Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Stargazer]

So you are exactly like both of your parents? We all have similar traits to both our parents. That's all that evolution says. Also that over long generations we take on less and less similarities to our parents until some future generation will be different enough to no longer be able to reproduce with our parents species.

Please find me an actual evolutionary biologist who argues that two parents having offspring is an example of evolution.

Evolution is the changing of characteristics such that speciation eventually occurs. For example, the coelecanth has been propagating its species for millions of years, and has remained substantially the same over that entire time. It isn't evolution if a species does not evolve into another species. But while eohippus may or may not be the ancient ancestor of the modern horse, there is no question that it certainly looks like it is, and I'd guess that eohippus did not go extinct so much as it evolved into one horse-like species after another. Until it became Sea-Biscuit.

 

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[119] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 21] is not scientifically useful,[n 22] is not falsifiable,[n 23] is not empirically testable,[n 24] and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional.[n 25][n 26][n 27]

The above paragraph is a quotation from the citation you give below, Scientific Criticism (you didn't give your source, but I wanted to point it out). Now consider the following claim that "ID has been falsified" that cites the above as evidence.

 

ID has been falsified.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Uh, no it hasn't. It is not often that a proponent of a claim quotes what he considers evidence to back up his claim, yet the quote he submits flatly contradicts him. But you've managed it! Congratulations! I've bolded and reddened the text in question above.

 

You can't simultaneously claim that something is not falsifiable and that is has been falsified. 

 

I don't have a problem with God. Further some 40% of all American scientists including Dr. Kenneth Miller, and I, believe in a personal God. What I object to is the imposition of any God or Godlike force onto science. IMNTBHO anytime you must insert God into science to make it work it is many things but science it ain't.

I too also believe God created the universe, of which we, and our world, are a part of. Exactly how he did it I don't know, but we are seeking. To me science is seeking for the answers as to how he did do it.

Agreed then.

Perhaps I did not make it clear from the outset, but I don't consider Intelligent Design to be "science", strictly speaking. Having read "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C. Meyer, I find some of the arguments presented by ID proponents persuasive when it comes to perceiving God (or the Designer, if you will) in the process of evolution.

But I definitely dislike how many evolutionists fall all over themselves trying to debunk ID through any means they can, including using logical fallacies such as Straw Man, Argument from Authority and Appeal to Ridicule.

[Stargazer]

My "6000 year old planet" may be off base. Is 10,000 better? Or 25,000? I've read many of your posts. If you're not wlling to pin down a specific number of years, that's ok, are you willing to establish that you believe in a "young" earth? By "young earth" I mean a world less than 1,000,000 years old. You have written that you believe in the flood of Noah. According to the "young earth" interpretation of the Bible, that flood would have occured less than 25,000 years ago.

I have state before I am NOT a young earth proponent.

Note to TSS: This is a prime example of the use of both Straw Man and Appeal to Ridicule: here the attack is to assume one's opponent holds a position the opponent does not hold, and then use that fictional position to attack him, combined with ridicule of the fictional position.

[danielwoods]

Here in Utah, we might get 12 inches of ice at any given reservoir within a 150 day period.    No where near the 9,000 ft thick ice at the southern pole with its annual layers that Uncle Dale mentions.  Remember, an ice age is not just frozen sea water at the poles either, it is enormous glaciers covering entire continents.  Did that all happen in 150 days?  

 

Also, none of this is biblical, so where is the evidence?  Do you even have any biblical evidence for this instant ice-age?  I don't remember hearing about this biblical global drop in temperature.

A couple of difficulties are solved with the flood model. One is how animals appear to have been frozen very quickly, often with undigested food in their stomachs. Two, is the ice age itself, the climate cycles themselves don't account for vast amount of energy needed to create the ice and glaciers that built up. What typically happens is as the Earth's climate cools, so also does the evaporation, leaving the planet cooler but dry, with very little precipitation. Without precipitation glaciers won't form. In the flood model, the warm wet air hitting the cooler poles creates a huge source for large glaciers to form. The same phenomena is observed in Greenland when a warm tropical storm hits it.

As for biblical evidence, the observations of the writers don't cover the change in climate. However, the change in life spans and sizes of animals is observed.

[Uncle Dale]

A couple of difficulties are solved with the flood model. One is how animals appear to have been frozen very quickly, often with undigested food in their stomachs. Two, is the ice age itself, the climate cycles themselves don't account for vast amount of energy needed to create the ice and glaciers that built up. What typically happens is as the Earth's climate cools, so also does the evaporation, leaving the planet cooler but dry, with very little precipitation. Without precipitation glaciers won't form. In the flood model, the warm wet air hitting the cooler poles creates a huge source for large glaciers to form. The same phenomena is observed in Greenland when a warm tropical storm hits it.

As for biblical evidence, the observations of the writers don't cover the change in climate. However, the change in life spans and sizes of animals is observed.

 

A wooly rhino falls into an icy crevasse (or even a temporarily 

thawed pond in sub-zero weather) and dies, and soon after is

buried by one snowfall after another -- no need to think that

anything supernatural or totally awesome has happened. Eons

later the long frozen area begins to thaw out once again and

the ancient rhino is partly uncovered.

 

"Oh, my Lord!" says a creation scientist, happening upon the

site -- "This creature missed getting on the ark and was frozen

solid in an instant, when the super-cold waters of the firmament

rained down upon the wicked planet earth!"

 

"Proves the Bible is true! Ga-lorry, Hallah-loo-yeah!"

 

"Biblical evidence" for glaciers, ice sheets, freeze-dried

mastodons, and "flood models" is non-existent.

 

Now, if you want to know how to build a proper tabernacle,

or whether it's a good idea to to throw about an inflated

pig-skin on the Sabbath, that collection of ancient texts is

an excellent place to go looking for ideas.

 

If you wish to know how annual accumulation layers are

formed in ice sheets, or how annual sedimentation makes

similar stacked layers in long-lasting ponds --- not to mention

annual tree rings, periodic polarity shifts "captured" in

cooling igneous rocks, and radioactive half-lives --- the Bible

is a terribly insufficient (and inaccurate) place to go looking.

 

UD

 

ps -- And praying real hard, and then opening the Bible at

random, and setting down your forefinger is not a very good

method, either... though it might yield better results than would

any concordance-based scripture searches for science info.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[SmileyMcGee]

Perhaps I did not make it clear from the outset, but I don't consider Intelligent Design to be "science", strictly speaking. Having read "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C. Meyer, I find some of the arguments presented by ID proponents persuasive when it comes to perceiving God (or the Designer, if you will) in the process of evolution.

But I definitely dislike how many evolutionists fall all over themselves trying to debunk ID through any means they can, including using logical fallacies such as Straw Man, Argument from Authority and Appeal to Ridicule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Stargazer, but it seems like you believe in theistic evolution and not ID. The ID material I've encountered puts forth the idea that all forms of life came into existence with their current, irreducibly complex structure. Evolution, even guided by a diety, contradicts ID's idea of irreducible complexity.

[bcuzbcuz]

It's not a scientific theory; it's pseudoscience put forth by Kent Hovind.

Ken Hovind. Isn't that the same guy who was sent to jail for tax evasion.

[thesometimesaint]

Statrgazer:

 

ID is predicated on the premise of Irreducible Complexity. The supposition that something is so complex that only God could have made it as is without evolution.  Every single example of IC that has been put forward to date has been falsified. Is it possible for even one example to be found?  I guess. IE; It is possible to falsify the Theory of Gravity. But I'm not going to jump off of a cliff without having a parachute on any time soon.

 

As said by Galileo many many moons ago: "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

[JLHPROF]

I love how we insist on applying mans scientific principles to the history of this earth.

Do we forget who runs this earth?

 

The man who turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, healed the blind and lame, commanded the seas to be still, cursed a tree and it died, reattached a mans ear with a touch, bled from every pore and survived, and himself returned from the dead, and then ascended into heaven with no visible means of propulsion.

 

Yeah, Our scientific understanding confirms ALL those things are completely impossible with our current knowledge level.

 

And I sure that other things science proclaims can't be done, like flooding the entire earth, creating a planet in 6000 years, or creating the first man (or sending him to earth if you believe Adam-God) to start the human race, I'm sure they are no big deal for God either.

 

I believe in mortal scientific principles as they apply to mortality and human application, but I believe in a God who has shown he operates on a higher level of science than we've even dreamed of, and that our scientific understanding is probably completely wrong in the higher orders of Kingdoms.  In fact, I'm not even convinced God operates on science at all.  He speaks and the very elements obey him - science doesn't seem to be needed.

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Uncle Dale]

 

 

...science doesn't seem to be needed.

 

 

A member of the CofJCoLDS once told me, "Dale -- Mormonism means

all truth -- more truth than you can can ever possess without having been

converted, gone through the temple and paid attention to the living recipients

of God's revelation and direction."

 

So -- if Mormonism includes all truth, then any "true" methods and

discoveries communicated by Science must be a part of Mormonism.

 

Correct?

 

If Science isn't needed, then let's rid ourselves of it. If it is only partly

true and Mormonism includes more truth -- all truth, then our reliance

upon Science and its methods is the wrong approach.

 

What if the General Authorities of the LDS Church were put in charge

of this planet, and they administered it according to the laws and truths

of the Kingdom of God (including any truths and half-truths previously

known via Science methods) -- would that not be a better choice than

our current situation?

 

If there really is to be a "Second Coming" and a world-wide Kingdom of God,

ruled from the Jackson County Temple, which system will then provide

the truth for mankind -- Science or Mormonism?

 

UD

Edited February 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

All of science is based on man's ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about the natural world/universe. God OTOH is a Supernatural Omnipotent being. Whether he exists or not is outside the realm of science.

[JLHPROF]

All of science is based on man's ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about the natural world/universe. God OTOH is a Supernatural Omnipotent being. Whether he exists or not is outside the realm of science.

 

Which we should remember when debating whether he can make a planet in 6000 years, or flood the earth completely, or put humans on the planet without using evolution....

 

Science says it can't be....God just laughs and does it anyway.

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

Which we should remember when debating whether he can make a planet in 6000 years, or flood the earth completely, or put humans on the planet without using evolution....

 

Science says it can't be....God just laughs and does it anyway.

 

The church does not take an official stance on the age of the earth, evolution, etc.  Where there is no official pronouncement from God, I tend to trust the geologists and biologists until God definitively states otherwise.  These are not issues that affect our eternal salvation, so why not believe the best evidence -science, because God has given me no reason to believe otherwise. 

[ERayR]

I would recommend researching whether water could remain frozen during such an impact as one between a comet and a planet.

 

I don't care whether it is or isn't.  The theory means nothing to me.  What is ridiculous is that if you don't agree with it the automatic reply is  "that is pseudoscience".  And you call others close minded.  Pot meet kettle.  Look in a mirror. etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Which we should remember when debating whether he can make a planet in 6000 years, or flood the earth completely, or put humans on the planet without using evolution....

 

Science says it can't be....God just laughs and does it anyway.

 

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that Creation occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Amended and plagiarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Calm]

A couple of difficulties are solved with the flood model. One is how animals appear to have been frozen very quickly, often with undigested food in their stomachs.

Animals get frozen very quickly nowadays, no flood needed. There is nothing unusual about that. I remember a complaint about the frozen carcass of a dog finally being removed from a sidewalk in Moscow after being there all winter covered in the snow that had been shovelled into a pile.

[Calm]

I love how we insist on applying mans scientific principles to the history of this earth.

Do we forget who runs this earth?.

I don't think the question for those who believe in God is whether or not he could create the earth, but rather how it was done.

And they look to evidence in the ground to see how it was done rather than a religious text written by those who didn't understand basic geological processes...which knowledge was certainly not needed for their salvation.

Why would God create the earth 6000 years ago and yet have the process so confusing that it appears that not only was it much longer, but that mankind has existed much longer? I can see God allowing room for faith as opposed to certainty but having to have faith that he miraculously created the world in 6 days but made it look longer based on the scientific principles he has led men to discover?

[JLHPROF]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that Creation occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Amended and plagiarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

I just fail to see why we are willing to accept the unscientific miracles from the New Testament that are the foundation of our Christianity, but when it comes to the Old Testament miracles we turn to science and dismiss them as "stories".

 

In my opinion there is as much possibility of truth in God flooding the earth and creating/placing the first man on the earth as there is in Christ walking on water, turning water into wine,  and rising from the dead.  Dismiss one as unscientific and you'd have to dismiss all.

 

And then where is our religion?

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

   What is ridiculous is that if you don't agree with it the automatic reply is  "that is pseudoscience".

What if he has taken the time to study the theory and determine if it is consistent and coherent in its methods, claims and evidence? Would you feel differently about him labelling it pseudoscience?

[danielwoods]

 the Bible

is a terribly insufficient (and inaccurate) place to go looking.

 

 

While it doesn't claim to be a science text, nor does anyone claim that it is either. And while it will never have "sufficient" data to satisfy the curiosity of many of us. What it does do is accurately portray what they observed. Your belief is probably opposed to this idea, and that's fine. However, calling it "inaccurate" is quite a leap of faith. You can believe what you wish. But, without actual data to demonstrate their observations as false, It continues to be a reliable source for what they experienced and observed. 

[ERayR]

What if he has taken the time to study the theory and determine if it is consistent and coherent in its methods, claims and evidence? Would you feel differently about him labelling it pseudoscience?

 

I see no evidence of that in his reply.

[Calm]

I just fail to see why we are willing to accept the unscientific miracles from the New Testament that are the foundation of our Christianity, but when it comes to the Old Testament miracles we turn to science and dismiss them as "stories".

In my opinion there is as much possibility of truth in God flooding the earth and creating/placing the first man on the earth as there is in Christ walking on water, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead. Dismiss one as unscientific and you'd have to dismiss all.

And then where is our religion?

This does not address the problem of the evidence and why God would choose to make it look different.

If I read an article where a person claimed to be healed by a miracle of their cancer, I would accept that miracle as a reality if the medical tests demonstrated his body was cancer free. If otoh, the tests showed his body was still full of cancer and he died shortly there after, I would tend to doubt his claim of a miraculous healing.

Am I doubting God if I doubt the report of a miracle based on the evidence available?

Perhaps if I knew the person and trusted him, I would then go back and read his own actual words and then find that an alternative interpretation existed when he spoke of being healed and he could just as easily have meant it in a spiritual and emotional way, that God had healed him and removed his burden of sins and his fear of death and knowing the person, I could see clearly the evidence for that change in his behaviour and attitudes.

Even if miracles cannot be explained at our current level of science, I do not see why God would not leave the evidence of the miracle in a way that left opened acceptance. He did not ask Christ's followers to accept that Christ had risen from the dead after leaving a dead body who looked like Jesus in the tomb for them to discover. Not only was the tomb empty, but Christ kept the wounds in his side for them to see and feel.

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

There will for the foreseeable future be that conundrum. We oh so willingly except the fruits of science. Everything from modern medicine to the internet machines, but have a hard time with the basic logic and methodology of science. So we at the point that some 40% of all American scientists believe in and pray to a personal God.

 

As for me and my house we will follow the inspiration of the Lord to try to make our world a better place to live for believers and nonbelievers alike.

[Calm]

"What it does do is accurately portray what they observed"

If man wasn't around, then how was the creation of the earth observed?

Is there any evidence that the Jews believed prior to the discovery that the continents were once closer together that the lands were separated physically in the days of Peleg? The only stuff I've come across, such as Louis Ginsburg's Legends of the Jews refers to the splitting as a national one, iirc.

I would be very curious to see much earlier interpretations indicating the belief the continents were ripped apart in Peleg's days as observed as you claim by if not the writers, but those whose traditions they wrote down.

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

Someday we will come to know the global flood actually did happen and evolution is false along with most of that science.

[danielwoods]

"What it does do is accurately portray what they observed"

If man wasn't around, then how was the creation of the earth observed?

 

It doesn't claim that Man observed it. Rather, the Genesis account describes what God did during creation, as a reference for doctrine. Even Jesus referenced the beginning, where God created them male and female. It's likely this was taught to Adam and passed down.