Finches named for Darwin are evolving

Associated Press ^ | 07/13/06

[andysandmikesmom]

Your post #508, regarding the 'how' of creation in Genesis, is something I have asked before and have never received an answer...Did God speak and beings and things were created?..Did God produce a vision and from that beings and things were created?..Did God 'think', and then things and beings were created?...the Bible never tells us exactly 'how' things were done...

All different religions and different religious views, have differing ideas about creation...some believe in the 6-24hr days of creation, and many dont...and what one believes about this, is not what determines who is and who is not a Christian, in my opinion, tho some would have us believe otherwise...but then that is only their own personal opinion, they hardly speak for God...

[RunningWolf]

Hey guys, Huxley says your are correct in your observations. Huxley was a genuine player and a historical figure in this ongoing saga, not some anonymous guy on a forum that all he can do is insist you are 'dead wrong' about everything. BTW ever notice the adjectives the characters like to use at you? Its really not necessary is it? but there it is in every post.

Why have we lost respect for the Bible? It was due, in part, to the widespread teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “fact”. As Huxley said, evolution removed God “from the sphere of rational discussion.” Once you’ve made God irrelevant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrelevant.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Quote-Mine Placemarker

[Diamond]

I am glad you agree you are evading your original point.

Jeepers. Where did THAT come from? Did you really think I was agreeing that I am evading my original point? My original point is directed at the criticism often made here that Creationism is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific. You correctly pointed out that aspects of Creationism are potentially falsifiable, and that is what I was referring to when I said, "I agree".

I asked you, more or less, if common descent from a universal ancestor is a fact, if it is simply axiomatic that there really was a common ancestor, how could any empirical argument be constructed against it, and consequently, how can the claim be evaluated scientifically?

I am interested in your answer to that question, but I'm not interested in responding to silly accusations of evasion.

Cordially,

[js1138]

if it is simply axiomatic that there really was a common ancestor

This is not axiomatic. It is a conclusion based on evidence. Religion and philosophy reason from axioms, but science does not.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Jeepers. Where did THAT come from?"

From you agreeing you evaded the subject.

"My original point is directed at the criticism often made here that Creationism is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific."

Which I didn't make, and you have moved away from by talking about the testability of evolution.

[Diamond]

This is not axiomatic. It is a conclusion based on evidence. Religion and philosophy reason from axioms, but science does not.

If common descent is a fact; if there really was a single common ancestor, how is the claim at risk empirically?

Cordially,

[js1138]

If common descent is a fact; if there really was a single common ancestor, how is the claim at risk empirically?

Facts are not axioms. In science, facts are subject to correction, amendment and augmentation.

The "fact" of common descent is a conclusion based on forensic investigation. Evidence has been accumulating for hundreds of years, and some details published on the subject have required updating.

This is not unlike the updating of heliocentrism from Copernicus to Einstein. The basic fact is that the earth revolves around the sun. At first the orbit was assumed to be circular, then elliptical, and most recently, to follow the curvature of spacetime.

[Diamond]

This is not unlike the updating of heliocentrism from Copernicus to Einstein. The basic fact is that the earth revolves around the sun. At first the orbit was assumed to be circular, then elliptical, and most recently, to follow the curvature of spacetime.

If common descent is paradigmatic as heliocentrism is, there never need be any concern that it will ever be put at risk observationally.

Cordially,

[js1138]

No and no. Ongoing forensic investigations are always subject to surprises. The acceptance of common descent is a matter of having confidence after hundreds of years of digging and analyzing. It is neither axiomatic nor the result of circular reasoning. It's just the best available explanation.

The evidence seems to have convinced prominent evolution critics like Behe and Dembski.

[Diamond]

The acceptance of common descent is a matter of having confidence after hundreds of years of digging and analyzing. It is neither axiomatic nor the result of circular reasoning.

Can you think of any conceivable observation that would put it at risk?

Cordially,

[Creationist]

When the finch gives birth to a monkey it will be evolution. As long as it is still a bird it is adaptation. When I'm wet up to my knees it will be rain. As long as it's just my head getting damp, it is drizzle.

Brilliant observation. You must have went to public school in America.

[Creationist]

There is not any fill in the gap animals.

Dead bones are not proof of anything but an animal lived and died.
The rest of your explanations require words like; imagine, over long periods of time, could have happened, might have happened, seems to have happened.

Nothing concrete, nothing visible, only speculation, base on a presupposition by a person who does not believe in the Power of a One True God, Jesus Christ.

[taxesareforever]

The evidence seems to have convinced prominent evolution critics like Behe and Dembski.

They weren't the first and won't be the last critics to have turned out to be wrong.

[taxesareforever]

Which I didn't make, and you have moved away from by talking about the testability of evolution.

Evasion. When you can't answer,evade. Typical.

[ReignOfError]

Brilliant observation. You must have went to public school in America.

A week to think up a response, and that's the best you can do?

[js1138]

Brilliant observation. You must have went to public school in America.

Your words very powerfully express the quality of your thought.

[js1138]

They weren't the first and won't be the last critics to have turned out to be wrong.

You have no idea.

[freedumb2003]

Nothing concrete, nothing visible, only speculation, base on a presupposition by a person who does not believe in the Power of a One True God, Jesus Christ.

If you have a dent in your car that happens in the night and the paint and height are unique to a blue 1990 Ford Explorer you don't go looking for a red 2001 Audi.

And there is nothing concrete in "believing the power of One True God, Jesus Christ." And, since Jesus Christ was HIS SON, I prefer to practice my Christianity as God commanded and not the way whatever weird sect you represent does.

[Virginia-American]

I thought Creationism was not supposed to be a scientific theory capable of falsification.

ID is not falsifiable; any observation whatsoever is consistent with the claim "that's how the designer did it"

Biblical/Koranic creationism makes specific claims (the deluge) and impies others (Earth less than a million years old) which have in fact been falsified.