Jump to content


Photo

Hi


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 June 2010 - 04:34 AM

I will gladly call the theory of evolution a theory.

View Post

It’s not even a theory, it’s more of a model. But, you can call it whatever you believe it to be


Will you start listening to what evolutionists say rather than telling them what to say?

View Post

I’ve been listening for over forty years, and I use to even argue from that point of view.

'the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'

View Post

Ah, but that the whole thing isn’t it; evolution hasn’t been observed via empirical observation and experimentation, adaptation within a species (or kind) has.

Also, when a leading scientist was asked why he wouldn't debate a YEC'er he replied "That would look good on your CV but would not look good on mine".

View Post


This is the Dawkins/Eugenie Scott approach. Don’t debate (mainly because evolutionists loose the debates), and come up with a convenient excuse not to do so.

#22 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:06 AM

It’s not even a theory, it’s more of a model. But, you can call it whatever you believe it to be


Okay, a model but we will get to that in a bit...

I’ve been listening for over forty years, and I use to even argue from that point of view.


You may have been listening for 40 years, but still each individual should be treated as such. I only have 10 years under my belt and I have heard all the points on this forum before but still when I read a response I deal with it like it is the first time because for that person it might be.

Ah, but that the whole thing isn’t it; evolution hasn’t been observed via empirical observation and experimentation, adaptation within a species (or kind) has.


I have asked what the mechanism for this adaption within a Kind is from a creationist point of view. Obviously, I would say Natural selection is the mechanism, but do creationists agree with that or is there another mechanism?

My point in this thread is to reach a point where evolutionist and creationist can say "the evidence for the mechanism X is scientifically sound, but creationists do not think that there is any evidence for macro-evolution"

The fact that the mechanism for micro-evolution has to be agreed between the two parties is because the next stage of my argument builds on that, if I may quote where this started:

Now this is all testable, and has been, as you are aware because Creationists, since Darwin, accept his theory up to a point.

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

Let us now take this one step further:

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

Do you agree so far? It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.


I am, from an evolutionist point of view downgrading the theory of evolution to the theory of micro-evolution to try and accomodate the creationist position. If you wish to call it a model of micro-evolution, I will go along with that, but as both sides agree that micro-evolution is a scientific fact then calling it the theory of micro-evolution is not going too far.

I do then set up a hypothesis of macro evolution, but I do not think that creationists would have a problem with a hypothesis like this as it does not claim to be a theory, and has no supporting evidence.

My next job will be to start presenting the evidence, but I need to know that you are open to the possibility that it might occur and so agreeing to a hypothesis would mean you agree it is a question that can be asked and that it is answerable, even if the answer is ultimately "No".

#23 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:14 PM

the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'


Let us start with this the other way round, and look at the formulation of hypotheses first.

Let us now formulate the theory of evolution as a hypothesis.

ie let us make the hypothesis of evolution.

This hypothesis, in simple form, states that:

My position is that Animal kinds after leaving the ark were designated specific areas to populate the earth, the variation in the kind is therefore explained through intelligent design not 'natural selection'. Although as noted above some creationists believe in a creationist verson of natural selection not all do.


We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

Let us now take this one step further:

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

Do you agree so far? It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.

#24 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 June 2010 - 04:06 PM

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution.


How? Variation within the same kind is not evolution. Furthermore i don't believe the variation was caused by a naturalistic or random mechanism.

What you are attempting to do is catch out creationists:

1. Get them to admit they believe in what you call ''micro-evolution''.
2. And because of that, then say you have to believe in macro, because micro is simply macro only on a smaller level of time.

Creationists can't be caught out, since we believe in fixed kinds. Therefore we don't believe like evolutionists that man evolved from apes, fish or rocks.

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?

#25 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 10:17 PM

I've been quoted out of context! Now I know I'm a real evolutionist! :D

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution.


How? Variation within the same kind is not evolution. Furthermore i don't believe the variation was caused by a naturalistic or random mechanism.


And the quote in full:

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.


Notice the difference? I am not going to equivocate, and I am not going to set up a trap. I am going to lead you down a path that shows that macro-evolution is scientific.

How did you feel after reading that last sentence? Angry? Ready to shout at me that evolution is not scienific? I'm guessing you did, but I might be wrong.

If you did, ask yourself if you are approaching this with an open mind?

Let me back up a bit. I have been accused on this thread and others here that I am laying traps. Why? Because I am dropping the theories and looking at the evidence. This has never been done before, I've also been told on this forum.

Ten years ago I was getting incredibly frustrated when arguing with creationists because every time I tried to discuss the evidence, I was told it was impossible because I see the evidence through the goggles of evolution.

No matter how many times I tried, this always happened. That is when my tactics changed, I did on other forums what I am doing here. I bent over backwards to drop my theory and look at the empirical evidence, On all other forums but this one, that failed.

In every other place, creationists still refused to look at the evidence because they claimed the evidence was tarnished by the theory.

This led me to conclude that creationists aren't really interested in examining the evidence unless there is a theory to go along with it. It was the creationists that were talking about the competing theories.

Obviously, this is just personal opinion. What would be interested in seeing objectivelyto look at what evolutionists and creationists have put on forums. My anecdotal evidence (my memory and we know that we remember and write down much more the parts of our memory that support our views) that I have seen many evolutionists say "You aren't looking at the evidence" and I know that creationists are always saying "There is no evidence"

One side predominantly asking the other to look at evidence, and the other side predominantly refusing to even admit that any evidence exists.

Now how is this relevant:

What you are attempting to do is catch out creationists:

1. Get them to admit they believe in what you call ''micro-evolution''.
2. And because of that, then say you have to believe in macro, because micro is simply macro only on a smaller level of time.

Creationists can't be caught out, since we believe in fixed kinds. Therefore we don't believe like evolutionists that man evolved from apes, fish or rocks.

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?


Where have I attempted to do this? Show me on any thread in this forum where I have done this.

You have decided what you believe, and have stated what you don't believe.

I have only asked you whether we can propose a hypothesis of macro evolution. I have not said that there is one, I have not demanded you believe in anything, I am not even saying there is a theory of macro-evolution. In fact, I have included God inside my argument to try and move as far as possible into your way of thinking.

This is wearing me down, and I should have this ready in cut and paste, but I am not laying a trap. I am taking this in small steps so that you can see any possible trap well before it is sprung.

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?


I hadn't read your post properly. I really hadn't seen this line!!!

What I wrote earlier in this post: 'I have seen many evolutionists say "You aren't looking at the evidence" and I know that creationists are always saying "There is no evidence" '

In those posts is direct evidence. I think it is for evolution, creationists will say the evidence is for creationism. That is less important than the fact that there is empirical evidence.

Now,

Back again to the point:

You agree with variation within a species, the theory of micro-evolution.

I would like to propose that we accept that we can have a hypothesis of macro-evolution.

If you close your mind to the possibility of a hypothesis of macro-evolution then how should I view your criticisms of the theory of evolution?

#26 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 18 June 2010 - 07:37 AM

I am going to lead you down a path that shows that macro-evolution is scientific.


So far you have presented no evidence for the theory of evolution.

I have only asked you whether we can propose a hypothesis of macro evolution.


I'm interested in debating science, not mere theories. Science is 'knowledge' from observation and experiment. The theory of evolution can not be observed, tested etc. If you think i'm wrong, show some evidence i am. So far you have presented no evidence for your theory.

You agree with variation within a species, the theory of micro-evolution.


More of your trickery. I don't believe in the term 'micro-evolution' (as i have repeated). What you are doing is getting me to accept a smaller form of evolution (which i don't even believe in) and then you will say because i accept that i must accept macro, since it is micro on a larger time scale.

I don't believe in any form of evolution, so don't continue to be dishonest and use terms like 'micro-evolution'. I said i believe in mere genetic variation.

#27 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 07:55 AM

I am not trying to trap you.

The rules on this board are extremely clear, if I equivocate between micro and macro evolution, I am banned.

This is what I was proposing to do:

a) Get you to accept change within a "kind" was scientific.
b ) Highlight that because it is scientific we can call it a theory.
c) Point out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
d) Attempt to get you to accept the possibility of a hypothesis only of macro evolution.
e) Show how we can use evidence to test that hypothesis.

There is no evidence in this thread. I admit that. In other threads I am detailing the evidence.

In this thread I want to show you why evolutionists claim it is scientific. You do not need to accept it, but if you understand why you will be talking to us on our level and will be able to disagree with us for the right reasons.

Just saying "it isn't science, so there" doesn't help.

BTW Natural selection has been empirically observed. In the the laboratory. Whether you believe it or not, it does happen, and I have started a thread to discuss it:

http://www.evolution...t=0

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 June 2010 - 02:53 PM

Could you expand on this, please?

I am in danger of being accused of equivocation here, because I am talking about micro-evlution which is not allowed for evolutionists under the board rules, but as you are a moderator, I hope you will allow me because like in the other thread you linked to where I am trying to find common ground.

For the sake of this argument, I will accept creation, the global flood etc. 

After the flood, the animals micro-evolved.  What was that process?

View Post


No one here expects you to accept anything because it was forced upon you.

As far as expanding on the subject. If you take how evolutionists use ancestry as the rule. Draw it as a center and then connect it to all life forms. You could replace the word ancestry in the type of a flow chart and replace with RNA and DNA and it would still apply to all life forms. Which raises the question.

Are we related because of evolution, or that the basic template for all life is the same?

#29 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 July 2010 - 08:49 AM

Sorry Ikester, I didn't notice that you'd replied to me.

I get what you are saying. Life on Earth looks like it is related because it is in the sense that it has all been made by the same creator.

In general that works, but the devil is in the detail, they say.

If all the Kinds were seperate and distinct creations, and not related in a familial way, so that dogs were created seperately to cats, and both distinct from cattle, for example, then we would expect to see distinct differences that showed that they are not related as well as things that show that they were made using a similar plan.

There is no reason why dogs and cats should be genetically closer to each other than dogs and cows if they were seperate creations. They should have the same general form of their DNA as they are all from the same basic bodyplan, but they would each be distinct and unique.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users