(August 14, 2015 at 4:37 am)Neimenovic Wrote: There is plenty evidence in favor of macroevolution, including the fossil record, though it is to be expected that there will be gaps-the necessary for a fossil to form are very specific and need to be held for thousands if not millions of years. And differentiating it from microevolution is pointless, because it's the exact same process.

The creationist objections to macroevolution are intriguing to me. This selective and sometimes downright nitpicky skepticism is fascinating. It's the same with religious people who can perfectly point out every logical flaw of a deity, provided that it isn't their own.

I understand why people hold these beliefs, but it is rather uncanny how much they can ignore in favor of them. But I guess in the end, emotions are stronger than rational thought.

I did not quote or pull from Answers in Genesis at all.  I have only showed peer reviewed scientific articles showing the enormous improbability of random mutations and natural selection being able to create the diversity and lineage that the evolutionary model presents.  Someone here mentioned we have clear evidence of us coming Australopithecus, but that is just simply not true.

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987)

One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure."

Evolution is presented as fact, yes, but there is not a consensus.  There is an entire site dedicated to scientists who wish to sign their scientific dissent from the darwinian model of evolution.  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and the 22 page list (updated and released June 2015) of scientists who publicly denounce the Darwinian model can be viewed here:  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

This is bold because as soon as they do this they are essentially written off as intellectuals in the scientific community.  Look at atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel for example:  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/w...-darwinism

Evolution as presented for the origin of all species has enormous gaps and holes and scientists fill those gaps with assumptions and presuppositions that it must be a natural process but it is far from "proven" or "consensus", irregardless of religious beliefs, but based on pure science.

This does NOT mean that creation theory can be proven or must be true. I'm not saying that. Yes it is what I believe, but I'm pointing out what I see the problem evolution theory has.

Even if evolution was completely 100% wrong, that doesn't explain how "so it's magic" is the conclusion. Aren't you interested in investigating to find the real answer, if evolution is wrong? There's an infinity of possibilities.

Writing complex things off as magic is the mistake our species has made time and time again.

(August 14, 2015 at 9:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if evolution was completely 100% wrong, that doesn't explain how "so it's magic" is the conclusion. Aren't you interested in investigating to find the real answer, if evolution is wrong? There's an infinity of possibilities.

Absolutely Rob and I agree 100%.  It is the conclusion that I deduce and I will readily admit it is most likely impossible to improve empirically.

I did not imply that you have quoted AiG, it was more of an anecdote.

What are those assumptions and presuppositions? And more importantly.....what are those gaps?

Please take a look at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

You know, there are a lot of people who could sign their names on a list claiming Elvis is still alive.

And if you have time, take a peek
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...ermediates
http://transitionalfossils.com
http://m.livescience.com/3306-fossils-re...heory.html
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...onal.shtml

Also, regarding your objections to mathematical improbability......Probability only means anything when it is used to predict an event. After the event has happened, the probability of it is equal to 1.
That, and if you rewind anything far enough back you'll find it is statistically improbable.


And I'm compelled to ask again: where is your evidence, which you so adamantly demand from Darwin, to support the christian creation myth?

Sure

I'm not asking for proof, I'm trying to understand why you would even consider it as the next explanation on the list. But you don't have to tell me, that's cool.

It seems I'm right, you've looked quite a lot into opponents of evolution. Have you spent a similar amount of time learning about it and viewing the evidence? I'm just interested, it's not an accusation.

(August 14, 2015 at 9:41 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 9:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if evolution was completely 100% wrong, that doesn't explain how "so it's magic" is the conclusion. Aren't you interested in investigating to find the real answer, if evolution is wrong? There's an infinity of possibilities.

Absolutely Rob and I agree 100%.  It is the conclusion that I deduce and I will readily admit it is most likely impossible to improve empirically.

But yet you have no problem believing it to be true, while the slightest hole you can pick in the evolutionary theory discredits it in your mind. Do you see the double standard?

I will accept at face value the explanation of having faith for emotional reasons, and I wouldn't argue against that. But the moment you say you hold your beliefs out of rationality, I feel compelled to step in and beg to differ.

Haha. Yes, I'd be willing to argue to my inevitable death that religious beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be rational. But no one has a duty to try and convince me.

No one even wants to try at all given the lack of response (1 person) to my open challenge apologetics thread.

I'll even give you deism for free, skip all that nonsense.

(August 14, 2015 at 2:34 am)Shuffle Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 2:14 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not a creationist but wanted to chime in here and say that the Church has 0 issue with evolution. The past several popes have talked about it as a perfectly acceptable scientific explanation for how we got the world we live in today. I learned about evolution in my Catholic school. The man who first introduced the idea of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, and the pope of the time was super excited about it. Yep, no problem here!

I wish every other theist reached the same conclusion, but that is not the case. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. That is called the cosmic evolution.

Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about biological evolution specifically. I just assumed you were talking about evolution in general. There is no issue with any type of evolution.

(August 14, 2015 at 9:48 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 9:41 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Absolutely Rob and I agree 100%.  It is the conclusion that I deduce and I will readily admit it is most likely impossible to improve empirically.

But yet you have no problem believing it to be true, while the slightest hole you can pick in the evolutionary theory discredits it in your mind. Do you see the double standard?

I will accept at face value the explanation of having faith for emotional reasons, and I wouldn't argue against that. But the moment you say you hold your beliefs out of rationality, I feel compelled to step in and beg to differ.

I understand that completely Vic and wouldn't argue that there may be a double standard.  I do hold a presupposition to my belief in God and I try to be objective in my skepticism.  The problem comes where I can say I find immense problems with evolution theory as origin of species, but I cannot offer a viable, testable alternative.  My means for explanation can only be labeled as supernatural.  I am working on your request Vic for my path to belief, but like I said, it's not a simple post and some areas cannot be empirically tested.

---

(August 14, 2015 at 10:03 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 2:34 am)Shuffle Wrote: I wish every other theist reached the same conclusion, but that is not the case. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. That is called the cosmic evolution.

Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about biological evolution specifically. I just assumed you were talking about evolution in general. There is no issue with any type of evolution.

Hey look, I found something we disagree on.  

(August 14, 2015 at 9:36 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 4:37 am)Neimenovic Wrote: There is plenty evidence in favor of macroevolution, including the fossil record, though it is to be expected that there will be gaps-the necessary for a fossil to form are very specific and need to be held for thousands if not millions of years. And differentiating it from microevolution is pointless, because it's the exact same process.

The creationist objections to macroevolution are intriguing to me. This selective and sometimes downright nitpicky skepticism is fascinating. It's the same with religious people who can perfectly point out every logical flaw of a deity, provided that it isn't their own.

I understand why people hold these beliefs, but it is rather uncanny how much they can ignore in favor of them. But I guess in the end, emotions are stronger than rational thought.

I did not quote or pull from Answers in Genesis at all.  I have only showed peer reviewed scientific articles showing the enormous improbability of random mutations and natural selection being able to create the diversity and lineage that the evolutionary model presents.  Someone here mentioned we have clear evidence of us coming Australopithecus, but that is just simply not true.

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987)

One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure."

Evolution is presented as fact, yes, but there is not a consensus.  There is an entire site dedicated to scientists who wish to sign their scientific dissent from the darwinian model of evolution.  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and the 22 page list (updated and released June 2015) of scientists who publicly denounce the Darwinian model can be viewed here:  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

This is bold because as soon as they do this they are essentially written off as intellectuals in the scientific community.  Look at atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel for example:  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/w...-darwinism

Evolution as presented for the origin of all species has enormous gaps and holes and scientists fill those gaps with assumptions and presuppositions that it must be a natural process but it is far from "proven" or "consensus", irregardless of religious beliefs, but based on pure science.

This does NOT mean that creation theory can be proven or must be true.  I'm not saying that.  Yes it is what I believe, but I'm pointing out what I see the problem evolution theory has.

Very interesting. Never heard of any of that before.