Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by DeepThought
In fairness I agree that it is an unprovable assumption that there is no God. However it is also an unprovable assumption that the typewriter that it appears to me that I am typing this post on exists and is not just a Berkeleyan idea [1]. Other than religious scripture there is an absence of evidence, what is more there is no longer an explanation gap ...[text shortened]... n.

[1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley if you don't know what I'm on about.

I only wonder how you are connecting to the internet on a typewriter.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Presupositions based on science and common sense, not religion or atheism.

[b]Fossils don't speak for themselves.
Yes they do.

When we observe fossils in the present, we can take measurements and determine composition, but the real interest in fossils is interpreting where they came from.
Its usually quite obvious where they came from. ...[text shortened]... historical science.[/b]
But still science. Not religion. So why would my religion be relevant?[/b]

Yes they do.

Care to elaborate on how exactly the 'speak for themselves'?

Its usually quite obvious where they came from.

How so?

The question in this thread is when they came from. Again, that is fairly obvious if you know anything about the fossilisation process.

Yes fairly obvious if you believe in certain unprovable presuppositions. No one has directly observed the fossilisation process. All you have is the fossil. You guess how it formed, based on your beliefs. Quite a lot of circular reasoning is involved with the dating process as well.

But still science. Not religion. So why would my religion be relevant?

You interpret scientific evidence (about possible origins) based on your beliefs. It is possible for two scientists with different religious beliefs to look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Both of them will have different unprovable presuppositions.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Care to elaborate on how exactly the 'speak for themselves'?

Fossils contain a lot of information. For example a fossil sea shell is screaming out 'I was a sea shell'. Even Kelly who claims everything is a matter of faith and 'joining the dots' would admit that a fossil bone must have come from an animal and is not just an oddly shaped rock that got that way by chance or was planted there by God to fool us.

How so?
Most fossils are found in rocks. Most rocks don't walk. Fossils usually came from where you found them.

Yes fairly obvious if you believe in certain unprovable presuppositions.
You don't have to believe in unprovable propositions. You just have to have a reasonable understanding of the process. 'Fairly obvious' doesn't mean 'undeniably proven'.

No one has directly observed the fossilisation process.
What do you mean by 'directly observed'? And how does 'direct observation' prove something? How does a lack of 'direct observation' make something less likely to be true?

All you have is the fossil. You guess how it formed, based on your beliefs.
No, one makes deductions about how it formed based one scientific understanding (not beliefs). It is not a religious thing.

Quite a lot of circular reasoning is involved with the dating process as well.
No, it isn't.

You interpret scientific evidence (about possible origins) based on your beliefs.
No, I don't.

It is possible for two scientists with different religious beliefs to look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Both of them will have different unprovable presuppositions.
Not so. The scientific process works and always leads to agreed upon conclusions in the end.
You are probably thinking of pseudoscientists like the ones sonship loves to quote. The ones that don't publish their results in a scientific manner but instead publish them in a popular book aimed at creationists.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No but your presuppositions affect how you interpret fossils. Fossils don't speak for themselves. When we observe fossils in the present, we can take measurements and determine composition, but the real interest in fossils is interpreting where they came from. Once we start attempting to explain how the organisms came to be fossilized or how and where th ...[text shortened]... e using presuppositions in that explanation—we have gone from operational to historical science.

If where you're heading is something like "nobody really knows how long it takes fossils to form because no one ever watched one for a million years", you're going to end up in Last-Thursday-ism. It's a very cosy place, just you and George Berkeley and a couple of other solipsists.

Things we see now carry with them clues about their past. This has been discussed at length in other threads, and included fossils, animals shells, tree rings, the red shift of starlight, genetic drift, radio-active decay, sedimentary layers in the Earth's crust, among others. Any one of them can be, and sometimes is, disputed by Creationists to render it compatible with a theistic thesis (such as the Young Earth hypothesis or the creation of life ex nihilo). But taken together, these things form a coherent picture which is very solidly based on massively cohesive empirical evidence and a body of natural laws. This is not to say that the evidence is irrefutable or that the natural laws known to us will never be revised.

If you poke around hard enough, you'll find something unprovable in every system -- which proves nothing. That's no reason to think that every system is equally plausible or equally reasonable or equally well-founded, if one just believes hard enough. Some explanations of how things work are very much less plausible, reasonable, and well-founded, no matter how much some people might want to them to be.

In general, any alternative explanation (for example about the formation of fossils or the age and size of the universe) which requires that natural laws (e.g., regarding chemical reactions in rocks and minerals, or the speed of light in a vacuum, or the rate of genetic drift) changed radically in the last n-thousand years or so, will run up against stiff resistance from the scientific community. For a very good reason: namely, that there is no evidence that these processes have changed, ever, since whenever.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you think would be evidence, fossils on mountain tops?

Do you think "fossils on mountain tops (sic)" are the only possible evidence for a global flood?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you think "fossils on mountain tops (sic)" are the only possible evidence for a global flood?

Possible evidence, does it matter? I think it likely that the only way some of the things we
have found there got there. I'm sure there are others, but like all evidence if it is accepted
or not it only points to something it will not prove it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Possible evidence, does it matter? I think it likely that the only way some of the things we
have found there got there. I'm sure there are others, but like all evidence if it is accepted
or not it only points to something it will not prove it.

Do you know anything about the fossilisation process?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you know anything about the fossilisation process?

He is obviously not of the opinion that fossils 'speak for themselves', like you are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fossils contain a lot of information. For example a fossil sea shell is screaming out 'I was a sea shell'. Even Kelly who claims everything is a matter of faith and 'joining the dots' would admit that a fossil bone must have come from an animal and is not just an oddly shaped rock that got that way by chance or was planted there by God to fool us.

[b]H ...[text shortened]... results in a scientific manner but instead publish them in a popular book aimed at creationists.

Fossils contain a lot of information. For example a fossil sea shell is screaming out 'I was a sea shell'. Even Kelly who claims everything is a matter of faith and 'joining the dots' would admit that a fossil bone must have come from an animal and is not just an oddly shaped rock that got that way by chance or was planted there by God to fool us.

That's certainly true. But if only one tooth is found the tooth doesn't shout out, "Hey I'm the tooth of Nebraska man, and this is what my skull and the rest of my body looks like!"

What do you mean by 'directly observed'? And how does 'direct observation' prove something? How does a lack of 'direct observation' make something less likely to be true?

Direct observation means you are not guessing and making stuff up.

No, one makes deductions about how it formed based one scientific understanding (not beliefs). It is not a religious thing.

I am not saying based on religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't alway religious. People believe certain scientific theories to be fact. Different scientists may have different beliefs about which theories they believe to be fact.

No, it isn't.

http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/

What are your comments about this article?

[/b] Not so. The scientific process works and always leads to agreed upon conclusions in the end.

When there is a lot of guessing involved this is not always the case.

[b]You are probably thinking of pseudoscientists like the ones sonship loves to quote. The ones that don't publish their results in a scientific manner but instead publish them in a popular book aimed at creationists.

Very easy to call someone a pseudoscientist if you can't refute their argument.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
He is obviously not of the opinion that fossils 'speak for themselves', like you are.

You have no idea what his opinion is given that he hasn't stated it - and probably won't knowing him.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
That's certainly true. But if only one tooth is found the tooth doesn't shout out, "Hey I'm the tooth of Nebraska man, and this is what my skull and the rest of my body looks like!"

But would you know if it was a tooth or not? Would you be able to tell the difference between different types of teeth?

Direct observation means you are not guessing and making stuff up.
Well then, everything I say is a direct observation.

http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/
What are your comments about this article?
Its a pile of nonsense.
I can explain exactly why on one condition:
You agree to actually discuss it and not run away, not post vague meaningless sarcasm, and admit when I am right.

Very easy to call someone a pseudoscientist if you can't refute their argument.
I call people pseudoscientists when I can easily refute their arguments. And I did so with the ones that sonship quoted. And sonship doesn't deny it. Go check the thread out for yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But would you know if it was a tooth or not? Would you be able to tell the difference between different types of teeth?

[b]Direct observation means you are not guessing and making stuff up.
Well then, everything I say is a direct observation.

http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/
What are your comments about t ...[text shortened]... the ones that sonship quoted. And sonship doesn't deny it. Go check the thread out for yourself.

But would you know if it was a tooth or not? Would you be able to tell the difference between different types of teeth?

So if you found a single tooth you would be able to tell me exactly what the creature looked like that it belonged to even though that creature supposedly lived millions of years ago? And we have no such creatures living at present? All this without ever having to use your vivid imagination?

Its a pile of nonsense.

Of course it is genius since you are the master 'pile of nonsense' detector I will take your word for it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if you found a single tooth you would be able to tell me exactly what the creature looked like that it belonged to even though that creature supposedly lived millions of years ago?

No. I notice you didn't answer my questions.

Of course it is genius since you are the master 'pile of nonsense' detector I will take your word for it.
I will say this again: sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. If you have something to say, say it.
I notice you were not ready to meet my terms.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. I notice you didn't answer my questions.

[b]Of course it is genius since you are the master 'pile of nonsense' detector I will take your word for it.
I will say this again: sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. If you have something to say, say it.
I notice you were not ready to meet my terms.[/b]

Yes you could probably identify a tooth as a tooth and different types of teeth, assuming parts of them haven't decayed over the last couple of million years. What's your point? You are the one evading questions.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes you could probably identify a tooth as a tooth and different types of teeth, assuming parts of them haven't decayed over the last couple of million years. What's your point? You are the one evading questions.

My point is that fossils do tell us things. ie they speak for themselves contrary to your earlier claim. A fossil isn't going to tell us what its mothers maiden name was, but nobody claims that it will.

What question have I evaded? I may have missed a question by mistake, but I never evade questions.