Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread

[jetson]

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.

Indeed.  To make matters worse, there are many (I'm not including BS or UP in this) who claim that science wants to get rid of God.  That science is atheistic, and therefore evil.  It's really, really sad to see this happening in front of us, and there seems to be so little we can do about it.  It's like we are forced to watch as we drop back into the dark ages, from which we will have to climb out of again - if we can ever pry people away from the dogma of religious belief systems that do nothing to add value to our society.

[jetson]

To add, I do think it is sad that so many people just don't seem to trust science.

[ParkingPlaces]

I just made a major mistake. I read the conservapedia.com entries on evolution and speciation. Personally, I am amazed that they at least spelled the words right. It is very hard to figure out where they got their information.

Conservapedia stated, at the end of the speciation article, that "Sometimes speciation is described as "evolution in action." While this description is essentially correct, speciation does not prove the general theory of evolution, specifically, universal common descent."

To paraphrase, they are saying that it is essentially correct that it is evolution in action, except since there is no such thing as evolution it doesn't prove anything.

I have to go wash my eyeballs out with bleach, but I'll be back soon. Crap I'm gonna stink.

[William]

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.

A sentiment I share.  I had a little go at it one time - remember Sam who was stonewalling about "mutations":

If you have a genetics or microbiology department near you, go in and introduce yourself - ask them to show you a bit of what they do.  I think you will be shocked at the resources, study, and years of effort it takes to conduct this type of research.  They are working with stuff that is close to invisible, is easily contaminated, and very complicated.  It's heroic stuff actually - and to have creationists sniping at it from the sidelines while themselves doing no serious work to contribute anything useful is a shame.  Creationists are quite happy to enjoy the medicines, the health care, the foods, the chemicals, the water purification etc etc - but all the time buzz around like annoying little disease carrying mosquitoes on a mission to infect the science with a dysfunctional thought process.

[UniversityPastor]

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.

Indeed.  To make matters worse, there are many (I'm not including BS or UP in this) who claim that science wants to get rid of God. 

I do not by any means think that science wants to get rid of god, or that it is atheistic and therefore bad.

I agree with every scientific consensus I can think of.

[Timo]

Does anyone else want to elaborate on just how incomprehensible it is that all scientists are collaborating to lie about the foundation of biology?  Or how in order to maintain that lie, they would have to fudge decades of results?  And how all those fudged results would be useless for any science or practical applications?  And how by now the entire house of cards would have collapsed?

It's worse than that.  If the young earth people are right then there would have to be entire fields of science that are either collectively in on the lie or too incompetent to notice the problem.  It's not just biology.  The young earthers also have a problem with the findings of, among other fields, geology, archeology, and cosmology.

[UniversityPastor]

My opening arguments are up.

I just wanted to pre-empt what will be the inevitable response

"Just like a theist to start with an argument that their claim can't be disproven"

But notice that it's a 2 parter, and contention B says "and I can provide evidence in it's favor" I have a plan here, people.

I don't want BS to feel buried under a mountain of science he doesn't trust or believe in. I want him to feel met on his own terms. Then, when he understands that what he's clinging to won't hold him up, he will be able to see what other options he has.

[screwtape]

Good opening, UP. 

[Tykster]

Good opening, UP. 

Agreed, but Occam's razor is going to be very dull, methinks, at the conclusion of this exchange.....

[screwtape]

No, this is not enough. Aside from it being an argument ad populum,

At what point does the consensus opinion cease to be an argument from popularity?  What I mean is, how much expertise does a group have to have for it to no longer be just a popular opinion?  It is not like we are talking about the scientists' opinion.  They agree because they have all seen the same facts that point to the same conclusions. And they are experts because they have more facts and more practice using them.   

When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

Even if not. In order to explain away this incredible inequality in the scientific community you have only 2 options:

One, you could believe you personally know more about biology than most biologists
Or two, you could believe that scientists are so devoted to not following God that they’ve allowed their eyes to be blinded from the truth.

I choose neither.
Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

For those of you who missed it, that is choice number one - biblestudent thinks he knows more.

[jetson]

Wow.  Another sad victim of the "evolution conspiracy" crap from the world of crazy creationists.  So very sad that BS has bought it all, hook, line, and sinker.  I could recommend a great site that explains the micro/macro non-sense that BS is latched onto, but I can virtually guarantee he is not honest enough to admit he is wrong in his entire view of the terms.

Maybe BS will take the time to explain the exact mechanism God uses to STOP micro evolution before it becomes a new species!  Nobel Prize anyone?????  Mwu ha ha ha ha ha...sad.

Still some woo coming from UP, but nothing that can't be resolved by a drop of the god delusion. 

[relativetruth]

It is interesting that BS has completely ignored what UP considers his main argument which is that Xtians do not need to be so afraid of TOE because it is consistant with the bible (in UP's view).

I had been looking forward to the battle of the decoder rings.

[Timo]

It is interesting that BS has completely ignored what UP considers his main argument which is that Xtians do not need to be so afraid of TOE because it is consistant with the bible (in UP's view).

Yeah, looking back, I think that this would have been a better issue around which to focus a debate between Christians.  We've all seen creationists pretend that the scientific consensus surrounding evolution is the result of some sort of grand conspiracy, but I think that the intra-faith conversation would have been much more interesting.

Honestly, at this point, I'm impressed with your patience, UP.  I just can't pretend that the anti-evolution side has anything going for it.  And I don't really know how to properly engage with a side that I don't fully respect, intellectually.

[Emergence]

Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

I'd be interested to hear whether BS considers the evidence for the formation and separation of languages brought forth by linguists convincing or whether he believes that all current languages are a result of God's intervention at the "Tower of Babel" incident. If he finds the linguists' evidence credible and reliable, where does he see it as qualitatively different and stronger than that of us poor, misguided biologists?

Maybe in another debate...

Hey, UP, thank you for your time and effort. This scientist here really appreciates it.  

[UniversityPastor]

Hey, UP, thank you for your time and effort. This scientist here really appreciates it.  

Thanks for appreciating it.

[UniversityPastor]

When I debate, I like to keep a "flow" that keeps track of the arguments and where they apply. I thought since we had this discussion thread, I'd share my Flow with you, so you can follow along with me.

My arguments will be in Bold
His will be in Red

On Case
A: There Is No Reason Whatsoever Not To Believe Evolution
---no response---

B: There Is At Least Some Reason To Believe Evolution
B1: Most Scientists Believe Evolution
1. That's An Argument Ad Populoum
2. Scientists Lie And Cheat A Lot
B2: I Have Met BS's Own Criterion
Or Alternatively BS Is So Confident I'll Be Able To That He Won't Fairly Spell Out What That Is
---Still waiting to learn what that is---
B3: It's Implied By The Biblical Narrative
Does that mean you think abiogenesis is a part of evolution? (no)
B4: Other Stuff
I don't have to answer that

Off Case
---No Counterarguments Yet---

[Tykster]

 

I choose neither.
Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

<my bolding>  Would this qualify for speciation?

Something I came across after watching a documentary on the subject. In an evolutionary blink of an eye, dogs came from wolves :

The Evolution of Dogs from Wolves - Descendent of the Domestic Dog
Dr. Robert K. Wayne's work implies that the modern dog, although very similar genetically to the Grey
Wolf, has many separately distinct origins in both time and locations. The Grey Wolf and our modern "canine best friend"  are in fact so closely related to Grey Wolves that they can still interbreed, producing  fully viable offspring.

edit : fix quotes

[BibleStudent]

When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

This may startle you, but even I believe in certain aspects of evolution. It's when we get to macroevolution/speciation and the origins of life that things are strictly hypothetical and unconvincing.

I have seen some information indicating that 98%-99% of scientists believe in evolution.....well, cripes, you could count me in there if I were a scientist and you are speaking in general terms.....but those figures fail to make the distinction I am making. They are misleading. How many of them are convinced that abiogenesis and speciation are as convincing as things that happen on a micro level?
 

[jetson]

When we say "99% of scientists believe X" where X is an idea in their field, that is not the same as taking a poll of a-holes on the street and seeing what they think of the president.  There is a difference between opinion and profession opinions, no?  I am inclined to call bullshit on biblestudent here.

This may startle you, but even I believe in certain aspects of evolution. It's when we get to macroevolution/speciation and the origins of life that things are strictly hypothetical and unconvincing.

I have seen some information indicating that 98%-99% of scientists believe in evolution.....well, cripes, you could count me in there if I were a scientist and you are speaking in general terms.....but those figures fail to make the distinction I am making. They are misleading. How many of them are convinced that abiogenesis and speciation are as convincing as things that happen on a micro level?
 

You are making a distinction out of something you made up (or at best, borrowed from some ignorant creationist blowhard).  Your premise, and failure to understand the ToE is the only problem here.  You are free to deny it for the rest of your life, but you are plainly and factually wrong in this case.  Sorry. 

[Operator_020]

Maybe in another debate...

Maybe a BibleStudent vs Emergence debate on linguistics?  I know a guy who can set that up...

[Emergence]

Maybe a BibleStudent vs Emergence debate on linguistics?  I know a guy who can set that up...

I personally am not interested in a participation in a formal debate. Too demanding in terms of time and effort. Sorry.

[BibleStudent]

I personally am not interested in a participation in a formal debate. Too demanding in terms of time and effort. Sorry.

Chicken !!

Just kidding. I would have to decline as well. I am already participating in two other discussions/debates.....and it is, as you said, rather time consuming.

[velkyn]

wow, considering that BS still has no idea what the ToE is and keeps trying to redefine it to suit his desires, isn't it unfair and pointless to even try to discuss it with him?   It is amazing on how he still tries to conflate abiogenesis with evolutionary theory *and* tries to seperate speciation from evolution.  Willful ignorance is rather sad that way. It always seems that the claimant thinks that repeating misinformation will eventually make it "true".
 

[Gnu Ordure]

Mod20/ UP/BS, may I make a suggestion?

UP said this in his OP:

Then we have to decade how the debate should be judged. And I think that should be on balance. Meaning that when we have this debate, I'm going to make some arguments in favor of the theory of evolution, you're going to sake some arguments against the theory, and then we're both going to try to tear down one anothers arguments or use them to defend our own.

I think at the end of the debate, whoever has more powerful arguments that have survived, should win.

UP, it seems to me that if you do that, you'll be spending more time claiming victory in parts of the debate than actually having the debate (a slight exaggeration).

And it seems a litttle unnecessary, when we already have a traditional procedure for deciding who has a won a debate; a vote from the audience.

In this case, it would be easy, after each person has agreed to bring the debate to an end and has made his closing statement, for Mod 20 to open a poll at the top of the thread so we can vote Yes or No, and we''ll find out if the motion has been carried or not.

What do you think?

Gnu.

PS maybe I should have put this in the commentary, but I thought you might not notice it there. Feel free to move it, 20, if you want to.

[UniversityPastor]

@GNU (I'm going to reply to you hear because I'm pretty sure your comment will get moved here)

Yes. I agree with you. Mod asked for some parameters to start with, so I tried to be clear, and then BS promptly agreed to those terms, but didn't debate according to them.

I just want to give him one more chance to put something down and then I'll rip him a new one.

No more discussion about discussion I promise.

Or should I just do it now. Mod? Do you want me to just end this quick and painfully?

[MathIsCool]

When I debate, I like to keep a "flow" that keeps track of the arguments and where they apply...

Yay!  I remember the term "flow."  Brings back fond memories...

To be perfectly honest, I'm a little skeptical of the whole theory of evolution (though I cringe to say that on a board like this) but I have to admit that up to this point UP is winning pretty handily against BS.

BS, a little friendly advice -

I think UP is, in his main point, asking you to talk about biblical, theological reasons why evolution cannot be.  If First Kelletonians 23:42 said "And it shall come to pass that 1,850 years after the Son of Man's death and ressurection, there shall arise an evil and false theory, it shall be named evolution and thou shalt not believe in it..." then even if UP had shown gobs and gobs and gobs of scientific evidence in favor of evolution, UP would concede that he lost the debate.  There would be a good biblical, theological reason to disbelieve evolution.

However, First Kelletonians doesn't exist, so some other biblical arguments you could try:

1) The Bible teaches Mankind is made in the image of God, set apart from other animals.  The Theory of Evolution seems to contradict this.

2) The Bible teaches Sin and, more importantly for this debate, death were not present before the Fall, which Evolution pretty adamently contradicts.

3) The Bible says six times that there "was evening and there was morning - the nth day."  This sounds like it's describing 24 hour days, not epochs, which does not give Evolution enough time to work with.

[Omen]

I still haven't seen anything convincing that BS even knows what natural selection is functionally speaking or even how to apply that function to understanding how speciation can occur.  There is a common usage of single generic terms as if those terms represented all basic knowledge regarding that subject ( theory of evolution, multiple explanatory mechanisms involved; speciation, multiple kinds of selective speciation involved ).

What I often find is that fundamentalist not only don't know what evolution is, but actively work to avoid acknowledging anything beyond the vague projection that they've assumed evolution to be.  There is also the issue of having to educate every fundamentalist on basic science at the starting gate.

[nogodsforme]

Prayer, faith healing, etc do not work. That is why we have to rely on science. If the TOE was not valid, the science based on it would not work and the TOE would have been tossed out long ago. The science works, and has for the past century and a half. Therefore the theory is valid.  Scientists have confirmed that all life had a single common ancestor. It is the only way that many aspects of modern science can exist.

Why is there even an argument about this? What is there to "believe" or not "believe" about a theory that is clearly valid? People who don't "believe" in the TOE have to explain how it is that the science based on a bogus theory somehow works. Is it by magic? I am assuming that most of these TOE deniers have been vaccinated against many awful diseases, and if not, have avoided smallpox, etc, because most of the world has been vaccinated......

It is like a person who doesn't "believe" in the theory of gravity that has enabled people to put objects into space,  telling you all this on a satellite phone while driving a car that has GPS. :shrug

[Omen]

I think the primary problem is that a presuppositionalist apologetic by necessity has to attack basic knowledge.  They've essentially leave themselves with no other option after defining what truth is regarding their presumptions, without any basis of support.  Science, a simple system of knowing, consistently contradicts biblical literalism in virtually every single field of study.  It has to be denied or attacked, doing anything less is unacceptable.