Is all TRUTH scientifically knowable?

[UTEOTW]

"Yes, it is quite a bit more than a series of microevolutionary steps."

That may be your opinion but it is not the opinion of biology. You can argue against a strawman version if you wish but it is better if you discuss what the actual theory is.

All change is microevolution. All change comes from speciation events. This was the whole purpose of showing you the reptile to mammal series. I did not expect you to roll over and accept my argument because of such a list.

Now, if you read through this actual transitional series you will see that each step is only a minor change from the previous one. Each step is just a speciation event. Yet this series of speciation events leads to a new biological class.

Again, I do not expect you to accept this series. It is obvious that you have a most interesting view of data and that nothing I present to you from the past will be accepted. However, I do expect you to drop your opposition to macroevolution merely being a series of microevolutionary steps. This is what the theory proposes and if you deny that, then you are arguing against something that no one believes in any case.

This also allows us to return to the question of what prevents there from being a series of such micro steps added together.

"I consider these unobserved progressions to be on the same order as a line of machines going from a toaster to a space shuttle, based on incomplete discoveries of parts, being proof of toaster to shuttle evolution."

It would be a false analogy but you are free to view it as you wish.

"Further, you have not demonstrated that these animals ascended from a common ancestor at all. This list fits into my framework of descent as well. What you have here is several lines of animals descending from common ancestors by inherited genetic attributes. Some of the lines ended in complete extinction."

They do not fit into your framework because of the order in which they were found. For your framework to be true, they would have needed to have been contemporaries of one another. In this case, the order in the ground matches the order of the series. Quite a strange thing if all these creatures are not related as such.

"I demand proof that microevolution ever occurs in nature resulting in the accumulation of genetic complexity and new systems with the ultimate result of a new species. I want proof though- Not a line of fossils sorted according to a preconceived bias."

You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand how science works.

There is no proof of things in science. There are very few things which are considered laws.

Just about everything in science is a theory. The theories are those ideas which explain most of the data about a particular subject. In this case we have a wide variety of data from many different sources. We have fossil records that show certain transisitons and relationships. We have genes that show the same relationships. We havepseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons which show the same transistions. We have observations of new genes and new functions coming about through mutations. We have atavisms and vestigal parts strown about. We have vestigal genes. We have parahomology where parts with very different uses can be shown to have come from the same basic structure. We can do genetic parahomology where many genes with widely different functions can be shown to be most likely the result of the repeated duplication and mutation of a single gene. We have the twin nested heirarchy of all life. We have developmental similarities. We have biogeography, both in the past and in the present. We have observed the mechanisms (migration, mutation, genetic drift, recombination, etc.) that allow for evolution and have observed them resulting in speciation events.

The theory that ties all of these observations together is evolution. It is the only one that can explain it all in a parsimonious manner. None other can.

You can construct ad hoc theories when it is broken down into pieces. But that is not how it truely works. You have to consider the whole of the data. And in this case it is ovewhelming. But there will always be some who yet deny even owerwhelming data. I know of a journal devoted solely to printing articles that claim the relativity is wrong. I know of a jury that failed to convict OJ.

There is no requirment for you to accept that the data is real. As long as you do not, then you will not accept the conclusion either. That's fine. You have your right. But denying the data does not make it go away.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Yes, it is quite a bit more than a series of microevolutionary steps."

That may be your opinion but it is not the opinion of biology. You can argue against a strawman version if you wish but it is better if you discuss what the actual theory is.

I understand the basics of the theory and have understood most everything you have posted. I am not arguing against a strawman version of anything. I am arguing on the simple fact that no one has ever proven that the adaptations of microevolution that proceed from the genetic capabilities inherited directly from parents will ever result in the ascendency of a new, more complex species.

All change is microevolution. All change comes from speciation events. This was the whole purpose of showing you the reptile to mammal series. I did not expect you to roll over and accept my argument because of such a list.

I understood your purpose. My point is that the placement of these various fossils into this line is based on the arbtrary choice of evolution as a model.

The pieces may fit... however that does not result in a conclusive proof for evolution nor does it make that explanation the only one that works.

Its claim of course is that it is the only naturalistic explanation that works... directing us again back to the philosophical assumption of evolution.

Now, if you read through this actual transitional series you will see that each step is only a minor change from the previous one.

Or not. The only thing linking these fossils together are their similarities of adjacent animals and the requirement of evolution that it be true.

Again, you can line up a toaster next to a stove next to a furnace... next to a car next to a bus next to a tank next to a helicopter next to a jet next to a space shuttle... and you have proven nothing except there are overlapping engineering practices between the groups as they stand in line. The logical conclusion from such a line up is not that each evolved from the other but rather that a common body of design engineering knowledge relates to each in a greater or lesser amount- characteristic of intelligent design. j

Each step is just a speciation event.

That is an assumption since we do not see adaptation that results in new, more complex species.

Yet this series of speciation events leads to a new biological class.

The only place these "speciation events" have been prove to lead to a new biological class is in the imaginations of the artist/scientists who line the pictures up in an order that was predetermined by the assumption that evolution is true.

It is obvious that you have a most interesting view of data and that nothing I present to you from the past will be accepted.

My objective is to make you see that the explanations forwarded under the presumption of evolution represent only one of a number of possibilities... none of which violate the facts in evidence.

If you adopt a premise of naturalism then it is the only viable choice known except for perhaps the idea that life was planted here by aliens. If however you presume an intelligent designer, you can truly follow whereever the evidence leads. That is a phrase repeated often by the ID scientists that Stroebel interviewed for his book.

However, I do expect you to drop your opposition to macroevolution merely being a series of microevolutionary steps.

You can expect that if you like. However the "fact" as I understand it is that microevolution is a process by which animals adapt according to the genetic traits/capabilities they inherit directly from their parents.

Even you could not provide observed examples of new information. You posted what amounted to educated guesses at what might have been the past cause of a genetic quirk.

This is what the theory proposes and if you deny that, then you are arguing against something that no one believes in any case.

I know that is what the theory "proposes". I simply have seen no observed/experimental proof that it works that way. The "missing link" so to speak is the upward development.

I have not argued against speciation... but speciation by the processes we actually observe. Animals use the genetic abilities inherited from their parents to adapt... not to evolve into a higher species. The evidence supports lateral change or descent (a net loss of information) not accumulation.

"I consider these unobserved progressions to be on the same order as a line of machines going from a toaster to a space shuttle, based on incomplete discoveries of parts, being proof of toaster to shuttle evolution."

It would be a false analogy but you are free to view it as you wish.

No. The analogy holds. The only thing that links those fossils together is the presumptive model of macroevolution. It does provide a possible explanation... but it does not serve as a "proof". A proof would be repeating the process in a lab, observing it in nature, or predicting that a given species would evolve into another species then watching it happen (that is what evolutionists propose would happen if we could observe- but again a proposal is not proof).

 

[Scott J]

"Further, you have not demonstrated that these animals ascended from a common ancestor at all. This list fits into my framework of descent as well. What you have here is several lines of animals descending from common ancestors by inherited genetic attributes. Some of the lines ended in complete extinction."

They do not fit into your framework because of the order in which they were found.

Unless these fossils were found in the same location one on top of the other in the precise order required... you have once again introduced an assumption as a proof. You assume that the geologic dating methods are true... but even if they were there are frequent "anomalies" where fossils are found where they shouldn't be.

For your framework to be true, they would have needed to have been contemporaries of one another.

If the anomalies are not treated as anomalies but rather as a part of the record that must be explained... many of these animals might have been contemporaries.

In this case, the order in the ground matches the order of the series. Quite a strange thing if all these creatures are not related as such.

In actuality- in this case, generalizations have been accepted as hard rules. It isn't a bad assumption as long as you are honest about it... but it is not a necessary assumption either.

For instance AiG (and yes I know what you think of them and yes I do take what they promote with a grain of salt) recently posted information concerning a turtle. It was thought to be extinct for millions of years. Probably given as an ancestor to some modern species... until it was discovered alive less than 100 miles away.

"I demand proof that microevolution ever occurs in nature resulting in the accumulation of genetic complexity and new systems with the ultimate result of a new species. I want proof though- Not a line of fossils sorted according to a preconceived bias."

You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand how science works.

There is no proof of things in science. There are very few things which are considered laws.

Then why do you demand hard proof from me? All I have done is propose an alternative framework for looking at the evidence. If the facts don't fit exactly then I, like evolution's proponents, will modify the theory.

Just about everything in science is a theory. The theories are those ideas which explain most of the data about a particular subject.

But the theories we can all accept are the ones that have working models and make sense of the processes we actually observe in the real world. Evolution doesn't do this. It is strictly speculative and clearly has alternatives that are every bit as possible.

We have observations of new genes and new functions coming about through mutations.

Have you found something new? Because if you haven't this statement is untrue. The evidence you cited earlier was not "observations" but rather after the fact speculation of how things came to be.

That is one of the big problems I have with the "science" of evolution. When statements like this are made, most people assume that some scientist either watched it occur or at least repeated the process in a lab. It is subtle dishonesty to state that a proposed explanation was "observed".

The theory that ties all of these observations together is evolution. It is the only one that can explain it all in a parsimonious manner. None other can.

That is a very close-minded assumption- and in my opinion a false one. You implied earlier that I wouldn't look at any proof for evolution. I would suggest the opposite of you. You will not look at very solid proofs against evolution. You would like to think that you are the open minded one who is just looking at the evidence.

But the evidence isn't so cut and dried as you either believe or would like others to believe. The fossil record is not uniformly in order. Most of the things you listed are explained by scientists under the framework of evolution... however they are not observations, the supposed cummulative effects are not observed, and they aren't even processes that can be proven in a laboratory.

Evolution is a mountain of speculation- on one end you have a theory that is pliable and dreams up new explanations when incontrovertible proof against it is found. On the other end, you have a dogma so strong in the scientific community that evidence is frequently conformed to the model then counted as proof of the model.

One of Stroebel's interviews even suggested that there are frequent cases of fraud perpetrated by fossil hunters. There is money to be made but only if the evidence is "correct". In other words, don't bring me a fossil that wasn't found where it should have been.

You can construct ad hoc theories when it is broken down into pieces. But that is not how it truely works. You have to consider the whole of the data. And in this case it is ovewhelming.

The "data" is not overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. Evolution by your own word is simply as system for explaining the data. It does not preclude others nor does the fact that it "fits" the data prove it as historical fact.

There is no requirment for you to accept that the data is real.

I do accept the data. It is the biased explanations of the data by scientists working under an absolute premise of naturalism that I question.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"BTW, what would happen to the lifespan of species with a very rich genome and pure, oxygen rich environment?"

Do you want speculation since we have no evidence of either?

It was just a thought precipitated by an episode of "Monk" of all things.

A "science teacher" in the show attributed the short lifespan of a fish to its poor genome.

Also, according to sources you would reject and I have no means of confirming, oxygen rich biodomes support good health of plants and presumably animals. They even suggested that the modified environment increased the growth rate, size, fruit production, and fruit size of plants.

Again, I am suspicious of things I cannot confirm or don't seem to logically follow. Just thought you might have heard of the claim or the experiment.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott J:
This question is primarily directed at those who are apologists for evolution.

Can all "truth" be determined by scientific means?

Follow up question.

Does something have to be true to be scientific?

If to the surprise of many find out that OEC/young biological creationism was the way it actually occurred, will that mean that "science" was not "science" after all?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Even you could not provide observed examples of new information. You posted what amounted to educated guesses at what might have been the past cause of a genetic quirk."

I think that it amounts to our differences of opinion. I can shown many examples of new information. You will reject most of them because they were not in a controlled lab enviroment. (Of course often when lab situations are presented, some YE reject it because it was part of an experiment. Intelligent design they scream.)

There are ways to tell how the new information arose. For instance, one example I gave was of a retroviral insert that mutated and became useful. Since I cannot point out the individual where the insertion into the germ line took place, you call it speculative. THis dispite the markers that show that it is viral DNA.

In another the new gene resulted from the fusion of two genes that had been duplicated. Never mind the genetic markers in there that allow us to know how it happened, since I cannot point out the individual it happened in and a full genetic sequence before and after, you dismiss it as mere speculation.

I gave an example of fruit flys in a lab. I can't remember why you objected to that since it was observed.

There are a large number of examples where a gene is duplicated and the duplicate mutates into a new function. Again, you reject these out of hand for varous reasons.

I have given examples where trnasposons have been copied around resulting in new genes. These too get rejected.

I have plenty of examples of new information. YOu have plenty of ways to rationalize it away.

But here is the point. Just like with the mammal line showing that theory actuall proposed that macroevolution is just a series of microevolution steps, the data for new information is there. You reject it for various reasons, but the sequences and the comparisons are there. How it happens is not unknown. The mechanism are observed. Some directly and some are implied by the data. But they do exist.

"Unless these fossils were found in the same location one on top of the other in the precise order required... you have once again introduced an assumption as a proof. You assume that the geologic dating methods are true... but even if they were there are frequent "anomalies" where fossils are found where they shouldn't be."

But if the dating works, then your chief objection gets thrown out the door. If they lived one after the other then they almost have to be a series.

So you attack dating. No real reason to do so. You may make some claim about not being able to absolutely know something about the past. The decay rates perhaps.

No mechanism to change the decay rates will be presented. I'll even drag out the fact that you can look at far away processes and see that decay rates were the same in the past.

So you will attack that. Again no evidence or mechanism. Just doubt.

So we go from doubting paleontology which requires doubt of geology which requires doubt of physics which requires doubt of astronomy. No logical reasons for the doubt. No evidence to support that the doubts are well founded. Just unsubstantiated speculation.

"Then why do you demand hard proof from me? All I have done is propose an alternative framework for looking at the evidence. If the facts don't fit exactly then I, like evolution's proponents, will modify the theory."

I am not demanding proof. Just some sort of support. I have even speculated for you what that support should look like.

At this point you do not even have theory. Just ad hoc explanations. Some of the things do not even rise to the level of speculation.

If you want to claim a theory, then present one. Present a theory which explains parahomology and the twin nested heirarchy and the agreement of all the different ways to do phylogenies and atavisms and genetic vestiges and anatomic vestiges and the observed transistional series and the pseudogenes and the retroviral inserts and the chronology of the ancestors and biogeography (past and present) and ontogeny and so on. Explain each of these and more. Predict what else should be found. Show why your theory is a better explanation than what we have. Tell us what we could find that would falsify your theory. Tell us what unique evidence supports your theory.

You really cannot do any of this. There is no coherent theory of how things got to be the way they are.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
This question is primarily directed at those who are apologists for evolution.

Can all "truth" be determined by scientific means?

Follow up question.

Does something have to be true to be scientific?

If to the surprise of many find out that OEC/young biological creationism was the way it actually occurred, will that mean that "science" was not "science" after all? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, lets think about the now obsolete idea of phlosgen. Before the role of oxygen in combustion was pinned down, things were supposed to have phlosgen in them that was released when they burned. Kind of a "reverse oxygen" substance.

It is a real part of the history of science, known to have been at one time a scientific theory, but known now to be false. You could say of someone today who claims the phlosgen is real they are not being scientific, and at the same time say phlosgen has its place in the history of science.

The practice of science is by men who are moved by the same laws of psychology as the rest of us. This means that a theory is talked about and considered as viable until, and only until, it is replaced with a better theory, no matter how many problems there are with the theory. In the case of Phlosgen, there were documented problems with it. It was known to have these problems and yet - next week - somebody would talk about phlosgen again! Only after the knowledge of Oxygen came along did Phlosgen discussions die.

So to kill evolution, it won't do to find a single problem with it. Propose a different, viable scientific theory. Religious theories are not allowed in science, remember.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
So to kill evolution, it won't do to find a single problem with it. Propose a different, viable scientific theory. Religious theories are not allowed in science, remember.

So let me get this straight, I am assuming you believe that GOD created the heaven and earth per Genesis 1, BUT science tries to prove how, without including God, b/c it’s not scientific.

So what you are really doing is picking and choosing what to believe that best fits the worldview that’s popular at the moment.

So, how do you believe the heavens and earth were created PAUL? Remember, it’s not SCIENTIFIC to say God dunit.

 

[av1611jim]

Paul of Eugene said
__________________________________________________
Religious theories are not allowed in science, remember.
__________________________________________________
Jim says;
Oh, but they ARE allowed. They are just not called such.
"Believed to have been..." Is a mantra I don't know how many times I have heard coming from the mouths and pens of evolutionists.
Evolution is a religious alternative to Creation. Plain and simple. And until so called Theistic Evolutionists admit that, the controversy will continue.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:


The practice of science is by men who are moved by the same laws of psychology as the rest of us. This means that a theory is talked about and considered as viable until, and only until, it is replaced with a better theory, no matter how many problems there are with the theory.

Then basically if evolution is not true, you think "science" is better served by believing a lie than by rejecting one?

BTW, you skirted the question rather than answering it.

So to kill evolution, it won't do to find a single problem with it.

It isn't a single problem though. It is catystrophic problems.

We are often led to believe that the geologic column and order of fossils is uniform. It isn't. There are many "anomalies". Some have even claimed that the anomalies are about as many as the rule.

Propose a different, viable scientific theory.

Intelligent Design is such a theory whether you believe in YEC, OEC, or the Behe type of evolution.

Religious theories are not allowed in science, remember.

That is not a necessary rule- the decision to exclude religion or a deity from scientific consideration is philosophical, not scientific.

It also has not always been true and reflects a philosophical or even religious bias toward naturalism.

Naturalism does make a statement about God- basically that He was not needed. It makes no statement about His existence but rather ignores Him altogether.

IMO, that is not only flawed logic but completely irrational. It is never rational to exclude real possibilities. The evidence for design is significant so to arbitrarily dismiss the need for a creator is not valid.

The bigger question though is why you think that is a valid rule. Is science not interested in truth? Is science more concerned with maintaining a philosophical bias or pursuing the facts no matter where they lead? Or does religion and in particular biblical Christianity not have anything valid to say about truth?

Many scientists are now saying that naturalism and naturalistic evolution are insufficient to reasonably explain the universe and life on earth. They almost uniformly say that they followed the facts to this conclusion as they critically considered the claims of the theory of evolution.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
So to kill evolution, it won't do to find a single problem with it. Propose a different, viable scientific theory. Religious theories are not allowed in science, remember.

Paul, you, as a scientist have only two choices then:

A) Either you KNOW God is real and you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and include the room for God's supernatural ability in the science you observe

OR:

B) You do not know for sure God is real and you follow science without the allowance for supernatural power of God.

You only have two choices.

My point IS, if you KNOW God is real and can do miracles, and you do not leave room for that in science, then your science is faulty.

If you do not know this as a fact, then you need to reexamine your own faith; but if you do know it as a fact, then why bother with a science that does not accept God and religion if you believe in it?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Even you could not provide observed examples of new information. You posted what amounted to educated guesses at what might have been the past cause of a genetic quirk."

I think that it amounts to our differences of opinion.

I can be satisfied with that level of honesty. As long as you acknowledge it as opinion and not fact then act consistent with that, I have no problem with you.

The fact is you know I have stated that evolution is a possibility. I believe it to be wholly inconsistent with the Bible... even if Genesis is allegorical but how you reconcile it is ultimately between you and God.

I can shown many examples of new information. You will reject most of them because they were not in a controlled lab enviroment.

Nor were they actually observed in nature. That's the rub. No one knows what caused those effects. Within the paradigm of evolution, the explanations you could post undoubtedly would be the most reasonable available.

I don't reject/suspect the explanations solely on the grounds of their source, conclusion, or intelligence. I first and foremost reject the premise that causes one to so desparately reach for any explanation that supports naturalism.

(Of course often when lab situations are presented, some YE reject it because it was part of an experiment. Intelligent design they scream.)

And rightly so. Especially when many (perhaps most or all) of these experiments use environments that do not occur in nature.

But here is the point. Just like with the mammal line showing that theory actuall proposed that macroevolution is just a series of microevolution steps, the data for new information is there.

The data can be explained that way UT. I don't deny that you can explain it that way. I deny a) that it is the only way and b) that it is the most likely way if you accept a supernatural creator and/or the Bible.

How it happens is not unknown. The mechanism are observed. Some directly and some are implied by the data. But they do exist.

These statements are contradictory UT. If how it happens is unknown then you cannot turn around say this is how it happens.

The parts of the mechanism BTW are not where the problem exists. It is in their composite. A car, a tree, and a 16 year are the necessary mechanisms for a wreck... but unless they actually fit together the wreck is only imagination.

But if the dating works, then your chief objection gets thrown out the door. If they lived one after the other then they almost have to be a series.

Maybe. "IF" the dating works and if it is used honestly. There is an account that supposedly came from within the "scientific community" that the initial dating for Lucy didn't fit the model so new samples were taken from a significant distance that did fit the model.

Then you also have the problem that because of where the fossil should fit, scientist "poison the lab well" by giving them a range where the fossil should fall in age. Much if not all of the supposed human evolution fits within the tolerances of chemical dating. Beyond argument, there is enough overlap in possible ages to make that type of dating wholly unreliable in this case unless you approach it with a bias.

So you will attack that. Again no evidence or mechanism. Just doubt.

I am satisfied that points of logic and inconsistency do amount to evidence against these methods of dating. That aside, I could make the same statement above about your approach to Genesis. You have no contextual or direct evidence that an allegorical meaning was intended. Just doubt eminating from a belief in evolution.

Just unsubstantiated speculation.

That is the sum total of the proof for macroevolution.

I am not demanding proof. Just some sort of support. I have even speculated for you what that support should look like.

Yes you do. I don't have the resources to give full answers... nor do I have the education to give you the technical jargon et al. that might impress you. However, I have given you support for it. In many cases I have used your own support and simply drawn different conclusions because of where I believe things started.

If you want to claim a theory, then present one.

That is not my intent. I intend to demonstrate that evolution is not the only way of explaining the facts. That evolution is built on a false premise and is subject to error because of this. That the facts can be reconciled to the Bible without doing violence to scripture.

You want my theory? Read Genesis 1-11. That's my basis. That's my "theory". That's my premise from which I attempt to explain the facts.

I reject evolution first and foremost on its naturalistic premise. Everything that evolution says is occurring right now could be occurring right now and it still would not prove naturalistic origins. An almighty Creator could have set it in motion 10K years ago just like it need to be.

Present a theory which explains parahomology and the twin nested heirarchy and the agreement of all the different ways to do phylogenies and atavisms and genetic vestiges and anatomic vestiges and the observed transistional series and the pseudogenes and the retroviral inserts and the chronology of the ancestors and biogeography (past and present) and ontogeny and so on.

I did so by not disagreeing with you on all points but rather on your premise, starting point, and ending point.

Explain each of these and more.

You don't demand evidence?

Predict what else should be found.

OK. This one comes from the Bible as well. The earth will continue to decline. Animals will continue to go extinct, with or without man and will not be replaced by newly evolved species.

Man will continue to grow weaker on the whole as his genome decays- more disease, more detrimental mutations. They will be somewhat but not completely offset by man's increase in medical/biological knowledge. This will continue until the end of the age.

Show why your theory is a better explanation than what we have.

Because I have an eyewitness.

Tell us what we could find that would falsify your theory.

You first. Tell me how naturalism as a premise could be falsified to your satisfaction.

I consider it false based on the testimony of supernatural events recorded in the Bible. You are voluntarily bound by it concerning origins for some reason unknown to me. I am not bound by it nor intend to be.

Tell us what unique evidence supports your theory.

Every effect must have a cause. God serves as a satisfactory cause no matter how large or small the effect is.

There is significant evidence in the natural order for design. You should really pick up Stroebel's book. The scientists he interviewed give numerous examples of precise settings in physics, cosmology, and biology that simply do not make sense as individual much less cummulative accidents. Once you acknowledge a Designer/Creator, the remaining questions include how big, smart, and powerful is He... Has He revealed Himself?... If so, what did He say about the origin of the universe?

You really cannot do any of this. There is no coherent theory of how things got to be the way they are.

Yes. There is. The eyewitness gave us a sufficient framework. Anything that fits into that framework, I am inclined to give more merit to than things that the framework must be bent around.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
This question is primarily directed at those who are apologists for evolution.

Can all "truth" be determined by scientific means?

Follow up question.

Does something have to be true to be scientific?

If to the surprise of many find out that OEC/young biological creationism was the way it actually occurred, will that mean that "science" was not "science" after all? </font>[/QUOTE]UT, can you answer this question?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Because I have an eyewitness.

Amen! Genesis 1:26 states And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… Us and our is plural and show the existence of the Trinity. Jesus Christ was fellowshipping with His Father in the beginning and was an eyewitness to His Father creation.

Then we have Matt. 19:4 were Jesus Christ who was with His Father in the beginning shatters the myth of evolution. And these Christians want to deny the very word of God and believe some theory.

The next thing we'll start hearing is how the Virgin birth is an allegory.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Oh, but they ARE allowed. They are just not called such.
"Believed to have been..." Is a mantra I don't know how many times I have heard coming from the mouths and pens of evolutionists.
Evolution is a religious alternative to Creation. Plain and simple. And until so called Theistic Evolutionists admit that, the controversy will continue.

This is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

You are equating two different meanings of the word in an attempt to make a point. "Believe" can mean "to have a firm religious faith" but it can also mean "to hold an opinion" and "to accept the word or evidence of" among other definitions. [Merriam Webster]

You are quite aware that when some says that they "believe" something to be true in the sense you are talking about that they are not implying a religious faith but are instead invoking one of the other meanings of the word.

Hebrews tells us that "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This automatically puts the science you are trying to discredit into another category because it is based on observations and facts. You can disagree with the interpretation of those facts, but they do exist.

Logical fallacies can sound very convincing. Convincing enough that you are probably repeating something you have heard elsewhere because it sounded good to you. But there is a logical fault here that invalidates your point. Namely that you must confuse different meanings of the word in order to make the dots connect.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Nor were they actually observed in nature. That's the rub. No one knows what caused those effects. Within the paradigm of evolution, the explanations you could post undoubtedly would be the most reasonable available."

and

"And rightly so. Especially when many (perhaps most or all) of these experiments use environments that do not occur in nature."

That is a mighty convenient dodge you have provided for yourself. When I give you examples that are from nature, you toss them because they were not observed under controlled conditions. This ignored the fact that we can use various markers in the DNA to trace what has happened to a very high degree of confidence.

Yet if we observe the change in a lab you will not accept it because it did not happen under natural circumstances.

So, no matter how many exampes you are provided with that show new information, and no matter what the circumstances of the observations, you have set up the perfect little system where you can deny them all. Not make them go away, mind you. But at least give yourself an out that you think sounds good.

"These statements are contradictory UT. If how it happens is unknown then you cannot turn around say this is how it happens."

Read it again. I said the mechanisms are NOT unknown. We know many of the mechanisms for evolution. Mutation. Genetic drift. Stasis. Gene flow. Recombination. Migration. And so on.

"That is the sum total of the proof for macroevolution."

First, evolution is the explanation for the data. You do not prove things in science. Math sometimes, but not science.

Second the evidence takes many forms. Some are the twin nested heirarchy. Genetic vestiges. Developmental. Pseudogenes. Morphological vestiges. The unity of phylogenies from different sources. The known transistional series. The correct chronology of these series. Ontogeny. Biogeography. Molecular parahomology. Anatomical parahomology. Suboptimal function. Transposons. Retroviral inserts.

"However, I have given you support for it. In many cases I have used your own support and simply drawn different conclusions because of where I believe things started."

I disagree. In my opinion you have given what would be ad hoc alternate explanations. None have been backed with evidence that shows how you ideas would better explain the evidence. None have given unique data that can only be explained by your ideas. And none have raised actual problems with the current theories other than unsubstantiated doubt.

"The earth will continue to decline. Animals will continue to go extinct, with or without man and will not be replaced by newly evolved species.

Man will continue to grow weaker on the whole as his genome decays- more disease, more detrimental mutations. They will be somewhat but not completely offset by man's increase in medical/biological knowledge. This will continue until the end of the age. "

How to answer this?

Do you think that this will happen at fast enough rates for us to observe or will it take long periods of time? If it takes time, should we not reject it for the same reasons that you reject the data presented to you?

or...

What if evidence shows man becoming better adapted? How about this recent article on how high altitude human populations around the world are adapting to the low oxygen partial pressures in different ways? This shows not deterioration, but improvement.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/152702901750265341;jsessionid=jcDKgs9d9iG7?cookieSet=1

"You first. Tell me how naturalism as a premise could be falsified to your satisfaction. "

If is not necessary to falsify all of naturalism. Not do I think you want to do so. I don't think you really feel the need to invoke supernatural influence for every chemical reaction a freshman lab student performs.

Evolution is a falsifible science. Otherwise it would not be science. I have given you examples in the past. For instance, in the case of atavisms, it would falsify the current theory if you were to find an atavistic nipple on a bird or an atavistic tail fluke on a camel. (I throw that second one in because such a find would support your rich genome theory that allows the various whale traits to derive from an actual ancestor on land but still fall under created kinds.) Take vestiges. It would falsify the current theory if you found something like a mammal with feathers or a tetrapod with chloroplasts. For retroviral inserts, it would falsify the current theory if you found animals with the same inserts in the same locations but that were not nested as you see with other forms of evidence.

Much of the power of evolution comes from its ability to offer an explanation that fits the tight constraints imposed once you consider the breadth of the data.

"There is significant evidence in the natural order for design. You should really pick up Stroebel's book. The scientists he interviewed give numerous examples of precise settings in physics, cosmology, and biology that simply do not make sense as individual much less cummulative accidents. Once you acknowledge a Designer/Creator, the remaining questions include how big, smart, and powerful is He... Has He revealed Himself?... If so, what did He say about the origin of the universe?"

Where do you get off thinking that I do not allow God any place in His creation? If these things really must be so finely tuned, then we have reason to know how it got tuned that way.

(Even for those with a purely natural slant, this still is not really a problem since theory supposes that there are likely many different universes with varying physical rules. Ours happenes to be one that has conditions favorable to life.)

"Yes. There is. The eyewitness gave us a sufficient framework. Anything that fits into that framework, I am inclined to give more merit to than things that the framework must be bent around. "

Good to know since your framework seeks to explain many aspects of creation with arbitrary answers.

"UT, can you answer this question? "

I answered the original question back on the first page of the thread. I do not understand the second question.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by john6:63:

The next thing we'll start hearing is how the Virgin birth is an allegory.

Some of the same people who give theological merit to a allegorical Genesis propose just what you suggest.

 

[Phillip]

I will repeat my question for evolutionists posting here who claim to be Christian and since this is a Baptist Only Debate, this should include all of you:

A) Either you KNOW God is real and you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and include the room for God's supernatural ability in the science you observe

OR:

B) You do not know for sure God is real and you follow science without the allowance for supernatural power of God.

You only have two choices.

My point IS, if you KNOW God is real and can do miracles, and you do not leave room for that in science, then your science is faulty.

If you do not know this as a fact, then you need to reexamine your own faith; but if you do know it as a fact, then why bother with a science that does not accept God and religion if you believe in it?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
This ignored the fact that we can use various markers in the DNA to trace what has happened to a very high degree of confidence.

Thought about this a little more last night...

Please name the effects of the supposed new, beneficial, HIGHER capabilities arising from this supposed new information.

I virus that damages a gene is not an example of increasing information. At best it is lateral, at worst it is detrimental.

The fly mutation you mentioned... would that have yielded an advantage or disadvantage to the fly in natural selection? The second set of wings were useless. The net result would be that this mutation would have been de-selected which serves to disprove rather than proving macroevolution.

None have given unique data that can only be explained by your ideas.

Neither has evolution unless you adopt the naturalistic bias before approaching the evidence.

And none have raised actual problems with the current theories other than unsubstantiated doubt.

Not altogether necessary... but also not true.

Do you think that this will happen at fast enough rates for us to observe or will it take long periods of time?

Yes. I believe so. I believe that diseases like AIDS are examples of our progressive weakening coupled with the opportunity provided by deviant sexual behavior.

How about this recent article on how high altitude human populations around the world are adapting to the low oxygen partial pressures in different ways? This shows not deterioration, but improvement.

It shows change. I didn't say that man had lost all ability to adapt.

"You first. Tell me how naturalism as a premise could be falsified to your satisfaction. "

If is not necessary to falsify all of naturalism. Not do I think you want to do so. I don't think you really feel the need to invoke supernatural influence for every chemical reaction a freshman lab student performs.

But you do feel the need to invoke naturalism for every historical event concerning creation?

It is necessary to falsify naturalism as the premise for all explanations of natural history.

Evolution is a falsifible science.

Nope. No prime cause. No falsifiable premise.

Otherwise it would not be science.

It isn't science in the same realm as gravity or chemistry. It ventures into the metaphysical by nothing less than the question it seeks to answer. The component mechanisms you claim for macroevolution are mostly falsifiable but not the composite explanation you would like to blend them into.

Much of the power of evolution comes from its ability to offer an explanation that fits the tight constraints imposed once you consider the breadth of the data.

Part of the problem there is that the people largely in control of what data is accepted and how it is collated do so operating under an evolutionary bias. Their belief that the data will support evolution becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter how the evidence must be sifted to reach the right conclusions.

I am specifically talking about fossils. You probably know that dating anomalies are abundant. If the dates don't fit then elaborate schemes are dreamed up to explain how the fossil might have been displaced.

Where do you get off thinking that I do not allow God any place in His creation?

Because of what you have written here yourself. The closest I have seen you come to giving Him credited is an ambiguous statement about Him providing some kind of guiding force. Being a "guide" is not the same as being a "creator".

"Yes. There is. The eyewitness gave us a sufficient framework. Anything that fits into that framework, I am inclined to give more merit to than things that the framework must be bent around. "

Good to know since your framework seeks to explain many aspects of creation with arbitrary answers.

I am only seeking to provide possible alternatives to the explanations that you give... that you can't shoot holes in. For someone without billions of dollars in resources to have people "prove" my contentions, I don't think you have done all that well at shooting my major suggestions down. You want to argue that I don't have details... and you are right. But like you trust evolution's science, you should trust that the details can be filled in later.

"UT, can you answer this question? "

I answered the original question back on the first page of the thread. I do not understand the second question.

Must something be "true" to be scientific? Can something be "false" and be science?

If it turns out that God created the world by means other than evolution (which I hope you at least admit as a possibility considering the attributes claimed for Him in the Bible), will that mean that evolution was not valid science all along?

 

[UTEOTW]

"A) Either you KNOW God is real and you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and include the room for God's supernatural ability in the science you observe"

I think I have been clear. I go for A but I refuse to go for it in arbitrary ways. You can simply say it is all supernatural but that means a lot of what we see was done for very arbitrary means. I, personally, don't accept that.