THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

[perspective]

- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past. This is a massive leap of faith. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science) )

What? There isn't any assumption, there is simply no evidence for a massive change in the geological mechanisms. That is, there is no point in adding entities when you don't need them - parsimony. Also, there is evidence of big changes in geological structure over time, as well as climactic conditions. However, mentioning evidence means zip to you because:

- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html )

You've just conflated anthropomorphism with deduction. Never the less, from the perspective you just demonstrated here, nothing is knowable. Everything must be taken on faith - essentially, perspectives chosen at random. Our legal system has incarcerated millions, even executed people, based on what boils down to a random choice in belief because evidence is utterly useless and nothing can be known.

- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module.

As long as evidence is meaningless, this would seem true. Or not, as this is the presentation of evidence, and evidence is meaningless, right?

- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?”

And again, a creationist tries to make evolution about abiogenesis. Well, since evidence is meaningless, it matters not. One world view is as good as another.

- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began.

More abiogenesis when the discussion is evolution. Tsk. Still, no matter. Evidence is meaningless, so what one chooses to believe is as good as anything else.

- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

Odd how you keep trying to posit evidence when you already said that evidence is meaningless.

When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.

[perspective]

I will answer your meandering, illogical, fabricated, and meaningless post with a quote from within said post, slightly modified:

... if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that you cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Creationism is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The creationist motto, “If they have a Bible in their hands and they believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

There is nothing to mock or brush off... to do so would mean I have any interest whatsoever in arguing with your drivel, which I do not have any intention of doing.  I did read it, I find it nonsensical and pure creationist BS.  'Nuf said.

In other words, "I can't dispute what you have said so I am going to dismiss what you have said as "drivel" and take the intelectual high ground." I think that is what I said would happen. read my "case and point" post

[Jolly Sapper]

Perspective, to say that science is bullshit and then posting about some scientific research paper in the other (locked) thread you started.

Hell, articles about the research paper quote the researchers, ""We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

You don't read anything about the evidence you try to post in your attempt to support your argument.

You don't seem to understand the logically unsound arguments you put forward, even when most of us here are more than willing to show you where there are problems (you could use our criticism to fine tune your arguments to be more logically consistent).

You criticize science when it doesn't suit you but when you think that there is some scientific proof that may in some tortured effort of reasoning support your argument, you seem to forget that you've done nothing but bash science in your previous attempts to prove your cause.

You fail, miserably and completely, in trying to support/describe/prove your side in the argument/debate.  Not only that, but if you expect us to take the idea that there may be some other theory describing the diversity of life on this planet and the diversity of life that has lived on this planet in the past that works better than evolution by natural selection we're all ears.  But you have to, HAVE TO, HAVE TO get better at arguing for your cause, because you've done nothing but help to prove that the whole notion that "evolution is wrong" is the pet project by crackpots, the willfully ignorant, and the fearful.

[perspective]

Oooh!  Wall of text rant!  You, perspective, have supplied such a big, beefy chew toy that it's hard for me to resist.  Thank you.  Though I must admit, my reaction was graphically summed up by McQ's post.  I don't think I can masticate the whole of it in one post, I'll start, and see how far I get-- perhaps returning later to growl and roll around on the floor worrying at the thing.

 

The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.

Science does not assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.  In fact there is evidence (I know, you consider evidence essentially meaningless, which is a great position to take for somebody defending intelligent design/creationism, but I don't share that position, sorry) that conditions on the earth have varied quite a lot at various times in the past.  Those varied conditions, as evidenced in the geologic record, show no sign of violating what we understand as scientific laws, though.  There are several things in the biblical flood story that do violate scientific law, which is a big reason why it's been discounted as mythology for quite a while now, by all but the most stiff-necked fundamentalists and others whose ignorance allows them to be duped.

Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws. Second, I never said that your theory violated scientific law. Third, I never said that evolutionist think that all the world was exactly like it is today. You have stuff my mouth with words that I have not said. What I said was that evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

The very authority of Scripture is jeopardized if the flood account is not true.

(In A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood)

You may see this as the case, as the authors of the quoted article do, but there are many faithful Christians who do not share this view, and are quite willing to accept that there are portions of the bible that are meant to teach moral lessons, while not necessarily relating actual events.  To assume that the biblical god meant every word of the bible to be taken as literal fact, turning a blind eye to the reality we find around us, seems to be an attempt to know the mind of that god, which I think is generally posited to be impossible.  That assumption borders on blasphemy, in my opinion.

Many "Christians" feel they need to compromise because they buy into the false arguments of false assumptions. However, what people say is true and false does not make it true or false. So this doesn't do anything against my arguement. Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

The Noel article actually starts off by dispensing with a major objection to the historicity of the flood narrative by recourse to the miraculous.  I'm supposed to just swallow that whole and keep reading?
In fact I am continuing to read it, and follow up important footnotes.  I'm not surprised to find that they often cite sources which can only be found on creationist websites.  I think I'll wade through the rest of it and perhaps get back to you, but don't be surprised if I simply throw my hands in the air and accept that there's really no point in trying to have a discussion on this.  As I said before, my reaction to your post was essentially the same as McQ's, but, speaking only for myself, I feel that the effort you put into it deserves at least an attempt at a response.

You do not have to swallow anything. The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible. NOT that this is exactly what happened.

[perspective]

Perspective, you might be able to learn something by reading this thread; in particular I would direct you to the excellent posts there by PipeBox.  Somehow I doubt that you are willing to approach the subject with the intent of learning anything, since it's much safer for you to ignore anybody but perpetrators of "creation science," but on the off chance I'm wrong...

So, back to me and the chew toy:  I continue my reading of A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood by Noel & Noel:  

 

Biblical creationism('s)  ...reliance on a miracle appears mystical to onlookers.
Fortunately, the intelligent design movement has provided good scientific
evidence for the reasonableness of divine creation of life. In this respect, the
creationist paradigm stands on a firmer scientific footing than the evolutionary,
since to date it has proven impossible to assemble the chemical building blocks
of life by purely natural means.

  How divine creation fits with a "scientific paradigm," I'm at a loss to explain. The "good scientific evidence" of creationism/intelligent design would be able to meet the same standards applied to any other scientific evidence, but it simply does not. Baldly asserting that it does is not acceptable. Perhaps you could enlighten me:  How is saying that a god did it a firm scientific footing? This is really the crux of the matter isn't it?  If there were sound scientific evidence for divine intervention, then it would still be the predominant theory, rather than a red-headed stepchild.  Why not simply dispense with the tedious effort to reconcile biblical mythology and reality?  Miracles and science are oil and water, and an emulsion of the two, as attempted by creationism/intelligent design, will never pass muster.  Better to stand firmly in god's camp, science be damned. (In reality, that is exactly what creationists are doing, but they refuse to admit it.) As I've mentioned before, there is a third way.  It's fairly easy to reconcile the Christian god with scientific fact, as long as you don't insist that every word of the bible is the literal truth. There are plenty of Christians who do just that.

I won't even go into the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, which seems to be something which is impossible for pretty much all creationist thinkers to see.  It's been said before, but bears repeating:  The fact that scientists have been unable to create life in the laboratory up to now does not in any way have bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

...it is important to understand that we do not believe the biblical
account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather,
we believe the biblical account because it is God's word.

They seem to agree with me, but then they cannot resist attempting to prove it scientifically.  They fail.

 

There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world. We say
this for two reasons. First, if the general nature of weather in Eden were similar
to modern times, the humidity would cause a high mountain to be constantly
shrouded in cloud. Such a feature seems out of place in the narrative as given.
Also, high mountains create weather. Air moving against mountains is lifted and
cooled, resulting in clouds and precipitation. This creates complex airflows
that are incompatible with the calm climate of Eden.

It seems that the authors are espousing a form of *gasp* Uniformitarianism here.  Unfortunately, the geologic record shows high mountains having existed in one place or another on the planet going back for millions and millions of years.  There is evidence of formidable mountain chains having risen and been worn down to nubs repeatedly in the immense expanse of time that is the history of the earth.

It has become apparent by this point in the article that, true to their word but contrary to the title, Noel & Noel are not really interested in science, but in creating what they believe to be a scientifically plausible exegesis of the biblical story of the flood.  They take the text as a given, and try to come up with "science" that will fit with the text.  As in the above example; they conclude from the text that there were no high mountains "before the flood," and the geological record be damned.  

I honestly admit that I'm not sure I'm willing to wade through any more from this particular source.  I'm going to have to retire to a peaceful place and commune with some strong spirits (from north of Hadrian's Wall, I think, this evening) to fortify myself to go on...

Let me stop you from anymore "following a bunny trail" You are arguing against the article that was not even part of my point of the post. The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

[perspective]

Perspective, to say that science is bullshit and then posting about some scientific research paper in the other (locked) thread you started.

Hell, articles about the research paper quote the researchers, ""We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

You don't read anything about the evidence you try to post in your attempt to support your argument.

You don't seem to understand the logically unsound arguments you put forward, even when most of us here are more than willing to show you where there are problems (you could use our criticism to fine tune your arguments to be more logically consistent).

You criticize science when it doesn't suit you but when you think that there is some scientific proof that may in some tortured effort of reasoning support your argument, you seem to forget that you've done nothing but bash science in your previous attempts to prove your cause.

You fail, miserably and completely, in trying to support/describe/prove your side in the argument/debate.  Not only that, but if you expect us to take the idea that there may be some other theory describing the diversity of life on this planet and the diversity of life that has lived on this planet in the past that works better than evolution by natural selection we're all ears.  But you have to, HAVE TO, HAVE TO get better at arguing for your cause, because you've done nothing but help to prove that the whole notion that "evolution is wrong" is the pet project by crackpots, the willfully ignorant, and the fearful.

Tell me where I have failed when it is now so clear that the modules that were taught as fact (that birds evolved from dinosaurs) has now been proven false. the claim of common ancestry is no where close to saying that birds directly evoled from dinosaurs. OF COURSE in the evolution module everything IS a common ancester because the tree only has one branch. You are blind. This changes the whole evolution tree chart drastically and now more complicated explainations have to be given as to how birds and dinosaurs evoled seperately. The only way I have failed is to get past the wool thats been pulled over your eyes. Why don't you actually think about the gravity of this new study and the implication of it before you spout off at the mouth. Every museum in America has to be redesigned because the LIES where shown to be just that. The funny thing is you would have sworn up and down last week that "everybody knows that birds evolved from dinosaurs." Silly wavering faith.

[Whitney]

Have I not made my point or should I post more?

You have not made your point because you are wrong...posting more doesn't fix wrong.  Half the stuff you said in your OP wasn't even related to the theory of evolution.

[perspective]

I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

[Whitney]

I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Perspective....did you see Squid say he believes that life came from non-life?  I already have pointed out that abiogenisis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Anyway, I'm giving you a warning for insulting people.

[perspective]

I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Perspective....did you see Squid say he believes that life came from non-life?  I already have pointed out that abiogenisis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Anyway, I'm giving you a warning for insulting people.

Well, please do explain how else life began under the evolution module. Please explain what other story there is to have faith in. If life did not form spontaneously, then God created it. There is no other options. There can not be infinite regression. Eventually it leads back to God, or it happened from non-life. Evolution has everything to do with spontaneous generation, unless you are stating God created life to evole?

[Whitney]

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started.  It describes how life adapted and changed after life started.  Theories related to the origins of life are separate from the theory of evolution.  One of the hypothesis of origins is abiogenisis.  There has already been at least one experiment which makes this hypothesis feasible, which I already linked to in this thread (I assume you must have not bothered reading it).  I also have read articles about studies where they have detected life "building" blocks in space...I'll bother trying to find it for you if I decide you would actually care to read it; right now I feel it would be a waste of my time.

Anyway, not knowing exactly how life started does not mean a god exists (it especially does not mean your god exists); it just means  we don't know all the details yet.  I guess some of us are more confident admitting we don't know something rather than making up gap fillers like you do with god.

[perspective]

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started.

I don't think you can make a good case for this. Further, it most definitly has profound implications on life origin. It is not so easy as you claim to seperate the two.

It describes how life adapted and changed after life started.

So you are just going to ignore the question on origins and believe in evolution based on what? Also, you are confused because natural selection describes how life adapted and changed after life started. I think I have already shown the difference between evolution and natural selection.
 

Theories related to the origins of life are separate from the theory of evolution.

No they are not.

One of the hypothesis of origins is abiogenisis.  There has already been at least one experiment which makes this hypothesis feasible, which I already linked to in this thread (I assume you must have not bothered reading it).  I also have read articles about studies where they have detected life "building" blocks in space...I'll bother trying to find it for you if I decide you would actually care to read it; right now I feel it would be a waste of my time.

I think in my OP I explained that these "studies" are no where close to saying anything about origins.

Anyway, not knowing exactly how life started does not mean a god exists (it especially does not mean your god exists); it just means  we don't know all the details yet.  I guess some of us are more confident admitting we don't know something rather than making up gap fillers like you do with god.

Exactly my point. Atheist / Evolutionist  talk about the irrational faith of Creationist / Christians, yet you have no basis for what you believe past pure conjecture. So yes it really does come down to faith, of which the faith you have is in something that is man-made, ever changing, fallable, incomplete, at times out right deception. So explain why you chose that over creation. By what evidence, what logic, what?

[Whitney]

Perspective...you are simply wrong.  Go study some more then come back.

You can start here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

[perspective]

from the website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

I am blown away by the deceptive language of this website. First, descent with modification gives the impression that there was this ultimate genetic being and it passed down genetics to the diversity that we see today. That is NOT evolution. Evolution demands a gain in genetic information not a passing down. This website is a crock. Further, the illustrations of people passing down genetic traits is NOTHING like evolution. Evolution has zero to do with passing down genetics. Evolution is about the creation of new genetic information with each new branch of the tree. I can not believe you buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. Please learn to think critically.

[Whitney]

I am blown away by the deceptive language of this website. First, descent with modification gives the impression that there was this ultimate genetic being and it passed down genetics to the diversity that we see today. That is NOT evolution. Evolution demands a gain in genetic information not a passing down. This website is a crock. Further, the illustrations of people passing down genetic traits is NOTHING like evolution. Evolution has zero to do with passing down genetics. Evolution is about the creation of new genetic information with each new branch of the tree. I can not believe you buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. Please learn to think critically.

Perspective...that site provides the real description of evolution, not one from a fundamentalist christian website.  It also teaches the same evolution you would learn if you were to open a science textbook.  Did you notice that the site I provided you is from a University??  It's about the least biased source I could provide.  You can read the wiki submission for evolution if you don't believe me...the last time I looked at it (which was a while ago), it was spot on.  I'm sorry that you have put your trust in false information....don't take your frustrations out on us.

Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

I can't believe you're so mislead that you think I'm the one who is not thinking critically.  If you don't believe me...go ask your question on a biology forum.  Assuming they don't just laugh you off, they'll agree with what I have said and be able to explain it in more detail (possibly in so much detail that you won't be able to follow what you are saying...their language can be a bit stuffy).