Having problems with message search?
As always, discussions with evolutionists will be decorated with enormous amounts of words to cover the fact that evolution has never been proven – unlike other fields of science, like Newton’s Laws.
Don’t apologists for evolution sound exactly the same as apologists for religion?
Huxley:
| Quote: |
Let me begin my reply by first pointing out that HC has this unusual habit of responding to things I never said, and attributing to me positions that I do not hold. I am tempted to simply ignore such tactics, but for the sake of clarity and to insure the discussion is a fruitful one, I will go ahead and at least point them out when they occur. He writes, for example, "But if you expect a high standard of proof for existence of God, then why not the same standards be applied for the existence of evolution?" In response, I have reread my posts and am struggling to find where I have ever asked anyone for proof of the existence of God. I do not seek such a proof, I have never asked for such proof, so I have difficulty finding how I can possible be accused of a double standard. |
One of the points I noticed when discussing with evolutionists is that, they tend to snide theories expounded by creationists, as explained above. Although you did not bring it up, it is eminent that it would be discussed at some point of time. We shall see that later in this post.
| Quote: |
Now this is a completely different question from the first one, because (as I pointed out in a previous post) scientists do not "prove" anything. They can support, they can verify factual data, they can progress incrementally towards descriptions of nature that grow in explanatory power. They can develop technologies that work, and thereby show that they are probably right. But "proof" is not the domain of science. At least, not the domain of a science that is actually successful and progressive. So, of course biologists would not agree to such a stupid challenge. |
But scientists are willing to prove that Newton’s Laws exist without fear! Why the fear for scientists to prove evolution? Isn’t it because you have actually lowered the standards for evolution to pass through the door of Science? And now you have difficulty to put it to the test?
You only say biologists are not willing to agree to such an idea. Why no mention of other scientists? In the commercial world, researchers and scientists put their jobs and careers on the line. They believe in what they do in their specialised field.
Example, an engineer or architect puts his career on the line in the sense that if the building he designed collapses due to his negligence, then he would be made culpable. A researcher for a drugs company too faces consequences, if the drug he invents has dire consequences. The point is that real scientists, unlike pseudo ones who call themselves evolutionists, believe in their field of work – enough to put their careers on the line.
But ask the biologist, doctor, pharmacist, anatomist, surgeon or what not, to put his job on the line for evolution and see what you get. He wouldn’t! But he would do it for his own specialised field, be it medicine, pharmaceuticals etc.
My main point above is that evolutionists would say, evolution is accepted by this scientist or that scientist. However, that is not the case. These scientists simply do not question evolutionists. So by default, evolutionists take a free ticket into the world of science!
Hence the lofty claim that evolution is acceptable, in the various fields of sciences, is just a hollow boast by evolutionists! Real scientists in their fields have NEVER claimed that evolution is true. It just so happens that they NEVER OPPOSED the theories either. Hence, like I said, it is a lowering of standards for evolution and evolutionists did have their free ticket!
Next let us look at one most unacceptable explanation on evolution I have come across.
| Quote: |
And we must also stress again the actual meaning of "theory" because HC confuses it repeatedly. Theories do not BECOME facts. Theories do not PROVE facts. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Darwin's theory is "natural selection," not evolution. It's purpose is to EXPLAIN evolution in the same way that Einstein's theory EXPLAINS gravity. Understanding that, when HC writes, "So where is the connection that man came from ape because of Darwin's theory?" his confusion is all the more evident. Well, for starters, man did not come from ape "because of Darwin's theory." Man came from apelike ancestors because that just happens to be the particular contingent historical path a certain population followed. Darwin's theory attempts to explain WHY man came from ape. But it didn't CAUSE man to come from ape. |
That is definitely an unacceptable explanation. Cart before horse. You are supposed to find the evidence to support that claim, before making a pompous claim that we did come from apelike ancestors. What you have just done is to claim that is so, then search for evidence that supports it!
What if I claim life on this earth and universe is the work of a designer. Then I look for evidence supporting this fact, by quoting the harmony of the universe! You don’t accept it? Then why should we accept evolution in that manner so easily?
We need to have consistency of treatment here.
| Quote: |
Further, I am compelled to ask HC, what would constitute "proof" and who would be the judge? Me? HC? Harrison Ford? The Pope? What exactly is the "special evidence" that HC seeks that would make biology more like, say, physics or chemistry? I'd be fascinated to understand his revolutionary concept of science as dogma. |
Here is the part where you will see I why I mentioned that standards for proof of God is raised, but standards of evolution is lowered. I am willing to let you decide whatever is comfortable to you, to define what is ‘proof’. My condition is whatever definition you want to apply on evolution, let us apply it onto everything else – including proof of existence of God.
Game enough? Remember my condition – consistency in application.
Your explanation of Darwin and the six-pointer that follows again is nothing more than just what it is – explanation and rhetoric. How do they prove evolution exists? If you say scientists do not prove anything but build on data, can I say too, that due to the harmony of the earth, living systems, ecosystems and so forth, there is a strong indication that there is a designer who is engineering all this perfect harmony?
If you say that harmony and all the works of science do not prove the existence of a designer, then why do you say, yes to evolution with your six-pointer? What is so special about evolution that your six-pointer is enough to declare evolution as true?
Why can I not say that the perfect harmony of life on earth, the human brain, the stars in the universe etc, are all facts that point to the unmistakeable big fact that a designer is behind all these? I can argue that orderliness is a sign of design.
Back to your last post. After all that is said and done, you have still not answered about the speciation part. Here is what you say about it.
| Quote: |
For species do not evolve in lock step, all moving inexorably along the same developmental pathway. Populations of a species can be spread over wide geographies, with one subpopulation facing very different environmental pressures from another subpopulation on the other side of the river, or the mountain, or the desert. It is these different populations changing in different directions while geographically separated from each other that allows them to gradually diverge into different species. Perhaps at first they can interbreed perfectly. After several thousands of years, perhaps they could interbreed only some of the time, but being separated it's not an issue. But eventually, they will have diverged so much that they are no longer able to interbreed at all. Were the river to dry up or the mountain erode away, the two populations might even contact each other again and share each other's geographic distribution again. But if they can no longer interbreed, they are now different species. This process (of divergence of populations separated by geography) is called "allopatric speciation" and is ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN AND WIDELY DISCUSSED mechanisms for allowing speciation to occur. It is covered in textbooks as early as elementary school. How could HC be ignorant of it? One can only surmise. |
Firstly, I would like to highlight the use of your word “perhaps”. Perhaps?? You mean to say you are not sure? But you sounded very confident that speciation is how evolution works! If you are not sure how speciation works, then how can you be sure evolution works?
Secondly, I would like to highlight the difficulty, once again, evolutionists face, to which you replied, that I have not been keeping myself updated. Here it is –
By definition a specie is different from one another if they cannot interbreed. Now we know that you can either have the ability to interbreed, or the inability to interbreed. The condition is discreet and identifiable.
So if you say A and A2 come to a stage where they cannot interbreed, then by definition, speciation has occurred. How then can you say sometimes they can interbreed? Because if they can interbreed, then speciation has still not occurred.
Thirdly, let us assume your theory of thousands of years of intermittent ability and inability to interbreed really existed. Obviously A and A2 would be very different by now. But there must have been something about the early A2s, that was so special about them, which is no longer present in present day A2 today, that allows these early A2s to interbreed with A for thousands of years, right?
So what did these early A2 who had the ability to interbreed with A look like? Are there any such species, evolutionists have found in large numbers?
Do not give me a single fossil here and there. Surely, with a thousand years of speciation being experienced by millions and millions of species in the world, evolutionists would have found many such fossils, who had the ability to interbreed with their parent specie as explained between A and A2!
So where are the abundance of these special A2s for the millions of species, that evolved a thousand years each, that are so unique they can interbreed with their parent A specie, that current A2 cannot interbreed with their parent A?
Logic tells us if speciation is true, finding fossils of these special early stage A2s is not a problem. So where are they now?
| Quote: |
I challenge you, in your next wandering missive, to try and depart from rhetoric and flawed logic, and present the factual basis for accepting special creation over evolution. For as I have shown, the devil dwells in the details. |
Notice that you are the one who have been doing that. You sound no different from apologists who are creationists, citing tons of scriptures and theories of sciences and other literature. But still avoid the issue – ie you have still not proven your theory to us.
| Quote: |
And your posts seem to be remarkably detail free. |
Yours are remarkably wordy – but still no show that evolution exists beyond doubt. Everything you say is just theory but not tested or proven.
But then, everything creationists say that orderliness in the universe, in the ecosystems, in the human body etc, comes from a designer is also just a theory and not tested or proven.
So back again - why the lowering of standards for evolution, but the raising the standards for creationism?
HC
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
Offline 
Send Email