How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change? [/quote]

That’s a funny question coming from you in light of this recent exchange:

cwill1973 wrote:
Has there been a single man-made global warming hypothesis that has become a scientific theory or law?

Bismark wrote:
The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is quite a bit of evidence supporting global climate change. Do you recognize the theory of evolution?
[/quote]

The problem is, with all respect, you don’t understand the magnitude of what a theory or law is in the scientific sense. There are a LOT of very well regarded ideas that have not been codified into theories or laws. The lack of being labeled a “theory” or “law” in the scientific circle is not equal nor indicative of a lack of substance of the idea…or its observed empirical evidence.[/quote]

I understand the magnitude of a theory. What I don’t understand is how evolutionists can insist their answer must be the right one when the very building blocks of their theory cannot be observed, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be evidenced. See above for what I am referring to.

542

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You won’t entertain the notion simply because you have no reproducible evidence to show.
[/quote]

This is simply incorrect.

The TOE is a ([n] incomplete) machine built of a few thousand working parts which, in conjunction, suggest to us a reasonable and evidentially supported account of mankind’s origin. A great many of these are reproducible.

But, again, you know this. I am assuming you’ve read at least the Wikipedia material on evolution. You absolutely know that, asked my question, the evolutionist has much to say, and much to show.

Now what do you say?

I am literally asking you if you’ve got anything to say in answer to my challenge (which you really, really should, because you shouldn’t believe anything for which, asked why you believe it, utter silence and refusal to engage are your battlements).

Edited

543

625×626 38.3 KB

“Evolution is a hoax because it doesn’t explain the origin of life.”

544

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is simply incorrect.

The TOE is a ([n] incomplete) machine built of a few thousand working parts which, in conjunction, suggest to us a reasonable and evidentially supported account of mankind’s origin. A great many of these are reproducible.

But, again, you know this. I am assuming you’ve read at least the Wikipedia material on evolution. You absolutely know that, asked my question, the evolutionist has much to say, and much to show.

Now what do you say?

I am literally asking you if you’ve got anything to say in answer to my challenge (which you really, really should, because you shouldn’t believe anything for which, asked why you believe it, utter silence and refusal to engage are your battlements).

Edited
[/quote]

I believe the position that cwill, push, and I have taken is one based on both faith(the beginning) and lack of observation(no observed macroevolution). You have faith that a thing that can’t be explained by man(something from absolutely nothing) begat something that has never been observed(macroevolution). We have faith that something that can’t be explained by man begat the world and what we observe.

In other words, our faith requires the existence of one thing that we can’t explain; your faith requires the existence of two such things.

545

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change? [/quote]

That’s a funny question coming from you in light of this recent exchange:

cwill1973 wrote:
Has there been a single man-made global warming hypothesis that has become a scientific theory or law?

Bismark wrote:
The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is quite a bit of evidence supporting global climate change. Do you recognize the theory of evolution?
[/quote]

The problem is, with all respect, you don’t understand the magnitude of what a theory or law is in the scientific sense. There are a LOT of very well regarded ideas that have not been codified into theories or laws. The lack of being labeled a “theory” or “law” in the scientific circle is not equal nor indicative of a lack of substance of the idea…or its observed empirical evidence.[/quote]

I understand the magnitude of a theory. What I don’t understand is how evolutionists can insist their answer must be the right one when the very building blocks of their theory cannot be observed, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be evidenced. See above for what I am referring to.
[/quote]

I am not interested in talking about evolution in a global climate change thread. I was responding to your post on climate change. Climatology, by all accounts both positive and negative, is a new(ish) field. It is not an appropriate question to ask, then, that they have scientific theories or laws resulting from this new field.

546

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change? [/quote]

That’s a funny question coming from you in light of this recent exchange:

cwill1973 wrote:
Has there been a single man-made global warming hypothesis that has become a scientific theory or law?

Bismark wrote:
The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is quite a bit of evidence supporting global climate change. Do you recognize the theory of evolution?
[/quote]

The problem is, with all respect, you don’t understand the magnitude of what a theory or law is in the scientific sense. There are a LOT of very well regarded ideas that have not been codified into theories or laws. The lack of being labeled a “theory” or “law” in the scientific circle is not equal nor indicative of a lack of substance of the idea…or its observed empirical evidence.[/quote]

I understand the magnitude of a theory. What I don’t understand is how evolutionists can insist their answer must be the right one when the very building blocks of their theory cannot be observed, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be evidenced. See above for what I am referring to.
[/quote]

I am not interested in talking about evolution in a global climate change thread. I was responding to your post on climate change. Climatology, by all accounts both positive and negative, is a new(ish) field. It is not an appropriate question to ask, then, that they have scientific theories or laws resulting from this new field.[/quote]

Would it be appropriate to ask if climatology has any utility? For example, is it any more successful than say palmistry, tarot, dowsing or Delphic divination at predicting outcomes?

547

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is simply incorrect.

The TOE is a ([n] incomplete) machine built of a few thousand working parts which, in conjunction, suggest to us a reasonable and evidentially supported account of mankind’s origin. A great many of these are reproducible.

But, again, you know this. I am assuming you’ve read at least the Wikipedia material on evolution. You absolutely know that, asked my question, the evolutionist has much to say, and much to show.

Now what do you say?

I am literally asking you if you’ve got anything to say in answer to my challenge (which you really, really should, because you shouldn’t believe anything for which, asked why you believe it, utter silence and refusal to engage are your battlements).

Edited
[/quote]

I believe the position that cwill, push, and I have taken is one based on both faith(the beginning) and lack of observation(no observed macroevolution). You have faith that a thing that can’t be explained by man(something from absolutely nothing) begat something that has never been observed(macroevolution). We have faith that something that can’t be explained by man begat the world and what we observe.

In other words, our faith requires the existence of one thing that we can’t explain; your faith requires the existence of two such things.[/quote]

So the earth is also not 4.54 billion years old, but 6,000? Gotcha.

548

William F Buckley Jr said, “the Bourgeois goes through life with common sense; the Marxist with his theory”. This is precisely the problem with climatology. The climatologist foregoes the scientific method. Instead of: Question > Hypothesis > Prediction > Experiment > Analysis > Conclusion. The climatologist proceeds as follows:

  1. Conclusion: man is significantly and detrimentally altering the climate.

  2. Question: how can we get funding?

  3. Hypothesis: funding is contingent upon alarming the public.

  4. Prediction: if we alarm the public then the public and private sector will provide funding.

  5. Experiment: release “results” of previous “studies” to the media then approach the government or private sector for funding based upon said “results”.

  6. Analysis: subject the results of funding experiments to analysis to determine which methods were most successful.

  7. Conclusion: there is a direct correlation between the credulity of the public, the fear engendered in them and the level of funding we receive.

549

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I believe the position that cwill, push, and I have taken is one based on both faith(the beginning) and lack of observation(no observed macroevolution). You have faith that a thing that can’t be explained by man(something from absolutely nothing) begat something that has never been observed(macroevolution). We have faith that something that can’t be explained by man begat the world and what we observe.

In other words, our faith requires the existence of one thing that we can’t explain; your faith requires the existence of two such things.[/quote]

  1. As best I can tell, you are separating the question into two parts – the origin of what, for lack of a better term, we’ll call matter-energy (i.e., the universe); and the origin of man. You claim that the evolutionist hasn’t “observed” either – we’ll come back to this. But even if you were correct, and this were a legitimate lens through which to view the thing, this would merely put you and I on par: You have never observed the making, by a god, of a universe; and you have never observed the making, by a god, of a clay man.

  2. But if we dig further, we realize that you and I are most certainly not on par. First we must deal with “You haven’t observed macroevolution.” This is a risible line predicated on (often willful) misunderstanding and – appropriately, given who tends to tell the tale (though you are not included here)-- signifying nothing. An inquiry into the origin of man is necessarily detective rather than observational (note that I have not asked you to produce proof that you have observed the making of a man from clay by a god; rather, I have asked for the slightest evidential reason to believe that it happened or that it might have happened or that it could have happened. That is to say, note that I’m challenging you to meet a standard of evidence that is almost parodically lax and low, whereas you are asking me to do something quite different).

That we do not have video evidence of a process which by its definition spans millennia is as unsurprising as it is inconsequential.

Let us make a substitution and see what we can get out of that last sentence: That we do not have video evidence of George Washington’s first inauguration on April 30, 1789 is as unsurprising as it is inconsequential.

Yep, works like a charm.

What do we have? We have an evidential and logical case (note the absence of the term proof). I repeat myself: I will not entertain the notion that this isn’t so. Read the books and listen to the lectures, or don’t – that is up to you – but if you choose the latter, be so kind as to inform me so that I can extricate myself from this debate. We have a great deal of evidence: that life is built upon DNA; that DNA is conferred by parent organisms upon their children; that, in the exchange, DNA mutates with apparent randomness; that these mutations, over time and if by happenstance inflationary to the individual organism’s chances of long-term survival, come to obtain as general characteristics within the population. All this has been observed, and it represents an enormous amount of groundwork finished and done for the evolutionist – the analogy, for the creationist, would entail his showing that, yes, gods can make living things from clay. We know that this is something which happens in the universe, whether it can/did happen to man or not. (But you haven’t managed that yet, have you?) Then we have the physical, detective evidence: the preserved remains of the long-dead, the comparative genetics that Bis has been invoking, etc.

Now, I don’t care whether or not you subscribe to the above. I don’t want to hear a bunch of people who are not scientists regurgitate fallacious criticisms that were written by people who are not scientists (and that have been torn to pitiable shreds by people who have forgotten more about science than you or I ever knew). I don’t want to have to read about decades-old pseudo-science, or discredited books written by scientists in the 1980s. I don’t want to have to deal with illegitimate demands, and I don’t want to have to wade through a bunch of fallacy. I accept your skepticism; I recognize it. What I do not accept is the notion that the evolutionist, asked to evidence his claims, cannot produce anything at all – that he stands in silence.

Now, I am asking for the last time, can you say the same for yourself?. A renowned evolutionist is asked to evidence his case, and he gets up in front of the audience and parades his evidence, undoubtedly much better than I ever could. He talks and talks, lectures and lectures. Whether you are skeptical or not, you must admit that he, the evolutionist, is offering the audience reasons – things, objects, results, logical arguments – designed to specifically and directly sway them toward his cause.

He finishes, and it is your turn. You stand there and you read Gen 2:7, the account of man’s origin, which is the Old Testament’s direct answer to the evolutionist. And you offer your evidence, the specific and direct – specific and direct – evidence by which you are confident that the particular account of man’s origin found in Gen 2:7 is, of all the thousands of competitors, the one to which a reasonable observer is compelled to subscribe. Or has any reason to subscribe. Something. Something showing that it happened, or that it could have happened, or that maybe it could have happened. Anything.

Well, what have you got? If the question goes unanswered again, I will assume that the answer is “silence,” and I will consider the debate resolved.

Edited

550

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I am not interested in talking about evolution in a global climate change thread. I was responding to your post on climate change. Climatology, by all accounts both positive and negative, is a new(ish) field. It is not an appropriate question to ask, then, that they have scientific theories or laws resulting from this new field.[/quote]

I’ll concede that point. Being such a new field then, do you believe enough data has been collected and accurately analyzed for alarmists to state definitively that humans are destroying the planet and endangering all of life’s future through the use of fossil fuels? I am well aware there are climatologists who don’t have this position but the ones who are quoted by the media and by politicians do. Do you believe the blatant lying and misrepresenting of data to further a political agenda raises a black eye on the field? Is every driving force behind the climate so well understood in a symbiotic manner that models predicting the future should be taken with more than a grain of salt? Human history is fraught with examples of dire predictions being made with the sole intent to separate man from their money and freedom. I have yet to see how this is different.

551

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You won’t entertain the notion simply because you have no reproducible evidence to show.
[/quote]

This is simply incorrect.

The TOE is a ([n] incomplete) machine built of a few thousand working parts which, in conjunction, suggest to us a reasonable and evidentially supported account of mankind’s origin. A great many of these are reproducible.

But, again, you know this. I am assuming you’ve read at least the Wikipedia material on evolution. You absolutely know that, asked my question, the evolutionist has much to say, and much to show.

Now what do you say?

I am literally asking you if you’ve got anything to say in answer to my challenge (which you really, really should, because you shouldn’t believe anything for which, asked why you believe it, utter silence and refusal to engage are your battlements).

Edited
[/quote]

The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed. Hundreds of body plans just suddenly appear. Not one single fossil has been found showing the transition from single-celled organisms to invertebrates let alone vertebrates.

One side says all life slowly evolved from a common ancestor into numerous and varied species. The other says all life forms were created nearly instantly. The fossil record clearly supports the latter side.

552

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.
[/quote]

Nope.

But feel free to offer your citation. “The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.” Where exactly did you read this? Note that I will reject your source if it is not reputable, not scientific (in the credential sense), and/or not current (i.e., has been reversed by later findings).

Before you say what I suspect you’ll be tempted to say, remember that the burden of proof lies with the claim-maker. But don’t worry, I have literally hundreds of citations here awaiting deployment.

Then maybe we can hear some specific and direct evidence in favor of the claim that god made man from clay and breathed life into his nostrils.

553

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.
[/quote]

Nope.

But feel free to offer your citation. “The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.” Where exactly did you read this? Note that I will reject your source if it is not reputable, not scientific (in the credential sense), and/or not current (i.e., has been reversed by later findings).

Before you say what I suspect you’ll be tempted to say, remember that the burden of proof lies with the claim-maker. But don’t worry, I have literally hundreds of citations here awaiting deployment.

Then maybe we can hear some specific and direct evidence in favor of the claim that god made man from clay and breathed life into his nostrils.[/quote]

I may be wrong, but I think he’s referring to the fact that Darwin’s evolutionary model of speciation describes a gradual, uniform process called “phyletic gradualism” which the fossil record doesn’t support. In an attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record biologists proposed a number of theories, notably “punctuated equilibrium” - long periods of stasis(no change) punctuated by rapid, evolutionary bursts. However punctuated equilibrium creates new questions in its attempt to answer existing questions.

When people question evolution they’re not necessarily suggesting that man was made from mud 6000 years ago. There are many problems with the evolutionary models proposed and many unexplained aspects of the fossil record. This is what people are generally referring to when they talk of the problems with evolution.

554

[quote]Bismark wrote:
So the earth is also not 4.54 billion years old, but 6,000? Gotcha. [/quote]

There seems to be debate, even among Christians, about the age of the earth. ( http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html ) The 6,000 year-old earth is not really a necessity for creationism. The link appears to point to the fact that the 6,000(modern, scientific) year old earth is not even necessary for the biblical account of the beginning.

555

[quote]NickViar wrote:

There seems to be debate, even among Christians, about the age of the earth.

[/quote]

Of course there is. You really didn’t know that?

Uh…yeah? They’re called “young earth creationists”. Of course there’s no necessity for a 6000-year-old earth for creationism to be true. Why would there be?

[quote]

The link appears to point to the fact that the 6,000(modern, scientific) year old earth is not even necessary for the biblical account of the beginning.[/quote]

Yeah the thing is the “table of nations” purports to record the genealogy of all mankind which kind of restricts a literal interpretation to somewhere around 6000 years. I’m surprised you don’t know this stuff. Are you American if you don’t mind my asking?

556

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.
[/quote]

Nope.

But feel free to offer your citation. “The fossil record shows all mammals suddenly appear fully formed.” Where exactly did you read this? Note that I will reject your source if it is not reputable, not scientific (in the credential sense), and/or not current (i.e., has been reversed by later findings).

Before you say what I suspect you’ll be tempted to say, remember that the burden of proof lies with the claim-maker. But don’t worry, I have literally hundreds of citations here awaiting deployment.

Then maybe we can hear some specific and direct evidence in favor of the claim that god made man from clay and breathed life into his nostrils.[/quote]

I may be wrong, but I think he’s referring to the fact that Darwin’s evolutionary model of speciation describes a gradual, uniform process called “phyletic gradualism” which the fossil record doesn’t support. In an attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record biologists proposed a number of theories, notably “punctuated equilibrium” - long periods of stasis(no change) punctuated by rapid, evolutionary bursts. However punctuated equilibrium creates new questions in its attempt to answer existing questions.

When people question evolution they’re not necessarily suggesting that man was made from mud 6000 years ago. There are many problems with the evolutionary models proposed and many unexplained aspects of the fossil record. This is what people are generally referring to when they talk of the problems with evolution.[/quote]

(On my cellphone, will post in full tomorrow.)

Of course you are correct, the suggestion is not necessarily present. But it happens to be present here and in this case.

As for p.e., it – like the fossil record itself – does not come remotely close to making or supporting the argument that all mammals appeared suddenly in final form. It is also not as widely accepted among evolutionists as one might think. If I recall correctly – and I’d have to check this – it has actually been losing favor among some high profile researchers.

557

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
this would merely put you and I on par[/quote]
-This admission is all I ask.

[quote]
2. But if we dig further, we realize that you and I are most certainly not on par. First we must deal with “You haven’t observed macroevolution.” This is a risible line predicated on (often willful) misunderstanding and – appropriately, given who tends to tell the tale (though you are not included here)-- signifying nothing. An inquiry into the origin of man is necessarily detective rather than observational (note that I have not asked you to produce proof that you have observed the making of a man from clay by a god; rather, I have asked for the slightest evidential reason to believe that it happened or that it might have happened or that it could have happened. That is to say, note that I’m challenging you to meet a standard of evidence that is almost parodically lax and low, whereas you are asking me to do something quite different). [/quote]
-I’m not asking for an observation of the origin of man; I’m asking for the observation of the evolution of any new species. I’m perfectly willing to accept that man came to be via evolution, IF the process is ever observed.

[quote]
What do we have? We have an evidential and logical case (note the absence of the term proof). I repeat myself: I will not entertain the notion that this isn’t so. Read the books and listen to the lectures, or don’t – that is up to you – but if you choose the latter, be so kind as to inform me so that I can extricate myself from this debate. We have a great deal of evidence: that life is built upon DNA; that DNA is conferred by parent organisms upon their children; that, in the exchange, DNA mutates with apparent randomness; that these mutations, over time and if by happenstance inflationary to the individual organism’s chances of long-term survival, come to obtain as general characteristics within the population. All this has been observed, and it represents an enormous amount of groundwork finished and done for the evolutionist – the analogy, for the creationist, would entail his showing that, yes, gods can make living things from clay. We know that this is something which happens in the universe, whether it can/did happen to man or not. (But you haven’t managed that yet, have you?) Then we have the physical, detective evidence: the preserved remains of the long-dead, the comparative genetics that Bis has been invoking, etc.

Now, I don’t care whether or not you subscribe to the above. I don’t want to hear a bunch of people who are not scientists regurgitate fallacious criticisms that were written by people who are not scientists (and that have been torn to pitiable shreds by people who have forgotten more about science than you or I ever knew). I don’t want to have to read about decades-old pseudo-science, or discredited books written by scientists in the 1980s. I don’t want to have to deal with illegitimate demands, and I don’t want to have to wade through a bunch of fallacy. I accept your skepticism; I recognize it. What I do not accept is the notion that the evolutionist, asked to evidence his claims, cannot produce anything at all – that he stands in silence.

Now, I am asking for the last time, can you say the same for yourself?. A renowned evolutionist is asked to evidence his case, and he gets up in front of the audience and parades his evidence, undoubtedly much better than I ever could. He talks and talks, lectures and lectures. Whether you are skeptical or not, you must admit that he, the evolutionist, is offering the audience reasons – things, objects, results, logical arguments – designed to specifically and directly sway them toward his cause.

He finishes, and it is your turn. You stand there and you read Gen 2:7, the account of man’s origin, which is the Old Testament’s direct answer to the evolutionist. And you offer your evidence, the specific and direct – specific and direct – evidence by which you are confident that the particular account of man’s origin found in Gen 2:7 is, of all the thousands of competitors, the one to which a reasonable observer is compelled to subscribe. Or has any reason to subscribe. Something. Something showing that it happened, or that it could have happened, or that maybe it could have happened. Anything.

Well, what have you got? If the question goes unanswered again, I will assume that the answer is “silence,” and I will consider the debate resolved.

Edited[/quote]

What the evolutionist has is somewhat akin to, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” I have never heard a convincing argument in favor of evolution. If lack of evidence of anything else can’t work in creationism’s favor, then creationism will have no great argument. Evolution can point to anything, create a story for it, and claim that works in its favor. Creationism can point to what exists, point to the lack of anything else(which, apparently, is not worthy of discussion), and rest. If evolution is to be accepted, it needs to fill the gaps. Creationism does not need to fill gaps. Creationism demands a lack of scientific evidence, and evolutionists continue to back it up.

558

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If evolution is to be accepted, it needs to fill the gaps. Creationism does not need to fill gaps.[/quote]

This is smh’s whole point. Evolution is a scientific theory that rises or falls based on the scientific evidence, which still has gaps, but the gaps are being filled it.

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory and it isn’t based on scientific evidence. It explains everything solely by reference to the supernatural without the need for evidence of any kind.

Even if, at some point, evolution is disproved based on the evidence, the “scientific default” will be “we don’t know” not “creationism must be right.”

560

Evolution does not need to fill gaps. Evolution is not a person, does not have needs. Evolution is a process with no care for our understanding of it. It neither needs nor wants us to discover it.

Easy, full, simplistic revelation is the purview of the fantasy and the fairy tale. (You know, stories about talking animals and 900 year old men.) The real world deals in fragments, requires solving.

This kind of science – this kind of inquiry – is not built of certainties (if, indeed, anything at all is). It consists of evidence, evidence which suggests patterns, patterns which suggest processes. The evidence is there for you to see. You (Nick) say that you have never heard a good argument for evolution. As it is clear that you have not examined the evidence – you seem not, even, to have spent all that much time examining the Christian Bible, in which you allege yourself to believe – this is a personal problem, and the remedy is likewise yours to seek.

So, as promised:

“If the question goes unanswered again, I will assume that the answer is ‘silence,’ and I will consider the debate resolved.”