A big problem for Evolution?

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Reach

No, you can't provide any evidence for the existance of something that is supernatural; i.e. cannot be studied naturally within our system.

Why think this is true? I have yet to see any viable argument for the belief that there cannot be evidence for the supernatural.

Evidence for the existence of God (like evolution) are typically in the form of inference to the best explanation. Take for instance the impossibility of an infinite past. If the past is finite (say, 10 to 20 billion years starting from the big bang) then the universe began to exist, and since anything that begins to exist requires a case, something must have caused it. Because space-time itself began to exist, the agency that created the universe must transcend space and time. Technically this isn't a proof of God's existence, but it's good practical evidence. How many atheists believe there was a creator of the universe that transcends space and time? The "best explanation" atheists have (when compared to theism) is usually that the universe existed forever, but this does not seem like a plausible belief.

Other pieces of evidence could be used, e.g. God is the best explanation for the complex order in the universe (e.g. sophisticated mathematical patterns imprinted into nature), the existence of objective moral values, and the existence of the human soul (the soul must exist if free will exists).

I'm aware evolution is, in itself an 'uncomplete theory'. That doesn't mean just because you can find specific examples of things evolution cannot explain, or that we have not observed yet that evolution is not true.

I agree. The point I've been making however is that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory. There's definitely a lot to be said for evolution, but too many ignore that creationist theory does make some testable and successful predictions of data. (This does not mean creationist theory is correct, however.)

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

In that case, evolution (and many other scientific theories) are not "proven." As close as science can get is direct observation, e.g. the roundness of the Earth. The orthodox theory of evolution and various other scientific theories (e.g. the existence quarks)--while perhaps rational to believe--rely on more indirect methods.

And the convergence of evidence only points to proven.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

And the convergence of evidence only points to proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

My points are (1) the evidence for evolution relies on indirect methods (as opposed to the roundness of the Earth) and is thus not proven "as close as science can" get. (2) The evidence is not all one-sided in favor of orthodox evolution (as I explained in my previous post). (3) Empirical evidence does not announce what it is evidence for, it has to be interpreted. Both creation and evolution can be modified to fit the data and thus become empirically identical (one would have to rely on non-empirical philosophical principles to choose a theory).

In short, if your definition of "proven" is proof "as close as science can" get, evolution (like many other legitimate scientific theories) does not fit the bill even if it is true.

[Reach]

Why think this is true? I have yet to see any viable argument for the belief that there cannot be evidence for the supernatural.

I thought it was rather apparent. Let's look up supernatural:

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

By definition you cannot provide any evidence for it. Scientific method has its rules for a reason; to keep out nonscientific nonsense like creationism and other things that plagued mankind from advancing for centuries. Your 'evidences' are horrible evidences. They cannot be falsified and are as far from scientific as you can get; everything you brought up about God is arbitrary opinion and thus not evidence.

Science works for a reason; it's as right as it needs to be. Anyone can argue we can't prove anything, but that doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

Because space-time itself began to exist, the agency that created the universe must transcend space and time

Irony.

You're telling myself and guido and others we're making too many assumptions, but look at that! Read that paragraph XD! (objectively ;p)


Personally, I'm looking at the argument from a purely objective, scientific standpoint. You can't make any ground for creationism because it isn't science. 'Evidences' cannot be supported because scientific method does not support supernatural ground.

Maybe evolution is off a bit. I'm willing to admit that. Maybe your point is true, maybe there is something else that is responsible for macroevolutionary changes or that interferes with microevolution. Some other unknown mechanism.

However, right now there really isn't anything to suggest otherwise, aside from pseudo-evidence. And there is lots of purely objective, real scientific evidence to support it.

[talisman]

Uh, there is no evidence to my knowledge supporting creationism (aka evidence that there was a flood, that a flood could predict things, that there is a god that created things, etc). Saying, "things are complex, creationism says they should be complex and they are. voila!" is ludicrous. And you're not backing out of this by talking about "orthodox" evolution. No one is a pure Darwinist now, everyone favors the modern synthesis view of evolution.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Reach

I thought it was rather apparent. Let's look up supernatural:

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

By definition you cannot provide any evidence for it.

But how does that follow from the definition? You have not made clear.

Just because something is not physical or material does not necessarily imply there can be no evidence for it. Case in point: free will is evidence for the existence of the soul (which is not physical or material).

Your 'evidences' are horrible evidences. They cannot be falsified and are as far from scientific as you can get

Some of the evidences (for God) are not scientific, I'll grant you that (they are philosophical). But why is your point exactly? "Anything that is not scientific should not believed, is not rational, or at the very least is highly questionable" is not a good criterion for rationality. For one thing, the statement itself is philosophical, not scientific, and thus undercuts itself.

everything you brought up about God is arbitrary opinion and thus not evidence.

How are they arbitrary opinions? Is the belief of the universe consistently operating in sophisticated mathematical patterns arbitrary opinion, or an empirically tested (and potentially falsifiable) fact? What about the impossibility of an infinite past? Is that too a mere "arbitrary opinion" or a belief based on reason?

I think your dismissal of the evidence might require a bit more explanation here.

Anyone can argue we can't prove anything, but that doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

Quite true.

Irony.

You're telling myself and guido and others we're making too many assumptions, but look at that! Read that paragraph XD! (objectively ;p)

If you think I'm making too many assumptions, can you provide an alternate explanation? Let's simply things and just say time existed (ignore the existence of space-time as a continuum for a moment). If time itself began to exist, the agency that created the universe could not have been temporal, correct? Whatever created the universe would have to be outside time, would it not?

Personally, I'm looking at the argument from a purely objective, scientific standpoint. You can't make any ground for creationism because it isn't science.

It might depend on how you define creationism. For our purposes, let's define it as the direct creation of the various types of life whereby no macroevolutionary transition (e.g. new organs evolving) occurred.

Even if you dislike the theory, it does predict some data that evolution does not. It predicts the pattern of gaps in the fossil record (as described in post #68) and the types of changes we see in living organisms (see post post #74). This evidence may not be enough to make creationist theory better than evolution, but it is evidence. Again, I think we should recognize that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory.

Maybe evolution is off a bit. I'm willing to admit that. Maybe your point is true, maybe there is something else that is responsible for macroevolutionary changes or that interferes with microevolution. Some other unknown mechanism.

And this is where non-orthodox evolutionary theories can come into play (e.g. some forms of intelligent design). One reason I’m more open to this than I otherwise might be is that there seems to be no scientific reason to favor abiogenesis (the theory that undirected natural processes created life on Earth) over intelligent design (by which I mean the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth). Think I'm wrong? Try to provide such a reason.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

Uh, there is no evidence to my knowledge supporting creationism (aka evidence that there was a flood, that a flood could predict things, that there is a god that created things, etc).

If that is how you define creationism, then perhaps you are right. But what about a more general theory--the direct creation of the various types of life with no macroevolutionary (e.g. new organs evolving) transition?

This form of creation theory does predict some data that evolution does not as I explained earlier (see post #68) and post #74). Why exactly is this not evidence?

Note what I am not saying here. I am not saying that creation has more evidence than evolution, only that creation has some evidence (even if evolution has a great deal more).

And you're not backing out of this by talking about "orthodox" evolution. No one is a pure Darwinist now, everyone favors the modern synthesis view of evolution.

I apologize if I did not define the term "orthodox evolution" earlier. By "orthodox evolution" I mean the evolution of the various types of life via mutation and natural selection (as opposed to e.g. artificial intervention).

[talisman]

Interpreting large gaps in the fossil record (the cambrian explosion or whatever) as evidence for arbitrary creation is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. For one thing, one interpretation does not equate to unequivocal evidence until it rules out all other possible interpretations.

And don't even bring the existence or not of the soul into this. I'm almost out of hair to tear out.

[Moonasha]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Even if you dislike the theory, it does predict some data that evolution does not. It predicts the pattern of gaps in the fossil record (as described in post #68) and the types of changes we see in living organisms (see post post #74). This evidence may not be enough to make creationist theory better than evolution, but it is evidence. Again, I think we should recognize that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory.

A theory that describes the creation of the vast, infinite universe proven by fossil records on one measly planet orbiting one of 10^21 stars. How cute.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

Interpreting large gaps in the fossil record (the cambrian explosion or whatever) as evidence for arbitrary creation is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

It isn't mere interpretation, it's that the theory predicts data (as the pattern of gaps in the fossil record). Why think the theory's successful prediction of empirical data is not evidence? After all, aren't the predictions of evolution what make it an evidentially supported theory?

For one thing, one interpretation does not equate to unequivocal evidence until it rules out all other possible interpretations.

Then evolution has no unequivocal evidence either. There is something called the underdetermination of theories. Empirical data underdetermine theories because there are always an infinite number of theories that can fit any set of data. Creation and evolution are no exception: each can be modified to fit the data. Creation might predict the pattern of gaps, evolution can avoid falsification by saying evolution was very rapid in some periods and slower in others. Creation might predict we see no observed changes that can be extrapolated to large-scale evolution (e.g. evolving new organs), evolution can accommodate this observation saying the changes are too slow to be observed.

If empirical data alone cannot decide which theory to accept, how does science work? One principle (that seems to work here) is which theory predicts the data. What makes creationist theory have evidence here is not that it rules out all other possibilities--but that it predicts data that evolution does not. Likewise, what makes evolution have evidential support is not that it rules out creation as a possibility--but that it predicts data that creation does not.

And don't even bring the existence or not of the soul into this.

You don't have to discuss it if you don't want to. I just brought it up in response to what someone else said.

[talisman]

Evolution is right, creationism is wrong, I'm done with this thread.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Moonasha

A theory that describes the creation of the vast, infinite universe proven by fossil records on one measly planet orbiting one of 10^21 stars. How cute.

Well, no. The theory I was referring to was much more limited in scope (namely, the creation of the various types of life on Earth).

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

Evolution is right, creationism is wrong

Unfortunately, even if the statement is true, simple statements like these can sometimes lead to overzealous conclusions. For instance, grand sweeping statements like "creation has no evidence" despite the fact that creation makes some predictions of empirical data that evolution does not. This is the sort of thing we should avoid, because the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory.

[Reach]

Creationism is wrong.

Creationism, by definition, is the literal reading of the Genesis as proposed by the Holy Bible. There is absolutely no way to defend this ground.

Also, realize that 'creation science', I.E. the supernatural creation of species on Earth, came to be partially because creationism is obviously false. So instead, since the fundies won't give up or grow brains, they concealed the biblical version of the Genesis into what appeared to be something that might actually have some validity behind it. As such much pseudoevidence and pseudoscience was created, and some of it has actually (sadly) filtered into the american school system.

However, no, Creationism wether traditional or pseudoscientific, is completely and udderly ridiculous, as both are founded on Christian religious ideology.

[Kekiz]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Stretchy and Guido are both religious folks.

That doesn't mean they can't accept evolution or the big bang or whatever.

If all religious people blindly followed faith then we'd have very little scientific progress in the world.

It'd be like "hey i wonder what caus--" "jesus did it"

Even though 90% does. But the other 10% are getting there. And reach, You dont know how many people actually believe in the bibles definition of creationism. Its pathetic imo.

As for random mutation.. Its not random. Its based on environment or specific needs. Acording to theory at least.

[GuidoHunter]

No, the mutations are random; the selection is environment-based.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Reach

Creationism is wrong.

Creationism, by definition, is the literal reading of the Genesis as proposed by the Holy Bible. There is absolutely no way to defend this ground.

I believe creationism is true because it is in the Bible. There, I have defended it.


Evolution debates have a tendency to be abhorrently large without going anywhere useful. I think it's because no one understands that the argument is an epistemological one. The scientist can say that macroevolution is true because science says its true; the creationist can say that it is false because the Bible says creationism is true. The only way you are going to convince the other side of your belief is to:
a) Prove your point inside their system.
or
b) Move out a level to the level of epistemology and discuss from there.

[Reach]

I believe creationism is true because it is in the Bible. There, I have defended it.

Alright. But that is what I'll call an empty defense. There's nothing to it, you've essentially presented me a hollow shell. I would compare such an argument to trying to defend yourself with a pillow against someone with a machine gun.

Your point on systems likely explains why this debate is never ending. I think the problem is you can't prove any points in their system...which if anything gives me more ground upon which to refute Creationism.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Reach

Alright. But that is what I'll call an empty defense. There's nothing to it, you've essentially presented me a hollow shell. I would compare such an argument to trying to defend yourself with a pillow against someone with a machine gun.

Your point on systems likely explains why this debate is never ending. I think the problem is you can't prove any points in their system.

But what does it mean to prove something?. In the system of biology, proofs don't take the form of derivations from axioms or assumptions like truth-preserving logical proofs do, therefore biology is not a sufficient system for proof much like the Bible.

I know you got what I said above, but you're trying to dig ways out of it to validate all your previous ranting. You can't explain why their system is empty and biology is not because it relies on assumptions you make about what emptiness is... That's why this argument is epistemological.

[das1ngerplayer]

I'll say one more thing before I'm done with this thread.

Many things the Bible has been saying for thousands of years, science has been saying for the past couple hundred years. Places like Isreal, the Red Sea (I think that's the sea Moses parted...not that it's to big a deal), and many cities in the middle east today are all mentioned and have a role in the Bible. The Bible talks about dinosaurs which we bury up today. More cities like Rome and so many more things.

Now to say there is no proof to support creationism or to say God isn't real does not make sence. There is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. No matter what anyone says it is impossible to deny the Bible's truth.

One topic of controversy that is popular, did humans evolve from monkeys (or apes). I'll say two things about that. One is I don't want to believe any idea that I evolved from a monkey, I prefer to be human. Two is there are billions of people in this world and the chance some will look somewhat like a monkey is a high possibility. That does not mean that we evolved from them though.

You have to think of this in a logical way to understand what the whole issue is. If you focus on evolution (like many of you are), you don't see what us christians think. You say your right just because it makes "sense" yet your not considering that we (christians) feel the same way about you (athiests). We think you people don't make muth sence. We say there isn't much evidence supporting evolution and we'll use the Bible as our facts. If you say 'Oh, the Bible has no evidence' well I'll say 'Oh, evolution doesn't have much evidence. I'll listen to yuor opinions and consider them. But when they don't try to incorporate my side of thinking, I simply do try to listen.

I believe in the Bible but I still agree with many views of science. I try to base my opinion on combining both science (evolutiom) and the Bible. I say what if God created the Big Bang and that's how life came to be in a way (as in just to quickly summarize it). As for evolution, I think there were humans years ago. I do think they may not have been the same a us today but non the less they were humans (not monkeys or apes).

Before you go posting and commenting on my post. THINK about creationism and how it too is true in many ways. Think about the parts of evolution that don't make sense. Put 2 and 2 together and then say your thoughts. If you are completely one sided no one (other than those who completely agree with you) will want to listen to your ideas. You attract more attantion is you can incorporate other peoples views into your own. Biology has never been my strongpoint in science BUT at least I can understand the foundation of the arguement instead of going one sided and making little point.

Ok, I said all I need. Bye all! P.S. - I'd argue back but I find it pointless argueing with people who are narrow minded.