Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.

Must be nice on your Island. We have other people where I live.

But I get it... Altruism is tough to explain through evolution.

Out of curiosity, can you explain your alternative to evolution and describe what exactly is altruistic about it?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
Tc was right and your argument is specious. The evolution of man as distinct from any other creature is irrelevant to the theory. Your argument is that man is the crown of creation. We aren't and the theory does not say otherwise.

Involved in Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the origins of humankind. If you continue to argue this then you have lost your objectivity, or are just playing dumb.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Some questions don't need answers.

The questions of "why?" in regards to the origins of humanity is a very important question. You may look at it as a trivial whatever without meaning, but it is the integral question of ontology. If you think the "why?" does not need an answer, why are you even arguing your opinion? If "why?" cannot be answered, then your opinion is meaningless.

Phage is right though, you are very clearly attempting to make a case for humans being the pinnacle of evolution, the holy grail of, sentient mortal life. That's not only assumption but arrogant assumption. Some people only want to know "why" because they need to think there's a special plan for the human race that makes us elite. Some people feel hurt to be anything less. If you are seeking answers for the sake of ego, then ego is all you will find. It's a classic.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.

Must be nice on your Island. We have other people where I live.

But I get it... Altruism is tough to explain through evolution.

Out of curiosity, can you explain your alternative to evolution and describe what exactly is altruistic about it?

Curiosity killed the cat....?

Why do I try. You obviously missed my joke in that last post.
Based on your response, I’m making an outrageous assumption that you choose to isolate as to avoid Altuistic behaviors.

Trying to make a point that your not making sense to me. Cooperton explains my point more directly in his last post.

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.

Must be nice on your Island. We have other people where I live.

But I get it... Altruism is tough to explain through evolution.

Out of curiosity, can you explain your alternative to evolution and describe what exactly is altruistic about it?

Curiosity killed the cat....?

Why do I try. You obviously missed my joke in that last post.
Based on your response, I’m making an outrageous assumption that you choose to isolate as to avoid Altuistic behaviors.

Trying to make a point that your not making sense to me. Cooperton explains my point more directly in his last post.

Sometimes it makes me sad when people don't have the patience to explore questions that they take for granted. You say "why" is terribly important but have you stopped to wonder why you're asking why? My previous question is still on the table for you to reconsider.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Why? I asked you 5 questions and you come back with this

Some questions don't need answers.

And now you want me to answer a question of why I ask questions.

The question about altruism was something you made up implying from my joke that some how altruism is intrinsically linked to my philosophy.

I was implying how evolution needs to explain altruistic behaviors through natural selection, and that by isolating oneself, you eliminate the need to explain altruism. Thus you become your own hero and don’t need to concern yourself with others.

Your concern with your self esteem and desire to belittle others self esteem make me think that your insecurities run deeper than you allow yourself to know.

For some reason I’m inclined to point out these inconsistencies.im not interested in laying on your couch to find out WHY.

a reply to: Observationalist

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

1. evolution does not really matter to me all that much, but I at least respect it for being accurate

2. facts influence me every moment of every day, nonsense also has an influence on me nearly as often

3. value is given, not inherent, and I choose what is valuable to me because what is the point of value if I dont control what anything means to me

4. evolution has value to many people because it offers insight from which we derive technology and information, much of which aids humanity around the world

5. what story are you referring to? and what set of values?

The question about altruism was something you made up implying from my joke that some how altruism is intrinsically linked to my philosophy.

i was responding to your comment: "But I get it... Altruism is tough to explain through evolution"

I was implying how evolution needs to explain altruistic behaviors through natural selection, and that by isolating oneself, you eliminate the need to explain altruism. Thus you become your own hero and don’t need to concern yourself with others.

evolution is not concerned with altruism. evolution is science, altruism is philosophy. sometimes altruism looks like philanthropy, and sometimes it looks like apoptosis.

the death of cells which occurs as a normal and controlled part of an organism's growth or development.

altruism is a very slippery slope that assumes (hopes) there will always be a good answer to every dilemma. in a perfect world perhaps...but not this one.

Your concern with your self esteem and desire to belittle others self esteem make me think that your insecurities run deeper than you allow yourself to know.

you are welcome to quote me at any point where i said someone is worthless or their ideas are pathetic or they deserve to suffer for having opinions and daring to disagree. i have merely pointed out that all of the anti-evolution arguments I have seen here can be traced back to the basic notion of the aggrandizement of humanity and protecting our elite status as the apex organism of mortal life everywhere. "you atheists think life is meaningless and there is no value to our existence" is a constant refrain. self esteem is clearly playing a major role here, especially given comments posted by cooperton about dead end nihilistic evolution logic and finding reward in spirituality that makes you feel loved by the universe.

For some reason I’m inclined to point out these inconsistencies.im not interested in laying on your couch to find out WHY.

that would suggest to me that you are hiding from WHY. but that's none of my business.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

4. evolution has value to many people because it offers insight from which we derive technology and information, much of which aids humanity around the world

wrong. Evolution is not an empirical science. It has offered no advancement in the fields of applied science. It has offered philosophy the survival of the fittest mentality, further separating us fellow humans. You will try to argue that it is the basis of antibiotic resistance for example, which I explained multiple times antibiotic resistance is due to the The observable science of epigenetics, not evolution.

According to lab results, organisms adapt, they do not evolve.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

4. evolution has value to many people because it offers insight from which we derive technology and information, much of which aids humanity around the world

wrong. Evolution is not an empirical science. It has offered no advancement in the fields of applied science. It has offered philosophy the survival of the fittest mentality, further separating us fellow humans. You will try to argue that it is the basis of antibiotic resistance for example, which I explained multiple times antibiotic resistance is due to the The observable science of epigenetics, not evolution.

According to lab results, organisms adapt, they do not evolve.

Adaptation is a key step in evolution. Epigenetics and evolution are very closely linked. The word evolution appears in that article 14 times.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Adaptation is a key step in evolution. Epigenetics and evolution are very closely linked.

Epigenetic changes are bound and cannot go beyond a certain degree. That is why it's not evolution, because it can not accumulate beyond a particular boundary - the boundary set by the limitations of the expression of that particular gene.

The word evolution appears in that article 14 times.

So their opinions must be true? That would be like me saying the word God appears in the Bible many times, so God must be true. You are making the authoritarian fallacy that the opinion of the so-called experts must be correct. That is your whole argument actually, an appeal to authority. I have yet to see you address empirical evidence on your own.

Google "appeal to authority fallacy".

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution is not an empirical science. It has offered no advancement in the fields of applied science.

How many times will this lie be repeated? Vaccines and flu shots prove you wrong, directly. When developing those things they have to take into account possible future mutations of the diseases. This is why some years the flu shot is more effective than others. They have to constantly account for possible new strains.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Adaptation is a key step in evolution. Epigenetics and evolution are very closely linked.

Epigenetic changes are bound and cannot go beyond a certain degree. That is why it's not evolution, because it can not accumulate beyond a particular boundary - the boundary set by the limitations of the expression of that particular gene.

The word evolution appears in that article 14 times.

So their opinions must be true? That would be like me saying the word God appears in the Bible many times, so God must be true. You are making the authoritarian fallacy that the opinion of the so-called experts must be correct. That is your whole argument actually, an appeal to authority. I have yet to see you address empirical evidence on your own.

Google "appeal to authority fallacy".

The difference here is I can reach out and contact the authors of that article, locate other professionals in their field for a second opinion, get instructions for recreating their lab tests and falsifying the data they collected, and eventually refute or confirm their results directly by reproducing their methods and observing firsthand the conclusions they shared in their article. Hard to do that with more esoteric materials that rely on supernatural elements.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Adaptation is a key step in evolution. Epigenetics and evolution are very closely linked.

Epigenetic changes are bound and cannot go beyond a certain degree. That is why it's not evolution, because it can not accumulate beyond a particular boundary - the boundary set by the limitations of the expression of that particular gene.

The word evolution appears in that article 14 times.

So their opinions must be true? That would be like me saying the word God appears in the Bible many times, so God must be true. You are making the authoritarian fallacy that the opinion of the so-called experts must be correct. That is your whole argument actually, an appeal to authority. I have yet to see you address empirical evidence on your own.

Google "appeal to authority fallacy".

How else do you expect them to ignore all the evidence, except by appealing to authority???!

originally posted by: turbonium1
How else do you expect them to ignore all the evidence, except by appealing to authority???!

You guys don't even know what an appeal to authority is.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Agreeing with the work of actual experts that have studied the subject for a living is not an appeal to authority. Disagreeing with a scientist's work is like disagreeing with a dentist about his analysis of your X-rays that show clear cavities. It's not an appeal to authority. Their opinions can be wrong, but their methods are not. An appeal to authority would be citing that somebody is a PHD and then quoting their opinion that did not come from work or research as if it is scientific fact.

IE, Max planck was an accomplished physicist. Look at all his work and his credentials. He believed in god, so that supports the idea of god existing.

It is an appeal to authority when you are incapable of explaining it on your own, and then rely on the fact that some experts think it is true. None of you argue empirical evidence with your own words.

You guys constantly use the support of the scientific authorities as evidence for what you're trying to say, rather than critically analyzing the actual evidence.

The word evolution appears in that article 14 times.

Is an appeal to authority because he is relying on the opinions of experts as supposed evidence for his claim. Yet the actual empirical evidence in the article disproves evolution, and supports Lamarckism if anything. The authors have to continue to support evolution otherwise they will not be published.


Wow over 20,000 physicians support this cigarette!


Wow Dr. Recommended, no way they're compromising their objectivity for profit!

a reply to: cooperton

It is an appeal to authority when you are incapable of explaining it on your own, and then rely on the fact that some experts think it is true. None of you argue empirical evidence with your own words.

And you never validate ANYTHING that you spit out. You don't answer questions. You don't participate except to level your own opinion which has zero evidence whatsoever.

You have a falsely contrived and stupid opinion of evolution that you can't back up with data. You can't even find a single biology book that mimics your definition of evolution.

Your opinions are irrelevant and meaningless.

"Appeal to authority"???? Who's your authority? God? That's real science! What you're saying is that you know nothing, have no desire to know anything and never will do the hard work to understand life on this planet.

Total waste of time.

originally posted by: cooperton
It is an appeal to authority when you are incapable of explaining it on your own, and then rely on the fact that some experts think it is true. None of you argue empirical evidence with your own words.

You guys constantly use the support of the scientific authorities as evidence for what you're trying to say, rather than critically analyzing the actual evidence.

An appeal to authority is taking an opinion as fact just because the person has a qualification. Opinion is not the equivalent of research. Research is claim based, thus has a standard of proof. We are referring to research to make the case for evolution, not opinion. Experiments and tests.

It has nothing to do with explaining anything on our own. The evidence speaks for itself. To argue against the established evidence you really need to go test it yourself. Should all 7 billion+ test it themselves before accepting it? We have experts for a reason. If you feel this strongly about the evidence being wrong, you should become an expert and test some of it for yourself.

originally posted by: Barcs
We are referring to research to make the case for evolution, not opinion. Experiments and tests.

Ok good the rubber meeting the road. So what experiment, the empirical evidence, not just appeals to authority opinion, demonstrates the validity of evolution. One at a time and we can dissect each one.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok good the rubber meeting the road. So what experiment, the empirical evidence, not just appeals to authority opinion, demonstrates the validity of evolution. One at a time and we can dissect each one.

You first. You're the one that says that thousands of research papers are wrong. You have yet to post anything which validates your position.

You want evidence? You can't handle the evidence, because you are a fraud.

a reply to: cooperton

Your statement:

You know of an experiment where a fruit fly changed into something besides a fruit fly? Or where a mouse changed into something besides a mouse? You don't. All you have is myopic experiments that are ambiguous at best, and by no means prove evolution.

My reply:

And can you find anything in the scientific literature that said evolution changed a fly into a dog or a cat? Can you cite any textbook, research paper, article which describes evolutionary science in the manner you just mentioned? No, you can't. And that's because it doesn't exist. You misrepresent evolutionary science to fill in the cracks in your own beliefs. You continually post erroneous descriptions of evolutionary science which have NEVER been published in the scientific literature. I challenge you to post anything in the literature which defines evolutionary science the way you do.

The question once again. If you can't answer this question, then you have zero credibility.

You may never answer the question - which is what I expect - but it will always be here in your face.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The question once again. If you can't answer this question, then you have zero credibility.

You may never answer the question - which is what I expect - but it will always be here in your face.

Evolutionary theory insists that all organisms resulted from ancestral organisms that underwent gradual changes throughout generations. If this is true we should be able to emulate this transition in a lab, but we have not, despite trying with, for example, millions of generations of fruit flies over many labs throughout the world.

So you want me to try to prove a negative? The proof is that there is no proof for the potential for organisms to change into other organisms.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And you never validate ANYTHING that you spit out.

Your libelous hyperbole is childish. You don't even have to go back one page to find my interpretations that are based on empirical evidence. I said:

" antibiotic resistance is reversible because it is an epigenetic mechanism - meaning it simply is an alteration of genetic expression, and in the case of antibiotic resistance it is a gene that codes for a detox (efflux) pump that gets turned up higher. It is not evolution."

based on: source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4

"Appeal to authority"???? Who's your authority?

When it comes to science, empirical evidence is the authority. Do you dare think for your self?