quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:swan42

quote:

quote:

Ergo, the preference for a common ancestor for all animals is based on an anti-Bible worldview.

Only if the bible contains X or fewer metaphors.

If science is incapable of delineating between “common ancestor” and “common Creator” then what other than worldview do you use to choose your preference?
Yes, the Bible contains metaphors. Do you not believe it also contains literal history? Do you not believe that literal history can also serve as metaphor?

However, the Bible plainly states that God made the fowl “after their kind” and the fishes “after their kind”. Can you provide a Biblical reference that God used evolution to produce the individual “kinds” from a common ancestor? If not then your exegesis is flawed.

I maintain that a common ancestor, as well as any theory that relies on “mass extinction”, are based on an anti-Bible worldview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

What do you mean by "false dichotomy", swan? Uncle asked a very simple question - can you provide a Biblical reference that God used evolution to direct the common descent of all organisms? I can show you over 50 Scripture passages that clearly state He created life. Clearly this is a major difference in worldview, not "false dichotomy" as you glibly dismiss it.

quote:

If not then your exegesis is flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:swan42

quote:

quote:

Ergo, the preference for a common ancestor for all animals is based on an anti-Bible worldview.

Only if the bible contains X or fewer metaphors.

If science is incapable of delineating between “common ancestor” and “common Creator” then what other than worldview do you use to choose your preference?
Yes, the Bible contains metaphors. Do you not believe it also contains literal history? Do you not believe that literal history can also serve as metaphor?

However, the Bible plainly states that God made the fowl “after their kind” and the fishes “after their kind”. Can you provide a Biblical reference that God used evolution to produce the individual “kinds” from a common ancestor? If not then your exegesis is flawed.

I maintain that a common ancestor, as well as any theory that relies on “mass extinction”, are based on an anti-Bible worldview.

Some choose, some choose not to choose, some choose both and require a non-literal interpretation Genesis. (Why do we keep revisiting this).
Yes.
Yes.
False Dichotomy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Okay, so show us with your unflawed exegesis where God's Word even hints at evolution through common descent.

quote:


if Jesus is historical enough for you to believe so must be Adam

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

quote:

Evolution cannot ever become even a hypothesis, swan! It is completely untestable, thus unfasifiable.

A few brief copies from Wikipedia so we can use the same terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis

Scientific hypothesis

People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems

quote:

I shall not mingle science and scripture at the same time.

quote:

not quite, read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy#Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[59][60] However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".[61]

and also

Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[67] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".[68][69]

it means it's not science because of the paradigm of falsifiability, confer Einstein's words

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

quote:


if Jesus is historical enough for you to believe so must be Adam

False Dichotomy. (There is independent documentation for a historical Jesus).

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

quote:

not quite, read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy#Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[59][60] However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".[61]

and also

Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[67] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".[68][69]

it means it's not science because of the paradigm of falsifiability, confer Einstein's words

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein

I'm only establishing common terms, not whether evolution is falsifiable.

quote:


Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[67] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".[68][69]

it means it's not science because of the paradigm of falsifiability

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

quote:


Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[67] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".[68][69]

it means it's not science because of the paradigm of falsifiability

I can quote-mine too.

Did Popper refute evolution?


Why, then, did the Austrian philosopher change his mind?
...
If the theory were correct the population's mean for the characters under selection should have shifted in the predicted direction. This is an eminently falsifiable hypothesis
...
The tautological circle thus broken, evolutionary biology can be fully admitted among the sciences even by the Popperian criterion of falsification. Much more than a useful metaphysical research program, the modern theory of evolution is as scientific as Newtonian mechanics, though by all means not as precise as, say, quantum mechanics. The distressing part of this story is how many creationists, and occasionally even professional philosophers, keep bringing up Popper's alleged refutation of evolution as if it were the last word on the subject.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:


Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.

original: gluadys
That may work for the primordial beginning of life emerging from the primordial "soup", but it doesn't explain what we see today. How is it that we can distinguish the DNA of kangaroos from the DNA of emus if they both took the same DNA from their common origin?

quote:

The false choice is whether my exegesis is flawed. unclemonkey says "read the bible the way I do or you are wrong".

quote:

Your exegesis is flawed because you are reading common descent into Scripture with absolutely NO Biblical reference for such an interpretation and in spite of numerous Biblical references contrary to it.

quote:

i'll admit, i read his recantation mistakenly because of wikipedia [why would he accept which he didn't deny?]
but it's not Popper's word [or personal views] that determines if it's fact or false much of a theory depends on who decides what
i guess he is quotable because his theory of conjectural knowledge does not even pretend to provide positively justified foundations of belief

point in case Kristian Birkeland

He developed a theory in which energetic electrons were ejected from sunspots on the solar surface, directed to the Earth, and guided to the Earth's polar regions by the geomagnetic field where they produced the visible aurora.

besides of his successful experiments, falsifiability and congruent theory, he was rejected by scientists at the time and died of overdose

The absolute proof of Birkeland's field-aligned currents could only come from observations made above the ionosphere with satellites. A magnetometer onboard a U.S. Navy navigation satellite launched in 1963 observed magnetic disturbances on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth.

the point is, reliability and science don't always go hand in hand, proof FDA ...

quote:

***full circle back to the literal bible thing again ***.

quote:

The Bible does not mention evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42
Common DNA is consistent with both a common ancestor and a common creator, but it is a near impossibility to use scientific methods to prove a preference for either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:


Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.

original: gluadys
That may work for the primordial beginning of life emerging from the primordial "soup", but it doesn't explain what we see today. How is it that we can distinguish the DNA of kangaroos from the DNA of emus if they both took the same DNA from their common origin?

I think the error is in the mind of those who perceive the primordial soup to be limited to the DNA of the two species, Kangaroos and Emus. The soup will consist of all the DNA of all the species of animals in totallity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:


Do you see it? Earth and seas occupied common space. They were combined in a kinda' "primordial soup," is the way it was explained to me. But what is significant to this account, is common space, common DNA source.

original: gluadys
That may work for the primordial beginning of life emerging from the primordial "soup", but it doesn't explain what we see today. How is it that we can distinguish the DNA of kangaroos from the DNA of emus if they both took the same DNA from their common origin?

I think the error is in the mind of those who perceive the primordial soup to be limited to the DNA of the two species, Kangaroos and Emus. The soup will consist of all the DNA of all the species of animals in totallity.

Then that does not explain how the DNA became sorted into taxonomic categories that are consistent with relationships of inheritance. And that was my point. If all species had equal access to the same soup of DNA, there is no reason to have a consistent pattern of similarities and differences without some additional principle involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book
Creation does not come with a catalogue of explanations.

quote:

He did not make our involvement dependent upon the depth of our discernment concerning relationships bewtween species. Our involvement is dependent upon stewardship over God's creation. We really should not be debating and wasting opportunities to be caregivers of God's bounty.

quote:

Evolution can be part of the catalogue of explanations which is not dropped from heaven but discovered through research.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

But what is even more significant, Apes are NOT men, and MEN are NOT Apes.