[nolidad]

Really? Where did you get that impression? Sure, the ID crowd seems to harp on the difference, but I learned the difference from my university classes.

Yes they do teach it, but IDer's and Ye"ers are more vocl about the terms, I agree.

a

category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

Good, same one I use. Many evolutionists I have talked to have tried to avoid talking species, saying that it is hard to define. I have no problem with speciation. This is observable, testable and repeatable. Both theories of origins do propose it and see it at work. However, speciation is a horizontal change and not a vertical chain up the evolutionary ladder. You can have many new species spring up in a short period of time but in the end you still have a mouse. It may have a variant in fur, or a variant in diet or coloration or even size but it is still a mouse.

Look at the fruit fly- that has been mutated and altered for over 20,000 generations and thuogh they have produced numerous variants, they still all were fruit flies- no vertical climb up the ladder,.

Granted, but you'll hopefully admit that someone who sees Genesis 1 as allegorical is doing in essence what you are doing by saying "young animals were taken." In both cases, trying to harmonize Scripture with what reason indicates (the ark would have been very crowded, with many carnivores next to many tasty morsels).

well this requires a very lengthy anser and being on vacation in teh Caribbean I shan't take th etime. Bu tneedless to say- The flood was a supernatural event and the ark had plenty of room for two of every "kind" (dog kind, cat kind, it is hard to determine but genetics proves animals capable of varying witin their own sub species). Because it was a supernatural event God could take the arnivores and turnthem back to herbivores. It has been shown by testing that many carnivores were able to be trqained back to herbivores and still thrive.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Basically yes.

This also addresses the issue of God creating the Matrix. How could it be any other way? Science will never concede the supernatural, and creation of something from nothing is inescapably supernatural. If God created something from nothing at any point (even if it was just setting the big bang in motion), then science will always miss it. You can't perform scientifically detectable non-scientific acts. This doesn't say anything about God's character, it says something about the limitations of science.

If you accept supernatural creation in any sense, you are forced to accept that science is limited. But presumably you already accept this, because scientifically speaking, death is the end of a person's existence.

Your posts have been very interesting. Science cannot prove the whole theory of evolution because they have not seen it nor been able to demonstrate other than on paper the "macro" part of the theory. They accept it as fact without evidence or empirical research. That is a faith based conclusion as is creation.

Evolution is not the best "science " can offer- it is what the evolutionists have given to offer.

Creation Science is valid science - it is a search for answers to questions and proof of theories.

Take the work on teh flood. By taking the acount and putting it into teh scientific realm and extrap0olating the data,, from known flood events and posting them globally- you begin your framewrk for research and evidence gathering.

You would be amazed at teh evidence that supports teh Noahic Flood and all of its implications .

It means man and dino were together, it disproves the billions of years theory (this is based on actual testing and data gathering of radiometric forms of dating).

Teh only reason why Scince accepts evolution over creation is because modern sdcinece is filled more with agnostics than believers and the indocrination in the school system is global. Not because they can prove the "macro" portion (for they can't).

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Your posts have been very interesting. Science cannot prove the whole theory of evolution because they have not seen it nor been able to demonstrate other than on paper the "macro" part of the theory. They accept it as fact without evidence or empirical research. That is a faith based conclusion as is creation.

Evolution is not the best "science " can offer- it is what the evolutionists have given to offer.

Creation Science is valid science - it is a search for answers to questions and proof of theories.

Take the work on teh flood. By taking the acount and putting it into teh scientific realm and extrap0olating the data,, from known flood events and posting them globally- you begin your framewrk for research and evidence gathering.

You would be amazed at teh evidence that supports teh Noahic Flood and all of its implications .

It means man and dino were together, it disproves the billions of years theory (this is based on actual testing and data gathering of radiometric forms of dating).

Teh only reason why Scince accepts evolution over creation is because modern sdcinece is filled more with agnostics than believers and the indocrination in the school system is global. Not because they can prove the "macro" portion (for they can't).

You're still missing it. They don't need to prove macro evilution, they just have to show that it best fits the data/observation. bob has given an interesting analogy, wherein the normal observation is contrary to what actually happend - e.g. a dinner that pops into existence that normally would take several cooks all afternoon to prepare. Imagine someone seeing a dinner and going "whoa, I wonder how this was made; surely it took all afternoon" and someone who knows the cook says "nope, it was done with the snap of a finger" ... the former fits the normal observation, the latter not so much. Science is not about truth, but about pragmatism, based on objective reasonable interpretation and rigorous repeatable empirical data*. But theories make no claims of reality is per se, but rather suppose an assumption (in the logic sense) that helps us explain other patterns of data. For example, we haven't seen quarks. Do they exist? Well, the model works: but we don't know though. Theories aren't proven true, they either work or don't work.

* okay, so that is the goal, not the standard

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Good, same one I use. Many evolutionists I have talked to have tried to avoid talking species, saying that it is hard to define. I have no problem with speciation. This is observable, testable and repeatable. Both theories of origins do propose it and see it at work. However, speciation is a horizontal change and not a vertical chain up the evolutionary ladder. You can have many new species spring up in a short period of time but in the end you still have a mouse. It may have a variant in fur, or a variant in diet or coloration or even size but it is still a mouse.

Macroevolution, nolidad, argues that we will see changes that go beyond mere speciation to the point where a group can breed among itself but not the base population from which it developed.

It doesn't have to look like a new species to the untrained eyes; it has to behave like one, by breeding with itself but not being able to breed with related populations (since as the one from which it branched off).

I think you're twisting the definition. If you end up with just a mouse, then it should still be able to breed with other examples within its kind. If it cannot, then it is separate, and now will through microevolution gain traits that the original population, with which it can no longer share it genetic material, does not have.

This would be macroevolution, no? Because it sounds like you're creating an impossible and unclaimed standard: "It should sprout some visible characteristics that make it different than the others in its previous population group."

Nowhere does evolution say "slam bang - fish become birds become dogs! Goo to the zoo to you." It's stages; gradual. If an anti-evolutionist says "Hrmph. Show me a mouse growing a horn or a second head," they're not asking for evidence for evolution. It's like a scholar of history saying "Hrmph! Show me the wooden Trojan horse!" when presented with the vast linguistic, material, and testimonial evidence that the Anatolian city of Wilusa is the Troy of Homer's Iliad.

well this requires a very lengthy anser and being on vacation in teh Caribbean I shan't take th etime. Bu tneedless to say- The flood was a supernatural event and the ark had plenty of room for two of every "kind" (dog kind, cat kind, it is hard to determine but genetics proves animals capable of varying witin their own sub species). Because it was a supernatural event God could take the arnivores and turnthem back to herbivores.

You just proved my point! Nowhere does Scripture say "And then He turned them into carnivores." It's okay for you to believe that, in my view, but it's exactly what theistic evolutionists are doing - supplementing the text! You're supplementing! Your explanation is not supported by Scripture, but required you to use extra-Biblical reasoning!

It has been shown by testing that many carnivores were able to be trqained back to herbivores and still thrive.

Wait, you're saying we can turn carnivores into herbivores by feeding them on the exact food available in Noah's day?

[Rainer.]

Most of science has never been directly observed. Chemists have never seen the formation of chemical bonds, biologists have never seen the replication of DNA, physicists have never seen a gravitational force field, astronomers have never seen the formation of a planet, geologists have never seen the earth's core...

Sure, when I put salt in a pot of water, I believe by "faith" that the polar H2O molecules in the pot will take apart the individual sodium and chlorine ions in the salt I put in. But I can't observe that intermolecular activity. It's still a decent explanation of why I don't have chunks of salt at the bottom of my pot, though.

Could it be possible that the group you label as "evolutionists" are simply taking evidence and biological mechanisms and drawing reasonable conclusions? Or must they be either agnostics, blind to the possibility of creation, or else part of an agenda of indoctrination?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by athanatos

You're still missing it. They don't need to prove macro evilution, they just have to show that it best fits the data/observation. bob has given an interesting analogy, wherein the normal observation is contrary to what actually happend - e.g. a dinner that pops into existence that normally would take several cooks all afternoon to prepare. Imagine someone seeing a dinner and going "whoa, I wonder how this was made; surely it took all afternoon" and someone who knows the cook says "nope, it was done with the snap of a finger" ... the former fits the normal observation, the latter not so much. Science is not about truth, but about pragmatism, based on objective reasonable interpretation and rigorous repeatable empirical data*. But theories make no claims of reality is per se, but rather suppose an assumption (in the logic sense) that helps us explain other patterns of data. For example, we haven't seen quarks. Do they exist? Well, the model works: but we don't know though. Theories aren't proven true, they either work or don't work.

* okay, so that is the goal, not the standard

But "macro"evolution isn't even the best fit for the data/observation. It is extrapolating what is observable and leaping it to the unobserved and untestable and so far completely unproved.

It is like finding a million dollars in the bank and concluding this came from an initial investment of say $100 hundred dollars based on teh fact that the money was in the bank for long periods of time, without knowing other key elements like deposits and withdrawls, interest rates etc.

Evolution looks at minor variations and leaps to a conclusion of goo to you by way of teh zoo without empirical evidence or testable theory.

Macroevolution, nolidad, argues that we will see changes that go beyond mere speciation to the point where a group can breed among itself but not the base population from which it developed.

It doesn't have to look like a new species to the untrained eyes; it has to behave like one, by breeding with itself but not being able to breed with related populations (since as the one from which it branched off).

I think you're twisting the definition. If you end up with just a mouse, then it should still be able to breed with other examples within its kind. If it cannot, then it is separate, and now will through microevolution gain traits that the original population, with which it can no longer share it genetic material, does not have.

Well some definitons of macroevolution are trueo fo this statement. Others are not. And this drifitng of nonfetrtility is not a universal phenomena either in flora or fauna. Why it is limited is also subject to conjecture so this is not a good tool to defend evolution with.

As to it still being a mouse- it is. Just a variant of the original with horizontal and not ertical gains. Change in diet, reproductivity, even variants in size and color are all easier explained than using directionless, random evolution at work. An example of horizontal gains would be the mouse developing proto feathers to fly or proto gills because its habitat gets routinely flooded. These are simplisitc statements I know to answer what evolutionists sday are complicated and eons long processes (unobserved, unverifiable, and untestable) but I think you knw what I am saying.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by nolidad

But "macro"evolution isn't even the best fit for the data/observation. It is extrapolating what is observable and leaping it to the unobserved and untestable and so far completely unproved.

It is like finding a million dollars in the bank and concluding this came from an initial investment of say $100 hundred dollars based on teh fact that the money was in the bank for long periods of time, without knowing other key elements like deposits and withdrawls, interest rates etc.

Evolution looks at minor variations and leaps to a conclusion of goo to you by way of teh zoo without empirical evidence or testable theory.

Relevant dissimilarity: does everyone have a million dollars in the bank, or is this atypical? Evolution says it applies to everyone -- every single living thing on our planet.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by athanatos

You're still missing it. They don't need to prove macro evilution, they just have to show that it best fits the data/observation... Science is not about truth, but about pragmatism, based on objective reasonable interpretation and rigorous repeatable empirical data*. But theories make no claims of reality is per se, but rather suppose an assumption (in the logic sense) that helps us explain other patterns of data... Theories aren't proven true, they either work or don't work.

You basically nailed it here. Even scientific laws are subject to change if someone finds something better. The point is that right now, evolution is the best theory anyone has.

Originally Posted by nolidad

But "macro"evolution isn't even the best fit for the data/observation. It is extrapolating what is observable and leaping it to the unobserved and untestable and so far completely unproved.

It is like finding a million dollars in the bank and concluding this came from an initial investment of say $100 hundred dollars based on teh fact that the money was in the bank for long periods of time, without knowing other key elements like deposits and withdrawls, interest rates etc.

Evolution looks at minor variations and leaps to a conclusion of goo to you by way of teh zoo without empirical evidence or testable theory.

To use your analogy, it's really more like finding a million dollars in a bank account and a statement of the value of the account every 6 months over the last 10 years. To see these "bank statements" just check the list of Homo species on Wikipedia ( Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Each one of these, and every primate, constitutes a bank statement to support a conclusion of an initial balance of 100 dollars.

Scientists can make reasonable estimates of how long species diverged by comparing DNA. A certain percent DNA difference corresponds to a certain length of time. This is an oversimplified explanation of course, but if evolution isn't the best fit for the data, then I have to wonder why 99% of scientists think it is. Yes, there have been times in the past where 99% of scientists were wrong, but what they were right about (usually at least) was that it was the best answer based on the information available at the time.

Evolution has been researched extensively, and it's still taught as fact. It was controversial when Darwin first published about it, but it came to be accepted precisely because it explained so much. It still explains a great deal, and, importantly, leads to new discoveries by assuming it is true.

Remember that science *cannot* use non-scientific explanations. Science *cannot* accept supernatural creation and still be science. You can't say evolution is a subpar scientific explanation because you think a supernatural explanation fits better. A supernatural explanation has no place in science and cannot disprove a scientific theory. To disprove evolution, you need to provide a *better*, purely *natural* explanation. Can you do that?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

You basically nailed it here. Even scientific laws are subject to change if someone finds something better. The point is that right now, evolution is the best theory anyone has.



To use your analogy, it's really more like finding a million dollars in a bank account and a statement of the value of the account every 6 months over the last 10 years. To see these "bank statements" just check the list of Homo species on Wikipedia ( Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Each one of these, and every primate, constitutes a bank statement to support a conclusion of an initial balance of 100 dollars.

Scientists can make reasonable estimates of how long species diverged by comparing DNA. A certain percent DNA difference corresponds to a certain length of time. This is an oversimplified explanation of course, but if evolution isn't the best fit for the data, then I have to wonder why 99% of scientists think it is. Yes, there have been times in the past where 99% of scientists were wrong, but what they were right about (usually at least) was that it was the best answer based on the information available at the time.

Evolution has been researched extensively, and it's still taught as fact. It was controversial when Darwin first published about it, but it came to be accepted precisely because it explained so much. It still explains a great deal, and, importantly, leads to new discoveries by assuming it is true.

Remember that science *cannot* use non-scientific explanations. Science *cannot* accept supernatural creation and still be science. You can't say evolution is a subpar scientific explanation because you think a supernatural explanation fits better. A supernatural explanation has no place in science and cannot disprove a scientific theory. To disprove evolution, you need to provide a *better*, purely *natural* explanation. Can you do that?

First: The dating methodologies are hopelessly flawed so that we cannot accurately determine the ages of the fossils.

2nd. Yes evolution has been researched extensively and is taught as fact-- but without the empirical evidence to prove it as fact.

3rd. It seems to explain much, but it is circular reasoning so it will of course explain itself. But teh links connecting one ^^kind^^ to another are still missing as well as a viable mechanism to explain the ascent to the biodiversity we have today. Mutation does not explain anything. We have observed billions of mutations if not trillions, and 99.9999% are hartmful or neutral. The remaining ^beneficial^mutations^are horizontal improvements not vertical.

4th. Well to prove or disprove science as you put it is also a circular argument. It says God has no place in
Teh thteory of evolution requires far more blind faith to believe in than does special deivine fiat creation as described in Scriptures.

[bobthecockroach]

I'm going to ignore your first three points because they are already sufficiently refuted by the numerous world-renowned scientists that support evolution. I cannot possibly hope to exceed or even approximate their refutations.

Originally Posted by nolidad

4th. Well to prove or disprove science as you put it is also a circular argument. It says God has no place in
Teh thteory of evolution requires far more blind faith to believe in than does special deivine fiat creation as described in Scriptures.

I do not know if you are misunderstanding me or just not being clear. You cannot prove or disprove science. Science is a framework for understanding the world. Whether it is the correct framework or not is more a philosophical question than anything else. There is no way to prove or disprove any framework for understanding the world. Any such proof would have to be inside some framework for understanding the world. Since this is obviously circular recursive, the best you can hope for is to prove a framework's internal consistency or to prove one framework in terms of another (like if a religion taught that science was infallible and you believed that religion, you would therefore have "proof" that science is infallible, but of course you would have no way to prove your religion correct except inside some other framework, which you would also have no way to prove correct except inside some other framework, which... [repeat ad infinitum]).

What you can prove or disprove is scientific theories, but, and this is vitally important, only within the framework of science.

If your definition for science includes the possibility of supernatural events, then we are never going to get anywhere because we are working off different definitions of science. Nor, I should point out, will you get anywhere with the majority of people who call themselves scientists, because their definitions of science will also not include the supernatural.

---

UPDATE

I should also point out that if you want to disprove evolution, you have to do it from within the framework that scientists that accept evolution are using. If you cannot accept that restriction, then you *cannot* disprove evolution. What you can attempt to discredit (not disprove) is that science is the best framework from which to understand the world, but you aren't doing that by arguing against evolution. You are going to do that by arguing against science as the ultimate answer. You are missing the forest for the trees if you focus on evolution. Convincing someone that science isn't the ultimate answer will automatically convince them that evolution isn't the ultimate answer, but convincing someone that evolution isn't the ultimate scientific answer is impossible unless you enter the scientific framework. Your only two options are to disprove evolution from within science or to disprove science, but you don't seem to be interested in doing either, so, like I said, you aren't going to get anywhere. No one will accept an explanation from outside their framework. If someone believes science (science defined to exclude supernatural events) is the ultimate answer, they are never going to accept a supernatural answer to any question.

On the flip side, since you and I accept Christianity as the ultimate framework for understanding the world, it is just as pointless when people try to disprove our viewpoints by pointing to science. Science cannot disprove creation. The only way for someone to disprove creation is to do so from within the Christian framework or to disprove the Christian framework altogether. Of course, my understanding of Christianity doesn't exclude the possibility of evolution, but that's not the point.

The point is that whatever I accept as true because of my Christian perspective CANNOT be disproved by science, and whatever scientists accept because of their scientific perspective CANNOT be disproved by Christianity.

I think if people would just understand this, the pointless debates and name-calling (not from you, from others) would come to end.

---

Of course, I should add in closing that it's perfectly possible that your framework for understanding the world allows for the possiblity of cross-framework proofs and that I will, therefore, not get anywhere with you.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

On the flip side, since you and I accept Christianity as the ultimate framework for understanding the world, it is just as pointless when people try to disprove our viewpoints by pointing to science. Science cannot disprove creation. The only way for someone to disprove creation is to do so from within the Christian framework or to disprove the Christian framework altogether. Of course, my understanding of Christianity doesn't exclude the possibility of evolution, but that's not the point.

The point is that whatever I accept as true because of my Christian perspective CANNOT be disproved by science, and whatever scientists accept because of their scientific perspective CANNOT be disproved by Christianity.

See, here's the thing... I'm not convinced that hard-core creationists (by which I mean the ones like Ken Hamm and Convicted Tax Fraud Kent Hovind, the ones who hang all of Christianity on six-day creationism) really are accepting Christianity as 'the ultimate framework for understanding the world.' They're actually letting modernism and the Dawkins/Pinker view of science (SCIENCE IS ALL; ALL IS SCIENCE) run the roost. The end result is a Christianity that bends knee to science rather than the other way around.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

See, here's the thing... I'm not convinced that hard-core creationists (by which I mean the ones like Ken Hamm and Convicted Tax Fraud Kent Hovind, the ones who hang all of Christianity on six-day creationism) really are accepting Christianity as 'the ultimate framework for understanding the world.' They're actually letting modernism and the Dawkins/Pinker view of science (SCIENCE IS ALL; ALL IS SCIENCE) run the roost. The end result is a Christianity that bends knee to science rather than the other way around.

I'd agree here, although they don't embrace the conclusions that modern science reaches, they have bought into the scientific version of truth.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

See, here's the thing... I'm not convinced that hard-core creationists (by which I mean the ones like Ken Hamm and Convicted Tax Fraud Kent Hovind, the ones who hang all of Christianity on six-day creationism) really are accepting Christianity as 'the ultimate framework for understanding the world.' They're actually letting modernism and the Dawkins/Pinker view of science (SCIENCE IS ALL; ALL IS SCIENCE) run the roost. The end result is a Christianity that bends knee to science rather than the other way around.

You have a good point there.

[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

(by which I mean the ones like Ken Hamm and Convicted Tax Fraud Kent Hovind, the ones who hang all of Christianity on six-day creationism)

If we have millions of years between the six days of creation there would be death and suffering in the perfect world before Adam & Eve. In order for evolution and creation to work we would need death and time between the six days of creation. Thus making the perfect world with death and suffering. It just contradicts Gen. 1.

*EDIT
I don't know if that's what you are saying. It just sounded like you believe in the gap theory.

[Ridley's Own]

I don't know if that's what you are saying. It just sounded like you believe in the gap theory.

You're right. I don't believe in gap theory. I'm an evolutionist, and I believe that darwinism adequately explains and predicts the speciation and has some pretty interesting things to say about other things, too. I don't believe in any iteration of creationism. I do, however, believe in the doctrine of creation, which is adequately explained in the Nicene Creeds.

Originally Posted by Guitarman121319

If we have millions of years between the six days of creation there would be death and suffering in the perfect world before Adam & Eve. In order for evolution and creation to work we would need death and time between the six days of creation. Thus making the perfect world with death and suffering. It just contradicts Gen. 1.

Let's assume you're right for a moment. Let's suppose Adam is walking in the garden one day, and a Big Giant Rock from Acme falls on his head. What happens to Adam? Do the laws of physics simply not exist in Eden?