Origins: The Evidence

Evolution is discussed scientifically and aspects of it debated often. Creationism cannot be discussed or debated scientifically or logically because the premise begins with something that cannot be evaluated to begin with. When one side does not even understand the subject any debate is doomed to impotent argument.
Those who argue against the idea of creation by an entity do so because there is absolutely nothing to indicate is might be accurate beyond religion. Those who argue against evolution do so because their religion tells them to and choose to ignore the data that clearly indicates accuracy.

 

I see it as a binary choice. There is either a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe, or it is supernatural. If there is no supernatural, then it can only be natural.

But it is not about 'science vs God!'.. it is about beliefs, & what evidence you have to support your beliefs. 'Science' cannot 'prove' either model. It can only dispassionately look at the evidence, & hypothesize which model it fits in, better. And, that isn't really 'science', either.. that is humans, trying to apply the scientific method, in spite of their biases & prejudices.

But i think you hit the nail on the head, & is why, IMO, it is difficult to calmly & rationally discuss such matters. Many people are fully invested in their world view, & they see any criticism or examination of that world view as 'attacking!' them. I am sure when Pasteur debunked the 'theory' of spontaneous generation, he got much the same backlash. Fortunately for the naturalists, there was an alternative waiting in the wings.. the ToE. Unfortunately, there are not many other 'theories' for a naturalistic explanation of life & origins, so they are 'all in' with the ToE, & don't have an alternative. So if the only justification for their belief system is scrutinized, or found lacking, their entire worldview is under assault, from their POV. It does not HAVE to be that way, but we are dealing with human beings, not purely rational creatures.

 

Of course it is a model. Both are the same kind of model. We have NOTHING empirical to conclusively support either 'theory', or better described, 'model.' We can only examine the evidence, to see which model fits better. We have yet to do that. I presented some predictions for the Universal Descendancy model, but nobody has addressed it, or probably even read it.

How is it a false dichotomy? The only POSSIBLE explanations for the origins of life, man, & the universe are either a naturalistic one, or a supernaturalistic one. You merely try to eliminate one with flawed reasoning:

Since there is no supernatural, then the only possible alternative is natural.

But i hope you can see the assumption there. You have not scientifically proven that the supernatural is impossible, you merely assert it.

A supernaturalist could do the same thing, with their assumptions:

Since there is a supernatural entity, then they created everything.

I'm sure you see the flaws in that reasoning, but you are using the same logic.. or illogic.

It is a logical, binary choice, unless you can imagine another scenario that does not fit under either of these binary choices.

For you to simply dismiss one as 'unscientific!' is mere prejudice. You have not provided any evidence to support YOUR beliefs, so merely dismissing someone else's beliefs is just religious bigotry. it is not science.

 

Good point. Why not engage in more useful activities, like trump bashing, or calling people nazis! That is certainly not a waste of time!

You can assume either option. You have no empirical evidence for either, so dismissing one as 'superstition!' is just religious bigotry. This is a comparative thread, where you can present the arguments, facts, & evidence for your preferred belief about origins. Merely dogmatically claiming yours as 'Absolute Truth' is absurd. It isn't, you know. You merely believe that, without evidence.

And you make a 'some, therefore all' fallacy. Just because you can attribute 'some' past beliefs as superstition, does not automatically mean that ALL past beliefs are superstition. Science has answered many questions, regarding the mysteries of the universe. But for every question that is answered, more come up, & the mysteries overwhelm our knowledge. There is more we do not know, than we do. our knowledge of the mysteries of life, man, origins, time, matter, infinity, eternity, etc is very limited. Pretending to 'know' all these things is the height of absurdity.

So if you want to debate origins, scientifically & rationally, go for it! Pony up some facts, reason, or studies that support your view. Else, you are just another religionist, screaming that their beliefs are the only Right Ones.

Evidence. Reason. Is that too much to ask, in a science thread, premised as a examination of origins?

 

Science is about explaining phenomena, by whatever means. For you to dismiss 'supernatural', just because you don;'t believe it, is no different than a supernaturalist dismissing naturalism, because they don't believe it. but we are dealing with facts & evidence, here, DD.. not beliefs. If you want to take a shot at evidencing your opinions about origins, then go for it. but to just try to disparage other's opinions, when yours has not even been presented, is prejudicial.

We are dealing with science here. I know most posters here have only asserted their beliefs, in either model. That is too bad, but i can't help it if nobody wants to debate the science. But almost every thread i have engaged atheists, & especially evolutionists, all they have are religious arguments.. or assertions.. or fallacies. So tell me HOW that is any more 'scientific!' than just asserting another belief about origins?

 

Does anyone want to examine the science behind the models? I can't even get people to look at the predictions of the models, much less begin to address the science. 14 pages, now, & still all we get is deflections, assertions, & sabotage of the thread. Why not just approach this like rational human beings, instead of hysterical propagandists? Show me the science, & enough with the diversions, deflections, & empty talk. If you don't want to discuss the science behind the models, could you please show some respect for those that do? There are plenty of threads where you can argue & bicker about your beliefs & opinions.. but this is about science & evidence, & i ask that you stick to those things in your presentation.

Here is the model & predictions for the ToE, or Universal Descendancy:

What would we expect, if the model of UD is the truth about origins of species?

1. all living things are related, since they are universally descended.
2. Life began as a single organism, & evolved into the complexity & variety we see today.
3. there should be many transitional forms, where species are becoming another, in every family/genera. Old ones dying out, & new ones adapting.
4. New traits, genes & adaptations should be happening all the time, demonstrating this transition.
5. There should be many exact copies, as well as close similarities within the genetic structure of living things. The dna should exhibit this descendancy, with a few nearly identical genes, if not quite a few exact copies, that did not 'need' to change to adapt.
6. If the fossil record is assumed over long evolutionary time periods, then we should expect to see many transitional forms, between the different species, in the fossil record.
7. The mechanism for this transition should be easy to observe, define, & test, if this is a current & common condition of living things, even under the time assumptions.
8. Reproduction between species in a close family/genus phylogenetic type should be relatively easy, to make the transitions possible.
9. There should be many vestigial conditions, that show the old traits from the transitional species.
10. It should be easy to force, under laboratory conditions, the transition between a species & a new one. If new traits are constantly being created by living things, then these traits should be coming up in a way that demonstrates the UD phenomenon.
11. It should be difficult to isolate a species in a specific morphological condition, as it would be continuously adapting & creating new traits.

There are probably some more. So what do you think? Are these reasonable expectations for the UD model? I'll examine the ID model later, but wanted to get this one established, first. I welcome a critique of these predictions. Do you agree or disagree with any of them? Why? Why not? You can address one or more or all. Or, you can add your own. But keep it within the model of universal descendancy.. that is the model we're looking at, now. I'm trying to be methodical & systematic, as one would expect in a scientific endeavor. I know that we have few, if any, real scientists here, but anyone can follow the scientific method.. it is not that hard.

 

Nobody is turning a blind eye. We are demanding evidence to support your criticisms. Simply stating "nuh uh, that's not how it happened" isn't an argument, or in any way a valid criticism of the ToE.

 

You have yet to address the peer reviewed scientific papers you were given on page one. You hand waived it away and said "nuh uh". You need to provide your peer reviewed evidence to rebut what you were given. You have been furiously dodging and avoiding it for 14 pages now.

 

Congratulations. You win the all-time irony award. Never encountered anyone less self-aware and more hypocritical in all my days.

 

They most certainly aren't. I even provided a clear, uncontested explanation of "scientific model" for you to distinguish them and, as the man says, you just go "nuh uh" like a deranged Energizer Bunny. Words have meaning. Look them up before using them to confuse yourself further.

 

Ok.. since all you have is fallacies & ad hom, do not expect any replies. all you do is disrupt & sabotage, you provide no reason or evidence. You can heckle from the sidelines, if you wish, but i will not reply to these kinds of deflections.

You provided nothing...just an assertion that there is only 'ONE model!', which is absurd by any stretch of the imagination. The beliefs & opinions of millions of people, throughout history, have to bow to YOUR definitions? I don't think so.

see you around.. but probably not.

 

The "supernatural" is just what science cannot explain. Fire, reproduction, disease, floods, were all at one time thought to be supernatural. But there is a modern difference: not that long ago, scientists would discuss the "supernatural", including God, because they were not afraid to go into the unknown, while today many have let politics and PC invade their thinking and are afraid to question the accepted doctrine.

 

You have stunted thinking. You still think its a binary choice, either evolution or God, the concept that evolution may have actual flaws and may need revision, that it can be discussed critically and scientifically with no relationship to religion, does not enter into your mind. That's because you do not have the questioning attitude of a scientist, but the entrenched attitude of a fanatic.

 

Actually, the way science works there is no choice but to end researching a hypothesis after thousands of years of "Study" and indicators of its inaccuracy. If by chance there someday comes to light any minimal evidence of its possibility it will be revisited, until then it will be dismissed.

 

Evolution is under constant revision in detail as new data is uncovered, but because all of this data fundamentally supports the theory it is furthered rather than eliminated. The "God" hypothesis has been eliminated due to lack of testable data and is thus removed from scientific pursuit.

 

But not long ago, even just 20 years ago, scientists and academics and the population at large could talk critically about evolution, even talk about evolution and God in the same conversation. There were a few who would take it personally, but not many. Even Dawkins, a firmly committed atheist who thinks of religion as a delusion, could sit and talk rationally about evolution and religion.

Today, everything is made political, even science. And who did it? "progressives", because their political religion infests all aspects of their life, and they demand control of every aspect of life.

And I blame the internet because it lets lazy people spend 20 minutes on google and they think they are a scientist qualified to have an opinion.

 

Before you go any further, think about what I am criticizing. Is it the scientific aspect of evolution, have I mentioned any aspect of biology or evolution, have I stated anything like "nuh uh, that's not how it happened"? Or have I addressed the closed minded attitude of people claiming to be scientists, people making ridiculous claims about the scientific method and the process of scientific progress, people who can't get past the religiously political attitude that its all about either God or evolution?

 

No need. That you've got nothin' but ad hom and straw attack to counter with is plainly "evident."

 

I've read every one of your posts here and you've simply been off topic the entire time. As usfan keeps repeating, it's supposed to be about the "Origins" and NOT everything since. So whatever "holes" and so forth exist - this is not about that. Different topic is all. No one's avoiding it. And rahl was obviously referring to usfan as an example, not you, yet you immediately took it as a personal attack or possibly so. He was just trying to illustrate his point.

 

All you are talking about is the age old problem of banning other 'religions' in favor of YOUR religion. Your data does not support your theory, as you believe. If it did, why do you not present any evidence for your faith?

Plenty of people believe in God... dismissing them is not a scientific process, but is mere religious bigotry. You promote YOUR beliefs, & belittle or ban OTHER's beliefs. It is the typical human thing to do, but it has nothing to do with scientific methodology.

 

So do you have any peer reviewed evidence to challenge the ToE?

 

Actually there is mountains of evidence for the ToE, and exactly zero of any god or gods.

 

Do you even read the posts?

 

So is that a no?

 

It is likely that was a question rather than a statement but could also be seen as commentary on the ignorance portrayed in your reply. The evidence for evolution is all over this thread, the internet, books, studies and "Peer reviewed" journals/papers worldwide. The evidence for your "God" is to be found in an ancient book that has been edited, revised, rewritten and manipulated to the point that it no longer even resembles the original which no one even agrees upon and is but one of thousands of god inspired versions in the first place. It is also clearly inspired and copied from earlier texts meant to portray a different version entirely.

But a thinking person should just go ahead and accept your version because YOU say they should?