Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:The link's rhetoric, composed of its many concessions (that there are still gaps between the groups, the speciation events are not preserved, cousins and uncles exist rather than parents, "we" assume they are closely related to the actual parents, transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible, etc.), comes across as nothing more than typical naturalistic assumptivism.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just how complete of a fossil record are you looking for? Also, even given some gaps, etc, how else do you explain the ordering and progression in the fossil record that does exist? Please answer this, as this is the crux of the matter - it's not enough to point to some gaps, you have to have an explanation for the order that exists.
Also, if I had my choice, I'd rather have you actually respond to the information on whale evolution, which I think is a superb example.Reply:
I have taken note of some items of concern that you had, and I'll have to get back with you regarding them, but I do have one thing to say now.
You say "just how complete of a fossil record are you looking for," as if what now exists supports evolution. The whole reason an order can even be postulated is because fossils demonstrate distinct creatures abruptly appearing and disappearing. If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

And this might be what we'd see if we had a fossil record which includes 100% of everything that has lived and died. Even then, with enough effort-- ie. not readily, distiguishing species would still be possible.We see distinct critters because we are only getting one in every 100,000(?) animals. Its like a artist's color spectrum or color scale. Pick a few spots randomly and you get individual colors, but if you have the whole spectrum and look closely enough the colors blur one to the next.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
m: . . . then I think that that would supply one of the main reasons why otherwise intelligent people would be so susceptible to falling headlong into the support structure of a theory (naturalism) that the facts have failed.s: You consider "naturalism" a theory?!m: Of course naturalism is a theory. "Naturalism" is not simply a study of physical systems because physical systems are what we must study in order to objectively learn about our universe.s: I cannot really understand this."Naturalism is not a study of natural systems, because physical systems are what we study to learn about the universe."I don't get it.Reply:
m: Naturalism is a philosophy, in part an assumption about the nature of reality; it assumes that nature is all there is. Naturalism, therefore, is not simply an objective study of nature, as the title "naturalism" would seem to suggest.
It is one thing to limit one's scientific investigations to nature, and quite another to define science according to the limitations of the metaphysical philosophy (of naturalism).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Science is, by definition, descriptions of naturalistic phenomena using naturalistic explanations. The supernatural is not in it's realm of influence, so to speak. It makes no comment one way or another about the supernatural.Reply:
And constructing a definition of science that couldn't make room for God even if God exists (due to favoring the contrary metaphysical philosophy that "nature is all there is"), is not rational.Quote:
Anyway, getting back to the original comment, how is Naturalism a theory, again? It may be a philosophical viewpoint, but I really don't see how is it a theory.Reply:
It's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Allison: If you mean there is a difference between saying "God did X", and "God set up the rules of the Universe and let them roll along", then I agree.

quote:

---

I say (that the Bible says, and that there's no legitimate scientific reason for not believing) that God set up the rules of the Universe and engaged in the acts of Genesis (and beyond).

---

Well, as far God setting up the rules of the universe, beliving this does not clash with science, but neither is such a belief scientific. Nothing wrong with being unscientific in an unscientific context, of course, but I think you understand what I am driving at. When you say "the Bible says", you have left science.Genesis agreeing with science depends upon how you interpret Genesis, doesn't it? Genesis deals with the forming of the Earth, the stars, and life, all of which have left clues to their origins which do not agree in the least with literal interpretations of the book.

quote:

---

Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.

---

Naturalism is a philosophy, not science.Allison: Agreed, but you do understand that naturalism is also a philosophy, not science, don't you? [QUOTE]I certainly see this.[QUOTE] No, I don't think you do (at least you didn't), because I have already had to remind you that they are separate.

quote:

---

The problem is that naturalism and science are synonymous in the minds of most people.

---

While I agree that this is a problem, it is not a problem of science itself. It is a problem of people being ignorant of how science works.

quote:

---

Evolution itself is evidence of this.

---

Huh?Allison: You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.

quote:

---

Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).

---

Since science doesn't ever say anything about God, I don't see your point.Allison: The problem with your objection is that science doesn't ever "say", "God didn't do it." Some philosophies might, but the scientific method makes no comment upon the supernatural at all.

​

Science never says "God didn't do it", or "Godidit". Science says, "The evidence found in nature suggests the following naturalistic explanation", or, "There is insufficient evidence to suggest anything."

quote:

---

There it is: "Science says ... the following naturalistic explanation." Science, today, doesn't keep it objective; it's corroded with naturalistic philosophy (i.e., with metaphysical assumptivism).

---

So, it seems you are suggesting that scientific inquiry would benefit from allowing supernatural explanations for phenomena. Please explain how.(Hint: Supernatural explanations can explain everything, so they actually explain nothing. That's why miracles and magic are not allowed in science. But please tell me how we would get a deeper understanding of the workings of nature by allowing scientists to say "Godidit".)OK, the Egyptian empire was simply not Secular Humanist! They were polytheists, and very clearly believed in all sorts of resurrection myths and an afterlife as evidenced by their burial practices.

​

...and Secular Humanism is a 20th century philosophy. I defy you to provide evidence of ancient Egyptian writing which mentions Secular Humanism.

​

Are you sure you know what Secular Humanism is?

quote:

---

OK. I do equate the Egyptian Empire as a parallel to today's culture of Secular Humanism. I bundled all non-God ideas together in order to do this. The non-God ideas of ancient Egyptian practice (including false gods) and the non-God ideas of today (including false philosophies).
Secular Humanism teaches, basically, knowledge without God.

---

A non-Christian theistic belief is still belief in the supernatural, I'm afraid.The Egyptians had a rich and influential polytheistic mythology.It's very clear that in order to feel more secure in your own religious choice, you consider it necessary to trivialize and insult all other religions.BTW, in this vein, you never did answer me as to how you know that you are right and the people who do not believe exactly as you do are wrong, since all of your reasons for believing are inside your own heads and emotions? How do you know that Lucifer isn't deceiving you?Allison: My point in mentioning the long history of science knocking down mystical explanations of natural phenomena is simply that science, as a method of inquiry, has certainly stood the test of time and has been extremely productive and dependable. I do not deny that the Bible contains examples of the ancient science of a tribal desert people.

quote:

---

SCIENCE has stood the test of time; naturalism, however, has certainly not.

---

While that is arguable, I was never talking about naturalism. You are the one that kept talking about naturalism when I was trying to talk about science.Allison: However, it also contains a lot of things about nature which are clearly and demonstrably wrong,

quote:

---

Please demonstrate.

---

There is no evidence that the Earth was literally formed in 6 days.The moon does not produce it's own light.There is no evidence that all animals were originally herbivores.There is no evidence that Noah's flood occurred.There is no evidence that humans or animals were suddenly and specially created.The stars are not "fixed" into a "firmament".There is no evidence for the existence of "waters above" the Earth.Snakes do not eat dust.Etc. [b]Allison: That's why the people at NASA use the scientific method, rather than the Bible, to send people into space.

quote:

---

Yep. They must use science (not naturalism)--some of them are creationists.

---

Why do you keep bring up naturalism?BTW, which NASA scientists are Creationists?Allison: That's why the folks at the NIH use the scientific method, rather than the ritual sacrifice suggested in the Bible, to discover cures and prevention methods for disease.

quote:

---

Although the Biblical sanitation "rituals" were far in advance of the contemporary culture--"rituals" that "modern" science has finally caught up with in recent years.

---

Care to elaborate?Allison: "We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

quote:

---

Now let me get this straight--"You're a creationist now?"

---

No. What is your point?

quote:

---

Boy, my answer to this is probably going to reconfirm all sorts of potentially negative ideas people have about those Christians, but here goes. Yes, the Bible is just as much ingrained in public life as are Secular Humanistic ideas.

---

I would say that Christianity, and at least theism, is much more prevalent in our culture than secular humanism.Take it from me, an Agnostic; it is everywhere. You probably don't even notice most of it because you already agree with all of it.

quote:

---

The problem is that it wasn't always that way--it used to be just (or PRIMARILY) Christianity.

---

Exactly We used to have an oppressively Christian nation, much of it propagated by government, which is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

I'll pause a moment, here. I don't dislike people who believe or think differently than the biblical way. But, for one, there's such a thing as a country being under the blessing of God. When the actual God is exalted, blessings from God can be experienced in ways that would not otherwise be possible. That's why it's good for everybody (even for those who hold contrary beliefs, those who have not yet converted to Christianity) for God's only way to be promoted.

---

So says you. That's a nice belief, but so what if you believe that? We can't base our government on what Martin thinks his God will do for us if we believe like Martin does.

quote:

---

This doesn't mean the Constantine thing. It isn't (and never was) CHRISTIAN to force conversions.

---

According to the Old Testament, that kind of thing is perfectly OK as long as God tells you to do it.

quote:

---

What's the difference between forced conversions and assembling a culture founded on Christian principles? One of the important differences is that the people of the country would actually be in agreement to base the country's practices on Christian principles, much like most of the founders of the US were.

---

Several of the founders of our country were decidedly NOT Christian, such as Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine.How do you propose to arrive at an agreement among 300 million people, many of whom are not Christian? Jeez, there are several hundred denominations of Christianity alone, Marty! Most of them do not interpret the Bible literally and have no argument with science or Biology.Who gets to decide which version of "God's True Way" is the one we should follow?

quote:

---

We have problems today because the agreement is eroding. Ultimately, the erosion cannot be interpreted as anything but a hellish tragedy.

---

Do you consider the dramatic nationwide decrease in violent crime over the last several decades a "hellish tragedy?"

quote:

---

I love all sinners (regardless of their inferior ideas about reality).

---

LOL!! YOu love them, but you are superior, of course!

quote:

---

That's not a condescending, prideful, or self-righteous statement.

---

Sorry, it is very much a value judgement.

quote:

---

m: Naturalism is a philosophy, in part an assumption about the nature of reality; it assumes that nature is all there is. Naturalism, therefore, is not simply an objective study of nature, as the title "naturalism" would seem to suggest.

---

Usually, "ism" at the end of the word indicates a philophical bent to me. If there is confusion with some people about what Naturalism is, it's probably because they have not done any study of the subject. That's not Naturalism's fault.

quote:

---

It is one thing to limit one's scientific investigations to nature, and quite another to define science according to the limitations of the metaphysical philosophy (of naturalism).

---

So, are you suggesting that supernatural explanations for phenomena would benefit scientific inquiry? How so?Naturalism says that, "all there is, is nature."Science says, "use naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena." It doesn not make any comment about the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.See the difference?

quote:

---

"Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).

---

All of science is materialistic. It does not address the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.What Naturalists do with scientific findings in their "crusades" is irrelevant to the validity of the science.

quote:

---

And constructing a definition of science that couldn't make room for God even if God exists (due to favoring the contrary metaphysical philosophy that "nature is all there is"), is not rational.

---

Why isn't it rational? Why wouldn't the study of nature restrict itself to the natural?You are also continuing to make the mistake of stating that science says that "nature is all there is", which I have already told you several times that it expressly does not do this!Science, when asked about the existence of the supernatural, says "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, so no determination can be made."This is entirely and completely different from saying, "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, therefore nature is all there is".Do you see the difference now?

quote:

---

It's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation.

---

Sorry, that doesn't make it a theory.All it means is that people are confused.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:eply:
I have taken note of some items of concern that you had, and I'll have to get back with you regarding them, but I do have one thing to say now.
You say "just how complete of a fossil record are you looking for," as if what now exists supports evolution. The whole reason an order can even be postulated
is because fossils demonstrate distinct creatures abruptly appearing and disappearing. If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that
couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

Well, you've sort of answered my question. The only way we would see "a big blur" is if we had an astonishingly high rate of fossilization. Of course, in most cases, we don't. However, in certain cases, we *do* see a big blur, cases in which where one species ends and another begins is up for grabs. This is in certain rare, primarily marine, environments.But disregarding that, let's just work with the following sequence:
Fish
Fish with limb bones
Amphibian with fish like tail and fish like gills and small limbs
Terrestrial amphibianWe have examples of these (in fact, we have more distinct species than this), which by commonly accepted dating methods form a sequence.Even given that gaps exist, how do you explain the order? And the ordering we find of the reverse process, of terrestrial mammals becoming increasingly adapted to the sea (whales and other cetaceans)?I'm not even going to argue, for now at least, that the fossil record is "good enough" to confirm evolution (It is, I believe, but that's not my current point).Where do these sequences come from? Is it purely an accident, over and over again, with the various fossil sequences?****With regards to the other items, I'm not hopeful you will get back to me, based on past experience with others, but we'll see. What I really want you to think about is how reliable your sources of information are. Your beetle and woodpecker examples are simply and undebateably wrong, and seriously wrong. These are [not] minor errors, there are gross misrepresentations. Doesn't that make you worry about your sources?edited by Zhimbo to include the bracketed "not" in the last paragraph.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 07-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:it's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation

---

The "theory" you mention is "naturalism", which is not a scientify theory but is a philosophy.I personally know people who believe the theory of evolution AND believe in God. I believe there are members of this forum who accept both of these ideas. There are religious biologists. The Pope believes the evidence for evolution is good.While some people equate the philosophy of naturalism and science, and there are those who think that evolution means there is no God, obviously it is possible to accept science as a study of nature, accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, AND accept the existence of the supernatural.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
e: But you are saying that since MSH deposits were laid down rapidly deposited and that the geological column must have been likewise rapidly emplaced. You are saying that since we can form laminations in laboratory settings rapidly, then all laminae must have been deposited rapidly.

​

m: or COULD'VE been, since we're discussing two philosophies.

---

Okay, then what about coral reefs? Rapid or slow? What about starved basins, rapid or slow? What about shelf deposits, rapid ro slow? What about the periods of hiatus between depositional events, rapid or slow? Melting glaciers, fast or slow? The point here is that in order to fit all of the geological events of history into a 6ky framework, they all have to be very fast. You may not know it but this is what you are saying.And to top it off, all of the rapid events that you have mentioned are readily addressed by mainstream geology.

quote:

---

m: I don't doubt that they arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning. The shift in thinking from realism to naturalism influenced many to think of ways in which the popularized theory of evolution could be made to work.

---

Why do you think there was such a shift to naturalism? Could it be that the evidence pointed in that direction?

quote:

---

M: Reply: Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.

---

No. It has failed miserably. No creationist yet has explained to us why flowering plants are found only in strata from the latest Mesozoic to the present. No creationis has brought to the table a credible instance of a human being or human artifacts in existence in the Cambrian Period. Why is this? There are many other such questions that, in due time, you will be confonted with.

quote:

---

m: I don't know how many creation SCIENTISTS might be postponing some responses regarding technical aspects of some arguments that are outside their field of expertise, but if most of the supporters of creationism who respond on this website are like me, they go head to head about this philosophy versus philosophy issue.

---

Why? We can give reasonable answers to these questions right now. It is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of evidence. Where is your evidence?

quote:

---

we can agree that:

​

(1) if a creationist who has an in-depth knowledge of scientific creationism, engages an evolutionist who is not very dedicated to the study of the scientific arguments for his position, in all liklihood, the evolutionist would have to put off some responses

---

The only thing I can agree on here is that some aspects of evolution are highly technical and a given layman may not have the expertise (This is, of course, opposed to creationism, where everyone is an expert in geology after reading a few papers and websites). But there is always someone out there who can answer your questions. I have never seen a scientific question asked by a creationist that an evo did not eventually respond to.

quote:

---

M: "ALL of the data" (compiled under the assumption of the validity of the philosophy of naturalism) would certainly "rule it out." All of the work on one side of the issue or another feeds back to the philosophy one starts with.

---

This is absolutely wrong. Remember it was creationists who eventually discovered the old earth and evolution. It was a matter of evidence.

quote:

---

m: Yes, as I mentioned, there was that shift in philosophy that influenced some to embrace the notion of Darwinian evolution and the details of the argument that would enable it to be thought of as a possibility.

---

Martin, people 'convert' to evolution every day. They realize that the stories they have been told are fantasy.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 07-21-2002]

Martin J. Koszegi writes:

---

Are you, as a naturalist, denying the possibility that God exists?

---

I believe in God, just not the Christian God of the Bible.

---

If indeed you cannot assert that God does not exist, don't you see the problem with a definition of science that doesn't allow at least for the possibility of his existence?

---

I think this has already been said, but science does *not* rule out God. The absence of physical evidence for God cannot be construed as evidence of his nonexistence. To the extent that God manifests himself in the material world apparent to our senses, science by all means allows for the possibility of God.If you are instead referring to a God who is never apparent to the five senses, which wouldn't be the God of the Bible I wouldn't think, then while science does not rule him out, neither can it establish any position on him. On those issues for which there is no evidence science must remain silent. And once again, silence cannot be interpreted as supporting the non-existence of God. Absence of evidence in science is not equivalent to pleading the fifth in court where silence strongly implies guilt (the judge's instructions to the jury to the contrary).

Percy writes:

---

Your banker logic is just as valid for the Moslem and the Hindu and the Buddhist and so on. So far you haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion.

---

Martin replies:

---

Their beliefs aren't substantiated with apologetical-class data.

---

The Moslems are as industrious in producing their apologetics as Christians are theirs. Other than displaying the typical Christian conceit that probably derives from the wealthiest countries being primarily Christian, you still haven't distinguished Christianity from any other religion. How do you justify ignoring the views on origins of other religions?

Percy writes:

---

That Creationism is unable to work toward any consensus whatsoever reveals its inherent subjective nature.

---

Martin replies:

---

Consider also the dissent that exists within naturalistic ranks.

---

What dissent? By "dissent" are you referring to esoteric areas at the very boundaries of knowledge like string theory or dark matter? At the level of detail of discussion here there is certainly no "dissent". For instance, in the debate about human origins there's plenty of disagreement and argument about the structure of the human evolutionary tree, but all the participants believe we evolved, all accept the theory of evolution, all accept that the earth is billions of years old, and that the universe began with the Big Bang, and they accept them because of the supporting evidence.In contrast, Creationists believe the world is billions of years old and thousands of years old, that the flood water came from a vapor canopy or sprang from beneath the ground or came from glaciers, that paleocurrents laid down the sedimentary layers or that they simply came from the flood, that there was a long pre-flood period where sedimentary layers were laid down and that there wasn't, that 2LOT rules out evolution and it doesn't, that information theory rules out evolution and it doesn't, that microbiological structures are irreducibly complex and evidence of God and they're not, that God modified the laws of physics in the recent past and he didn't, and on and on. When evidence isn't a consideration then any position is tenable, which brings us to this:

---

Nobody has a right to Christian faith unless that faith is based upon reality. Part of reality that Christian faith addresses is origins.

---

But Creationism ignores reality in favor of revelation. As a well-known Creationist once said, "Where the Bible and science disagree, then science can go to hell." (sic) Duane Gish in several of his books has stated that where science and the Bible differ one must accept the Biblical account. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) even has a statement of belief that one must sign before joining. Even TB concedes his views aren't yet science as he seeks evidence for events which as yet have no evidence.God's testimony in nature speaks to us much more faithfully then men's testimony in the Bible. Creationists ignore God's true word in the wind and stars to listen to the words of mere men. Your faith is not based upon reality, but rather upon a belief that the will of men can eventually cause reality to yield to a book.--Percy

Can someone characterize the "reply quote" problem? Please also provide browser type, browser version, and OS type and version. Thank you!--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Can someone characterize the "reply quote" problem? Please also provide browser type, browser version, and OS type and version. Thank you!

---

Win98, Mozilla (build: 2002031104)When replying to long messages, I sometimes get only a small part of the message copied to the response box.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Win 98; Internet Explorer ver 5.50.4134.0600Same problem, except I *never* get the whole message, only the first couple of paragraphs. It doesn't bother me much since I have the person's post in the same window.

John, Gene,Thank you for the information. After learning that the bug expresses itself when reply quoting to long posts, reproducing the problem was possible. The source of the problem may not be difficult to identify, but no assessment about the possibility of a fix is possible at this time.One more question: Has anyone experienced the same problem on other InfoPop UBB boards, version 5, or is this the only board where this problem occurs?--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote: If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

After re-reading this post, I see a possible point of confusion about what evolution predicts.I agree that evolution would produce "a big blur", under the extremely unrealistic circumstance of nearly continuous fossilization. However, this "blur" would ONLY be longitudinal - meaning, following a given lineage through time. (Also, the blur would show periodic increases of the rate of evolution. Indeed, this is exactly the type of positive fossil evidence that exists for punctuated equilibrium).It would NOT, however, be a blur in cross-section - "kinds" in the taxonomic sense would be crystal clear at any single point in time.I mention this because I've heard creationists insist that evolution predicts that ALL life would be a big blur without clear borders between kinds. That's a gross misunderstanding - given a "tree of life", such as predicted by evolution, seperate branches would be seperate, even if a single branch is continuous along its length.