GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only
| The debate is about evolution versus creationism. That starts with definitions that we can agree on, but the definitions are not the whole debate. |
The debate is about what both of us agree it is about. I sincerely hope that we don’t have to argue about that too. I certainly can’t make you debate something you don’t want to and the reverse is true as well. This is patently obvious since I’ve not been able to convince you to take this debate in the direction I have suggested (and visa versa). The entire point of getting into this debate was to define evolution and creation theory. My opening post was almost entirely about definitions. If you recall, this started with someone raising the Galapagos finches as an example of evolution. I argued that it was a better example of creation theory. It then became immediately obvious that the evidence itself wasn’t in dispute but rather what people were calling evolution and creation. If it was pointless to discuss finches without understanding those definitions, then it will also be pointless to discuss any other evidence. I’ll talk about where I think we should go with this, in response to your remarks regarding the same, later on.
The only reasons we have touched upon evidence is to confirm the plausibility of our definitions. The test of whether change is evolutionary change is in the “definitionâ€. That’s why we don’t agree on definitions. You want to include what we observe today as part of evolution so you attempt to define evolution so that it is included despite the fact that it cannot produce the results that molecules to man evolution demands.
| What you are quibbling about is not that evolution is the change in species over time, but the degree of change |
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! How in the world, after reading all of your highlighted sections of my comments regarding the definitions could you possibly conclude that? Never once did I mention the degree of change. The “degree†or amount of change is irrelevant. It is the KIND of change that is in question. The kind of change that we observe in Galapagos finches (and moths and whatever we observe today), is not the KIND of change that can change molecules into man. It is not the KIND of change that supports evolution theory which states that all the diversity of life we see today originated from some common ancestor in a “primordial soup†billions of years ago. It does NOT support the direction of movement from simple to more complex organisms, but rather it results in a LOSS (wingless beetles, blind cave fish…) or reshuffling (moths, bacteria…) of function/information, NOT a gain required by evolutionary theory.
The kind of change we observe today is exactly what you would expect from natural selection, mutations and other processes working on the original created kinds resulting in degradation, “downhill†movement, disease, loss of functionality, less genetic variability, slower and even the complete loss of ability to adapt further, sometimes resulting in extinction. However, it cannot account for the formation of new features (genetic information) that were not already present in the original created kinds.
I fail to comprehend why you cannot grasp such a simple concept as this unless you are being purposely obstinate (stonewalling) which is what I suspect. Surely you can admit there are different types of change? Even evolutionists recognize that not all change is evolutionary change. Certainly, growing old is a change in a species over time. In fact at any point in time there is a large portion of the population that is a certain age, so we are not even talking about single individuals here. I wouldn’t assume that the type of change that is responsible for a seed growing into a flower or a tree would continue to change it into a lizard. The type of change that changes a caterpillar into a butterfly is different than evolutionary change.
Many other analogies might be suggested. For example, you would not expect that the type of propulsion system in a water rocket could take it to Venus. A different KIND of propulsion system is necessary to do that. It’s not just the DEGREE of propulsion. There are LIMITATIONS to a water rocket’s propulsion system just as there are limitations to the changes in organisms we observe today. Just because I grow up from a child into a man, doesn’t mean I will continue to grow indefinitely. A different kind of change would be required for that (like that of science fiction movies). There are LIMITATIONS to this type of change. Similarly, the kind of change we see operating to allow adaptation of organisms to their environment is very different from the type of change necessary to change one organism into another.
It’s possible that what you want to include in your definition is inheritable changes. But no matter, even Ernst Mayr, one of the most famous evolutionists to ever live, said that changes in gene frequencies was NOT evolution. This is because that type of change does not move the population to greater complexity required to create new kinds of organisms (not just changes within their kind). However, the definition you have espoused isn’t specific enough to know what kind of change you are talking about.
A definition (by definition) is supposed to make something clear (and definite). If it has to be explained to be understood, then it is NOT a good definition. “Change in species over time†must be interpreted and explained to understand what you mean and is therefore totally incomplete, confusing and misleading.
| The other quibble you have is over the time scale. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of time that exceeds 6000 years. This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time, but over the age of the earth and the time that has occurred being included in the above definitions, time YOU have a problem with. |
“This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time†– You are absolutely correct, because evolution is NOT simply change in species over time. I’m not the one having a problem with the time scale, YOU are. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of millions of years being included in the definition. I am not annoyed with the timescale of millions of years. In fact, I insist it be included in the definition. That is because evolution is intimately connected with the timescale. Evolution becomes VOID if not for this timescale. The theory was based on the fact that evolution is a very slow gradual process. It is essential to evolutionary theory and therefore, as many definitions suggest, it can and should be part of the definition.
As I’ve clearly shown before, we can apply the same principle to creation theory and remove each essential piece of the definition until we are left with “change is species over time†as well. If we do that then what is the difference between the definition of creation theory and evolutionary theory? To define a butterfly as simply something that flies is not a good definition of a butterfly. We must supply more information so that we know what we are talking about. In the same way, defining evolution as simply change over time is not specific enough to know what kind of change we are talking about.
Darwin himself said “The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation.â€
While this indicates that Darwin saw no support of evolutionary theory in the fossil record himself, let’s focus on the time scale. He says here that if the history of the world is thought to be of short duration (ie 6000 years), then it is impossible for evolution to have taken place (species would have remained immutable). Therefore, change in species over time would mean over LONG time according to Darwin.
3) Over the course of time “entirely new†species have developed indicating that a certain type of change which supports the rest of the theory, not just any change, is required.
|
That is still just change in species over time. What you are including is your preconception of "something else" being included and your incredulity that it could occur to the degree that it has or that it had the time to occur.
That is not a refutation. |
And “change in species over time†is not a theory. How is pounding on the table and insisting that everything is simply change in species over time when it is no such thing a refutation on your part?
Again, notice that “new types of organisms†must result “over long periods of timeâ€. This would ELIMINATE the Galapagos finches as examples of evolution which neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time. Thank you. This should put that thread to rest.
|
Hardly, seeing as not enough time passed for speciation to occur. You yourself said "neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time" thus this is just an example of natural selection on existing traits within a population and has not reached the level of speciation. Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given. |
As usual, you are completely missing the point. The definition of evolution (that is, this particular definition, which agrees with most), states that there are 2 requirements to evolution – 1) The formation of a new type of organism and 2) A long period of time. Since the Galapagos finches do not meet either requirement, it is NOT an example of evolution by this definition. That is an indisputable fact, one that is not lost by some evolutionists who are attempting to redefine evolution as simply adaptation.
And what does speciation have to do with anything? Your definition simply states that evolution is “change in species over timeâ€. Are not the Galapagos finches an example of change in a species over time? The beak of a species has changed over time.
“Not enough time passed for speciation to occur†– do you agree then that evolution takes a long period of time? I thought it didn’t matter to you?
“This is just an example of natural selection on existing traits†– My point exactly. No new traits appeared, so this is not evolution (by definition).
“Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given†– Sorry, but this TYPE of change will not result in a new “kindâ€, regardless of the amount of time given, whether days or millions of years because it is NOT the type of change that can do that.
| The Galapagos finches example is still a "genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation" because the frequency of the alleles for the different sized beaks changes within the population, first towards larger more robust beaks and then back to smaller slender beaks. |
I repeat, many scientists do not agree that a change in frequency of alleles is evolution. Billions of years of oscillation between long and short beaks will result in nothing more than finches. This is NOT evolution.
| In each case there were existing genes within the population for natural selection to operate on. |
Exactly…no new genes were created. This is NOT evolution.
| Yes this is evolution, it just has not been "captured" by the process of speciation yet. This is change in species over time at the sub-species level. |
So its evolution, but you have no proof because it has not been “captured†by the process of speciation yet? Is speciation the yardstick by which evolution is defined? Therefore, it wouldn’t be an example of evolution as it stands.
Evolutionists admit that they do not find any evidence for “micro-evolution†in the fossil record.
|
The foraminifera. Microevolution Case #1 - Foraminifera (Message 25) |
My statement is a true statement. I made this remark based on quotes from evolutionist sources like Scientific American (which I can document) that made this observation. I believe at least one quote was included in the prior posts somewhere. You have provided an example that could be interpreted as evidence of micro evolution in the fossil record. Another that comes to mind is the horse “sequence†which is quite controversial at best even among evolutionists. These examples do not contradict the statement above.
| Message 21 does not in any way refute the definition of evolution as change in species over time, rather it confirms it. |
This is you stone-walling on the definition of evolution by trying to exclude elements of evolution that ARE included. You keep coming back to this issue with no further evidence than simply insisting that everything is change over time when it says nothing of the sort. Before I put this to rest, I’d like to point out a few issues first:
- Please note that it was you, not I, which introduced the plethora of Internet definitions. I have never said that every definition would support my contention. Darwin said that natural selection had gradually caused all life forms on earth to have evolved from a single common ancestor. I don’t think you will find much disagreement from scientists that this is what Darwin considered to be his theory of evolution. The current trend is to redefine evolution as any change in genetic composition so that more deceptive credence can be given to a dying evolutionary theory in order to oppose the tide of valid creationist evidence that is to the contrary. It is also meant to deceive the public in order to affect political policy. Therefore, current definitions can be deceptive.
- Neither have I denied that some use the definition that you have proposed. Your constant hawking regarding the fact that I cannot simply re-define something that “scientists†are using is not only wrong but also completely irrelevant. Not only do not all scientists use this definition, but because they use it does not mean that it cannot be challenged. My position is that this definition is misleading and I have presented significant evidence as to why this is so.
- On top of that, what the public is being told and taught is much more significant than what a scientist might use (since hearts and minds are in jeopardy) and therefore the source of “what evolution is†encompasses much more than simple internet definitions which also support my arguments. This includes numerous books by leading evolutionists, textbooks, classroom lectures, scientific journals, scientific organizations, print and television media, all of which you have discounted.
- The bulk of definitions you have provided are regarding the “process†of evolution rather than the “Theory†of evolution. Because many sources want to be misleading about what evolution really means, they make much ado about the processes for which there is really no disagreement. For example, while Wikipedia talks much about the “theory of evolutionâ€, you would be hard pressed to find where they state what that is anywhere.
- Even talkorigins admit that dictionary definitions are suspect. However, like most evolutionary propagandists, he wants to cherry pick the evidence and simply chooses those definitions that fit the convenience of his philosophical position.
- The premise was that these definitions were from “universal†sources, but I doubt anyone is going to look at birdlore.com (or whatever) to find the definition of evolution. They are more likely to hear it from the media or consider what they have been taught from textbooks.
All of this confirms the basic premise that these definitions are debatable. Nevertheless, let’s take a last look at them in total. I did discover an omission on your part. I suspect there may be others. You would have accused me of quote mining, but I’ll just say you missed it to be kind. At “laborlawtalk†you included a definition of the evolutionary process, but left out the definition of the theory of evolution, which is what this debate is really about:
“The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.â€
I’ll add a couple of others I happen to come across from textbooks:
"Evolution - All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today." (Biology, Campbell, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Addison-Wesley, 1993)
"Evolution - The concept that all living things are descended from earlier forms of life, with new species developing over time. According to the theory of evolution, the plants and animals alive today descended from organisms that lived millions of years ago.†(Discovery Works, Silver Burdett Ginn, Inc., 1996)
If we take a look at ALL the definitions that both you and I have referenced in this debate (48 of them) we can conclude the following:
71% stated directly or implied that new features, complexity or speciation is required as part of the theory of evolution.
58% stated directly or implied that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.
54% stated directly or implied that long periods of time are required (usually corresponding to the age of the earth, assumed to be billions of years old by evolutionists).
21% explicitly mention Billions or Millions of years
46% stated directly or implied the existence of a common ancestor
15% described it as a sequence of steps or events which tells me they were defining a process, not a theory.
Only 25% said it was simply “change over time†(genetic or otherwise)
The majority of definitions make it extremely and undeniably clear that the measure against which any change is considered evolution is whether it supports the concept that all the diversity of life we see today evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Therefore, that IS the definition of evolution, the yardstick against which change is measured. If an observed change supports this concept, then it is evolution. If it does not, than it is not evolution. Period! To say that any change we observe in a species is evolution is simply ludicrous and deceptive. Especially since that change (adaptation) can just as well support the theory of creation as it can evolution.
The dictionary definition of the WORD “evolution†(not the theory of evolution) is a synonym for change. Evolutionary theory qualifies the type of change that would be required to make it evolution. The analysis of the definitions above should basically put this to rest. You cannot rely on any particular definition from a dictionary regarding the theory of evolution because they are not consistent. The bulk of the definitions make my case, not yours – Evolutionary change MUST be qualified to explain what kind of change you are talking about. It’s not the kind of change we see as organisms grow older, taller or larger; it’s not the kind of change that causes them to alter colors or select from already existing traits, it’s not the kind of change that causes them to LOOSE functionality; It’s not adaptation; It’s the type of change that causes them to transform into a different kind of organism – That’s evolution. If you deny all of this evidence and the logic that has been presented, you are fooling no one except yourself.
Now, let’s look at a representative sample of definitions of adaptation (nearly all if not all definitions from any source I looked at agree with these).
“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.â€
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact
“Biology - a change by which an organism becomes better suited to its environment.â€
http://www.askoxford.com/results/...
“Biology - An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.â€
http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/A0078200.html
“Modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environmentâ€
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adaptation
“adaptation (= the process of changing)â€
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=944&dict=CALD
“Biol.
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.â€
http://www.infoplease.com/search?query=adaptation&in=dictionary&fr=ipdbot
“Biology - change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitatsâ€
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861695371
“The changes made by living systems in response to their environmentâ€
http://www.bartleby.com/59/21/adaptation.html
“The condition of showing fitness for a particular environment, as applied to characteristics of a structure, function or entire organism; a modification of a species that makes it more fit for reproduction and/or existence under the conditions of its environment.â€
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search2.html?bo1=AND&word=adaptation&search_type=normal&def=
“Development of characteristics to fit the environment. As part of the process of evolution, adaptation proceeds by mutation and is closely linked with natural selectionâ€
http://www.birdcare.com/bin/showdict?adaptation
“A genetically changing characteristic that raises an organism's ability to survive.â€
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/a/adaptation.htm
“adaptation: changes in gene frequencies resulting from selective pressures being placed upon a population by environmental factors; results in a greater fitness of the population to its ecological niche.â€
http://glossary.gardenweb.com/glossary/nph-ind.cgi?scrug=16677&k=adaptation&b=and&r=whole&s=terms
“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.â€
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact
These definitions of adaptation make it perfectly clear that what you have been talking about, “change in species over time†(even change in gene frequencies), is ADAPTATION; NOT the theory of evolution. They also make it clear that Adaptation (change in species over time) is only a PART of the story. Adaptation may result in evolution (hypothetical conjecture), or Adaptation may NOT result in evolution (based on real experimental science). Whether it does or does not is determined by whether the change fits the real definition of evolution (molecules to man), not on the wishful revisionist thinking and deceptive practices of some evolutionists who want to redefine evolution to dupe the unsuspecting into believing a lie.
| Personally I find slogans ("molecule to man" and "goo to you") to be more distractive than descriptive, especially when they carry connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity. But if that is what you need to insulate yourself from the issue then feel free -- as long as we are agreed that abiogenesis is NOT part of our discussion for now. |
If you don’t like slogans why are you using one? Your slogan of “Change in species over time†is the distractive one, and carries connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity (species not only change but change into different kinds!), yet I have accepted it without insulting you. Since you have begrudgingly “allowed†me to use my own as well, I will choose “molecules to manâ€. Although I do want to make it clear that I think abiogeneis does deserve its place in the definition, I have already agreed to leave it out up until now (my compromise).
| This [the candle parable] is typical of creatortionista lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of gullible people who want to believe there are problems with science and who don't spend the time to check and see if what the creatortionista is saying bears any real relevance to the truth. |
Hurling insults is indicative of someone who has lost the argument. Most, if not all of us, believed in evolution when we were young, impressionable and/or gullible, but we have moved on. If you do not believe that there are any problems with science than you are no scientist. Science is about questioning our beliefs and investigating the truth, something that evolutionists want to prohibit in our science classrooms. The truth is that evolutionary stories (fairy tales for adults) are typical of evolutionist lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of the gullible public who want to believe that these scientists are unbiased and who don’t spend the time to check and see if what the evolutionist is saying bears any relevance to the truth.
Your comments above are indicative of most evolutionists that I have either read or debated at EVC - arrogant, pompous and irreverent. They feel that their opinion is the only valid one and consistently attempt to intimidate and deride anyone who disagrees. In the same way, many in the scientific community attempt to bully and ridicule into silence, those who are skeptics. Science is supposed to be open to challenge and scrutiny. Many scientists operating from a political and personal bias (ie religious atheism) rather than a scientific perspective are trying to end any dialogue on this issue by simply forcing the other side to shut up. We can see this happening in science classrooms and school boards across the country and even at the Grand Canyon where outright lies and scare tactics are being used by evolutionist in deplorable attempts to ban a single book providing a different view of canyon origins.
The motivation is that they fear that they can’t win the argument so they need to silence and stifle those who disagree. That’s bigotry. This is an attempt at thought control, right out of George Orwell. They say you must believe this! You can’t raise any of these subjects before the American public. You must think in a certain way, you must conform to this ideology. This is anti-thought, anti-science beyond demagoguery. They make an argument and demand it be accepted without allowing any points to the contrary. They wouldn’t have to do this if their position was stronger than it is. Stifling of free speech only occurs to them if it’s their speech that is being stifled.
Every scientific discovery that we have ever achieved was the result of someone finding out something that was contrary to what was believed before. Every breakthrough in science, every new thing is essentially the debunking of what the belief was prior to that. Many scientists believe creation theory, but they fear being fired and papers are refused to be published in attempts to stop any kind of debate on this issue and silence scientists pursuing other views. To say that we can’t pursue alternatives to the dogma that is being presented is the exact opposite of science. It is almost an inferiority complex held by those that hold this view. They are terrified that evidence will be raised that’s going to shoot down their theory, so they don’t allow you to raise the evidence. The way they attempt to do it is the worst form of bullying by saying you’re not a real scientist if you disagree. For example, by excluding “creation scientists†whenever you reference “scientistsâ€. This is scientific bigotry. They’re the ones that are being unscientific. You only have the ability to that if you’re a bigot and only have desire to do if your terrified that somebody will be able to come up information that knocks down what you have accepted as Gospel.
Talk about stonewalling! Your answers below are more double talk than answers. My response is in blue (yours previously still in yellow):
I’ll start by re-asking some of the questions you have refused to answer …1) Restated from above – If evolution theory is “change is species over timeâ€, which everyone agrees has been proven to be true, then why do you suppose there is any debate about whether evolution is true?
Evolution has been observed in specific instances to occur, and these instances are FACT, but the theory that says it will happen the next time, or that this is what has always occurred in the past is still just theory, as those instances are not observed facts.
So what you are saying is that what we observe in the present may not happen in the future and may NOT have happened in the past? So it is just a “theory†that if I plant an apple seed that it will grow into an apple tree? It is just a “theory†that if I run my car into a brick wall going 100mph that it will be crushed like an accordion? Even though we’ve seen it happen many times before, we can’t say with assurance that it will happen again or that it has happened before? If that’s the case, then I’m much more willing to believe in your supposed evolution than you are, and you have absolutely no grasp of what this debate is about. This is surprising since you don’t seem to grasp that interpretations of past events can’t be proved when it comes to evolution. I am well aware that we can never know the past or future for certain. However, I have no problem at all accepting that the same instance of “change in species†that what we observe today has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. But that is NOT what evolutionists believe or propagandize. They extrapolate the changes we observe today into whimsical and fictional changes from one creature to the next, from goo into you with no evidence whatsoever to justify those changes except their vain imaginations. The change they are talking about is very very different than what we observe today. If this was not the case, then their would be no controversy at all. 2) What would honestly invalidate the theory that “species change over time†when this has already been proven to be true?
Sudden change within a generation - creationist "macro"evolution type change. Mixing of gene lines instead of descent from ancestors. Observations of supernatural interference.
That’s it? I will repeat that non of these invalidate the theory of evolution. Hopeful monsters have been proposed as a part of evolutionary theory, not an argument against it because of the absence of transitional forms. Creationists don’t believe in Macro evolutionary type change. If this occurred it would be an argument against creation theory, not evolutionary theory. I’m not sure what you mean by mixing of gene lines, but parallel evolution has been used to explain lots of evidence contrary to descent from ancestors. Supernatural interference would not invalidate evolution. Many have proposed (without evidence) that God guided the process of evolution through supernatural interference. In your own words, this would still be change in species over time, even if we had evidence of supernatural interference. You show your true colors with this one. Supernatural interference is only relevant because it would mean that the process did not occur through purely naturalistic means, which is a foundational presupposition held by evolutionists. Nevertheless, we Do have an observation of supernatural interference and you have chosen to ignore it – God’s eyewitness account of creation. The fact of the matter is that the way you have defined evolution, it is NOT subject to invalidation and is therefore not a scientific theory. On the other hand, a single example of something that is irreducibly complex is enough to invalidate evolution by my definition. 3) Do you disagree that changes relevant to evolution observed in species must be directional and support the movement from simple to more complex organisms?
Yes. "Direction" is a human observation based on (ego?) preconceptions. Nature is not directed in the choice of what mutations occur, it is directed in the matter of which organisms survive and reproduce, and the ones that do that will be most successful at doing that, whether they are simple, complex, simpler or more complex. As long as an ecological niche exists for simple single cell bacteria to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, those ecological niches will be filled with simple bacteria that have no need to become more complex to fill that ecological niche. The same condition applies to all ecological niches. Where diversity occurs is where the ecological niches change and then the organisms that are better adapted to those niches will be the ones to live, reproduce, thrive and multiply, whether they are imple, complex, simpler or more complex.
If so, how do you justify defining evolution as simply any change when that change does not create new features ...
Why should it have to create new features?
and support the notion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
Because children come from parents. Daughter species come from parent species.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Prominent evolutionists like Ernst Mayr disagree with you. How can anything evolve if it stays the same? If nothing ever became more complex or evolved new features we would supposedly still be pond scum! You want it both ways. You want to say that changes that don’t produce new features/genetic information (the only thing we have ever observed) proves that evolution is a fact when you are saying out of the other side of your mouth that evolution can and eventually MUST produce new features/genetic information without any evidence. That is classic bait and switch and the deceptive tactic used by evolutionists that I have been talking about. 4) Can you provide any examples (beside propagandist evolutionary internet sites with no official affiliations), where evolutionary scientists have protested against sources which characterized evolution as “all life on earth evolving from a common ancestor over millions of yearâ€, as misrepresenting what evolution is?
I have several problems with this. First you are "begging the question" (logical fallacy) by pre-excluding everything YOU consider to be propoganda, and second you are again conflating theory with science. The theory of evolution is basic, change in species over time (or similar statements as previously noted). The science of evolution involves more than theory, as it makes predictions and deductions based on the theories and the evidence. The science investigates whether the theory can be applied to all changes and all time since life first occurred.
You didn’t answer the question, however I understand your objection. My restrictions were only intended to limit the sources to qualified individuals. There a lot of nuts out there that can say anything they want. The simple fact of the matter is that no evolutionist has ever objected to that definition publicly when it was used which supports the fact that it is an acceptable definition. However, I am aware that many internet bloggers have and certainly I’m not omniscient to know that in some book or article somewhere a scientist hasn’t objected. Nevertheless, with the many media sources using my definition, it is clear that scientists are taking advantage of the misconceptions that may be in their favor. 5) I have contended that change in species over time is simply an observation. How can you defend this as a “mechanism�
Not mechanism, theory. The mechanisms are mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms listed in my short list for what is "micro"evolution - the ones that lead to speciation).
Well, then you are waffling. Which is it? This is what you said in prior posts –
“…but the essential mechanism involved is still change in species over time. This is sufficient to explain the evidence. “
“many… equivocate between the science of evolution and the mechanism of evolution. The word means different things in those two contexts. The mechanism is about the change in species over timeâ€
“no other mechanism than change in species over time will be needed to get from specimen {K} to specimen {Q}.†Mechanisms are involved in bringing about the observation but are not the observation itself. What is the theory that you are attempting to substantiate through this observation of change in species over time?
The theory that species change over time.
The observation itself?
Facts that are the basis for and that are later found to support a theory are not the theory, they are the observations that form the basis for and that are later found to support the theory.
In other words, the observation of change in species over time proves change in species over time? Instances of observed change in species over time confirm it occurred in those instances, nothing more and nothing less.
Please respond.
I have, more than once.
Well there it is in black and white (or blue and yellow) - Proof of the fraudulent and deceitful tactics used by evolutionist to deceive those less informed. You claim here that the current observation of change in species over time proves the theory that species change over time which we have agreed encompasses both micro and macro evolution. As I said earlier, evolutionist are so afraid of anyone challenging their theory that they must resort to dishonest marketing campaigns which is exactly what this is. They make a completely obvious and simplistic observation that everyone agrees with and then equivocates that with their evolutionary religious beliefs. There is no evidence whatsoever, only faith, that the changes observed today are capable of accounting for the diversity of life from a common ancestor by the change in an organism from one kind to another since science has shown that there are indeed limits to this variation. It is equivalent to postulating a theory that cars move, observing them on the highway and then declaring that we could travel to mars in one. And to suggest that it is just a theory because we don’t know if cars moved in the past or will move in the future is ridiculous. There is a limitation to their movement that does not include extraterrestrial travel. |
Let me restate the options that I had presented for continuing this debate (or not) in an order corresponding to your comments that follow:
1) Start with defining evolution as macro-evolution and see where that leads us.
2) Discuss the definitions from a logical standpoint.
3) Summarize our positions, include a rebuttal and end the debate on definitions.
4) Compile a list of evidences invalidating the other’s position and take turns debating the top ones.
#1 – Start with Macro Evolution:
| So what is "macro" murk? More change over more time? What is the mechanism for "macro" that is different from and distinguishable from micro? We are still talking about change in species over time (as noted above in the comments on message 21), so in order for us to make any kind of microheadway on this issue you need to define what YOU think this is about -- or we will just get more stonewalling from you on what is "not" evolution according to your personal beliefs. |
Where have you been? I’ve been defining macro evolution since this debate began. Oh, and now you’ve done a complete reversal…I need to define what “I†think this is about? You’ve said repeatedly in the past that what I think is completely irrelevant. I thought it was about what scientists think? Apparently it’s about YOUR personal beliefs. Macro-evolution is not about just any change in species over time. We’re talking about the kind of change that can change one kind of organism into another. And that’s my point. There IS no mechanism that can account for that type of change.
Micro + Time does not = Macro. So far, this has been proven by operational science to be true. Macro (that is, “evolutionâ€) has not been observed and never will first, simply because of the supposed long time frames involved (that you want to deny have any relevance) and second and more importantly, the type of change involved is simply not capable of changing one kind of organism into another. And if you did observe one kind changing into another, why would that be significant? I’ll answer that - because you’d be showing that evolution were true (by definition). But apparently we’ve already shown evolution to be true, so why bother?
It’s laughable that you accuse me of stonewalling on what is “not†evolution, when in reality it is you stonewalling by insisting that “everything†is evolution. And let’s dispense with these ridiculous accusations regarding “personal beliefsâ€. This is yet another example from you of ridiculing the opinions of others based on your lack of valid arguments. What you believe, BY DEFINITION, is your personal belief. That belief may be held by others or it may not. Facts are facts and no one is disputing ANY facts. Your personal beliefs are based on interpretations of those facts which we are obviously interpreting differently. Your continual insistence that your personal beliefs are valid and not mine simply demonstrates your pompous arrogance and nothing more.
#2 - Discuss the definitions from a logical standpoint.
| I have, several times. You need to address those answer to move forward. |
Your entire argument up to this point regarding the definitions is to simply ignore all of the evidence to the contrary and insist that “everything is evolution†according to your personal beliefs. To be blunt I don’t have the time to be continually putting together rational arguments simply to have them responded to like a little boy pounding his fist on the table insisting that everything is “just changeâ€. The definitions are there in black and white, which clearly indicate that it is NOT just change. The change is qualified in the majority of the definitions to indicate that it is the TYPE of change which is responsible for greater complexity (increased genetic information content), the TYPE of change responsible for the vast diversity of life we see today (implying one common ancestor that Darwin originally proposed), over billions of years (the age of the earth). I have summarized this and many additional arguments in favor of the correct definition of the theory of evolution at the end of this post. You need to address those arguments in a RATIONAL manner to move forward.
| The main problems you have are with the degree of change involved and the time frame involved. To address these from a logical standpoint we need to discuss "micro" evolution and the age of the earth to show that erroneous thinking based on false preconceptions are interfering with understanding of the issue. I have suggested doing this in several ways and you have refused to participate. |
I addressed the “degree of change†and “time frame involved†earlier from a logical standpoint. YOUR erroneous thinking is 1) your reliance on fallible interpretations of past events by fallible science (which you have admitted is fallible) instead of the unchanging and infallible Word of God and his eyewitness account of our origins and 2) Your erroneous extrapolation of observed change to include all sorts of imaginative changes between creatures despite observed scientific evidence which has shown that these variations are limited to changes within a kind. If we interpret the evidence based on God’s word instead of the erroneous presuppositions of naturalism, uniformitarianism and atheism, we arrive at a true picture of our origins instead of the convoluted and “just so†fairytales that comprise evolutionary theory.
I’m not sure how much clearer I can make the following. You are the one that is misunderstanding the issue by continuing to insist we look at evidence. Looking at evidence has NOTHING to do with how evolution is DEFINED. You can look at micro-evolution all you want, but it is NOT evolution unless it meets the test of the definition of evolution. Micro-evolution is misleading because it implies a “small amount†of evolution. However, it is NOT evolution at all, because the observed changes we are talking about DO NOT fit the definition of evolution since they cannot produce the kind of change necessary to change one kind of creature into another. Evolutionists have never shown that this is even possible (I’ll again submit the example of tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies which are still fruit flies), much less that it could happen by natural means. You cannot just define evolution the way you want because it is convenient to your lies.
Therefore, we must define evolution BEFORE we look at evidence. The evidence is NOT going to change our positions on what evolution is, certainly not yours since not a single example of real (molecules to man) evolution has ever been observed and you continue to insist that it is true nonetheless. Even if you could come up with an example of a change which meets the requirements of evolution, you would be admitting that the test of whether it is evolution or not is MY definition (the correct one), not yours.
And that is why you refuse to accept my definition, because then evolutionary propagandists (and I can quote many) will have to admit that evolution is NOT a FACT, that evolution has NOT been observed. That would relegate them to the TRUTH, that evolution is simply a religious belief held by those who do not want to recognize the reality of God, the truth of his Word or his judgment in their lives.
| On the other hand I have suggested going to a compromise at a lower level where we CAN agree and seeing where that leads us, and I have also suggested discussing things that affect your ability to accept being wrong, and you have - so far - refused to participate. |
I will ask again, how is keeping your definition a compromise? You have it reversed. We DO NOT agree that micro-evolution is evolution. However, we both agree that Macro-evolution is evolution. So as you seem to be suggesting, why shouldn’t we start where we both agree? Regarding your second point – “affect my ability to accept being wrong†about what? The definitions? The only argument you seem to be able to muster is that “everything is change!†as opposed to the overwhelming logic and many arguments that I have proposed during the course of this debate and in my summary at the end of this post. Since you cannot accept that you are simply wrong about this, you refuse to participate further and want to proceed to another topic.
To be fair I have suggested that we discuss areas that could affect BOTH of our ability to accept being wrong, rather than the one-sided approach you have proposed – that would be my suggestion #4. However, I have already provided ample reason why discussing evidence is throwing the cart before the horse, so I’m taking back that option till we can conclude on definitions since you don’t want to go there anyway. Instead of “seeing where that leads usâ€, how specifically do you think discussing evidence for micro evolution will affect how we define evolution?
| I have suggested a compromise position, that we set the bar a little lower to discuss "micro"evolution so that we then have a basis to tackle the issue of "macro"evolution. |
How is you keeping your definition and moving on to another topic because you can’t accept being wrong, a compromise position? You want to talk about micro-evolution and “see where that leads usâ€, but only a single example of change that does not produce results sufficient for molecules to man evolution is sufficient to eliminate this type of change as belonging to evolution and these examples abound. I have suggested setting the bar a little lower to discuss macro evolution where we both agree so that we have a basis to tackle the issue of micro evolution.
| In spite of evidence to the contrary you are unwilling to even admit that you could be wrong about your definition and have refused to budge from that position. |
And you have not? LOL! Why do you even bother with ridiculous statements like this! And what evidence??? Your only refutation has been that “everything is change†despite both factual and logical evidence to the contrary. See my summary at the end of this post.
| If billions of years is disproved, then all that means is that evolution did not occur over billions of years. It would still be going on today, and the only issue would be the time frame. |
You are living in a fantasy world! So if the earth was “proven†to be 6000 years old, that is sufficient time for “primitive†life to have developed from rocks in a “primordial soup†and then subsequently all the diversity of life we see today arising from that common ancestor? Are you for real?
| We can talk about "last-thursdayism" where everything observed was created de novo last thursday, complete with the appearance of immediate history and vast age, and evolution would still be occurring today. |
Adaptation would still be occurring, but not evolution since there wouldn’t be enough time for that. And why do you choose in your fantasy to have everything created with the appearance of vast age? The earth in its actual form today appears to be about 6000 years old to any casual observer that has not been indoctrinated with evolutionary beliefs of vast age. And rather than “last-thursdayismâ€, why don’t you try “last 6000 years-ism†with adaptation still occurring today from the original created kinds. Then you could actually be talking about reality.
#3 - Summarize our positions and end the debate on definitions.
| Your third option is you completely stonewalling on the definition of evolution and refusing to accept where you can be wrong. This would be you leaving the debate after failing to deal with the issues. |
And tell me where you have accepted where you can be wrong? Perhaps if you could produce even a single shred of logical evidence to support your case I’d consider it. Instead you just arrogantly state that you are right and that all change is evolution despite the evidence. You deceptively use evolution as a general synonym for change when in fact the theory specifically qualifies the type of change that must be involved. No one disagrees that things change. The question is whether that change is evolution or not. However, that question is mute (and indeed impossible to answer) if you define evolution as simply any change that you might happen to observe in order to deceive people into thinking that it is currently happening.
A debate doesn’t have to and in fact rarely does end in agreement. My purpose in debating wasn’t to try and convince you of the truth of creation. I have learned a long time ago that people will believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. My purpose was to find out what arguments evolutionists would use and if my logic could withstand the attack. I can confidently say that it certainly has in regards to the definitions. On the other hand, you certainly feel very highly of yourself, if you think I’m going to roll over just because you say I should.
We seem to be just going in circles now and we could continue this until hell freezes over. Do you really want to be debating this same topic on your deathbed with your laptop computer in hand? If you don’t have anything more constructive than “everything is change†to present, I’m willing to allow you to concede. However, by posting closing arguments, I’m suggesting a way of exiting gracefully because you have obviously lost your case. It is simply a gentleman’s way to agree to disagree. Really, if all of the evidence has been presented and you insist on your definition despite the facts, there is nothing I can do about that. And what issues have we failed to deal with in regards to the definitions? If you feel that there are any issues regarding the definitions that we have not covered, please state them and I will be glad to respond. I simply want to finish one thing first before going onto something else.
#4 - Compile a list (top 5?, 10?) of invalidating evidences and take turns debating them.
As for the last one, the earth is old and there was no flood. This invalidates any position based on a young earth model and on a world wide flood.
Feel free to address that issue. Starting with Timeline #1: Earth > 8,000 years old (Message 28), Timeline #2: Earth > 10,000 years old (Message 33) and Timeline #3: Earth > 12,332 years old (Message 36). |
How arrogant! This is similar to the rest of your responses. No amount of simply insisting you’re correct is going to make it so. Stating your PERSONAL BELIEFS that the earth is old and there was no flood without evidence invalidates nothing. That is no refutation. The evidence that there was a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming, but it does not belong in this current debate. How do your posts on tree rings and the age of the earth demonstrate that the earth is old? Instead, they show evidence for a YOUNG earth.
There is no change in the basic way the tree rings look, whether they are from last year or 8,000 years ago, they still have winter growth and summer growth patterns and show typical climate variations with no extreme conditions. Certainly they show no sudden discontinuity in the data that a world wide flood would produce.
Deduction is not presupposition, it comes AFTER looking at the data. |
While I’m not going to get into the evidence until we end our first discussion, I must interject to correct the obvious. You’re answering too quickly without even thinking things through. A worldwide flood would not leave any trees alive to show a discontinuity! All of the trees alive today have grown since the flood and no single tree has ever been tree ring dated to be older than that. The error is in attempting to cross date with other trees and even fossilized trees, which introduces interpretations of the evidence. In addition, it is a FACT that trees have been known to produce up to 4 rings or more in a single year. Under the post flood climactic conditions, this would be the norm. The presupposition of uniformitarianism excludes evolutionist from considering the effects of the flood, not because of lack of evidence since evidence for a worldwide flood abounds. So you are wrong. Presupposition comes BEFORE looking at the evidence and is then used to interpret the evidence, which leads to a di
™ Version 4.0 Beta
