1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYes! Let us be careful. At the level of "proof" you are demanding for evolution, we cannot "prove" an event that happened yesterday. We cannot "prove" virtually anything.
Let us be careful in what we call facts! Unless you can without a doubt
prove an event took place 3 billion years ago, it isn’t a fact.
Insisting on proof "without a doubt" for evolution is a much higher standard than is required for virtually any other field. Your willingness to believe other claims with a lower level of evidence says little for your honesty and leaves you open to a charge of hypocrisy. Is it a "fact" for example, that Pluto orbits the sun with a period of 247 years? Is it a "fact" that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? Is it a "fact" that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected? NONE of these is as well-supported as the "fact" of evolution and the fact that you have been willing to call only the last, and least well-supported, of these a "fact" says volumes about your open-mindedness.
Speculation on what could have happened millions or billions of
years ago is just that, speculation nothing more.
While mere "speculation" is nothing more than speculation, there is a good deal of evidence about what has happened, even millions or billions of years in the past. The notion of "evidence" is what raises our conclusions far above mere speculation. Evidence is what permits us to conclude that a murder suspect is guilty or innocent to a level of confidence that allows us to make life-or-death decisions that we can feel safe in our conclusions. The evidence for the fact of evolution is far stronger than the evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 hijackings. The evidence for evolution is far stronger than the evidence that was presented and considered more than sufficient to put Timothy McVeigh to death for the OK City bombing of the Murrah Building. I don't doubt that most people are more than willing to consider it a "fact" that he was guilty of the deed. What raises all of these conclusions above the level of "speculation" is evidence. The evidence for evolution is as good as the level of evidence for just about any conclusion that you can name.
When I state my beliefs, I'm not lying
I did not say you were lying about your beliefs but the content of your beliefs about others' beliefs is demonstrably false and I have called you (and pcaspian) on it more than once. You are perfectly welcome to believe, for whatever reason or lack of reason that you can imagine, that evolution never happens. But when you persist in asserting that evolution "is a matter of faith, for those that cannot abide in the possibility of a creator God" I will continue to call you on it. Your assertion is not only demonstrably false, it is libelous against those MANY (not "several" ) Christians who have accepted the overwhelming evidence that evolution is the mechanism by which the biological poplulations of the earth have developed from prior populations.
Paul
1 edit
Originally posted by prnYour willingness to believe other claims with a lower level of evidence says little for your honesty and leaves you open to a charge of hypocrisy.
Your willingness to believe other claims with a lower level of evidence says little for your honesty and leaves you open to a charge of hypocrisy.
Insisting on proof "without a doubt" for evolution is a much higher standard than is required f ...[text shortened]... ions of the earth have developed from prior populations.
Paul
[/b]
Okay nothing can be proven. So.... then anyone can believe anything
it doesn't matter, nothing can be proven?
I'm not insisting on proof without a doubt, I asked for an example
of evolution in real life, in the here and now, instead of billions of
years ago, millions of years ago, thousands of years ago. Seems like
a honest question for me. Instead my honesty comes in question?
I said evolution is a matter of faith because examples of it cannot
be given! They cannot be given at the level the claims are being
made, example some new organ inside a living system that wasn't
there before, doing something new that was never done before.
Nothing wrong with that, but it must not be called a fact, it isn't.
Changes that are claimed to have happened millions, billions, or
whatever in the past are matters of faith. I don't see how my saying
that smears my honesty and sets me for hypocrisy. I guess we have
different standards for honesty and hypocrisy.
If you would start dealing with the subject, and stop attempting to
make me the subject we could actually deal with how each of us
views things and why. If we can leave my so called open-mindedness
out of the discussion we can actually deal with the evidence we are
looking at. Think you could do that? Just a question or a request
if you cannot I guess I'll just have to deal with your personal smears
while trying to shift through your insults while looking your attempts
to at actually dealing with the discussion.
Okay, back to the subject at hand!
Yes, there is more proof for some things in our past than others!
Okay...I can agree with that. What I don't agree with is that there is
a method that changes life over time from some simplier functionally
complex system, into much greater functionally complex systems.
The evidence for evolution is far stronger than the evidence that was presented and considered more than sufficient to put Timothy McVeigh to death for the OK City bombing of the Murrah Building.
Okay, I'm willing for you to present some of the evidence that we
can see evolution to the scale I'm complaining about. I have admitted
that there are small changes within each kind or species, you can have
small dogs, large dogs, long hair dogs, short hair dogs, and so on, but
the bottom line is...we start with dogs we end with dogs. You have
made a claim, above prove it! Least your honesty comes into question
by someone who wants to make this a personal discussion instead of
one on facts, evidence, and believability.
I did not say you were lying about [b]your beliefs but the content of your beliefs about others' beliefs is demonstrably false and I have called you (and pcaspian) on it more than once.[/b]
I don't recall ever having a conversation with you in the past about
anything, but don't doubt it was possible. You are saying you have
called me on this more than once? I normally recall when someone
calls me a liar or implies I'm passing off a falsehood as truth, I do not
recall you saying anything to me like that in past. Point me to the
links where you did that more than once please to me! Otherwise, I'd
say you are at best confused, or at worse... Actually, I would prefer
we would just drop this personal stuff and get on discussing the
evidence! How you view Christians or any other group is how you
view them, what you believe is what you believe, and I have my own
beliefs. When you state what you believe, it is what you believe, I do
not care if you believe in little pink fairies, big blue flying cows or what!
You can believe all Christians are demanding evolution is false
because it underminds their foundational beliefs. It does not make
you a liar, nor would your honesty come into question stating those
beliefs even if you are presented evidence showing you that belief is
faulty. You would have to know you were wrong and still push that
belief as truth to be a liar or have your honesty come into question.
Now this is that last time I'm going to touch the points of personal
honesty in this discussion. If you continue with the personal stuff I'll
have to think about if is worth the effort to respond to you or not.
I prefer talking to someone who does not want to me the topic, nor
themselves.
NOW, the Cub game is going to be coming on in about an hour, and I
am hanging on the outcome of every game now. I'll address the rest
of this thread later. As I have some other stuff I must attend to.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNothing can be "proven". Period. Proof is not possible for real-world events. Proof is not even the right thing to ask for. I'll post this quote from Stephen Jay Gould again, not because I am unable to say anything myself, but just because he did say it so well that he deserves credit. 🙂
Okay nothing can be proven. So.... then anyone can believe anything it doesn't matter, nothing can be proven?
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Proof is the wrong kind of thing to be demanding. We have to live at the "provisional assent" level and that is what we deal with in our lives. That is the level we have to deal with for life-and-death decisions. IMHO, it is disingenuous to demand a much higher level of certainty for "evolution" than for everything else.
I'm not insisting on proof without a doubt,
You DID say (on p.7 of this very thread) "Let us be careful in what we call facts! Unless you can without a doubt prove an event took place 3 billion years ago, it isn’t a fact."
I asked for an example of evolution in real life, in the here and now, instead of billions of years ago, millions of years ago, thousands of years ago. Seems like a honest question for me. Instead my honesty comes in question? I said evolution is a matter of faith because examples of it cannot be given! They cannot be given at the level the claims are being made, example some new organ inside a living system that wasn't there before, doing something new that was never done before. Nothing wrong with that, but it must not be called a fact, it isn't. Changes that are claimed to have happened millions, billions, or whatever in the past are matters of faith. I don't see how my saying that smears my honesty and sets me for hypocrisy. I guess we have different standards for honesty and hypocrisy.
I guess we do. What do you do for a living, Kelly? What kinds of "facts" do you deal with on a daily basis? I understand you live in California. Have you ever thought about earthquakes? The facts and theories of geology are no more certain than those of biology. Yet those theories are what we use to make the life-and-death decisions related to where and how people should build in order to avoid dying in earthquakes. And they have been pretty successful when you consider how few people die in major earthquakes in California compared to other countries.
If you would start dealing with the subject, and stop attempting to make me the subject we could actually deal with how each of us views things and why.
I'm sorry you think I'm trying to make you the subject. I'm not really. I'm trying to make "consistent standards of evidence" an explicit part of the subject, since you brought it up. Evolution needs to be held to the SAME standards that everything else is held to, not a higher (and IMHO, unreasonable) standard.
I don't recall ever having a conversation with you in the past about
anything,
This site really needs a decent search function for the forums! I spent quite a while going back several months searching for the posts I was referring to. And I do have to apologize to you. I did mention Christians who accept the evidence of evolution in the Noah's Ark thread http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=13676&page=4 (and you thought I was attacking you personally there too). It's always a problem, in a forum post, to determine exactly who one is addressing. Sometimes, it seems most appropriate to address the previous poster (as "you"😉 and other times it seems most appropriate to address the forum population in general and refer to the previoius poster as "he" (or "she" or by name). The latter is not intended to be a slight on the poster, just a question of who is being addressed. In any case, the reference to the existence of Christians whose Biblical interpretations differ did not seem to be my major point and you did not seem to notice it. The other case I was able to find was in a thread titled "Evolution" where my comments are to be found on pp. 9-11 and the most relevant for the present point at http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=12079&page=11 and it was CalJust that I was responding to. I have reviewed that thread and found that you, KellyJay, did not participate in that thread. My comments there were NOT directed to you and so I cannot rightly claim to have called you on this point multiple times. I apologize for my misstatement. I'll try not to do it again. I do recommend this thread to your attention, though as it does contain a lengthy post (on p.9) where, in response to a request by CalJust that was basically similar to your call for evidence, I pointed some out.
You can believe all Christians are demanding evolution is false
because it underminds their foundational beliefs. It does not make
you a liar, nor would your honesty come into question stating those
beliefs even if you are presented evidence showing you that belief is
faulty. You would have to know you were wrong and still push that
belief as truth to be a liar or have your honesty come into question.
Actually, as I pointed out in the posts I referenced above, I do NOT believe that of "all Christians". And although (if I did) my beliefs would not make me a liar, it would be highly dishonest of me to continue stating those beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary without addressing that evidence. I have, in the past, been confronted with evidence contradictory to statements I had made. Sometimes it demonstrated that my prior statements were wrong and that I needed to modify them. Sometimes I found that the contradictory evidence was incorrect or irrelevant, but honesty compelled me to present concrete arguments regarding WHY the evidence did not falsify my statements. I fully expect to be faced with contrary evidence and arguments in the future. If I simply ignored them, I would not be honest. If I were to state that "I believe the earth is flat" I would be lying because I do not believe that. If, however, I did believe it, the statement would not be a lie (or even incorrect) as a statement of my belief but if I were presented with evidence that the earth is not flat, then repetition of the statement would, IMHO, not be a "lie" but would still be dishonest unless I found a way to address the evidence.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnPhooey! I keep forgetting that if I have quotes within parentheses it comes out as a smiley like this. I was NOT trying to be cute and wink at anybody or anything here. It was supposed to say:
address the previous poster (as "you"😉
address the previous poster (as "you" )
but without the extra space it comes out as a smiley. I submitted that when the forums were unavailable and I guess edit time expired or something because I can't fix it now. I'm sorry if it gives the wrong impression. It was supposed to be a serious discussion of how the forms of address made my tone seem inappropriate to Kelly and that was supposed to be part of a serious apology for making the tone seem inappropriate. The smiley really didn't contribute at all to that and I'm sorry for yet another inappropriate tone to my post.
Paul
Originally posted by KellyJayMy post to the thread gave an example of evolution in the here and now.
Okay nothing can be proven. So.... then anyone can believe anything
it doesn't matter, nothing can be proven?
I'm not insisting on proof without a doubt, I asked for an example
of evolution in real life, in the here and now, instead of billions of
years ago, millions of years ago, thousands of years ago.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14356&page=6
D
Originally posted by RagnorakAre you speaking about your reference to birds? I asked for
My post to the thread gave an example of evolution in the here and now.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14356&page=6
D
something new, larger or smaller anything isn't something new unless
I missed another point you made. If so could you tell me what it
is I'm looking for? Evolution when we are looking at small changes
within any lifeforms isn't an example of something new appearing
where it wasn't before. Looking at beaks, or wing spans, or longer
hair, or larger animals or smaller animals are simply changes in
degrees of something already there. Nothing new!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOh right, fair enough. I was answering this...
Are you speaking about your reference to birds? I asked for
something new, larger or smaller anything isn't something new unless
I missed another point you made. If so could you tell me what it
is I'm looking for? Evolution when we are looking at small changes
within any lifeforms isn't an example of something new appearing
where it wasn't before. ...[text shortened]... r smaller animals are simply changes in
degrees of something already there. Nothing new!
Kelly
I'm not insisting on proof without a doubt, I asked for an example
of evolution in real life, in the here and now, instead of billions of
years ago, millions of years ago, thousands of years ago.
To be honest I didn't real the whole thread as I couldn't follow the epistomoly discussions and the religious discussions bored me, but I noticed your quote when I was flicking through. I didn't see any mention of 'new' in the quote and I thought I was answering the honest question with an honest answer.
Change of size of a species is a true example of evolution, even if it doesn't answer your original question.
D
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess I'll ask this again, since you didn't answer it last time:
Are you speaking about your reference to birds? I asked for
something new, larger or smaller anything isn't something new unless
I missed another point you made. If so could you tell me what it
is I'm looking for? Evolution when we are looking at small changes
within any lifeforms isn't an example of something new appearing
where it wasn't before. ...[text shortened]... r smaller animals are simply changes in
degrees of something already there. Nothing new!
Kelly
When you talk about 'something new', you are (presumably) referring to a new kind of thing, rather than a new species. What constitutes a kind?
Here is how I phrased the question before:
Obviously, your use of the term 'kind' isn't synonymous with the biologist's term 'species'. So, when you talk about changes only occuring within a kind, what do you mean? What determines whether two creatures are of the same kind or a different kind?
Originally posted by bbarr"Kind" varies just as "species" does depending on where you look or
I guess I'll ask this again, since you didn't answer it last time:
When you talk about 'something new', you are (presumably) referring to a new kind of thing, rather than a new species. What constitutes a kind?
Here is how I phrased the question before:
Obviously, your use of the term 'kind' isn't synonymous with the biologist's term 'specie ...[text shortened]... do you mean? What determines whether two creatures are of the same kind or a different kind?
who you are talking too.
When I'm talking about new if we go back in our distant past we start
with presumably functionally complex living species yet at levels which
would be far less than we see today. We could have a world filled with
say single cell living creatures and nothing more than that. So when I
say something new from that point on it could include hearts, eyes,
ears, livers, wings, claws, fingers, and then various other creatures
that will have sprung from all these new organs after a while. Which if
we are getting new organs I have no doubt we can and would be
getting brand new varieties of species if you would like to stick with
that word. That can happen with simply breeding and nothing more,
we can get smaller cows, larger cows, smaller dogs, larger dogs, but
the bottom line is what we start with we also end with.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll define it soon, I did not do that my last.
"Kind" varies just as "species" does depending on where you look or
who you are talking too.
When I'm talking about new if we go back in our distant past we start
with presumably functionally complex living species yet at levels which
would be far less than we see today. We could have a world filled with
say single cell living creatures and noth ...[text shortened]... smaller dogs, larger dogs, but
the bottom line is what we start with we also end with.
Kelly
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are documented, observed cases of speciation, but since these are about, amongst others examples, fruit flies and don't involve the spontaneaus appearance of extra limbs, or something to that extent, I doubt they will satisfy you.
"Kind" varies just as "species" does depending on where you look or
who you are talking too.
When I'm talking about new if we go back in our distant past we start
with presumably functionally complex living species yet at levels which
would be far less than we see today. We could have a world filled with
say single cell living creatures and noth ...[text shortened]... smaller dogs, larger dogs, but
the bottom line is what we start with we also end with.
Kelly
The question then becomes whether this is a reasonable demand, or, with other words, whether the fact that the appearance of something you'd call 'new' hasn't been observed falsifies any claims evolutionary theory makes. I don't think so. The rate of evolution as shown in the fossil record is far too slow to reproduce the kind of changes you are asking for in a lab, or on a meadow.
David
2 edits
Originally posted by DdVSince my complaint rest completely in some living system becoming
There are documented, observed cases of speciation, but since these are about, amongst others examples, fruit flies and don't involve the spontaneaus appearance of extra limbs, or something to that extent, I doubt they will satisfy you.
Th ...[text shortened]... of changes you are asking for in a lab, or on a meadow.
David
more functionally complex by the adding of limbs, organs or entire
systems over time. That seems to be a very reasonable request, that
I'd like to see an example of that level of evolutionary change.
When we look at the fossils, we see how mankind places each fossil
in categories and dates them, but that does not mean that man has
gotten anything about the fossils correct. As a matter of fact there
are times that they find a several bones together and they simply
put them together the way they think it was supposed to be and
call it a new dinosaur, they could have had the bones of two or three
different ones, no one knows for sure. Other times they may find a
fossil nearly intact, they show it to an artist, this person draws a
picture what they think the dinosaur looked like, they hang the picture
in a museum and all the little 5th graders year after year go through
look at the picture and think they have seen what a dinosaur really
looks like. Some fossils renditions have made it big in the movies so
millions of people think they know what they looked like, and
behaved even.
So I reject your use of the fossil record, it is purely speculative!
It only really shows us fossils nothing more, we assign what we think
about them, how old they are, and so on. It is not like going to
an ohm meter and reading a voltage drop across a resistor for a fact
to justify the belief in that level of evolution. Moreover our justice
system has shown us, we have a difficult time piecing together our
recent past, and we are asked to believe they got it right when
supposedly looking at a great distant past, millions or billions of
years ago.
Kelly
Originally posted by AcolyteA wolf is a "nice" animal. I view Canis lupus as God's dog. I am very pleased with some of the animals. The wolf is one of them. Spiders ticks ect. I do not like. You people are giving wolves a bad name. The wolf is not as bad as you are. Some of the sheep in here are not nice at times as well.
<Acolyte tuts> Comments like this give the Wolfpack a bad name. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySince my complaint rest completely in some [b]living system becoming
more functionally complex by the adding of limbs, organs or entire
systems over time. That seems to be a very reasonable request, that
I'd like to see an example of that level of evolutionary change.[/b]
You asked to see an example in the "here and now". That is an unreasonable request.
When we look at the fossils, we see how mankind places each fossil
in categories and dates them, but that does not mean that man has
gotten anything about the fossils correct. As a matter of fact there
are times that they find a several bones together and they simply
put them together the way they think it was supposed to be and
call it a new dinosaur, they could have had the bones of two or three
different ones, no one knows for sure. Other times they may find a
fossil nearly intact, they show it to an artist, this person draws a
picture what they think the dinosaur looked like, they hang the picture
in a museum and all the little 5th graders year after year go through
look at the picture and think they have seen what a dinosaur really
looks like. Some fossils renditions have made it big in the movies so
millions of people think they know what they looked like, and
behaved even.
Do you honestly believe that is how fossils are studied??
So I reject your use of the fossil record, it is purely speculative!
It only really shows us fossils nothing more, we assign what we think
about them, how old they are, and so on. It is not like going to
an ohm meter and reading a voltage drop across a resistor for a fact
to justify the belief in that level of evolution. Moreover our justice
system has shown us, we have a difficult time piecing together our
recent past, and we are asked to believe they got it right when
supposedly looking at a great distant past, millions or billions of
years ago.
Kelly
I really have to ask: do you actually read my posts or do you just skim through them until you reach a word that provokes a kind of verbal pavlovian reaction? I mean, I point to the tempo of evolution (as shown in the fossil record) as the reason why you're request is unreasonable and you answer with two wild paragraphs about how fossils are nothing more than products of creative artists. That's hardly serious.
We do have a difficult time piecing together our recent past, and even more with our distant past. That's why nobody claims they got it exactly right, but serious writers think we've got a pretty good, yet rough idea. You're just erecting more straw men.
David
[/b]
Originally posted by DdVYou asked to see an example in the "here and now". That is an unreasonable request.
[b]Since my complaint rest completely in some [b]living system becoming
more functionally complex by the adding of limbs, organs or entire
systems over time. That seems to be a very reasonable request, that
I'd like to see an example of that level of evolutionary change.[/b]
You asked to see an example in the "here and now". That is an unreasonable ...[text shortened]... k we've got a pretty good, yet rough idea. You're just erecting more straw men.
David
[/b][/b]
I fail to see why it is an unreasonable request. I'm not asking for
much in my opinion, I simply want to see the mechanisms that the
claims rest on in action to that degree, doing at least something as
small as a limb or organ. I mean that if you are going to tell me
that small changes can take a simple cellular life form and
through mutations through time move cellular types into a much
greater life form in terms of functionally complexity I’d at least like
to see it is some small way occur at least once to that degree. After
all you are suggesting that mutations over time can accomplish so
much in terms of this. I’d just like to see it in a very small degrees
over come some small obstacles like creating a limb or organ that
were not there before. Seems to be something that must happen
all the time considering the variety of life on the planet, and all the
variety of organs each life form has within them. If those changes
are never seen taking place to that small degree, why should I
accept it is reasonable that they could do it to the extent of having
all life owes their existence to evolution?
Kelly