Relationships aren't meant to 'end', except at death. Bitter rivalry with a once dear friend, breaking up with your wife, etc - none of these things are "good". They are the way things shouldn't be.
The fact that you see relationships as a temporary thing is probably a reflection of your no compromise attitude - that's the best you can hope for. And your attitude encourages that which you should fight against.
This has always interested me when people say this - Why "the wife", why not "my wife"? It sounds like she's more of an object, like "the dog", or "the car". Saying "my wife" seems far more personal.
MMORPGs are the devil on relationships because you can't always just turn it off because there's always something to do in game before you turn it off.
This is precisely the reason I have avoided looking at buying one. I know that once I start I may not stop - I used to be a heavy MUDder for a while.
In the past, people usually cared about the legacy they left to their children - if they had them. Leaving your children a vast fortune, or property, etc, was a grand gift to them to continue on your name after you depart.
Imagine a scenario of one who claims to be able to tell the location of hidden objects through psychic powers. It can be tested in this manner:
Hide an object from the one claiming psychic powers. Remove all possibilities of them having known where you hid it.
If they are able to tell you where the object is hidden, then a supernatural answer may be required after all natural explanations are elimintated.
The supernatural and spiritual are not beyond science's potential to test.
None of these are scientific questions and so scientific theories (such as evolution) do not address them and are unaffected by them.
What scientific theory of evolution? Anyone who claims common ancestry is not making a scientific claim.
Oh, side note - my email may be having troubles, so can you post a quick note here please to let me know when you've sent it? That way I'll know if it's worked or not.
So, you can see fundamental flaws in all that then? If you have devised this concept, it's your problem then isn't it?
I don't understand...those things I listed are precisely what those who previously were called "evolutionists" taught. Besides, I haven't made up the term darwinism. You may also find the definition of neo-darwinism informative.
Yes, I will, but I'd much rather hear what argument from the book you find most convincing.
That assumes I found one particular argument more convincing than another. I have found many of the arguments in that book powerful, along with other books and articles I have read. There is no "best of breed" in my mind. Others may have favourites.
Given that 'darwinism' is something you have defined on your own, I'll have to say "I don't know, are there any problems? and what is darwinism anyway?"
Well, perhaps you can see above that it isn't a term I coined.
As they said, the theory of evolution is *not* "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", that's the definition of evolution and an observed fact.
I rarely notice responses by AC's, since I rely on email to inform me of a response. Everyone has their own view on what the scientific theory of evolution is. One says this, another says that. I simply gave you what I am mostly pointed to. So often people say to me, "give us a scientific theory of creationism". I say, give me a scientific one of evolution, and I will give one back that is of the same kind. I've never had to answer this challenge. They claim that creationism is not falsifiable, but the general theory of evolution that involves common ancestry includes many elements that are not falsifiable. One cannot falsify, for example, the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. There is simply no piece of evidence we could conceivably find that would test or falsify that claim.
Please explain! Every person? Why?
A generalisation. Why are you being so pedantic? The answer seems inescapably obvious:
If we are the result of blind mutations, and our greatness was measured by our ability to rape, steal, murder, cooperate, teamwork, etc - then there is no right or wrong. I have no responsibility or accountability for my actions other than what is artificially placed by those weaker or stronger than me.
If we are the result of a creative Intelligence in a short time, then ultimately murder, rape, theft, etc, are evil things, and we will be held responsible and accountable.
How many people do not care about the questions that define the meaning of their existence? You may say most people - but how many of those believe there is a God? Everyone wants to know their life. I simply do not believe you if you tell me that the question of our origins will retain objective thinking. Our origins is a philosophical question with enormous ramifications for every aspect of our life and culture. Scientists may try to be objective - but in _this_ instance, the question has much more at stake than a study into the breeding cycles of elephants. Scientists are humans too, with their own biases, emotions, and desires.
As the AC said, if you can show evidence of a creature with no common ancestor with all other life on Earth, then the statement "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" is false.
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove to me that there isn't an invisible, untouchable leprechaun in my garden? All I can point to is lack of evidence supporting the claim, and that this answer is improbable. I cannot provide you with proof that it never happened.
Unfortunately Gould passed away last year. Why are you worried about the hypothetical reaction of Dawkins on the matter? Does the opinion of an authority outweigh the facts?
What's your point? I have no idea what you are talking about here, or wh
The "Please go right ahead" is an implied "yes". So, yes it does follow (well, it should to any native English speaker).
I wasn't talking about his demand that I outline the fundamental problems with evolution. I was saying that such a request does not follow from my original question.
Also, if it's not true that you hold those beliefs, then you should put a disclaimer to avoid confusion. Alternatively, instead of saying in your reply that a logical assumption and request does not follow one of your statements, you should simply point out that you didn't mean to imply such and that you hold no such beliefs, because logical expectation and causation is on his side here.
Then I was right not to put such a disclaimer. However, I find it interesting that if I put such a disclaimer, then you would be able to answer my question - but as soon as you think I do believe there are fundamental problems, my question can't be answered, but the topic must be changed.
Something I've found is that people with "radical" ideas who nitpick phrases and continually force arguments over semantics and tangental topics usually don't actually have ANY argument. Not simply a bad one, but NONE. You just CAN'T get them to tell you their theories.
My ideas aren't really "radical". I'll tell you why I won't share the problems, as I put in another post: Case point of why I don't argue on slashdot - I pointed out the book "Darwin on Trial" as a reference for my problems (after all, why should I reproduce an entire book on slashdot?). What I received then was a link to a critique of the book, which the person I responded to thought was sufficient reason to not read the book. I then looked at this critique, and began writing a response to it. I realised after an hour of writing that there were so many flaws and inaccuracies that it would take me many more hours to complete. And that's just from me posting a link to a book! This happens no matter what I post, so much so that the debate bogs down, my time is consumed, and nothing is achieved.
On slashdot it degenerates into link-sharing, hours of effort for a single post, and nothing learned before the topic closes. Why waste my time? I have at time made email offers for debate when I have the time available (which I don't right now). That is a far better medium for discussion - and it filters out the rude also.
One does not hold a belief unless they think it is true. However, I do acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, and that another denomication holds a more correct view.
The original post was about God, and was a discussion that assumed His existence. Really, if you don't believe God exists, then you have nothing much to add to the original conversation.
lol! You troll every single thread that mentions the word "evolution"!
Yes I do. But you have difficulty distinguishing between "reminding people of the debate through introduction" and "presenting a full length argument against evolution and defending it from all attacks". The latter is a nightmare - ever tried to answer 5 posts for every single post you make? So I do the former. Which is what I originally said. Which gives you no reason to laugh.
You claimed genuine scientific objections, then you say "oh! Poor me! I did not claim such problems existed!".
Is it my turn to laugh now? You just quoted and supported _exactly_ what I was saying. My argument was about people's propensity to laugh and mock first, then listen. I then asked why it is absurd to present fundamental problems. I did NOT ask if such problems exist. Perhaps you have difficulty distinguishing between the fine points. I was simply asking what's so wrong about presenting these arguments online? My answer was that there should be no problem. People should respond first with listening and then mockery, not mockery first and then listen. It was an argument about the climate of the discussion on slashdot, not about the content of the argument. I don't know why you can't see that - but you did quote it, very nicely, so anyone else will see.
And before you start your standard "they mock me while I am oh so polite!" bitching, lets look at your half-disguised attacks/mockeries/insults from that post alone:
their childishness
listening ear (no matter how blocked it is)
you may think it clever
without sufficient depth
So stop the martyr act and either put up your "genuine scientific objections" or go back to church.
1. their childishness - This was accurate. They call me names (as you are), use insults and mockery to try to win the debate. That is not good form, and is, precisely, childish. Adults should argue the facts, while children resort to insults.
2. listening ear (no matter how blocked it is) - yes, I will admit that there was some mockery here of certain others I have dealt with in the past. It was not, however, directed at the original poster. Just like I don't take it personally when darwinists tell me of the ignorance of other creationists they've argued with
3. you may think it clever - I was responding in kind to his cocky request. It was intended to cut him short and remind him that this wasn't about him making whirlwind requests, but about a different topic that he was trying to derail.
4. without sufficient depth - I have no idea how you think this one is an attack/mockery/insult. It was a simple fact - when you argue with five people, your time runs out. You don't get enough time to deal with each topic in detail, but instead must brush over them in order to race to the next person and answer them. What made you think that this was anything derogatory?
Now you can answer me - why am I not allowed to ask the question, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" in order to determine why people mock first, then listen? Why do you have to try to turn that question into another topic instead without dealing with the one I'm asking? Am I not permitted to choose a debate topic? You replied to me, but you are not obliged to. Nor am I obliged to respect your change of topic.
Case point of why I don't argue on slashdot - I pointed out the book "Darwin on Trial" as a reference for my problems (after all, why should I reproduce an entire book on slashdot?). What I received then was a link to a critique of the book, which the person I responded to thought was sufficient reason to not read the book. I then looked at this critique, and began writing a response to it. I realised after an hour of writing that there were so many flaws and inaccuracies that it would take me many more hours to complete. And that's just from me posting a link to a book! This happens no matter what I post, so much so that the debate bogs down, my time is consumed, and nothing is achieved.
Nice list, but completely misses the point. Naturalism: "(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"
So, even for someone who does not hold to the naturalistic philosophy would still agree that all those theories hold scientific explanations without recourse to the supernatural. The difference is that he admits: a. That not everything can be understood through science (indeed, some questions can only be answered by philosophy) b. That there may be supernatural or spiritual explanations for some things
So you are using the term 'darwinist' to describe someone who feels that the theory of evolution provides an adequate explanation for the history of life on earth, right?
I am using the term 'darwinism' to be a catch all phrase for, among other things:
1. All life shares a common ancestor
2. Slow, gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium (therefore a rejection of Gould's 'Hopeful Monster')
3. Naturalism (as opposed to scientific theories that are not naturalistic)
Possibly other things I'm forgetting.
Have you read it though? There are many others if you don't like that one.
I'm currently writing a response to this article, but there are so many mistakes that it is getting quite long. I want to know - if I'm responding, are you interested enough to read my response? Have you read Spitzer's thoughts? Not sure I should be wasting my time.
Ugh. Another 10 minute break here - thought I'd read some more in case there was an actual reasonable objection - but it gets worse! I really don't think this article is worth my time. I'm wondering if this guy actually read the book properly. Where he claims Johnson was misrepresenting people...how he claims they originally said these things is exactly the way I perceived it when I read Johnson's book. But there's much more. I might finish, or I might write a part - it all depends on your interest level.
I'm not wasting good money on obviously bogus arguments and dishonest misrepresentations. I have seen enough examples of his illogical arguments and quote mining tactics to see what he is about. How is a lawyer qualified to judge what is and isn't science?
Have you seen this? What does that say about Johnsons motives and impartiality?
Heh...maybe if I found a real objection I might agree. Perhaps Spitzer and I are reading different editions - I do have the second printing. Then again, Spitzer's article is from 2002, and the second printing was in 1993. I have no reason to suspect Johnson's integrity.
"Should I buy "Darwin on Trial", the Intelligent Designologist manifesto, even though its author is blatantly dishonest and each and every argument he has presented has been totally refuted?"
Yes or no?
IF it was blatantly dishonest, then you should not buy it. But it is not. You would see for yourself if you read the book and understood it. Spitzer clearly did not. I cannot believe how far off track he was. And I don't get your point with this "yes or no" rubbish. You still haven't told me why I was wrong to ask for 'yes or no' - you're just monkeying around with irrelevant mockery. Just because you went off topic without answering the question is no reason to blame me for pointing it out.
Great, but what makes you think it has not applied in the past?
I don't understand what you are saying. I think "evolution" (the scientific definition I provided), such as natural selection and adaptation, has been in operation since the beginning of life.
It's a collection of statements about the mechanisms and processes like natural selection by which organisms evolve.
That all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is just a plain simple fact, not part of the theory.
A plain simple fact? That is the crux of the debate. It is certainly not a fact. What would you say is the scientific theory of evolution? Usually I get pointed to "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". I have no problem with that. I once was pointed to Darwin's Origin of Species, but that is outdated and considered flawed in part. Ie, it doesn't represent modern darwinism.
Yes, maybe it does. So?
So? So, that means that every person on this planet has a reason to be biased about this topic. That's what.
Transitional forms can be predicted, and have been, and there are many ways that common descent can be falsified. Try finding a Permian bird fossil for instanc
Your argument is based on a fatal misconception - that God's mind is like men's, unconcerned with things beneath Him. If God is all powerful and all knowing, then nothing would escape His notice, and nothing would be beyond His care. I'm not sure how you could miss this critical point.
I'm as concerned about "a direct attack on God" as I am of "a direct attack on the Tooth Fairy"... that is to say, not at all.
Which about sums up how concerned I am by your misunderstanding of God and His care for men.
Would you say that you have more than "just evidence" involved in your 'conversion' to creationism?
I am against Darwinism (see below) whether or not I ascribe to creationism.
Johnson is a lawyer, and argues like one. Science is not a courtroom, and even if it was, he still has no "Exhibit A" to submit to the jury, nor even an expert witness.
Please take the time to read this critique of "Darwin on Trial".
It may not surprise you to hear that I've already seen that critique. Have you read Johnson's book? The point of his book is that darwinism, by and large, simply isn't about science. Therefore comments on him being a lawyer are entirely irrelevant.
Surely you can see that I was demonstrating the problem with your original question?
You did nothing of the sort. Both of your questions - if appropriately addressed - warrant a yes or no answer. You did not answer my initial question, but instead changed what it was asking and addressed that. In both instances I addressed your question at hand.
1. There is no "darwinist model".
There most certainly is. It is a convenient term to distinguish from, say, those who ascribe to punctuated equilibrium, and again from creationists. It is not a derogatory term - it is simply a nice description to help define the terms involved. Debates can become bogged down due to unclear uses - this is an attempt to help clarify that. If I simply said "evolutionist", then it means way too many things to be useful.
2. Assuming you mean the Theory of Evolution, there are no known fundamental problems.
If you mean "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time" then yes, I agree with you. If you mean "All living things share a common ancestor", then no - I don't agree with you.
3. If you are claiming to have some knowledge of one or more fundamental problems, I'd like to know what they are.
I've already addressed you to a book. There are plenty of other resources. If you genuinely want to know what they are, then you can research - but I can't summarise many books worth of information into a small slashdot debate. The problem with this debate goes far beyond problems with darwinism. There is the problem of misunderstood terms, unclear distinction between different uses of it, etc. People, for example, offer proof of one form of the word 'evolution', and then by deception say that all uses of the word 'evolution' now have proof. That just isn't the case.
See, it's not a yes or no answer now is it?
Only because you're not answering the question, but assuming other questions, and including your own thoughts to justify your answers. You could just say "No, it's not unreasonable to present fudamental problems with darwinism". Or you could say, "Yes it's unreasonable." Your third 'point' answered the question. Your second 'point' answered it the opposite way. The only thing I think you could say is a criticism of my use of the term 'darwinist' - but that is just a case of me having not defined the terms I was using initially.
I'm not a Darwinist by the way. The term seems to imply a person dedicated to some cause, but the fact is just I happen to agree with current scientific thinking on the origins of life on earth, on the basis that they have actual evidence for it.
Sure, and the mainstream scientific view is darwinism. It is a nice way to distinguish from puntuated equilibrium, creationists, and other views of 'evolution'. It is much better than saying 'evolutionist' because that can mean so many things. According to the scientific definition of evolution I would consider myself an evolutionist. What do you consider to be the scientific theory of evolution?
Implying that thousan
Re:"even if this is arguable these days"?
on
When Robots Play Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So you have credible evidence then? Why aren't you rushing off to your nearest university biology department?
For the same reason the atheist does not run into the church to speak with the priest with his evidence. He doesn't expect they will listen, because there's more than just evidence involved in the person's conversion.
I want to hear your claims because you are implying that there actually are fundamental problems.
You want to hear my claims? It's nice of you to be interested, but it's still nothing to do with my original post. I'll recommend a book to you instead. This book summarises the problems excellently, and it's far better than me trying to write a book-length response: "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. You can find it on Amazon.
Should I get modded down for pointing out the many serious problems with Linux?
No you shouldn't.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Wah...? Where did this come from?
1. I don't have a wife
2. If I did, I wouldn't beat her, so I wouldn't need to stop.
Come on, yes or no answers please!
What in the world is your point?
You could have outlined one of these fundamental problems in the time it took to write this. If you don't think this is a good medium for discussion, why did you raise the subject? Thanks for responding this time though.
Because some discussions slashdot is suited to - mass conversion through introduction. Build up interest and curiosity to something so those with the time and inclination can spend what is necessary to find out more. Also, so that when darwinist posts are made, people realise that there are actually others, within the geek community, that have objections. Geeks are generally curious and some will want to find out more.
Anyone who has credible evidence will not be ignored, no matter which cult they do or don't belong to. If they don't have credible evidence to back up their claims, they will be ignored (or laughed at). It's as simple as that.
My experience is quite different. People will ignore me, and mock me - and then after I persist and point out their childishness and present my arguments, they apologise and get into more serious debate. The mockery comes first, and after that is weathered out, then comes the listening ear (no matter how blocked it is).
Please go right ahead, I'd really like to hear it.
Actually, given a statement like that, I insist that you back up your claims.
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows. I asked, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" The question asks nothing about whether such problems exist. It simply asks, if such problems do exist, then is it unreasonable to outline them? To answer that question you would have to say either "yes" or "no". Me simply outlining the problems does nothing to resolve my original question - after all, you may still consider it unreasonable to outline real, fundamental problems - and therefore have not answered my question.
There is one other 'problem' - I tend to restrict my debates on slashdot, because it really isn't the best medium for discussion of this topic. It quickly branches off into multiple areas, without sufficient depth in each, and I find myself having to respond to five people for every post I make. I sometimes end up communicating with people via email, but again due to time constraints must restrict that.
I don't understand how that was against God's wishes or a "direct attack on God." God had, at that point in the Old Testament, laid out very few rules and regulations for humanity. This is the only point in the Bible that humanity is unified about ANYTHING, and God choses to intervene and prevent a unified and together humanity.
Given the context and story involved, it is clear that this behaviour was an affront to God. Humanity did it, it says, because they feared being scattered across the earth. Ultimately, God would be doing the scattering, so it is also clear from here that it was against God, not for Him.
It doesn't tell us much more, but what I have said I think we can be sure of. It doesn't say how exactly this would mean that nothing would be beyond us. It doesn't say what a tower into the heavens means - whether the heaven where God dwells, or the stars in the sky. There are many things we are not told.
But why would God fear humanity?
An excellent question that I have pondered on occasion too. Unfortunately, I have no answer (and even if I did have an answer, there's no guaruntee I'm right). My best guess is that the ancients knew more about God, spirituality, etc, than we ever will. I have a view of society that sees our knowledge of spiritual truth deteriorating over time. Going in cycles, but each time the cycle repeats, getting further from the truth. With this additional knowledge, they knew exactly the power that God has created humans with, and they wished to do something that would be within the groundwork that He laid out for men. Such that He could not refuse it - not because He is not all powerful, but rather for the same reasons He cannot sin. Probably a very bad explanation. As I said, I don't know.
(Of course, this is written by someone who finds the concept of a literal interprutation of the Bible to an unrealistic idea.)
Given what I said above, just because I can't answer every question doesn't mean there isn't an answer. What you need to look for is unresolvable conflicts. What was presented here was a potentially resolvable conflict once more data is available. There are conceivable scenarios where such a situation could have occurred - therefore making a literal interpretation non-contradictory.
Though I reject darwinism, natural selection and adaptaion still play a role. They could potentially be quite useful for the creation of robots as suggested.
Our God is a Creator God, and He made us in His image. We therefore are also creators - mimicking Him. If our creations are a rebellion against Him, then of course He will be displeased. But it is possible for us to do these things and still give Him honour. The tower of Babel was a direct attack on God: Come, let us bild ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.
It sounds to me like this was a plan directly aimed as a defense against God should He choose to intervene.
And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too? Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?
Re:"even if this is arguable these days"?
on
When Robots Play Games
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Similarly, what does it mean to "slow" evolution? Mutations occur at the same rate as before, reproductive rates (recombination events) aren't decreased by what you describe. I don't see how this is "slowing" evolution. If anything, it's increasing it, in that we're preserving a wider variety of genes.
This disagreement is a direct result of the problem of having multiple meanings for evolution. Evolution can mean whatever the arguer likes - such that proof of one form of 'evolution' is then flipped to imply that all uses of the word 'evolution' have proof, which isn't the case.
Natural Selection and adaptation is, in effect, a reduction in the diversity of the gene pool. Harmful genes are removed, while beneficial ones are given freedom to dominate. This results in the loss of genes, but is called 'evolution'.
Then we also have mutations. These produce changes in an organism, but are almost always harmless/harmful. This process of introducing new diversity (however limited it may be) is also called 'evolution'.
A big problem of this debate is the fluid meanings of 'evolution'. That is why I tend to use the word "darwinist" instead of "evolutionist". The former describes a specific viewpoint on the origin of life, while the latter, scientifically described, would be:
"A change in allele frequencies in a population over time". With that I have no dispute. When the darwinists add more, then I have an issue.
Once upon a time on slashdot, simply saying anything against evolution was a surefire way of having you dropped to -1, off topic, flamebait, or troll, even if you were none of those. People would use their mod points to win an argument instead of responding. Nowadays the situation is much more tolerable - and some are coming to recognise that darwinism was adopted, not because of any amount of proof, but because it was popular. It has never enjoyed good evidence. That is why scientists are so eager to trumpet every latest discovery as proof of evolution. Unfortunately for them, the evolution that does have proof is the scientific one I gave above - changes in allele frequencies. That all living things share a common ancestor is unproven, and seems unlikely.
A friend of mine who is a nurse said that the use of drugs such as marijuana can cause those with a propensity for schizophrenia to develop it, when they otherwise may not. In particular those with a family history for it.
Are you sure that even in such a case you won't go "aha, but GOD put those remains there!"
I will NOT use that explanation. Ever. Assuming you are talking about the defense, "God put old fossils there to test us".
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views?
If you find a fossil that proves common ancestry, then yes, I will affirm it. However, just finding a fossil that you think proves common ancestry does not mean it does. First find the proof, then we'll talk.
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
Who is that? My faith in God is based on what I consider proofs and evidence. You base your belief on naturalism, I'm assuming: "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations". Since I believe in God (and proof that He exists), I cannot ascribe to naturalism. It's really a simple concept. And without naturalism, Darwinism no longer becomes the simplest answer. It becomes an incredibly convoluted and complex answer.
Have you ever even READ Darwin's works?
Not sure if I should be embarrassed or not. No, I have not - but I don't think that disqualifies me from being able to understand the theory. After all, I have been informed a number of times that Dawwin's works are outdated - and while good for a general understanding, no longer represent the modern Darwinist model. This is usually in response to my mention of some of the many problems with his theory.
Care to some of these 'many things' that point to a young earth?
I'd rather not get into the details on this forum, since it's not good to debate. My primary concern is to demonstrate the problems with Darwinism, not to defend young earth creationism or any other model. So I'll quickly give you these links, and ask (perhaps unfairly) that we not get into a detail on the specifics:
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?I
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources? Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
No - it doesn't to you. You are stating your personal opinion as fact. There is no point, as you disagree what is evidence.
You don't even know what problems I have with the whale fossil sequence, yet you assume the type and character of my objections.
Of course it can be tested, and falsified. Suppose I find a bacterium on Mars. I propose it has common ancestry with that on Earth. So what do we do? We look for DNA, and we look for common sequences. If we find DNA at all, that is a good suggestion of common origin. The more conserved sequences (such as ribosome structure) the more likely that it is common.
None of that is good evidence for darwinism if you assume the existence of God. Darwinism is based on naturalism - the philosophy that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations. While you personally may hold to that view, it is not a reasonable assumption. People assume naturalism because darwinism allows them to. Darwinism is a valid theory if one first assumes naturalism - it's circular logic.
Regardless - first one would have to find this evidence on Mars, and at the moment that is quite a feat, making it an unfeasible experiment, at least for now. Darwin himself had no chance. Even if we discovered life there it doesn't prove common ancestry. It just proves that whatever life is on earth somehow ended up on Mars, or vice versa. Any explanation of common ancestry is an extrapolation of the facts which isn't necessarily true.
DNA sequences can be examined and easily arranged in a tree of similarity. The tree of similarity is either damn good evidence of common ancestry or the most mind-numbingly astronomically unlikely coincidence.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. That because DNA is similar that it must have a similar ancestor? That doesn't follow. Computers, cars, and toasters all have great similarities - they use similar electronic components, they all have an outer casing of metal, etc. Yet the only similar "ancestry" they share is the same creator. What you need is a mechanism by which simple life can become what we see today.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism predicts that species will adapt to change through evolution.
My point still stands - no matter what absurd situation arises, Darwinism will explain it. If a creature fails to adapt, darwinism explains it. If a creature succeeds at adapting, darwinism explains it. If a harmful mutation propagates itself throughout a population, darwinism explains it. If a beneficial mutation does the same, darwinism explains it. There is no conceivable counter situation to darwin's prediction. That is why it explains everything, predicts nothing, and is therefore useless. Many times people have tried to give me an example of something that would disprove Darwinism, and failed. Perhaps you could do better.
Darwinism predicted what Gregor Mendel found. Darwinism predicted the nature of genetic material. It was realised from the structure of DNA that it must be the genetic material because it would allow Darwinian evolution.
Darwin observed the finches and theorised on adaptation. Mendel's research was into inheritence. Honsestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence, but I see no difficulty here.
We can actually see that in action. There have been cases (such as beak shape in birds on an island) where such adaptations have arisen and spread through populations within a few human lifetimes!
Darwinism actually predicts slow speciation. Such rapid changes are counter to darwinism - but due to its versatile nature, it can again successfully predict and/or explain anything. For an opposing theory, the young earth creation theory (perhaps others too) predicts rapid speciation and changes like this. It does nothing to prove Darwinism above the others.
Wrong. They show a very clear and simple sequence, illustrating at every stage how adaptations to aquatic life appear and are selected for.
This could just end up as a "he says, she says" situation. Slashdot is definitely not the best medium for offerring up evidences, but instead just stating what we are convinced is fact. And for me, I've seen the reasons why whale fossils are thought to demonstrate darwinism, and it simply doesn't. This portion of the conversation though can go no further till we start pointing to evidence.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism was arrived at because of the fossil record.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Darwin predicted that in the future the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils. He was shown to be dismally wrong - but instead of acknowledging this weakness, the theory was instead changed to show how darwinism predicts a mostly absence of transitional fossils. That to me counters directly your claim that Darwinism was originally accepted because of the fossil record. My understanding, also, was that Darwins conclusions were based off the ideas of people earlier than him, and inferences he drew from his observations with the finches.
Galapagos finches. Australian flora and fauna. New and Old world monkeys. Madagascar species. There are plenty of examples of how species arise because of isolation.
Citing these as proof shows a gross misunderstanding of the controversy and its alternatives. I have no problem with the scientific definition so far as it is defined as "a change in allele frequencies of a population over time". When 'evolution' comes to also mean the common ancestry of all living things, then I have a problem. The finches, flora and fauna, new and old world monkeys, Madagascar species, arrival of new species - NONE of these provide proof that all living things share a common ancestor. They affirm beyond doubt the scientific definition of evolution I cited above, but say nothing of the common ancestry of all living things.
There is proof for those who choose to look, and not follow blind and ignorant dogma.
And, as I said just before, you miss the entire point of the controversy in the first place. There is no dispute about changes, adaptation, natural solution. The dispute is whether all life descends from a common ancestor or not. THAT has no fossil evidence, and has no biological mechanism that sufficiently explains it. That (common ancestry) is also not a scientific claim - it is not something that can be empirically tested, repeated, and at the moment cannot be falsified.
Darwinism is a theory that explains everything and predicts nothing - and is therefore useless.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you see relationships as a temporary thing is probably a reflection of your no compromise attitude - that's the best you can hope for. And your attitude encourages that which you should fight against.
This has always interested me when people say this - Why "the wife", why not "my wife"? It sounds like she's more of an object, like "the dog", or "the car". Saying "my wife" seems far more personal.
This is precisely the reason I have avoided looking at buying one. I know that once I start I may not stop - I used to be a heavy MUDder for a while.
In the past, people usually cared about the legacy they left to their children - if they had them. Leaving your children a vast fortune, or property, etc, was a grand gift to them to continue on your name after you depart.
If they are able to tell you where the object is hidden, then a supernatural answer may be required after all natural explanations are elimintated.
The supernatural and spiritual are not beyond science's potential to test.
None of these are scientific questions and so scientific theories (such as evolution) do not address them and are unaffected by them.
What scientific theory of evolution? Anyone who claims common ancestry is not making a scientific claim.
Oh, side note - my email may be having troubles, so can you post a quick note here please to let me know when you've sent it? That way I'll know if it's worked or not.
I don't understand...those things I listed are precisely what those who previously were called "evolutionists" taught. Besides, I haven't made up the term darwinism. You may also find the definition of neo-darwinism informative.
Yes, I will, but I'd much rather hear what argument from the book you find most convincing.
That assumes I found one particular argument more convincing than another. I have found many of the arguments in that book powerful, along with other books and articles I have read. There is no "best of breed" in my mind. Others may have favourites.
Given that 'darwinism' is something you have defined on your own, I'll have to say "I don't know, are there any problems? and what is darwinism anyway?"
Well, perhaps you can see above that it isn't a term I coined.
As they said, the theory of evolution is *not* "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", that's the definition of evolution and an observed fact.
I rarely notice responses by AC's, since I rely on email to inform me of a response. Everyone has their own view on what the scientific theory of evolution is. One says this, another says that. I simply gave you what I am mostly pointed to. So often people say to me, "give us a scientific theory of creationism". I say, give me a scientific one of evolution, and I will give one back that is of the same kind. I've never had to answer this challenge. They claim that creationism is not falsifiable, but the general theory of evolution that involves common ancestry includes many elements that are not falsifiable. One cannot falsify, for example, the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. There is simply no piece of evidence we could conceivably find that would test or falsify that claim.
Please explain! Every person? Why?
A generalisation. Why are you being so pedantic? The answer seems inescapably obvious:
If we are the result of blind mutations, and our greatness was measured by our ability to rape, steal, murder, cooperate, teamwork, etc - then there is no right or wrong. I have no responsibility or accountability for my actions other than what is artificially placed by those weaker or stronger than me.
If we are the result of a creative Intelligence in a short time, then ultimately murder, rape, theft, etc, are evil things, and we will be held responsible and accountable.
How many people do not care about the questions that define the meaning of their existence? You may say most people - but how many of those believe there is a God? Everyone wants to know their life. I simply do not believe you if you tell me that the question of our origins will retain objective thinking. Our origins is a philosophical question with enormous ramifications for every aspect of our life and culture. Scientists may try to be objective - but in _this_ instance, the question has much more at stake than a study into the breeding cycles of elephants. Scientists are humans too, with their own biases, emotions, and desires.
As the AC said, if you can show evidence of a creature with no common ancestor with all other life on Earth, then the statement "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" is false.
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove to me that there isn't an invisible, untouchable leprechaun in my garden? All I can point to is lack of evidence supporting the claim, and that this answer is improbable. I cannot provide you with proof that it never happened.
Unfortunately Gould passed away last year. Why are you worried about the hypothetical reaction of Dawkins on the matter? Does the opinion of an authority outweigh the facts?
What's your point? I have no idea what you are talking about here, or wh
I wasn't talking about his demand that I outline the fundamental problems with evolution. I was saying that such a request does not follow from my original question.
Then I was right not to put such a disclaimer. However, I find it interesting that if I put such a disclaimer, then you would be able to answer my question - but as soon as you think I do believe there are fundamental problems, my question can't be answered, but the topic must be changed.
My ideas aren't really "radical". I'll tell you why I won't share the problems, as I put in another post:
Case point of why I don't argue on slashdot - I pointed out the book "Darwin on Trial" as a reference for my problems (after all, why should I reproduce an entire book on slashdot?). What I received then was a link to a critique of the book, which the person I responded to thought was sufficient reason to not read the book. I then looked at this critique, and began writing a response to it. I realised after an hour of writing that there were so many flaws and inaccuracies that it would take me many more hours to complete. And that's just from me posting a link to a book! This happens no matter what I post, so much so that the debate bogs down, my time is consumed, and nothing is achieved.
On slashdot it degenerates into link-sharing, hours of effort for a single post, and nothing learned before the topic closes. Why waste my time? I have at time made email offers for debate when I have the time available (which I don't right now). That is a far better medium for discussion - and it filters out the rude also.
The original post was about God, and was a discussion that assumed His existence. Really, if you don't believe God exists, then you have nothing much to add to the original conversation.
Yes I do. But you have difficulty distinguishing between "reminding people of the debate through introduction" and "presenting a full length argument against evolution and defending it from all attacks". The latter is a nightmare - ever tried to answer 5 posts for every single post you make? So I do the former. Which is what I originally said. Which gives you no reason to laugh.
Is it my turn to laugh now? You just quoted and supported _exactly_ what I was saying. My argument was about people's propensity to laugh and mock first, then listen. I then asked why it is absurd to present fundamental problems. I did NOT ask if such problems exist. Perhaps you have difficulty distinguishing between the fine points. I was simply asking what's so wrong about presenting these arguments online? My answer was that there should be no problem. People should respond first with listening and then mockery, not mockery first and then listen. It was an argument about the climate of the discussion on slashdot, not about the content of the argument. I don't know why you can't see that - but you did quote it, very nicely, so anyone else will see.
1. their childishness - This was accurate. They call me names (as you are), use insults and mockery to try to win the debate. That is not good form, and is, precisely, childish. Adults should argue the facts, while children resort to insults.
2. listening ear (no matter how blocked it is) - yes, I will admit that there was some mockery here of certain others I have dealt with in the past. It was not, however, directed at the original poster. Just like I don't take it personally when darwinists tell me of the ignorance of other creationists they've argued with
3. you may think it clever - I was responding in kind to his cocky request. It was intended to cut him short and remind him that this wasn't about him making whirlwind requests, but about a different topic that he was trying to derail.
4. without sufficient depth - I have no idea how you think this one is an attack/mockery/insult. It was a simple fact - when you argue with five people, your time runs out. You don't get enough time to deal with each topic in detail, but instead must brush over them in order to race to the next person and answer them. What made you think that this was anything derogatory?
Now you can answer me - why am I not allowed to ask the question, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" in order to determine why people mock first, then listen? Why do you have to try to turn that question into another topic instead without dealing with the one I'm asking? Am I not permitted to choose a debate topic? You replied to me, but you are not obliged to. Nor am I obliged to respect your change of topic.
Case point of why I don't argue on slashdot - I pointed out the book "Darwin on Trial" as a reference for my problems (after all, why should I reproduce an entire book on slashdot?). What I received then was a link to a critique of the book, which the person I responded to thought was sufficient reason to not read the book. I then looked at this critique, and began writing a response to it. I realised after an hour of writing that there were so many flaws and inaccuracies that it would take me many more hours to complete. And that's just from me posting a link to a book! This happens no matter what I post, so much so that the debate bogs down, my time is consumed, and nothing is achieved.
Nice list, but completely misses the point. Naturalism:
"(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"
So, even for someone who does not hold to the naturalistic philosophy would still agree that all those theories hold scientific explanations without recourse to the supernatural. The difference is that he admits:
a. That not everything can be understood through science (indeed, some questions can only be answered by philosophy)
b. That there may be supernatural or spiritual explanations for some things
I am using the term 'darwinism' to be a catch all phrase for, among other things:
1. All life shares a common ancestor
2. Slow, gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium (therefore a rejection of Gould's 'Hopeful Monster')
3. Naturalism (as opposed to scientific theories that are not naturalistic)
Possibly other things I'm forgetting.
Have you read it though? There are many others if you don't like that one.
I'm currently writing a response to this article, but there are so many mistakes that it is getting quite long. I want to know - if I'm responding, are you interested enough to read my response? Have you read Spitzer's thoughts? Not sure I should be wasting my time.
Ugh. Another 10 minute break here - thought I'd read some more in case there was an actual reasonable objection - but it gets worse! I really don't think this article is worth my time. I'm wondering if this guy actually read the book properly. Where he claims Johnson was misrepresenting people...how he claims they originally said these things is exactly the way I perceived it when I read Johnson's book. But there's much more. I might finish, or I might write a part - it all depends on your interest level.
I'm not wasting good money on obviously bogus arguments and dishonest misrepresentations. I have seen enough examples of his illogical arguments and quote mining tactics to see what he is about. How is a lawyer qualified to judge what is and isn't science?
Have you seen this? What does that say about Johnsons motives and impartiality?
Heh...maybe if I found a real objection I might agree. Perhaps Spitzer and I are reading different editions - I do have the second printing. Then again, Spitzer's article is from 2002, and the second printing was in 1993. I have no reason to suspect Johnson's integrity.
"Should I buy "Darwin on Trial", the Intelligent Designologist manifesto, even though its author is blatantly dishonest and each and every argument he has presented has been totally refuted?"
Yes or no?
IF it was blatantly dishonest, then you should not buy it. But it is not. You would see for yourself if you read the book and understood it. Spitzer clearly did not. I cannot believe how far off track he was. And I don't get your point with this "yes or no" rubbish. You still haven't told me why I was wrong to ask for 'yes or no' - you're just monkeying around with irrelevant mockery. Just because you went off topic without answering the question is no reason to blame me for pointing it out. Great, but what makes you think it has not applied in the past?
I don't understand what you are saying. I think "evolution" (the scientific definition I provided), such as natural selection and adaptation, has been in operation since the beginning of life.
It's a collection of statements about the mechanisms and processes like natural selection by which organisms evolve.
That all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is just a plain simple fact, not part of the theory.
A plain simple fact? That is the crux of the debate. It is certainly not a fact. What would you say is the scientific theory of evolution? Usually I get pointed to "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". I have no problem with that. I once was pointed to Darwin's Origin of Species, but that is outdated and considered flawed in part. Ie, it doesn't represent modern darwinism. Yes, maybe it does. So?
So? So, that means that every person on this planet has a reason to be biased about this topic. That's what.
Transitional forms can be predicted, and have been, and there are many ways that common descent can be falsified. Try finding a Permian bird fossil for instanc
Which about sums up how concerned I am by your misunderstanding of God and His care for men.
I am against Darwinism (see below) whether or not I ascribe to creationism.
It may not surprise you to hear that I've already seen that critique. Have you read Johnson's book? The point of his book is that darwinism, by and large, simply isn't about science. Therefore comments on him being a lawyer are entirely irrelevant.
You did nothing of the sort. Both of your questions - if appropriately addressed - warrant a yes or no answer. You did not answer my initial question, but instead changed what it was asking and addressed that. In both instances I addressed your question at hand.
There most certainly is. It is a convenient term to distinguish from, say, those who ascribe to punctuated equilibrium, and again from creationists. It is not a derogatory term - it is simply a nice description to help define the terms involved. Debates can become bogged down due to unclear uses - this is an attempt to help clarify that. If I simply said "evolutionist", then it means way too many things to be useful.
If you mean "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time" then yes, I agree with you. If you mean "All living things share a common ancestor", then no - I don't agree with you.
I've already addressed you to a book. There are plenty of other resources. If you genuinely want to know what they are, then you can research - but I can't summarise many books worth of information into a small slashdot debate. The problem with this debate goes far beyond problems with darwinism. There is the problem of misunderstood terms, unclear distinction between different uses of it, etc. People, for example, offer proof of one form of the word 'evolution', and then by deception say that all uses of the word 'evolution' now have proof. That just isn't the case.
Only because you're not answering the question, but assuming other questions, and including your own thoughts to justify your answers. You could just say "No, it's not unreasonable to present fudamental problems with darwinism". Or you could say, "Yes it's unreasonable." Your third 'point' answered the question. Your second 'point' answered it the opposite way. The only thing I think you could say is a criticism of my use of the term 'darwinist' - but that is just a case of me having not defined the terms I was using initially.
Sure, and the mainstream scientific view is darwinism. It is a nice way to distinguish from puntuated equilibrium, creationists, and other views of 'evolution'. It is much better than saying 'evolutionist' because that can mean so many things. According to the scientific definition of evolution I would consider myself an evolutionist. What do you consider to be the scientific theory of evolution?
Beneficial.
For the same reason the atheist does not run into the church to speak with the priest with his evidence. He doesn't expect they will listen, because there's more than just evidence involved in the person's conversion.
You want to hear my claims? It's nice of you to be interested, but it's still nothing to do with my original post. I'll recommend a book to you instead. This book summarises the problems excellently, and it's far better than me trying to write a book-length response: "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. You can find it on Amazon.
No you shouldn't.
Wah...? Where did this come from?
1. I don't have a wife
2. If I did, I wouldn't beat her, so I wouldn't need to stop.
What in the world is your point?
Because some discussions slashdot is suited to - mass conversion through introduction. Build up interest and curiosity to something so those with the time and inclination can spend what is necessary to find out more. Also, so that when darwinist posts are made, people realise that there are actually others, within the geek community, that have objections. Geeks are generally curious and some will want to find out more.
My experience is quite different. People will ignore me, and mock me - and then after I persist and point out their childishness and present my arguments, they apologise and get into more serious debate. The mockery comes first, and after that is weathered out, then comes the listening ear (no matter how blocked it is).
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows. I asked, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" The question asks nothing about whether such problems exist. It simply asks, if such problems do exist, then is it unreasonable to outline them? To answer that question you would have to say either "yes" or "no". Me simply outlining the problems does nothing to resolve my original question - after all, you may still consider it unreasonable to outline real, fundamental problems - and therefore have not answered my question.
There is one other 'problem' - I tend to restrict my debates on slashdot, because it really isn't the best medium for discussion of this topic. It quickly branches off into multiple areas, without sufficient depth in each, and I find myself having to respond to five people for every post I make. I sometimes end up communicating with people via email, but again due to time constraints must restrict that.
Given the context and story involved, it is clear that this behaviour was an affront to God. Humanity did it, it says, because they feared being scattered across the earth. Ultimately, God would be doing the scattering, so it is also clear from here that it was against God, not for Him.
It doesn't tell us much more, but what I have said I think we can be sure of. It doesn't say how exactly this would mean that nothing would be beyond us. It doesn't say what a tower into the heavens means - whether the heaven where God dwells, or the stars in the sky. There are many things we are not told.
An excellent question that I have pondered on occasion too. Unfortunately, I have no answer (and even if I did have an answer, there's no guaruntee I'm right). My best guess is that the ancients knew more about God, spirituality, etc, than we ever will. I have a view of society that sees our knowledge of spiritual truth deteriorating over time. Going in cycles, but each time the cycle repeats, getting further from the truth. With this additional knowledge, they knew exactly the power that God has created humans with, and they wished to do something that would be within the groundwork that He laid out for men. Such that He could not refuse it - not because He is not all powerful, but rather for the same reasons He cannot sin. Probably a very bad explanation. As I said, I don't know.
Given what I said above, just because I can't answer every question doesn't mean there isn't an answer. What you need to look for is unresolvable conflicts. What was presented here was a potentially resolvable conflict once more data is available. There are conceivable scenarios where such a situation could have occurred - therefore making a literal interpretation non-contradictory.
Our God is a Creator God, and He made us in His image. We therefore are also creators - mimicking Him. If our creations are a rebellion against Him, then of course He will be displeased. But it is possible for us to do these things and still give Him honour. The tower of Babel was a direct attack on God:
Come, let us bild ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.
It sounds to me like this was a plan directly aimed as a defense against God should He choose to intervene.
And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too? Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?
This disagreement is a direct result of the problem of having multiple meanings for evolution. Evolution can mean whatever the arguer likes - such that proof of one form of 'evolution' is then flipped to imply that all uses of the word 'evolution' have proof, which isn't the case.
Natural Selection and adaptation is, in effect, a reduction in the diversity of the gene pool. Harmful genes are removed, while beneficial ones are given freedom to dominate. This results in the loss of genes, but is called 'evolution'.
Then we also have mutations. These produce changes in an organism, but are almost always harmless/harmful. This process of introducing new diversity (however limited it may be) is also called 'evolution'.
A big problem of this debate is the fluid meanings of 'evolution'. That is why I tend to use the word "darwinist" instead of "evolutionist". The former describes a specific viewpoint on the origin of life, while the latter, scientifically described, would be:
"A change in allele frequencies in a population over time". With that I have no dispute. When the darwinists add more, then I have an issue.
Once upon a time on slashdot, simply saying anything against evolution was a surefire way of having you dropped to -1, off topic, flamebait, or troll, even if you were none of those. People would use their mod points to win an argument instead of responding. Nowadays the situation is much more tolerable - and some are coming to recognise that darwinism was adopted, not because of any amount of proof, but because it was popular. It has never enjoyed good evidence. That is why scientists are so eager to trumpet every latest discovery as proof of evolution. Unfortunately for them, the evolution that does have proof is the scientific one I gave above - changes in allele frequencies. That all living things share a common ancestor is unproven, and seems unlikely.
A friend of mine who is a nurse said that the use of drugs such as marijuana can cause those with a propensity for schizophrenia to develop it, when they otherwise may not. In particular those with a family history for it.
I will NOT use that explanation. Ever. Assuming you are talking about the defense, "God put old fossils there to test us".
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views?
If you find a fossil that proves common ancestry, then yes, I will affirm it. However, just finding a fossil that you think proves common ancestry does not mean it does. First find the proof, then we'll talk.
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
Who is that? My faith in God is based on what I consider proofs and evidence. You base your belief on naturalism, I'm assuming: "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations". Since I believe in God (and proof that He exists), I cannot ascribe to naturalism. It's really a simple concept. And without naturalism, Darwinism no longer becomes the simplest answer. It becomes an incredibly convoluted and complex answer.
Have you ever even READ Darwin's works?
Not sure if I should be embarrassed or not. No, I have not - but I don't think that disqualifies me from being able to understand the theory. After all, I have been informed a number of times that Dawwin's works are outdated - and while good for a general understanding, no longer represent the modern Darwinist model. This is usually in response to my mention of some of the many problems with his theory.
I'd rather not get into the details on this forum, since it's not good to debate. My primary concern is to demonstrate the problems with Darwinism, not to defend young earth creationism or any other model. So I'll quickly give you these links, and ask (perhaps unfairly) that we not get into a detail on the specifics:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-110.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?I
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources? Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
There is no point, as you disagree what is evidence.
You don't even know what problems I have with the whale fossil sequence, yet you assume the type and character of my objections.
Of course it can be tested, and falsified. Suppose I find a bacterium on Mars. I propose it has common ancestry with that on Earth. So what do we do? We look for DNA, and we look for common sequences. If we find DNA at all, that is a good suggestion of common origin. The more conserved sequences (such as ribosome structure) the more likely that it is common.
None of that is good evidence for darwinism if you assume the existence of God. Darwinism is based on naturalism - the philosophy that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations. While you personally may hold to that view, it is not a reasonable assumption. People assume naturalism because darwinism allows them to. Darwinism is a valid theory if one first assumes naturalism - it's circular logic.
Regardless - first one would have to find this evidence on Mars, and at the moment that is quite a feat, making it an unfeasible experiment, at least for now. Darwin himself had no chance. Even if we discovered life there it doesn't prove common ancestry. It just proves that whatever life is on earth somehow ended up on Mars, or vice versa. Any explanation of common ancestry is an extrapolation of the facts which isn't necessarily true.
DNA sequences can be examined and easily arranged in a tree of similarity. The tree of similarity is either damn good evidence of common ancestry or the most mind-numbingly astronomically unlikely coincidence.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. That because DNA is similar that it must have a similar ancestor? That doesn't follow. Computers, cars, and toasters all have great similarities - they use similar electronic components, they all have an outer casing of metal, etc. Yet the only similar "ancestry" they share is the same creator. What you need is a mechanism by which simple life can become what we see today.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism predicts that species will adapt to change through evolution.
My point still stands - no matter what absurd situation arises, Darwinism will explain it. If a creature fails to adapt, darwinism explains it. If a creature succeeds at adapting, darwinism explains it. If a harmful mutation propagates itself throughout a population, darwinism explains it. If a beneficial mutation does the same, darwinism explains it. There is no conceivable counter situation to darwin's prediction. That is why it explains everything, predicts nothing, and is therefore useless. Many times people have tried to give me an example of something that would disprove Darwinism, and failed. Perhaps you could do better.
Darwinism predicted what Gregor Mendel found. Darwinism predicted the nature of genetic material. It was realised from the structure of DNA that it must be the genetic material because it would allow Darwinian evolution.
Darwin observed the finches and theorised on adaptation. Mendel's research was into inheritence. Honsestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence, but I see no difficulty here.
We can actually see that in action. There have been cases (such as beak shape in birds on an island) where such adaptations have arisen and spread through populations within a few human lifetimes!
Darwinism actually predicts slow speciation. Such rapid changes are counter to darwinism - but due to its versatile nature, it can again successfully predict and/or explain anything. For an opposing theory, the young earth creation theory (perhaps others too) predicts rapid speciation and changes like this. It does nothing to prove Darwinism above the others.
We have seen the DNA of species change a
This could just end up as a "he says, she says" situation. Slashdot is definitely not the best medium for offerring up evidences, but instead just stating what we are convinced is fact. And for me, I've seen the reasons why whale fossils are thought to demonstrate darwinism, and it simply doesn't. This portion of the conversation though can go no further till we start pointing to evidence.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism was arrived at because of the fossil record.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Darwin predicted that in the future the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils. He was shown to be dismally wrong - but instead of acknowledging this weakness, the theory was instead changed to show how darwinism predicts a mostly absence of transitional fossils. That to me counters directly your claim that Darwinism was originally accepted because of the fossil record. My understanding, also, was that Darwins conclusions were based off the ideas of people earlier than him, and inferences he drew from his observations with the finches.
Galapagos finches. Australian flora and fauna. New and Old world monkeys. Madagascar species. There are plenty of examples of how species arise because of isolation.
Citing these as proof shows a gross misunderstanding of the controversy and its alternatives. I have no problem with the scientific definition so far as it is defined as "a change in allele frequencies of a population over time". When 'evolution' comes to also mean the common ancestry of all living things, then I have a problem. The finches, flora and fauna, new and old world monkeys, Madagascar species, arrival of new species - NONE of these provide proof that all living things share a common ancestor. They affirm beyond doubt the scientific definition of evolution I cited above, but say nothing of the common ancestry of all living things.
There is proof for those who choose to look, and not follow blind and ignorant dogma.
And, as I said just before, you miss the entire point of the controversy in the first place. There is no dispute about changes, adaptation, natural solution. The dispute is whether all life descends from a common ancestor or not. THAT has no fossil evidence, and has no biological mechanism that sufficiently explains it. That (common ancestry) is also not a scientific claim - it is not something that can be empirically tested, repeated, and at the moment cannot be falsified.
Darwinism is a theory that explains everything and predicts nothing - and is therefore useless.