I too have never understood the necessity for science to find a missing link. The technology of life is similar in most every living thing, that we know of. But why we think that they all had to evolve or derive from the same source is strange to me. It may be related to the way we humans develop modern conveniences, such as the automobile, from the first one that is invented. But that is just because we share ideas and technologies and then add new thinking to them. But the cars themselves do not evolve on their own. Some external authority has to make the changes happen. So I am beginning to have the idea that a lot of the so-called controversies we have over this and other big questions are simply a result of the natural flaws in our own human reasoning and thinking patterns. 'Sort of like why you cannot divide by zero in math.

(09-19-2013 07:07 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I agree with you that "evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists". The question in my mind is what your definition of "evolution" is. If you, like Darwin, mean natural selection and small modifications over time resulting from survival of the fittest, I think even the most staunch creationists would generally agree with you. If you mean a complete change in species, I.e. chimp to human through the missing link, then the missing link is problematic from both a science and religious standpoint and bolsters the created as humans and then evolved into modern day humans viewpoint. I'm of the viewpoint that regardless of the mechanism by which we got to be modern day humans, it is so complex that there had to be a higher being, e.g. God, to orchestrate it.

First, Darwin believed that evolution caused speciation--that was pretty much the whole point of On the Origin of Species. There is no difference between micro and macroevolution--other than the level of abstraction you choose to look at. When enough of the small steps add up a new species is formed.

Second, I don't think any serious scientist has ever proposed that man descended from chimps, and certainly not any in the last 50 years. Not even Darwin suggested such a thing. Rather, in The Descent of Man, he hypothesized that man and apes shared a common ancestor then evolved to their present states independently. As far as I know that has been the dominant position ever since.

Finally, there is no such thing as a missing link. Species do not evolve from one thing into another. They simply evolve. All fossils, and all species, are transitional (even us).

(09-19-2013 07:07 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.

I agree with you that "evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists". The question in my mind is what your definition of "evolution" is. If you, like Darwin, mean natural selection and small modifications over time resulting from survival of the fittest, I think even the most staunch creationists would generally agree with you. If you mean a complete change in species, I.e. chimp to human through the missing link, then the missing link is problematic from both a science and religious standpoint and bolsters the created as humans and then evolved into modern day humans viewpoint. I'm of the viewpoint that regardless of the mechanism by which we got to be modern day humans, it is so complex that there had to be a higher being, e.g. God, to orchestrate it.

The question in my mind is, What is the definition of 'creationism' -- or whatever notion one is positing as the alleged alternative to evolutionary theory?

If the notion put forward is that mankind appeared suddenly 6000 years ago, the idea is so transparently absurd that its advocates are necessarily divorced from reason, and thus incapable of being refuted -- in which case, there's nothing to discuss.

On the other hand, if one posits that the present-day consensus on human origin is probably wrong, but one is not a complete lunatic (e.g. you recognize that the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old; that during that time the life forms on earth have not been static, but some have come and some have gone; and that among these are several hominid species dating back several million years that are similar to our species in many ways, though certainly not identical), then what exactly is your theory of how mankind originated? I would love to hear from RiceDoc or anyone else regarding what they would posit the process was, when it occurred, the extent to which it was similar to or different from the ways in which other species originated, and whether it was unique in time or the result of factors that existed before humans and/or still exist today.

George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

+1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  +1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

Doubling down I see. Good luck with that.

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

I thought your response would be that you believe in evolutionary theory. I also that George was posing that question to those who don't.

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

+1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

(09-23-2013 09:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

I thought your response would be that you believe in evolutionary theory. I also that George was posing that question to those who don't.

I believe in evolutionary theory with respect to what happened and how. That belief does not lead me to agree with the atheistic/agnostic position as to why. I interpreted George's question as encompassing what, how, and why.

(09-23-2013 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

+1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

To the contrary, there is some evidence of a higher being at work. The very fact that it is more likely that a monkey pounding on a typewriter all day every day for his entire life would churn out, word for word, all of Shakespeare's writings than that the coincidences that a truly atheistic evolutionist would have you believe occurred suggests that there was something or someone giving order to that chaos. Whether you chose to call that a diety, or God or the Great Spirit is entirely up to you. As a matter of faith, I believe it is God. I don't see any evidence to support the proposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed or created anything. Some evidence is >> than no evidence. That some evidence is not conclusive by current scientific principles does not change that equation.

Back to George's question specifically, I agree with JOwl that there is a basis for evolutionary theory to some degree. Is evolution the process by which God "made" man? Perhaps. Is there natural selection? I have no problem agreeing that there is. Does natural selection move us from species to species? I don't see any evidence of that. Darwin didn't either, by the way.

(09-23-2013 11:12 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

+1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

To the contrary, there is some evidence of a higher being at work. The very fact that it is more likely that a monkey pounding on a typewriter all day every day for his entire life would churn out, word for word, all of Shakespeare's writings than that the coincidences that a truly atheistic evolutionist would have you believe occurred suggests that there was something or someone giving order to that chaos. Whether you chose to call that a diety, or God or the Great Spirit is entirely up to you. As a matter of faith, I believe it is God. I don't see any evidence to support the proposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed or created anything. Some evidence is >> than no evidence. That some evidence is not conclusive by current scientific principles does not change that equation.

Back to George's question specifically, I agree with JOwl that there is a basis for evolutionary theory to some degree. Is evolution the process by which God "made" man? Perhaps. Is there natural selection? I have no problem agreeing that there is. Does natural selection move us from species to species? I don't see any evidence of that. Darwin didn't either, by the way.

What is the "some evidence" that God, and _not_ the Flying Spaghetti Monster, created everything?

Are you saying that Darwin didn't believe that natural selection led to the development of new species, or that he believed that it did but he didn't have any evidence to back it up?

(09-24-2013 08:58 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 11:12 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George, good question. I don't have a response. My expectation is that when I need to know the answers to those questions I will, but for now I don't so I'll wear out my brain cells doing other things.

+1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

To the contrary, there is some evidence of a higher being at work. The very fact that it is more likely that a monkey pounding on a typewriter all day every day for his entire life would churn out, word for word, all of Shakespeare's writings than that the coincidences that a truly atheistic evolutionist would have you believe occurred suggests that there was something or someone giving order to that chaos. Whether you chose to call that a diety, or God or the Great Spirit is entirely up to you. As a matter of faith, I believe it is God. I don't see any evidence to support the proposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed or created anything. Some evidence is >> than no evidence. That some evidence is not conclusive by current scientific principles does not change that equation.

Back to George's question specifically, I agree with JOwl that there is a basis for evolutionary theory to some degree. Is evolution the process by which God "made" man? Perhaps. Is there natural selection? I have no problem agreeing that there is. Does natural selection move us from species to species? I don't see any evidence of that. Darwin didn't either, by the way.

What is the "some evidence" that God, and _not_ the Flying Spaghetti Monster, created everything?

Are you saying that Darwin didn't believe that natural selection led to the development of new species, or that he believed that it did but he didn't have any evidence to back it up?

At the very least there are many ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God. See the Bible and the Koran for two of the more notable ones. See also the Dead Sea scrolls. Moreover, the archelogical (sp?) records are confirming many of the Biblical accounts from purely secular and scientific standpoints. Notably, Christians, Muslims, American Indians, even ancient Chinese religions, all agree that a single deity created everything (although Christians and Muslims call that deity God or Yahweh while the Indians called him "the Great Spirit" and the Chinese called him something else. If you wish to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have at it. But if you are saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and not God, then I'd sure like to see your evidence and compare it to that we have for God as the creator.

As far as Darwin is concerned, I'm saying that Darwin believed in and had evidence to back up natural selection. Darwin theorized that natural selection would and did lead to new species, but had no evidence of that (and acknowledged that). Whether Darwin believed his theory to be true or not, I don't know, but I suspect that he did initially and may have changed his mind later when he couldn't find evidence to support it. I certainly have seen some suggestions that he changed his mind, but nothing that I could point to as authoritative or necessarily genuine, leaving that point open in my mind.

I'm with Darwin on natural selection. I don't see evidence to suggest it led to new species, but I am open to the idea. As I noted before, that is a matter of how, not who, created man and the other things in this world.

To Weatherford (Post 13): I think it is misleading to state that "evolution is only a theory" because most people will hear the colloquial sense of "theory" - i.e., "conjecture." And, of course, species evolution is not conjecture. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution and its consistency with what we know about biology, geology (my field), and related -ologies are simply overwhelming. It's hard to get much closer to "fact," unless you consider that it's all one big cosmic joke on scientists. Creationism is not a theory and should not be taught as anything other than a belief system.

More generally, I have no problem with people believing that this all had to be orchestrated. But that is a belief. A scientist may allow for that in their world view, but in their work they cannot rely on it.

(09-24-2013 12:46 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:58 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 11:12 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 05:28 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  +1. I don't know is the only answer I have. HOW God created man and the other creatures is neither known nor possible to prove or disprove in a scientifically rigid fashion. That God did so is not only a matter of faith, but based upon uncertainty and statistical probability principles, as provable as most "scientific facts". Suffice it to say that it cannot be disproved and the evidence that a higher being was involved is a statistical certainty, albeit 99.99999999999999999999999% rather than 100%.

The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

To the contrary, there is some evidence of a higher being at work. The very fact that it is more likely that a monkey pounding on a typewriter all day every day for his entire life would churn out, word for word, all of Shakespeare's writings than that the coincidences that a truly atheistic evolutionist would have you believe occurred suggests that there was something or someone giving order to that chaos. Whether you chose to call that a diety, or God or the Great Spirit is entirely up to you. As a matter of faith, I believe it is God. I don't see any evidence to support the proposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed or created anything. Some evidence is >> than no evidence. That some evidence is not conclusive by current scientific principles does not change that equation.

Back to George's question specifically, I agree with JOwl that there is a basis for evolutionary theory to some degree. Is evolution the process by which God "made" man? Perhaps. Is there natural selection? I have no problem agreeing that there is. Does natural selection move us from species to species? I don't see any evidence of that. Darwin didn't either, by the way.

What is the "some evidence" that God, and _not_ the Flying Spaghetti Monster, created everything?

Are you saying that Darwin didn't believe that natural selection led to the development of new species, or that he believed that it did but he didn't have any evidence to back it up?

At the very least there are many ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God. See the Bible and the Koran for two of the more notable ones. See also the Dead Sea scrolls. Moreover, the archelogical (sp?) records are confirming many of the Biblical accounts from purely secular and scientific standpoints. Notably, Christians, Muslims, American Indians, even ancient Chinese religions, all agree that a single deity created everything (although Christians and Muslims call that deity God or Yahweh while the Indians called him "the Great Spirit" and the Chinese called him something else. If you wish to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have at it. But if you are saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and not God, then I'd sure like to see your evidence and compare it to that we have for God as the creator.

As far as Darwin is concerned, I'm saying that Darwin believed in and had evidence to back up natural selection. Darwin theorized that natural selection would and did lead to new species, but had no evidence of that (and acknowledged that). Whether Darwin believed his theory to be true or not, I don't know, but I suspect that he did initially and may have changed his mind later when he couldn't find evidence to support it. I certainly have seen some suggestions that he changed his mind, but nothing that I could point to as authoritative or necessarily genuine, leaving that point open in my mind.

I'm with Darwin on natural selection. I don't see evidence to suggest it led to new species, but I am open to the idea. As I noted before, that is a matter of how, not who, created man and the other things in this world.

Are you saying eyewitnesses to creation? Because I don't think even the Bible claims that.

In any case, someone claiming to have talked to God just doesn't do it for me, since there's no way to distinguish between true and false such claims. If I wanted, then for each account of God creating the world, I could wrangle a written account of the FSM creating the world. I'd have to make most of those up, but they'd be be just as verifiable as the Biblical ones (moreso, perhaps, because the historical authenticity of the person making the claim wouldn't be subject to question.)

And I'm pretty sure I can name as many polytheistic religions as you have monotheistic, so I don't think there's any sort of consensus on whether there's a single "creator" or what "creation" looked like.

As for Darwin's evidence, here's his discussion of species divergence from what he witnessed in the Galapagos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_fi...of_Species
In what way did Darwin acknowledge not having evidence of species divergence?

(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.

What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

(09-19-2013 07:07 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I agree with you that "evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists". The question in my mind is what your definition of "evolution" is.

To me, the more interesting question is what your definition of "god" is.

(09-24-2013 01:25 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:46 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 08:58 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 11:12 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  The thing is, by your (apparent) definition of "uncertainty and statistical probability principles", the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth is equally as likely and valid as anything in the Bible. What insight does that line of thinking really get you?

To the contrary, there is some evidence of a higher being at work. The very fact that it is more likely that a monkey pounding on a typewriter all day every day for his entire life would churn out, word for word, all of Shakespeare's writings than that the coincidences that a truly atheistic evolutionist would have you believe occurred suggests that there was something or someone giving order to that chaos. Whether you chose to call that a diety, or God or the Great Spirit is entirely up to you. As a matter of faith, I believe it is God. I don't see any evidence to support the proposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed or created anything. Some evidence is >> than no evidence. That some evidence is not conclusive by current scientific principles does not change that equation.

Back to George's question specifically, I agree with JOwl that there is a basis for evolutionary theory to some degree. Is evolution the process by which God "made" man? Perhaps. Is there natural selection? I have no problem agreeing that there is. Does natural selection move us from species to species? I don't see any evidence of that. Darwin didn't either, by the way.

What is the "some evidence" that God, and _not_ the Flying Spaghetti Monster, created everything?

Are you saying that Darwin didn't believe that natural selection led to the development of new species, or that he believed that it did but he didn't have any evidence to back it up?

At the very least there are many ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God. See the Bible and the Koran for two of the more notable ones. See also the Dead Sea scrolls. Moreover, the archelogical (sp?) records are confirming many of the Biblical accounts from purely secular and scientific standpoints. Notably, Christians, Muslims, American Indians, even ancient Chinese religions, all agree that a single deity created everything (although Christians and Muslims call that deity God or Yahweh while the Indians called him "the Great Spirit" and the Chinese called him something else. If you wish to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have at it. But if you are saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and not God, then I'd sure like to see your evidence and compare it to that we have for God as the creator.

As far as Darwin is concerned, I'm saying that Darwin believed in and had evidence to back up natural selection. Darwin theorized that natural selection would and did lead to new species, but had no evidence of that (and acknowledged that). Whether Darwin believed his theory to be true or not, I don't know, but I suspect that he did initially and may have changed his mind later when he couldn't find evidence to support it. I certainly have seen some suggestions that he changed his mind, but nothing that I could point to as authoritative or necessarily genuine, leaving that point open in my mind.

I'm with Darwin on natural selection. I don't see evidence to suggest it led to new species, but I am open to the idea. As I noted before, that is a matter of how, not who, created man and the other things in this world.

Are you saying eyewitnesses to creation? Because I don't think even the Bible claims that.

In any case, someone claiming to have talked to God just doesn't do it for me, since there's no way to distinguish between true and false such claims. If I wanted, then for each account of God creating the world, I could wrangle a written account of the FSM creating the world. I'd have to make most of those up, but they'd be be just as verifiable as the Biblical ones (moreso, perhaps, because the historical authenticity of the person making the claim wouldn't be subject to question.)

And I'm pretty sure I can name as many polytheistic religions as you have monotheistic, so I don't think there's any sort of consensus on whether there's a single "creator" or what "creation" looked like.

As for Darwin's evidence, here's his discussion of species divergence from what he witnessed in the Galapagos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_fi...of_Species
In what way did Darwin acknowledge not having evidence of species divergence?

You know quite well that I never said there was an eyewitness account of creation. Burn the strawman and get real. You asked for "some evidence" that God exists - I gave you some which you don't dispute. You discount it. You ridicule it. But you don't deny it exists.

As far as your Darwin argument, you have to look at what you mean by "Species" and what Darwin really said about species too. In The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say: "it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation." Darwin 1871 p. 24. Darwin-online.org.uk . Darwin went on to "conclude() that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." Menand, Louis (2001). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 123–124.

I suggest you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#cite_note-21 for further details. What your citation shows is that Darwin believed in what I understand most to call natural selection, i.e. that certain mutations that are beneficial to survival lead to (not surprisingly) greater survival rates and thus breeding that results in more and more occurrence of that mutation until it becomes the norm. That does not suggest that Darwin believed that a fish became a bird which became a monkey which became a man. That is a genus level transformation, not a species level in the Darwinian definition set, for which he found no scientific support.

(09-24-2013 03:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  You know quite well that I never said there was an eyewitness account of creation. Burn the strawman and get real. You asked for "some evidence" that God exists - I gave you some which you don't dispute. You discount it. You ridicule it. But you don't deny it exists.

My apologies on coming across snarky on the eyewitness thing, that wasn't my intent. I truly was (am) not sure what you meant by* "ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God". What do you mean by eye witnesses?

*And my recollection of the Bible is poor enough that I don't remember if anyone claimed to have been an eyewitness to creation, or if Adam had written down his recollection of being created. I'm pretty sure none of those things happened in the Bible, but not 100% sure. Thus my use of "I don't think even the Bible claims that", which probably came across as snarky but was really meant to indicate my uncertainty about what I was asserting.

And I wasn't ridiculing your evidence. I was just describing my issue with it. As I said, it's indistinguishable from easily falsifiable evidence, so I have an extremely hard time giving it any merit.

(09-24-2013 03:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  As far as your Darwin argument, you have to look at what you mean by "Species" and what Darwin really said about species too. In The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say: "it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation." Darwin 1871 p. 24. Darwin-online.org.uk . Darwin went on to "conclude() that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." Menand, Louis (2001). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 123–124.

I suggest you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#cite_note-21 for further details.

Your quotes from Darwin seem to indicate that he had some concerns with how to taxonomically classify different species, but I don't see any discussion whatsoever of whether species evolve from other species. Classification of species is and has always been a difficult problem, with the criteria frequently changing through time. But that's simply a result of the fact the "species" are arbitrary classifications created by people. They're generally meaningful, but far from perfect. Just because we have troubles drawing bright lines between different species doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether humans and chimps have common ancestors.

I also read a few screens worth of your cite, and it seems that Darwin was kind of stuck on the question of whether the different races of humans are in fact different species. Again, I don't see any bearing on the question at hand.

(09-24-2013 03:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  What your citation shows is that Darwin believed in what I understand most to call natural selection, i.e. that certain mutations that are beneficial to survival lead to (not surprisingly) greater survival rates and thus breeding that results in more and more occurrence of that mutation until it becomes the norm. That does not suggest that Darwin believed that a fish became a bird which became a monkey which became a man. That is a genus level transformation, not a species level in the Darwinian definition set, for which he found no scientific support.

I'm not sure if you're moving the goalposts here or not, as I can't quite parse your last sentence. If I'm reading it right, I think you're now saying that Darwin did believe in and have support for species-level evolution, but he didn't have support for genus-level evolution. Is that right, or am I misunderstanding?

I think the (very cool) link I put in post #15 on this thread helps illustrate the difficulties of observing g cross-superclass evolution like fish to amphibian. Fish were around for about 160million years before the appearance of the first species we'd call an amphibian. That's an _extremely_ long time, full of lots of little differences.

But there do exist species like the lungfish (some of which use both lungs and gills to breathe) that are suggestive of how amphibians may have developed lungs ( http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates...ipnoi.html )

(09-24-2013 07:25 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 03:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  You know quite well that I never said there was an eyewitness account of creation. Burn the strawman and get real. You asked for "some evidence" that God exists - I gave you some which you don't dispute. You discount it. You ridicule it. But you don't deny it exists.

My apologies on coming across snarky on the eyewitness thing, that wasn't my intent. I truly was (am) not sure what you meant by* "ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God". What do you mean by eye witnesses?

*And my recollection of the Bible is poor enough that I don't remember if anyone claimed to have been an eyewitness to creation, or if Adam had written down his recollection of being created. I'm pretty sure none of those things happened in the Bible, but not 100% sure. Thus my use of "I don't think even the Bible claims that", which probably came across as snarky but was really meant to indicate my uncertainty about what I was asserting.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone was an eyewitness to the creation. What I was suggesting is that more than one person in the Biblical stories talked directly with God, including, for example, Moses talking to God in the burning bush in the desert and to determine what the plagues on Egypt would be.

I have another theory about the controversy. Perhaps denying the Christian creation story is perceived by creationists as a step on the slippery slope to denying the rest of Genesis. As I recall, the whole point of baptism (the first sacrament) is freeing the recipient from original sin. If you deny the creation story, perhaps you also deny original sin, you deny baptism, and you ultimately raise questions about the church's definitions of good and evil and even the reason for Jesus' crucifixion. I can see how a religious institution might want to avoid that.

(09-24-2013 08:43 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 07:25 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 03:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  You know quite well that I never said there was an eyewitness account of creation. Burn the strawman and get real. You asked for "some evidence" that God exists - I gave you some which you don't dispute. You discount it. You ridicule it. But you don't deny it exists.

My apologies on coming across snarky on the eyewitness thing, that wasn't my intent. I truly was (am) not sure what you meant by* "ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God". What do you mean by eye witnesses?

*And my recollection of the Bible is poor enough that I don't remember if anyone claimed to have been an eyewitness to creation, or if Adam had written down his recollection of being created. I'm pretty sure none of those things happened in the Bible, but not 100% sure. Thus my use of "I don't think even the Bible claims that", which probably came across as snarky but was really meant to indicate my uncertainty about what I was asserting.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone was an eyewitness to the creation. What I was suggesting is that more than one person in the Biblical stories talked directly with God, including, for example, Moses talking to God in the burning bush in the desert and to determine what the plagues on Egypt would be.

Still not sure what "At the very least there are many ancient texts ostensibly from eye witnesses, including some who spoke directly with God" means. It implies that some of the eye witnesses didn't speak to God. What did they witness, and what evidence does it provide for creation by God?

In any case, I hope you see I was legitimately confused by that sentence.