Re: What Is Evolution? What is Creationism?

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<5295f3dd-4737-4744-b418-93ac1e7497db@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jun 6, 2:16 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:09:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<61f784d3-e9da-4653-9f20-a36b16dd1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jun 5, 1:37 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 19:01:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<6ded787b-ec66-4e05-b19a-d46d9c6c6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On May 20, 1:24 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<c43cf52b-3f9c-43e8-9516-98af974ce...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

What Is Evolution?

Evolution is an interpretation of scientific evidence. This
interpretation says species are mutable and have evolved from other
species - perpetually - via material-natural causation.

No. That species are "mutable" and evolve from other species is an
observation, not an interpretation.

It's an interpretation based on observation.

No, it's an observation. I know that you deny that even microevolution
happens, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

Otherwise, the different breeds of dogs, for example, wouldn't exist.

Also, I'm not sure where you got
the idea that it's "perpetual".

Apparently you do not understand common ancestry via evolution.

And apparently you think that evolutionists claim that biological
evolution has been going on forever.

No, only since biological First Cause.

That's not the impression one gets from "species are mutable and have
evolved from other species - perpetually...". The word "have" places
the adjective "perpetually" in the past.

Absolutely correct. You have understood what I wrote and what I wrote
is what evolution claims to be true.

Evolution doesn't claim that species have perpetually evolved from
other species. So what you wrote was wrong.


What is Creationism?

Creationism is an interpretation of scientific evidence.

Rather, it's a *denial* of the scientific evidence.

We explain this belief as being caused by a refusal to be objective or
sheer ignorance.

We can debate Archaeopteryx any time. Then we'll see who is objective
or ignorant. But then, you're afraid to debate someone who is
supposedly ignorant.

You called Richard Milton a liar when I used him as a source. This
reply killed the debate.

So, if Richard Milton wrote something that I know to be false, I
shouldn't bring this to your attention? Are the statements of Richard
Milton, who has never examined the relevant fossils, to be given
greater weight than those of the people who have spent significant
portions of their careers studying them? Or are you saying that facts
are irrelevant?

Richard Milton is a recognized expert.

How is it that a "recognized expert" can't get basic facts right?
Milton is, at best, extremely confused. Besides, you've said that I'm
"a very knowledgeable evolutionist", and you once replied to me that
"I do realize and recognize that you have expertise in birds and their
alleged evolution...". So why won't you accept my assertion (and the
assertions of everyone who has examined the fossils in the last 100
years) about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx? Why does Milton get a free
ride? Remember, this is particular point *isn't* about evolution, but
anatomy.

The fact is that Milton is a "recognized expert" *solely* because you
want him to be. You're afraid to check the facts lest you discover
that you were wrong about him. And if tomorrow, Milton had an epiphany
and admitted that evolution happens, you'd drop him like a hot potato.

The only logical conclusion is that Ray Martinez isn't interested in
facts, and more concerned with hero worship. This doesn't bode well
for your paper.


Before 1859 Creationism was science.

Hardly.

Darwinism is
simply a re-explanation of our scientific evidence - an explanation
that denies much evidence and explains evidence in a way that makes no
sense.

What evidence does Darwinism deny? How does it make no sense?

That the observation of design is real or actual, and that the same is
an illusion produced by mindless material process.

You're confusing "explanation of evidence" with "evidence". The Claim
of Design is not evidence, but an "explanation of evidence", the
evidence being the "appearance of design". As you have stated in the
past, "Creationism and Evolution produce two different interpretations
and explanations for the same evidence or data". Creationism explains
the "appearance of design" as being the result of actual design,
whereas Darwinism explains it as being the result of unintelligent
processes. Unfortunately, I've never seen an IDist, or "British
Natural Theologian" explain how one recognizes design in a
satisfactory or reliable way.

I see no dispute between us here. You have simply described things in
a more detailed way.

You've just admitted that there is no "observation of design".


As for your last query I will remain silent until
my paper is released.

You've got to stop hiding behind your paper.


Darwinism doesn't deny design, it simply doesn't require it to explain
what is observed, relying instead on processes observed in nature.

The official position of Darwinism denies the existence of actual or
real design in nature.

There is no "official position of Darwinism". This is some fantasy
that you've made up.


This
interpretation says species are immutable, owing their existence to
Divine causation intruding into reality.

Unfortunately for creationists, there is no evidence for this.

The observation of design and organized complexity seen in each
organism and in nature as a whole. In other words all of nature is the
evidence of Divine causation.

Yet no evidence of "design" has ever been brought forth, merely an
unwarranted claim that "appearance of design" is equivalent to
"design". Or do you believe that every snowflake is designed?

Yes.

How did you come to *that* conclusion? What is it based on? As a side
note, I've seen snowflakes form without the intervention of a
designer.

You get right to the point.

You could learn a lot from that.


I knew you would ask these things but I cannot answer until my paper
is released. I do not wish to give my work away piecemeal.

Then you should stop making assertions based on it. Either put up or
shut up.


According to Dr. Gene Scott: Neither Evolution or Creationism are
scientific - both are explanations of the same scientific evidence.

Then it would seem that Dr. Gene Scott didn't know what he was talking
about.

I see that you don't contest this.

Dr. Scott's statement is self-evidently and objectively true. There
are two major interpretations of evidence.

What bunk! There are no creationist interpretations of the following:

- The predominance of marsupials in Australia.
- The virtual lack of mammals in New Zealand and the filling of
  mammalian ecological roles by birds.
- The mammalian lower jaw having only one pair of bones.
- The pattern of life seen in the fossil record.
- The presence of a non-functioning gene for vitamin C synthesis in
  humans, apes, and Old World monkeys.

If you can interpret those observations in a creationist framework,
with something other than "God did it that way", I have about a
thousand more.

Of course we have explanations. Your explanation is the exact
opposite: "evolution did it that way."

No, it's not. In the case of marsupials in Australia, the explanation
is that when that Australia separated from Antarctica, there were no
placental mammals present, and they haven't had the opportunity to
migrate there until human intervention. In the mean while, the
Australian marsupials have diversified to fill vacant ecological
niches. This is not "evolution did it that way". And I'll bet that you
can't give as detailed an explanation from the Creationist
perspective.


In addition, you claim that "Before 1859 Creationism was science", yet
Dr. Scott also claimed that Creationism wasn't science. How do you
reconcile these two statements?

Clever "quote mine."

I will re-explain later.

Why not now?


These are the objective facts.

No, they're not.

You are a moron. This is not an insult contrary to face value. It is
simply an objective description of your mental state based on your
inability to recognize plain and uncomplicated objective truth and
fact.

Yet you provide no evidence for your claim that I'm a moron.

Still no evidence.

I did say, at the time, why.

Not really.


But you have since changed your response to that original context.

Well, no, I haven't. But in the mean time, you've changed yours. For
instance, you now acknowledge that there is no "observation of
design".


You just
make unsupported statements. On the other hand, I can provide copious
and undeniable evidence that *you* don't know what you're talking
about on a wide variety of topics.

You lack the strength of your convictions, because you're afraid to
debate Archaeopteryx with a supposed moron.

Don't hide behind your hurt feelings over my accusation that Milton is
a liar. Prove me wrong about him. Show that Archaeopteryx had a keeled
breastbone.

Reply to those who say it did.

When you cite him approvingly, I have no choice but to point out that
he's wrong, and I can go (and have gone) into great detail as to *why*
he's wrong. If you don't want me to eviscerate him, don't bring him
up.

So, shall I start a new thread where we can debate the transitional
nature of Archaeopteryx, sans Milton, or are you going to run away
again?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Is Evolution? What is Creationism?
    ... species - perpetually - via material-natural causation. ... evolution has been going on forever. ... that denies much evidence and explains evidence in a way that makes no ... evidence being the "appearance of design". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What Is Evolution? What is Creationism?
    ... species - perpetually - via material-natural causation. ... evolution has been going on forever. ... that denies much evidence and explains evidence in a way that makes no ... evidence being the "appearance of design". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What Is Evolution? What is Creationism?
    ... interpretation says species are mutable and have evolved from other ... species - perpetually - via material-natural causation. ... that denies much evidence and explains evidence in a way that makes no ... That the observation of design is real or actual, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Op-Ed: Judge made errors of law and science
    ... between species, vestigial organs, and redundant bones considered to ... Evidence of evolution, but 'guided' evolution. ... But you have to apply the principle of parsimony in science, ... But the design argument adds needless complexity by requiring without ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blog: The Word "Theory" and Evolution.
    ... A deduction, an interpretation of evidence. ... Which means that evidence for evolution does exist. ...    You claim that it's ... call the appearance of new species (e.g. the London underground mosquito ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading