A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[Sabertooth]

• What is the evidentiary basis for the Evolutionists' faith in the god named "random?"

• How is the presumption of random causation anything other than a dogmatic leap of faith?

[Sabertooth]

(((ping))))

[RaceBannon]

Their evidence is soley in the pictures they draw, and the theory they espouse. There is no scientific evidence for evolution of life from non-life. Life is always found where life always was before.

To state otherwise is to embrace the rule of faith. We creationists cannot scientifically prove Creation from observations of creation, we have to infer it from observed processes and from the results of processes unobserved in the past that happened after creation: The fossil record, geographic formation of rock layers, sedimentary deposits, observed changes in the speed of light (If this proves true). We also infer it from observations of decay that we can measure and compare it using the same method evolutionists use: uniformatarianism; Magnetic field decay, radiogenic helium, the lack of evidence of starting rates of K-AR, C14, and the like.

Either way, both systems rely on faith as regarding origins, but I believe only Creation is the accurate system that is proved through observed processes, and is the only rational answer for unobserved process results.

[Rudder]

One of self-admitted limitations of science is that is does not investigate unanswerable questions. Thus, questions concerning God are not found in science. Based upon evidence science has created theories about--not human creation--human evolution. It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

[Torie]

Is that part of the canvas that science cannot fully explain at present the realm of God? Or is it only that portion that science can never explain? How does one know what science will never be able to explain? And how do we know that what science will never be able to explain is the handiwork of some sentient force? Isn't that a leap of faith?

[Sabertooth]

It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

Ahh... no. While Creationists do this plenty, there are many evolutionists who do the same. Gould is forever spamming quack theologies. Others will show up on this very thread.

But tell me.. where has a single scientist ever observed "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Simple question.

[Rudder]

Stephen Jay Gould? --- He's just sensationalizing for his own self-aggrandizement.

"random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Few scientists have observed speciation, let alone random spontaneous mutagenic speciation. The answer is "no".

[Torie]

Some birds that are phsyically able to procreate with each other do not, because their bird calls have become differentiated. They are on their way to becoming separate species. But I am not the scientist or expert here. Others who engage in this debate are. I will leave the heavy lifting to them.

[f.Christian]

Syllables: tau-tol-o-gy

Part of Speech noun

Pronunciation taw ta 0lEji

Inflected Forms tautologies

Definition 1. unnecessary repetition of the same idea in different words; redundancy.

Definition 2. an instance of such a repetition.

Related Words circumlocution

Derived Forms tautological, adj. ; tautologically, adv.

Science--evolution--atheism...

[Sabertooth]

Great questions! I'll take a shot...

Is that part of the canvas that science cannot fully explain at present the realm of God?
Or is it only that portion that science can never explain?

Well, I believe that it's all the realm of God. I believe that scientific truth informs our understanding of God. All truth does.

How does one know what science will never be able to explain?

We really don't. My issue is as much with those who parrot "Because God said so," at everything, as it is with those who assume that everything can be expalined without God.

Both are intellectually lazy dogmatists.

And how do we know that what science will never be able to explain is the handiwork of some sentient force? Isn't that a leap of faith?

Yes, ultimately this is something we can only "know" by faith.

[Dave S]

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Why do they? When you get back to a singularity, you are outside of time. Time does not exist. Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time. Thats an area that is unknowable. Its a matter of faith. You dont have to be an athiest to belive in Evolution. In fact, Darwin was a Christian.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I'm of the opinion that the question is not able to be answered as of right now, because we don't have the tools it would take to be able to approach the question in a useful way. Consider the science of fractals, and what it can do for certain tasks, like a computer rendering a realistic image of a sunny sky, with clouds and everything. Before fractal equations were available the only way to render an image like this would have been to access huge databases of various clouds, each one digitally encoded as an enormous file, with millions of bits representing the image of a single cloud. Now give the computer a few fractal equations instead, filling up less than a single page of code, and that will be enough to render a better image of a summer sky than the one you would create using gigabytes of database data and billions of computations.

There is a new science that is taking shape, the science of "cellular automata" as presented by Stephen Wolfram. I'm of the opinion that this new science just might hold the keys to understanding many things, possibly even the origins of life itself. His forthcoming book, "A new kind of Science" will address the subject of "cellular automata". I look forward to it being published.

[equus]

Creation is another word for "I don't know how it happened, so God did it." Science doesn't know and neither does religion. Religion has stories about it and so does science. Neither can be proven. Science works hard to prove what it can and it is getting closer all the time. If "life" can arise from "nonlife" and they can make it in the lab then maybe we should redefine life. Where does life begin anyway? What's a virus? What's a prion? Does it start at bacteria? And who gets to have a soul? Only humans? What about your pets? All these questions and their answers are simply viewpoints. Science has tended to strip religion of some of its previous beliefs--Copernicus did that and Darwin did that. Creationists like the image of Michael Behe's "black box"--the things Darwinism can't explain, and Richard Dawkins says, "Try harder." Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean it can't be explained.

[Sabertooth]

Stephen Jay Gould? --- He's just sensationalizing for his own self-aggrandizement.

We agree. What an oafish media whore.

Few scientists have observed speciation, let alone random spontaneous mutagenic speciation. The answer is "no".

I appreciate your honesty. In fact, no scientists have ever observed speciation.

Yet, without such observations, how can Evolution be called "scientific fact?" Isn't the "Origin of Species" rather critical? Don't misunderstand, I'm no young-Earther...

But wouldn't "Postulate of Evolution" be more intellectually honest?

[Torie]

This may be a silly question, but how do creationists explain/describe the arrival of a new species specifically? This assumes of course one accepts the view that all species that ever were, were not all there at the "beginning."

[The Raven]

Creation vs. Evolution....That's it??? No third choice?

Assume there are infinate explanations for the beginning of time - including an explanation that there never was a beginning.

Then you can easily say...."It's too complicated for us humans right now."

[Rudder]

I am a life scientist and I call evolution a scientific theory.

[Sabertooth]

Why do they? When you get back to a singularity, you are outside of time. Time does not exist. Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time.

Yeah, it really does. Biological evolution is a consequence of the evolution of matter, is it not?

I used the word "singulartiy" not in the sense you're referring to, from the standpoint of Physics. I was using it in the sense of causes and first cause being unique and unrepeatable.

A species, being unique, can only evolve or be created once. It is a singular event.

Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results. It is the nature of some hypotheses to be outside the realm of experimentation, and I think Evolution is one. Small scale experimental standards of scientific proof aren't really applicable to issues of vast time scales such as evolution or cosmology.

That's why I suggested the phrase "Postulate of Evolution" above. "Big Bang Postulate" would be another.

[Sabertooth]

Be fair. Where have you or any living creationist observed God creating life?

You pigeon-hole me unfairly... I'm not a literal Six-Day Creationist, and I don't rule out some sort of evolution as a mechanism for speciation. But no one argues that Creationism doesn't entail a leap of faith.

Yet many Evolutionists adopt the conceit that their thinking is beyond faith. The point of this thread is to call that bluff.

Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?

[Sabertooth]

If God created the universe, and set up everything to proceed according to the natural laws he placed at the moment of creation, then why didn't evolution occur?

I'm not saying it didn't. I'm focusing very specifically on the answers of Evolutionists to the question...

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

[PaulJ]

Isn't most scientific understanding considered "theory"? After all, gravity is considered a theory, isn't it?

[Rudder]

As my professor was fond of saying, "In your entire scientific career, if you discover just one fact, consider yourself lucky."

The last I heard they were still working on a device that was supposed to actually "measure" gravity. Until that happens, I think it's still a theory.

[medved]

bookmark

[Khepera]

Plump

[Torie]

Much of science at present is really the technology of describing how something works, its properties. I don't think we have a clue as to what electricity really is, and what its ultimate origin is, much less gravity, which is a mystery.

[Quila]

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation." Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

here

[metacognate]

The Darwinite Creed* I believe the Universe began in a quantum fluctuation. Out of nowhere came an cosmic explosion of matter and anti-matter, atoms and Laws of Physics. This contradicts the First Law, but never Mind, it is a fact. I believe all the energy the Universe possesses appeared out of nothingness some dozen of billions of years ago. This contradicts the Second Lawof Thermodynamics, but never Mind, it is a fact, fact. I believe that order came out of this chaos. Galaxies, Solar Systems, Suns, and Planets formed from speeding dust. We have never witnessed such structuring but we need no proof for what we want to believe. On top of this impossibility, life arose out of random collision of elements and miraculously developed from blue green algae to ecosystems. It is a fact, fact, fact. I believe consciousness is an illusion. We are only matter. Therefore, Reason is a result of atoms bumping into each other and it doesn't matter what you believe anyway. However, if you do not submit to this Big Science Established State Religion, you are ignorant and will not go to heaven...if there was one. By Saints Darwin and Marx, Asimov and Sagan, [Dis comfort their souls], we swear along with the Prophets Dawkins and Gould that we believe with childlike faith this metaphysical bricolage of spontaneous generation, alchemy and almighty improbability. Rather swallow this camel than admit a Divine Foot on MY pedestal, never ever Mind... Mea Maxima Facto! PS Any devout darwinite interested in buying alchemical perpetual motion machines, contact: mdmadigan1@attbi.com

[Sabertooth]

I scanned your list and it seems you misunderstood the question...

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation." Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

All of the examples given in your source involve selective breeding, hybridization, or laboratory conditions.

Not exactly random.

[Conservative til I die]

In the name of the Monkey-Uncle, the Pond Scum, and the Holy Mutation, Amen.

[Conservative til I die]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true. Now I haven't taken philosophy or ethics since I was an undergrad, but isn't that considered a technical foul or something in debate?

[Quila]

Either way, both systems rely on faith as regarding origins

Evolution started as "How did we get here? Let's look at all the evidence and come up with the best answer that explains it." Creation started as "This book tells us how everything started, let's find evidence to back it up." The two approaches are quite different: the former is science, the latter is religion.

And, no, magnetic decay, attacks on isochron dating, and speed of light changes to the extent you're talking about (not true) do not show a young earth. They are merely attempts at making observations fit the Bible.

[Quix]

For sure!

Or given the old notion of the monkey and the typewriter . . .

Even if

20vasl;kq3wly4asd908kj_()&*_)$# turns into

Fourscore and

It's very quickly got to turn into

qopqwremnavdcp9q87w439l;as;^%$#(&()& Fourscore and q;lewkrujaopxicgln9087)(*&^%#^%$@^%$#654

[Sabertooth]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true. Now I haven't taken philosophy or ethics since I was an undergrad, but isn't that considered a technical foul or something in debate?

To be fair, so do Creationists.

What isn't fair is to base an argument on postulates, and not have the intellectual honesty to conced one's using unprovable or unproven postulates.

Mathematicians do it, why do so many Evolutionists have a problem?

[LibKill]

OK. I have my asbestos suit on. Here goes.

Genesis tells us that he did it in 7 days. But I seem to remember another part of Holy Scripture that said that 'A 1,000 years are but a day in the sight of the Lord.'

Forgive me if I did not get that quote letter perfect.

How about a billion years? What if this Creator G-d exists outside of normal time and space as well as within it? How if he exists in an eternal Now that makes all of time meaningless?

Who is to say that Evolution is not his paintbrush?

[Conservative til I die]

You know what's funny is that St. Augustine dispeled the notion of a literal 6-day Creation about 17 centuries ago. And St. Augustine is considered one of the great religious as well as intellectual thinkers of all time.

Now someone like RaceBannon, from my own experience with him/her, doesn't recognize St. Augustine as anything more special than say, some Christian person off the street.

Of course, I think most evolutionists are pretty arrogant people myself, and do assign to evolution an almost divine quality.

[Dimensio]

There is no scientific evidence for evolution of life from non-life.

There is no scientific theory for evolution of life from non-life. In fact, any theories that involve a transition of non-life to life wouldn't be part of evolution.

[Conservative til I die]

Of course, even that thousand years can be considered largely symbolic, much like when Christ talked about forgiving your friend seven times seventy times (of course, he is not saying we must forgive our friend exactly 490 times), in that numbers like 7, 12, 70, 1000 signify certain things.

See also my post #38.

[Sabertooth]

Who is to say that Evolution is not his paintbrush?

Not me, as you'll see from my posts. But my question...

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Is directed at those Evolutionists who pre-emptively deny your paintbrush analogy.

[Dimensio]

Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time

There's more to it than that. Evolution doesn't deal with events several billion years after the Big Bang either. Many creationists seem to think that evolution encompasses life origins and cosmic origins and start lobbing attacks based on that (usually founded in bad science as well) without realising that they're not even addressing evolution.

[Dimensio]

The Darwinite Creed* I believe the Universe began in a quantum fluctuation.

"Darwinism" -- or any other form of study of biological evolution -- does not deal with origins of the Universe. You are arguing a strawman.

[Quila]

Funny you mentioned Asimov. Did you know he was quite the biblical scholar?

[Quila]

All of the examples given in your source involve selective breeding, hybridization, or laboratory conditions. Not exactly random.

Some of it was observing speciation in the wild, guessing it was speciation, and then replicating it in the lab to see if the hypothesis was correct. I'm still looking for an old article about some worms or something that were taken from the general population in a bay for several years. With nothing done, it was found they could later not mate with the wild ones -- they had become another species.

We would get into a idea of quantum physics here if you want to talk about true random, since you could consider anything we observe not to be random anymore since we observed it.

[Quila]

Derived Forms tautological, adj. ; tautologically, adv. Science--evolution--atheism...

Saying evolution is a tautology shows a serious misunderstanding of the theory. Fitness is more than just survival.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

In the name of the Monkey-Uncle, the Pond Scum, and the Holy Mutation, Amen.

LOL!

[Rudder]

A lot of what you mention is sometimes given as a fiat (not a car) e.g., a given. Given that electricity exists, we can perform such and such measurments and predictions, etc., etc. Fiats ususally have to be given since they are not understood well enough to explain without reference to other phenomena, which they, too are often given as fiat. And so it goes. Our knowledge of facts is sparse, indeed. Having said that, we can still make wonderful and highly accurate predictions concerning physical phenomena.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

A good discussion on the thread!

[Sabertooth]

We would get into a idea of quantum physics here if you want to talk about true random, since you could consider anything we observe not to be random anymore since we observed it.

Like you, I was trying to avoid the Heisenberg tar-baby.

Not only that, how can we reconcile the concepts of an Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient God and absolute randomness?

Look, I'm not denying the possibility (to some degree) of random sponateous mutagenic speciation... But I'm questioning the dogmatic adherence to its presumption.