toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[noguru]

A demonstration of macro evolution in the lab might be a big first step.

And what criteria do you require for something to be called "macro" evolution?

Since logic indicates that many "micros" would become "macro" given no physical barrier, how about you guys demonstrate in the lab a physical mechanism that stops many "micro" evolutions from becoming "macro" evolution?

 

[noguru]

It's the way real science is done! :thumb:

So are you saying that any research that is not done in a lab is not "real" science?

 

[some other dude]

So are you saying that any research that is not done in a lab is not "real" science?

:noid:some other dude checks to see if that's what he said.

Nope.

 

[noguru]

:noid:some other dude checks to see if that's what he said.

Nope.

noguru takes entire quote and posts it here:

A demonstration of macro evolution in the lab might be a big first step.

It's the way real science is done!

Then what exactly were you implying?

Perhaps you should have just left out the part "in the lab", or not followed it up with the comment you chose?

 

[Alate_One]

A demonstration of macro evolution in the lab might be a big first step.

It's the way real science is done! :thumb:

Not all science can be done "in the lab". No scientist can demonstrate an actual volcanic eruption for you in the lab nor a hurricane, or earthquake etc. They can be modeled on a small scale or with computers but that's it. Just as one could show evidence of an ancient volcanic eruption, there's no requirement for an actual recreation of said volcanic eruption on the same scale in the laboratory. You can be reasonably certain it occurred in the past because evidence was left behind and we see modern volcanoes leaving similar kinds of evidence, albeit on a smaller scale. You appear to be asking evolution to essentially recreate real volcanoes in the laboratory.

To put a finer point on it, what EXACTLY would you define as "observing macroevolution in the laboratory"?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think most YECs would be convinced by anything other than God telling them directly or taking a time machine to the past.

Most likely they'd accuse him of being an atheist or of calling Himself a liar.

 

[Stripe]

Since logic indicates that many "micros" would become "macro"

Ah, the logic of the atheist. Parents can have children with longer legs therefore fish turned into people. :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

Ah, the logic of the atheist.

Well first off, I am not an atheist. But I guess it makes you feel better to group all Christians who disagree with you on this into that category. I know you really need to keep things simple. But we should realize that your judgement is not the ultimate judgement in regard to this issue.

At any rate, what does your logic say? That you do not need to demonstrate a mechanism that would stop "micro" from becoming "macro"? Or are just going to polute this thread with more of your childish retorts.

 

[Stripe]

At any rate, what does your logic say?

My logic says that you need to show your working. Show us your premises and how you conclusion follows.

I see no logical connection between "Parents can have children with longer legs" and " Fish can turn into people".

That you do not need to demonstrate a mechanism that would stop "micro" from becoming "macro"? Or are just going to polute this thread with more of your childish retorts.

There is a very simple mechanism that prevents micro becoming macro.

But your logic, if sound and valid, would trump that. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

y logic says that you need to show your working. Show us your premises and how you conclusion follows.

I see no logical connection between "Parents can have children with longer legs" and " Fish can turn into people".

That's just something creationist say scientists believe. No one really thinks that, not even Stipe. In fact, the argument is that a long string of intermediate forms shows that lobed fins became first legs for getting around on the bottom of shallow bodies of water, and then for the occasional foray onto land. Only much later were they primarily for moving on land.

Oh, and lungs were there long before legs, so that wasn't a problem, either.

The femur and the tibia/fibula were there long before fins became legs. The hand/foot, however, is something new. The evidence is that one Hoxd element was flipped producing feet.

What evidence?
Biology Bulletin
Volume 36, Number 2, 139-147
Conference Proceedings
Morphogenetic approach to the formation of paired limbs in the course of tetrapodization
E. I. Vorobyeva

There is a very simple mechanism that prevents micro becoming macro.

Show us that. Or is this like your "math that disproves" evolution?

 

[Stripe]

That's just something creationist say scientists believe. No one really thinks that, not even Stipe. In fact, the argument is that a long string of intermediate forms shows that lobed fins became first legs for getting around on the bottom of shallow bodies of water, and then for the occasional foray onto land. Only much later were they primarily for moving on land. Oh, and lungs were there long before legs, so that wasn't a problem, either.The femur and the tibia/fibula were there long before fins became legs. The hand/foot, however, is something new. The evidence is that one Hoxd element was flipped producing feet.
[IM]http://9e.devbio.com/images/ch16/160401_s.png[/IMG]What evidence?Biology BulletinVolume 36, Number 2, 139-147Conference ProceedingsMorphogenetic approach to the formation of paired limbs in the course of tetrapodizationE. I. VorobyevaShow us that. Or is this like your "math that disproves" evolution?

Are you trying to help noguru show his logic?

:mock: Barbarian's logic skills.

 

[noguru]

My logic says that you need to show your working. Show us your premises and how you conclusion follows.

I see no logical connection between "Parents can have children with longer legs" and " Fish can turn into people".

I have not proposed that fish turned into people. The naturalistic model proposes that there were many intermediate forms between fish to amphibians, amphibians to ancient reptiles, ancient reptiles to mammals, and mammals to humans.

We have covered all of this evidence before many times, yet you refuse to acknowledge there is any evidence. Because you have a prior committment to a static literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

There is a very simple mechanism that prevents micro becoming macro.

What is that simple mechanism?

 

[noguru]

Are you trying to help noguru show his logic?

:mock: Barbarian's logic skills.

Will you address the subject matter or just mock him?

 

[Stripe]

I have not proposed that fish turned into people. The naturalistic model proposes that there were many intermediate forms between fish to amphibians, amphibians to ancient reptiles, ancient reptiles to mammals, and mammals to humans. We have covered all of this evidence before many times, yet you refuse to acknowledge there is any evidence. Because you have a prior committment to a static literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.What is that simple mechanism?

So you don't have the logical deduction that links micro and macro?

Will you address the subject matter or just mock him?

Uh, he hasn't addressed the subject. You claimed micro logically inferred macro. If that is true, we can stop arguing about the evidence. Show us your logic and, if it's valid and sound, you win the debate. :thumb:

 

[noguru]

So you don't have the logical deduction that links micro and macro?

Uh, he hasn't addressed the subject. You claimed micro logically inferred macro. If that is true, we can stop arguing about the evidence. Show us your logic and, if it's valid and sound, you win the debate. :thumb:

You do realize it is 'logical inference" we are using here, and not "logical deduction", right?

I think the logic is obvious. If something behaves a certain way within our scope it is more logical to assume that it does so outside of our scope as well. Than to assume it stops behaving that way simply because it is outside our scope. Of course if you have concrete empirical evidence that the phenomenon does not behave in the same manner then that trumps the logical inference.

Now, Can you tell me where you draw the line beween "micro" and "macro" then, and why?

Oh and yes, Barbarian did address the subject with empirical evidence that supports the logical inference. Empirical evidence (if you have it) actually trumps logical inference. Because the ultimate test of veracity is in the empirical evidence. Logical inference is good, but to have both that and empirical evidence makes the case much stronger.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you trying to help noguru show his logic?

Just pointing out the evidence. Reality beats anyone's logic.

 

[noguru]

Just pointing out the evidence. Reality beats anyone's logic.

Yup, I just said that. But logical inference and empirical evidence certainly makes a case even stronger.

 

[Stripe]

I think the logic is obvious.

Then show us your premises and how your conclusion follows. :thumb:

If something behaves a certain way within our scope it is more logical to assume that it does so outside of our scope as well. Than to assume it stops behaving that way simply because it is outside our scope.

:dizzy:

Of course if you have concrete empirical evidence that the phenomenon does not behave in the same manner then that trumps the logical inferrence.

You have to show your working. :up:

Now, Can you tell me where you draw the line beween "micro" and "macro" then, and why?

You've given up on the argument from logic now, right?

Oh and yes, Barbarian did address the subject with empirical evidence that supports the logical inferrance. Empirical evidence (if you have it) actually trumps logical inferrance. Because the ultimate test of veracity is in the empirical evidence. Logical inferrance is good, but to have both that and empirical evidence makes the case much stronger.

Actually, logic trumps what you're presenting here. What you are presenting is a story to explain what you find. When we are trying to decide between your story and another story, logic is the most vital tool that will help us decide what is true.

Pays not to assume the truth of that which you are seeking to show.

Just pointing out the evidence. Reality beats anyone's logic.

:mock: Barbarian's relativism.

 

[voltaire]

Then show us your premises and how your conclusion follows. :thumb: :dizzy:You have to show your working. :up:

They have not succeeded here at that, nor have they really tried.

You've given up on the argument from logic now, right?

evidently

Actually, logic trumps what you're presenting here. What you are presenting is a story to explain what you find. When we are trying to decide between your story and another story, logic is the most vital tool that will help us decide what is true.

They always have a story to explain what they find. A logical argument would help us decide whether their story is true or whether another story is true.

Pays not to assume the truth of that which you are seeking to show.

That is their modus operandi.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why wont a christian theistic evolution believer answer my questions ive posted here?

If you believe the virgin birth, then why cant you believe creation? There is ample scientific evidence that a virgin birth isnt possible....