Bring up Evloution Again....

Originally posted by Mexico
True enough, its just frustrating. I actually wanted to make sure there is no credible alternative before I go defending evolution, and ensuring the alternatives aren't taught in science classes. So I asked a straight question. But evolution's detractors instantly try to turn it around and make me define, and defend evolution without every answering my quest ...[text shortened]... eliefs, I just want them to acknowledge that it shouldn't be taught in science classes.....

That sort of acknowledgement will never come.
Unfortunately, belief in the literal truth of a biblical text has become such a part of their world view that all other considerations become secondary.
Things that appear to run counter to this world view must be attacked and subjugated - or their literal intrepretation might crumble and the sky would fall in ...

Originally posted by Mexico
True enough, its just frustrating. I actually wanted to make sure there is no credible alternative before I go defending evolution, and ensuring the alternatives aren't taught in science classes. So I asked a straight question. But evolution's detractors instantly try to turn it around and make me define, and defend evolution without every answering my quest ...[text shortened]... eliefs, I just want them to acknowledge that it shouldn't be taught in science classes.....

Nice try, though...

Originally posted by amannion
That sort of acknowledgement will never come.
Unfortunately, belief in the literal truth of a biblical text has become such a part of their world view that all other considerations become secondary.
Things that appear to run counter to this world view must be attacked and subjugated - or their literal intrepretation might crumble and the sky would fall in ...

The objective was to back them into a corner if they couldn't provide sustainable evidence...... Then bring up the education issue. They're extremely good at moving any question onto familiar ground and defending from there... But I suppose when you never question your beliefs and what your saying you gain an ability to rabidly defend it long after all logic and reason has failed....

Originally posted by KellyJay
My objection is that your statement implies the fossils do exist that
suggest a long line of life from a simple cell to the variety we see
today, when the truth is that is your interpretation of the fossils. They
could simply be just another life snuffed out over time that has nothing
to with the life we see today with respect to being an ancestor. I ha ...[text shortened]... d the existence of fossils, only the meaning placed on them
by other's interpretations.
Kelly

No, they could not 'simply be' as you describe. There is a clear and obvious pattern of progression in the fossil record. So once must conclude that either:
1. It suggests a long line of life from a simple cell to the variety we see today.
or
2. There is some other explanation for the pattern.
What is your other explanation for the pattern? You may object to my interpretation 1. but your interpretation of 'chance' is simply not acceptable. You have frequently claimed that pure chance cannot produce complex patterns and the pattern in the fossil record is very complex.

Originally posted by Mexico
This is getting ridiculous, could everyone please read the first post. And then could those of you attacking evolution please present your alternatives to be assessed for scientific validity... Because whether you believe it or not is irrelevant the current TOE is based on good scientific principals.

If your alternatives contain no scientific validity then ...[text shortened]... (or whatever you have) and teach evolution, atheism and a variety of other things as religion?

I have been trying to stay on point with you, and you have not given
me an answer to my question, what is it you are really trying to get
an alternative too? By more than one person we told you that your
first and only attempt to answer that question could be taken several
different ways, so it is difficult to respond to what could be an
alternative method when the 'method' by you has not be clearly
defined. This is after all your thread you started, I'd assume at least
that much should be given before you can get what you are looking
for.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
Which would be a problem if fossil evidence were the only evidence for evolution. It is not.

It is the only piece of evidence that people use that I can think of off
the top of my head where they say evolution has been going from
now as far back as abiogenesis when ever that was. No one has argued
that change is not seen in the here and now, but there is an argument
on can that change do what has been suggested by some evolutionist.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have been trying to stay on point with you, and you have not given
me an answer to my question, what is it you are really trying to get
an alternative too? By more than one person we told you that your
first and only attempt to answer that question could be taken several
different ways, so it is difficult to respond to what could be an
alternative me ...[text shortened]... sume at least
that much should be given before you can get what you are looking
for.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
Well... you know how it goes. I've been to an evolution conference recently, i was quite interesting.
There's mutation and there's genotype to phenotype correspondence. A mutation might introduce a new characteristic intro phenotype, then the new mutated guy and its descendants (on average with the same kind of phenotype change) would be put to test in the real world, and on average could or not survive better then the others.
It's a huge stochastic process, and even new "fittest" guy could not survive to tell the story. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't.
And that's it... evolution is nothing more then mutation, replication, selection... A little boring and self-evident if you ask me.
Now just apply this to a mono cellular organism billions of yrs old and there's theory of evolution.


There's a reasonably simple explanation of evolution.... Now stop finding flaws in it and explain to me an alternative that should be allowed into science classes...

Actually answer me question if you don't mind, how old do you think the earth is. This isn't a loaded question. I'm just not sure where your views lie....

Originally posted by KellyJay
"My objection is that your statement implies the fossils don't exist when the truth is that it is your interpretation of the fossils that you dispute and not their existence.”


My objection is that your statement implies the fossils do exist that
suggest a long line of life from a simple cell to the variety we see
today, when the truth is that is your ...[text shortened]... the existence of fossils, only the meaning placed on them
by other's interpretations.
Kelly

What exactly would you like to see? A monkey a lizards tail?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the only piece of evidence that people use that I can think of off
the top of my head where they say evolution has been going from
now as far back as abiogenesis when ever that was. No one has argued
that change is not seen in the here and now, but there is an argument
on can that change do what has been suggested by some evolutionist.
Kelly

An observation of the various organisms alive today including their morphology and genetic makeup and their current (and known recent past) distribution should lead to the conclusion that many species are related to varying degrees. Also an observation of how species are adapted to their environment and other similar factors (such as behavior patterns etc) would lead to the conclusion that species do adapt to their environment and evolve certain behaviors that benefit their reproductive success.
It is true that without any knowledge of earths history or fossil evidence, it would be much harder to support the concept that all life evolved from single celled organisms, but a very large part of the Theory of evolution would still be valid and supported by rock solid evidence other than fossils.

Originally posted by amannion
Which would be a problem if fossil evidence were the only evidence for evolution. It is not.

I don't think I said that it was.

At least I was neutral on that. I was bringing out the difficulties with interpreting biological anatomy of the greater part of the soft tissue of organisms by looking at bone fossils.

Many reconstructions could be possible. That avenue of demonstrating relationships of descent has its limitations. I don't think we are frequently told of those limitations from strident evolutionists.

It is usually "business as usual" as they thrust interpretations upon us that macroevolution is a rock solidly proven fact because of these fossil finds.

Originally posted by jaywill
Many reconstructions could be possible. That avenue of demonstrating relationships of descent has its limitations. I don't think we are frequently told of those limitations from strident evolutionists.

That is probably because those limitations are not relevant to a creationist/evolution discussion. Scientists do not claim to be able to place every fossil on a family tree, and even when they do, they admit to a fairly large margin of error and make frequent changes. DNA analysis has resulted in a number of tree changes including the renaming of species and families accordingly.

It is usually "business as usual" as they thrust interpretations upon us that macroevolution is a rock solidly proven fact because of these fossil finds.
It is a rock solidly proven fact in fossil finds is a large part of the proof. The fact that the fossils can not always be placed on a family tree is irrelevant.

Originally posted by amannion
That sort of acknowledgement will never come.
Unfortunately, belief in the literal truth of a biblical text has become such a part of their world view that all other considerations become secondary.
Things that appear to run counter to this world view must be attacked and subjugated - or their literal intrepretation might crumble and the sky would fall in ...

I am not sure what some of you mean by a literalist view of the Bible. Obvioulsy the Bible itself often flags us that something is a parable or an analogy. Sometimes it does not tell us so but the context makes it clear that such and such is to be taken as symbolic.

And there is room for argument on many passages how much is to be taken literally and how much is not.

But speaking of pre-conceived commitments to a world view evolutionists do the same. Sure, my view of cosmology and biology is indeed effected by "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth "

Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University at least admits that Darwinists have a strong bias to materialist answers. He writes that this a priori commitment sometimes leads to:

1.) constructs which a are patently absurd

2.) unsubstantiated just-so stories

3.) counterintuitive and mystifying explanations

4.) a near obsession to keep "a divine foot" from getting in the door

[b]" Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

[Billions and Billions of Demons, Richard Lewontin, The New York Reviews of Books, January 9,1997, 31]

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is probably because those limitations are not relevant to a creationist/evolution discussion. Scientists do not claim to be able to place every fossil on a family tree, and even when they do, they admit to a fairly large margin of error and make frequent changes. DNA analysis has resulted in a number of tree changes including the renaming of species ...[text shortened]... the proof. The fact that the fossils can not always be placed on a family tree is irrelevant.

==========================
That is probably because those limitations are not relevant to a creationist/evolution discussion.
============================

Do I hear you saying, something like "those limitations don't matter because we know macroevolution is true anyway?"

Do I hear you saying that it is not worth while to explore other avenues of interpretation where there are limitations with the Darwinist explanations?

Is it a waste of time to explore other scientific possilities besides Darwinist dogma?


=======================================
Scientists do not claim to be able to place every fossil on a family tree, and even when they do, they admit to a fairly large margin of error and make frequent changes.
===================================

What do you fill that margin of error with ?

Do you object to others attempting to see what else could fill that gap besides Darwinist macroevolution explanations?

Originally posted by Mexico
What exactly would you like to see? A monkey a lizards tail?

I'd like to see the chain of life we should see living today, if change is
so slow, the odds that most or many of the latest previously evolved
creatures should still be alive today in the vast majority of living
species. A slow change should give advantages slowly with time, yet
we don’t see this today, or in the fossil record which to me suggests it
didn’t happen that way. Not everything dies off as soon as the next
model hits the production floor like you see with a new car, yet it
appears that is how evolution did it if it is responsible for the variety
of life we see today, if evolution had to take a single cell life form and
evolve it to the variety we see today.

We do see that we see distinct life forms with little in common! I’d like
to see how you can show me how grass, whales, jellyfish, crabs, and
eagles all have the same ancestors all related without guess work or
fairy tales. This should be apparent within living systems today before
we even start looking into the fossil record, yet we don’t see this!
Within the fossil record there should be a string of fossils changing
over time we don’t see that, we do see very completely formed
distinct life forms who, because they have similar features as to some
thing living today it is suggested it is an ancestor and that suggestion
is called science as if that makes it more believable.

I’d like to point out none of those complaints have anything to do
with how old the earth is, I dont' believe time matters in any of this.
Mainly because I don't see chess programs turning into operating
systems, what is programmed is programmed.
Kelly

Originally posted by Mexico
Originally posted by serigado
[b]Well... you know how it goes. I've been to an evolution conference recently, i was quite interesting.
There's mutation and there's genotype to phenotype correspondence. A mutation might introduce a new characteristic intro phenotype, then the new mutated guy and its descendants (on average with the same kind of phenot ...[text shortened]... earth is. This isn't a loaded question. I'm just not sure where your views lie....

Yes if we want to teach something that has flaws, don't point that out
to anyone!
Kelly