Creation Vs Evolution As World Views

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
[ It is a religious philosophy because it's conclusions about human history are predicated upon it's original premises . . . .

Deny Darwin's "races" of men and you deny Darwin. [/QB]

So your thesis goes like this:

Religions are characterized by being upon their original premesis in a circular reasoning fashion

Evolution is characterized by being founded on its original premesis in a circular reasoning fashion

Therefore evolution is a religion.

All your premesis are mistaken. For example, my own religion is not characterised on the premesis in a circular reasoning fashion.

I believe in God and in Jesus because I am in direct communication with them on a daily basis, and I have seen God and Jesus at work in my life.

Perhaps your own experience with religion brings you to that conclusion, and certainly there is some circular reasoning posted on these boards from time to time along the line that the Bible is the inspired word of God because it says so int the Bible . . .

The accusation of circular reasoning is so pervasive in these debates and with such little grounds it appears to me that it is another classic case of projection on the part of the evolution denying creationist community.

As for evolution, it is not founded on circular reasoning at all. It is founded on straightforward deductions from the evidence; it is confirmed by predictions of what further evidence will be found and then finding that evidence; and new evidence in support of evolution, the age of the universe, and so forth comes in on a regular basis, some of it even making it into the news.

If you have a specific instance of circular reasoning you can cite, feel free to enlighten me.

Perhaps I misunderstood the whole thrust of your post, in which case also I request you straighten me out.

As for the remark about "denying Darwin", you seem to be under the impression that scientists treat the works of previous scientists as innerant texts to be revered and interpreted but never contended with as being wrong in any detail.

You are sadly mistaken again. Scientists today generally fall all over themselves to deny that men are seperate races. They regularly post statemtents to the effect that the variation in genes between all mankind is less than the variation in genes in chimpanzees or other species; that the common classification of races used by people based on skin color has very little correlation with any other meaningful trait; stuff like that.

If you would actually read what scientists write instead of those who are attempting to quote mine them for a pre-determined viewpoint, you would know that to be true.

 

[BobRyan]

Karl Popper (philosopher of science) wrote that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense “some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring†citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242

Following this, journal of Nature came out with an article titled “How True is the Theory of Evolution?†in which the editors interpreted Karl Popper as having said that Darwinism is “both metaphysical and unfalsifiable†and then confessed that “This is technically correct †and later tried to recover by adding the lame observation “the theory of evolution is not entirely without empirical supportâ€. (Nature: Vol 290. p 75)

But then - these sources must be "mean old Bible believing Christians" that would write such things about faithful evolutionists like Darwin and his followers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Evolution is falsifiable; just come up some fossil discoveries incompatible with evolution.

For example, find fossils of all living animals in all the strata laid down in the earth, thus proving they've all been here from the beginning.

What, you can't do that?

Well, i never said you would succeed in falsifying evolution, i only said it could be, potentially, falsified.

 

[BobRyan]

Falsifiable - means that evolutionists would "propose" the test case - showing "this is a kind of fossil that evolutionism can not tolerate". But as Popper states "it only predicts survival of the survivors". So finding a "failure" in the fossil record no matter how bizzar does not falsify the tuataulogy we know today as "survival of the fittest", the key doctrine in Darwinian evolutionism.

This is of course "obvious" - and Popper is correct to point it out. The British journal of Nature is correct to observe that Popper did this.

And of course evolutionist-faithful are correct to avoid this fact as many ways as possible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[CalvinG]

BobRyan,

There are known ecomorphs. No fossils venture too far from these ecomorphs.

Popper does not give adequate consideration to the fact that evolution predicts that there will be relatedness characteristics on the genetic level between closely related species who diverged recently from a common ancestor.

If humans had DNA as their genetic code and all other primates had a different biochemical to store their genetic information, I think that would have falsified evolution. If human DNA were more homologous with that of a fruit fly than with a chimpanzee, that I think would falsify evolution.

Falsifiability lies at the level of molecular biology.

 

[BobRyan]

If humans had DNA as their genetic code and all other primates had a different biochemical to store their genetic information, I think that would have falsified evolution

Is it "your claim" that ANY evolutionist EVER "predicted" that humans would have DNA before it was found? It is "your claim" that ANYTHING about Genesis 1-2:3 MANDATES that God could not make ALL mammals from the same dust of the ground OR could not use the SAME underlying systems of blood vessels, DNA, Bone, Hair, Digestive tract, Eyes, ears on BOTH humans and Dogs?

Please - try to be objective in your "falsifiable" test case "proofs".

So far - Popper is right.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually evolutionism DOES have one testable area - aggregation of DNA information over generations allowing species to leap upward in taxonomy levels. Something we never see. Rather we see stratification in the DNA examples such that NO upward aggregations of DNA information takes place. Poodles don't "become wolves" no matter how often you breed them together and that is NOT even leaping UP a level in the tree of taxonomy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[CalvinG]

BobRyan,

Can't poodles breed with wolves? I have seen half-dog, half-wolf crossbreeds. If these are fertile...and apparently they are...then all dogs and wolves are the same species according to the classic definition of species (able to mate with one another and produce viable offspring). Apparently the mitochondrial DNA of some dogs differs only 0.4% from that of the gray wolf. Interesting, no?


This is what the USDA (part of the US government) has to say about wolf dogs:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v5n4/5n4wille.htm#toc4

So...dogs are basically domesticated wolves, initially probably unnaturally selected by selectiver breeding for physical abilities and manageable, cooperative temperament.

Now...I think you could reproduce poodles by artificial selection just taking a bunch of mutts at the pounds of a couple of major cities...because a diverse gene pool is present.

Can you get wolves from poodles? I don't think you can without mutation. Why? Because selective breeding (and I don't like poodles, so I will call this devolution by artificial selection) has removed most of the diversity of alleles from the population of poodles. Genes for wolflike characteristics are no longer in the gene pool because poodles with such characteristics weren't bred with the more poodle-looking dogs and haven't been for quite some time. (I haven't done an actual study of genetic variation within poodles, so some of this paragraph is necessarily conjecture, but it is conjecture which accords with that of respected biologic scientists.)

Thank you for mentioning dogs and wolves, BobRyan. It helps show how evolution works.

By the way, natural populations generally have much more biodiversity on a per-individual basis than poodles do unless the population has somehow been run through a genetic bottleneck.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Falsifiable - means that evolutionists would "propose" the test case - showing "this is a kind of fossil that evolutionism can not tolerate". But as Popper states "it only predicts survival of the survivors". So finding a "failure" in the fossil record no matter how bizzar does not falsify the tuataulogy we know today as "survival of the fittest", the key doctrine in Darwinian evolutionism.

This is of course "obvious" - and Popper is correct to point it out. The British journal of Nature is correct to observe that Popper did this.

And of course evolutionist-faithful are correct to avoid this fact as many ways as possible.

In Christ,

Bob

So do you have any examples of fossils or species you think are "outliers" that evolutionists "force" into the system unnaturally in an arbitrary fashion?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Is it "your claim" that ANY evolutionist EVER "predicted" that humans would have DNA before it was found?"

I am doing this fro memory, but I believe that Darwin said that there must be heritable bits of something to pass on. Of course we had to wait a while to find out that was DNA, but he did predict it well before the technology existed to know.

 

[CalvinG]

BobRyan,

The DNA predictions are exactly why the genetic codes of other primates has been studied.

(Warning: Reading the following link may be extremely hazardous to anti-evolution beliefs. If you presently think your faith in God depends critically on the literal truth of Six-24hr-Day-Creation in Genesis, please come back to this thread at another time.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

I will prove to you if necessary that evolution-believing scientists did predict there would be a genetic relationship between other primates and man prior to conducting these experiments and that this prediction was predicated on the theory of evolution. It has to be all over these scientists' grant applications. (I've written grant applications in the biological sciences.)

Keep in mind...for a theory to be scientific...it need only make predictions about the DNA between related groups. It doesn't, as a pre-requisite for being science, need to predict and then excavate specific fossils after predicting every detail of those fossils to the nearest 0.1 mm.

RobRyan, do you not believe that a theory that survivors pass on their survival traits to offspring necessarily predicts that there will be a physical and/or chemical basis for passing on such traits?

 

[jcrawford]

Paul of E:

Evolutionists deny divinely revealed religion and substitue human hypothesis in their place under the pseudonym of science.

Pre-suppositional logic dictates that all reasonable conclusions are necessarily predicated on their initial premises.

Science and religion are both epistomological in nature.

What is the basic principle of evolution?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Evolutionists deny divinely revealed religion and substitue human hypothesis in their place under the pseudonym of science.

Hmm. Most real scientists actually sign their work, as far as I know. What do you mean by "pseudonym" on this context?

Pre-suppositional logic dictates that all reasonable conclusions are necessarily predicated on their initial premises.

Hmmm. What's pre-suppositional logic as opposed to all other kinds of logic? I'm still not tracking what you're driving at here.

Science and religion are both epistomological in nature.

What is the basic principle of evolution? [/QB]

Are you asking how do we know evolution happened?

 

[BobRyan]

The World view of the Creator seems to be summed up as ...

The Duty of Man - that BRINGS with it the BLESSING:

8 ""Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall laborand do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

Notice - NO mention of "I hereby make a HOLY day - the 7th day a HOLY day and call it Sabbath".

Rather we are aLREADY to "Remember it" and then are pointed BACK IN tIME to when it WAS MADE the Holy Day of God. The Gen 1-2:4 "account".

11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

AGain notice the format.

The Action commanded -
The REASON that establishes the commandment

FOR IN six days the Lord... AND RESTED on the SEVENTH-day
THEREFORE the LORD blessed, ...and MADE it HOLY

Some are required by their traditions to turn a blind eye to this. To sift their way through scripture and snippet out those parts
that do not please them. But many - many others SEE this text, READ it JUST as it is written and ACCEPT its clear concise format SHOWING that the commandment is BASED on summary of the Gen 1-2:3 facts that GOD gives - not man.

Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads.

Evolutionism can not tolerate the Words of the Creator As He summs the Genesis 1-2:4 "account" in this short Exodus 20 statement.

Therefore evolutionism never frames "ITs view" or "ITs argument" in the form

11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

In Christ,

Bob