence compelling? It's not that that would make it true or untrue... it's just that if the evidence is so lacking for macro evolution, then there should be plenty that don't buy into macro evolution regardless of religious belief.

It's sort of like the Book of Abraham arguments. When I hear about how the Egyptological evidence shows that Joseph Smith got this or that right, then I would suspect there would be some non-LDS Egyptologists who would also agree that JS got the same this or that right. I'm not saying I place my belief simply in the views of the majority, but it is troubling if the ONLY experts to agree with one way of looking at the evidence have "reason" to want to see the evidence that way.

I'm asking this honestly, because I don't have my finger on the pulse of scientific consensus, but with the section of scientists that DON'T believe in macro-evolution, are they all religious (believe in a creation story), or do we have agnostic/atheist scientists that also don't find macroevolution compelling?

I don't know if you have been to college or how far you went. I went back to school in my late 40's. School or not is not the point. The point I am trying to get at is once you got into grad school you have mentors on your thesis committee to warn you when you are getting out of bounds and headed for the "crackpot area". Not so much in business (where I am at) but in the hard sciences. Bright young minds are herded and shepherded and encouraged not to get to far from the party line.

There are, in my estimation, some very good scientific minds who are christian and have gotten into the young earth debate and have been marginalized who have some very good points and questions. It has been some years since I have been in that area so do not know the new young minds.

The problem is that the debate has been framed as young earth creationists vs. evolutionists. When you disagree with either side you are ridiculed and/or ignored. There is no place in the debate for you. They won't let you disagree with both sides and still be in the debate. Funny but that is about the only thing both sides agree on.

Side note on Book of Abraham. Non-LDS scholars for the most part don't really care.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This looks cool. I want to check this out. I remember someone telling me once that there were some Egyptian stories about them battling out on some flying machines, maybe even with Moses. I've completely forgotten the reference but I'll see if I can scare it up. Thanks for the links.

On another note... I know all scientists aren't on board with macro-evolution. But are there scientists that are non-religious that don't believe in macro evolution? that don't find the evidence compelling? It's not that that would make it true or untrue... it's just that if the evidence is so lacking for macro evolution, then there should be plenty that don't buy into macro evolution regardless of religious belief.

It's sort of like the Book of Abraham arguments. When I hear about how the Egyptological evidence shows that Joseph Smith got this or that right, then I would suspect there would be some non-LDS Egyptologists who would also agree that JS got the same this or that right. I'm not saying I place my belief simply in the views of the majority, but it is troubling if the ONLY experts to agree with one way of looking at the evidence have "reason" to want to see the evidence that way.

I'm asking this honestly, because I don't have my finger on the pulse of scientific consensus, but with the section of scientists that DON'T believe in macro-evolution, are they all religious (believe in a creation story), or do we have agnostic/atheist scientists that also don't find macroevolution compelling?

I'm not sure this tells us anything. Atheists need evolution as much as Creationists need a Creator. To my knowledge their are no alternative atheistic models for the origin of life that don't include evolution.

[ERayR]

I'm not sure this tells us anything. Atheists need evolution as much as Creationists need a Creator. To my knowledge their are no alternative atheistic models for the origin of life that don't include evolution.

I think you are correct. There is the ancient alien ID model but all that does is push evolution back indefinitely.

Edited to add: Atheists need evolution as much as Creationists need a Creator.

To each his own religion.

Edited July 26, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure this tells us anything. Atheists need evolution as much as Creationists need a Creator. To my knowledge their are no alternative atheistic models for the origin of life that don't include evolution.

I obviously am not an Atheist, but fully accept Evolution as the means by which God Created us. The next question is would a Creationist accept the Hindu explanation of Creation? If not why not?

My bet is that more than a few of these accept evolution.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I obviously am not an Atheist, but fully accept Evolution as the means by which God Created us. The next question is would a Creationist accept the Hindu explanation of Creation? If not why not?

My bet is that more than a few of these accept evolution.

http://mormonscholar...ex-by-specialty

The point I was trying to make is that you can't reject evolution without acknowledging a creator. I think the point you are making is more germane to this conversation - that is how many religious biologists accept evolution. I know that most if not all of the BYU biology department accepts evolution. Of the eight biologists at Mormon Scholars Testify, 6 discuss evolution in their testimony. Only one of the six showed any reservation when discussing as far as I could discern in a quick read. He said:

I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us.

....

I still don’t know how God created the earth. I believe that much of what we learn and teach in evolution classes is true, but we don’t know the whole story, especially about life’s origin.

I know of at least one more staunchly pro-evolutionary biologist at BYU that posts here.

Pope John Paul II released a statement when I was in college stating that the catholic church supports theistic evolution including Man descending from lower forms.

[Bikeemikey]

The point I was trying to make is that you can't reject evolution without acknowledging a creator.

The options are not evolution or creator. Proposing that the world must be constrained by one or the other of these opposing forces actually perpetuates the combative conversation that presently exists between these two concepts.

It is absolutely reasonable to state that you do not believe it is either creationism (as currently proposed) or evolution (as currently proposed), rather you believe it is something else entirely that has yet to be considered by either religion or science.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[ERayR]

The point I was trying to make is that you can't reject evolution without acknowledging a creator. I think the point you are making is more germane to this conversation - that is how many religious biologists accept evolution. I know that most if not all of the BYU biology department accepts evolution. Of the eight biologists at Mormon Scholars Testify, 6 discuss evolution in their testimony. Only one of the six showed any reservation when discussing as far as I could discern in a quick read. He said:

I know of at least one more staunchly pro-evolutionary biologist at BYU that posts here.

Pope John Paul II released a statement when I was in college stating that the catholic church supports theistic evolution including Man descending from lower forms.

Pardon me if I am not influenced by what a BYU biology professors believe. It has been my experience that they are smarter than some and not so smart as others and able to err just like everyone else.

[ERayR]

The options are not evolution or creator. Proposing that the world must be constrained by one or the other of these opposing forces actually perpetuates the combative conversation that presently exists between these two concepts.

It is absolutely reasonable to state that you do not believe it is either creationism (as currently proposed) or evolution (as currently proposed), rather you believe it is something else entirely that has yet to be considered by either religion or science.

Thank you for restating my position. See we are not so far apart on some things. As long as creationism (as currently proposed) and evolution (as currently proposed) remain behind their formidable fortifications and allow no one else at the table to debate Those options will not be able to be heard or examined.

[ERayR]

Before Adam? It depends on whether you are a young earth creationist or not but yes there are evidences for some very ancient civilizations with some impressive technologies, both in terms of artifacts and in terms of legend.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

Contains a bunch of things that do not fit the macro-evolutionary narrative

Also if you are able to ignore their premise of ancient aliens tampering with evolution then Von Daniken and other ancient alien theorists have an impressive catalog of artifacts and legends.

A cursory investigation of legends from India is quite impressive in describing some impressive technology and weapons of war.

The problem with some of this is that it is summarily dismissed and ridiculed by young earth creationists and evolutionists alike. It is probably the only thing the two camps can agree on. This all has to be hoax because it doesn't fit our constructs. Some is probably hoax but then so was the Piltdown Man. Instead of ignoring and ridiculing these things need some serious investigation. Creation myths (including macro-evolution) would probably need some revision. Instead if it doesn't fit push it off to the side and marginalize it.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

http://www.discovery...s_Display3.html

http://www.discovery.../OOPARTS_3.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_2527424.html

This is just a quick sample and not even a very good one as I compiled it here on the fly. However, if it piques your interest start your own journey. Careful it can get contagious. If you want to discuss it out of the clutter of the board PM me.

Let me add one more good one I just remembered:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Giza-Power-Plant-Technologies/dp/1879181509

[Bikeemikey]

Thank you for restating my position. See we are not so far apart on some things. As long as creationism (as currently proposed) and evolution (as currently proposed) remain behind their formidable fortifications and allow no one else at the table to debate Those options will not be able to be heard or examined.

Oh I totally agree... However, creationism needs no evidence so will never be reasoned with in a way that gets it away from the table.

Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence... As long as this continues we will not be able to get them away from the table.

We need either dramatically new revelation or dramatically new evidence to create table space.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

[ERayR]

Oh I totally agree... However, creationism needs no evidence so will never be reasoned with in a way that gets it away from the table.

Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence... As long as this continues we will not be able to get them away from the table.

We need either dramatically new revelation or dramatically new evidence to create table space.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

I would restate this point : Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence. Like this: Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence that they allow to the discussion table.

Creationism as now prevelant is as bad as evolution on limiting the evidence brought to the discussion.

Edited July 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Bikeemikey]

I would restate this point : Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence. Like this: Evolution has a nasty tendency on being consistent with the vast majority of existing evidence that they allow to the discussion table.

Sure why not...

As long as we also concede that creationists and evolutionists are not even at the same table.

[ERayR]

Sure why not...

As long as we also concede that creationists and evolutionists are not even at the same table.

Totally conceded. They are somewhere out there on the field of battle lobbing artillery shells at each other. However evolution has been entrenched in the education system so they at least have the ability to control the debate.

[Bikeemikey]

Totally conceded. They are somewhere out there on the field of battle lobbing artillery shells at each other. However evolution has been entrenched in the education system so they at least have the ability to control the debate.

Sure... and we would need a hugely monumental new piece of evidence to dislodge the Evolutionary principle from its current place in science.

[ERayR]

Sure... and we would need a hugely monumental new piece of evidence to dislodge the Evolutionary principle from its current place in science.

I think not. I think that all that would be needed is for the information that is out there and incompatible with the present macro-evolutionary theory to be included.

[ERayR]

I obviously am not an Atheist, but fully accept Evolution as the means by which God Created us. The next question is would a Creationist accept the Hindu explanation of Creation? If not why not?

My bet is that more than a few of these accept evolution.

http://mormonscholar...ex-by-specialty

How about you read these two books:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Giza-Power-Plant-Technologies/dp/1879181509

http://www.amazon.com/Things-More-Myths-Mysteries-Marvels/dp/1931882789