Vbm
Mon, Sep-12-05, 18:17
Pastor Dave has not followed up on my response to his
challenge, so maybe he just didn't read it. Here it is again:
Pastor Dave seems to be willing to begin reviewing the
evidence that applies to the Creation/Evolution debate. I had
repeatedly let him know I was ready to discuss the evidence
itself, and in detail, rather than simply go around in his
circles of "here is what evolutionists believe!" and "prove
it!". So, eventually, he seemed willing to take me up on that
offer and wants to dive into the evidence. Below is his
proposal and my response. As you can see, Dave's idea was to
put me in the position of proving something (which I don't
believe has even been proven) but then excluding all the
evidence relevant to the issues.
Instead, a much more sensible and reasonable approach is to
simply take our two positions, the Young Earth Creationist
and the Theistic Evolutionist, and see which position is more
likely to be correct given the evidence we have. I would even
be willing to handicap it and say that my position must be
MORE likely to be correct by a significant margin. But each
side must show how the evidence supports their position and
does not support the other's. The idea to consider the weight
of the evidence as a whole, rather than just pot-shot bits
and pieces.
We must use our own words and must not do any "quote-mining".
Citing and quoting actual data, of course, is acceptable. Here
is the text of the initial discussion about the debate.
Pastor Dave wrote:
> However, you have been persistent and you just might be
> someone who might turn to honesty in the debate, so okay,
> why not. We must have some rules though, that must be
> followed, or it is an automatic concession. I propose the
> following, as a start...
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) Any violation of the rules, will result in an automatic
> concession by the offending party, which will be publicly
> stated by said offending party. The other party is able
> to allow them a reprieve, if they so choose, but is in no
> way obligated to.
Sure.
> 2) The debate will be conducted in a polite fashion and
> there will be no discussion of the debate, nor the other
> person (except if someone asks if we are involved in a
> debate, in which case one may simply answer "Yes" and
> state this rule and end it there) in any other thread, in
> this, or any other group, while it is continuing. Plus,
> all other posts by other people in our debate thread,
> must be ignored by both parties at all times.
Sure.
> 3) The debate is regarding macroevolution, which will be
> defined as that which is represented as a simple example.
> That example being (but not limited to), proving that
> canidae, for example, came from non-canidae. It is not
> sensible to spend days debating exact definitions and so,
> this example serves as what it will be your obligation to
> show evidence for. It would be dishonest to deny that you
> believe this and it is that belief which I am talking
> about. Mice from mice and dogs from dogs and even dogs
> from wolves, is microevolution, which is observed and is
> therefore, science.
No, that will not do. This will be a discussion to determine
which of our two positions is best supported by the evidence
as a whole. It will not be a matter of one of trying to prove
our point. We will review each category of the evidence and
see whether it supports your position or mine overall.
I believe your position is that all life was created all at
once (over a few day period) within the last 10,000 years.
More particularly, I would assume you believe that all species
we have now actually developed from those exemplars that were
on the ark even a shorter time ago.
I believe that God used evolutionary processes over billions
of years to create all the species we currently have on this
planet, but I make no claim whatsoever about abiogenesis (as
above). I believe that it is most likely that this
evolutionary development occurred very much according to the
modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, meaning natural
selection, mutation, genetic flow and genetic drift.
> 4) Evidence of microevolution shall not be considered
> evidence for macroevolution. Microevolution is only
> evidence for microevolution and claiming that it "adds up
> to macroevolution", is a claim, not evidence and is no
> different than my saying that it doesn't. I have already
> stated that microevolution is indeed, science.
Well, no, we will not reject ANY evidence. All evidence
bearing on the subject will be considered and each of us
can argue the degree of weight it should be given and why,
and whether it supports our position or detracts from the
the others. If you are truly interested in a debate aimed
at getting to the truth, then you can't start by rejecting
evidence. You could argue why it should hold less value,
of course.
As for this evidence in particular, the processes that make up
micro-evolutionary development (natural selection, mutation,
genetic drift, etc) are the same mechanics that I believe lead
to macro changes as well. So, a series of micro changes within
a given species, and even leading to a new species, is
definitely some evidence for macro changes, I would argue.
Remember, in the end, this will not be a matter of whether
either of us has "proven" their position, but simply which
position is better supported by the evidence we have, as well
as the logical conclusions which can be drawn from that
evidence. It is the degree of certainty that should prevail,
not a matter of absolute proof or not.
> 5) There will be no attempts to shift the burden. You claim
> that it happens and therefore, it is not up to me to
> prove that it doesn't. This discussion isn't about me
> proving God. This is about your belief.
No, it is not about either of us proving anything, but about
both of us arguing the evidence to support our position and
show that the other's position is not supported.
But I agree this will not be about either one of us proving
God, since we both believe entirely in God.
> 6) Each point that is in line with the discussion must be
> fully discussed. Ignoring points is not allowed.
Oh, absolutely.
> 7) Each party shall be allowed up to 72 hours to respond. A
> person may need to actually have a life. :)
That is fine. I would suggest that with each category of
evidence, we both state our position: why the evidence in that
category supports our position and detracts from the others.
Then we each will have 72 hours to respond to the other's
position on that evidence. This can go on until we think we
have exhausted that category and we can move on to the next.
> 8) Conclusions about data, are not the same as actual
> evidence that is conclusive of a point. For example, a
> specific mutation that is common to say, chimps and
> humans, does not prove common descent. That is a
> conclusion. It could have also happened to both, as the
> result of common design.
Well, no, that is excluding evidence again. ALL evidence will
be considered, it is all a matter of the weight that it should
be given. Also, remember that we are not talking about proof
here, but the overall weight of evidence. If you restricted
the evidence to that which is conclusive on a point, then
neither one of us would have any evidence at all to use to
argue our position. There is very little data which can not
have differing interpretations. The point will be the argue
why your interpretation of the evidence is the correct one.
> Evolutionists also always ask why, if God created us this
> way, there is so much in common? The reality is three fold.
>
> a) If there weren't so much in common, it would be proof
> that there was not a common designer.
>
> b) A common designer would not keep reinventing the wheel,
> every time he wanted to make a new model car.
>
> c) If we were not all based on the same building blocks, we
> could only eat each other. A common designer would know
> that.
>
> Hence, the evolutionists statement that it proves common
> descent, is a conclusion about the data, not proof of common
> descent.
We are not talking about proof here.
> In other words, your "evidence" should only allow for the
> conclusion of common descent and no other. Genetic
> similarities do not do that and frankly, we have things in
> common with sea creatures, that we don't have in common with
> chimps and that chimps don't have in common with sea
> creatures, so that ammo can be fired back anyway and it
> would speak the opposite.
See above. I am not going to exclude you from using evidence
that only allows for the conclusion of special creation,
either. That would leave you with nothing to argue with.
> 9) ???
>
> This is a start and they can be discussed.
I would suggest that some of the categories of evidence we
could use would be the fossil record (which would include
dating, I suppose), genetic comparisons, anatomical
comparisons, biogeographical issues, and we could also get
into the flood geology if you like. I would even be willing to
include the Scripture as a valid form of evidence to argue
from, and so a category could be Biblical interpretation,
including literalism, etc.
Another rule should be that every post should be our own
words, not cut and past from others, as much as possible. If
we are quoting a particular piece of data, that is fine, but
the bulk of the argument should be our own.
challenge, so maybe he just didn't read it. Here it is again:
Pastor Dave seems to be willing to begin reviewing the
evidence that applies to the Creation/Evolution debate. I had
repeatedly let him know I was ready to discuss the evidence
itself, and in detail, rather than simply go around in his
circles of "here is what evolutionists believe!" and "prove
it!". So, eventually, he seemed willing to take me up on that
offer and wants to dive into the evidence. Below is his
proposal and my response. As you can see, Dave's idea was to
put me in the position of proving something (which I don't
believe has even been proven) but then excluding all the
evidence relevant to the issues.
Instead, a much more sensible and reasonable approach is to
simply take our two positions, the Young Earth Creationist
and the Theistic Evolutionist, and see which position is more
likely to be correct given the evidence we have. I would even
be willing to handicap it and say that my position must be
MORE likely to be correct by a significant margin. But each
side must show how the evidence supports their position and
does not support the other's. The idea to consider the weight
of the evidence as a whole, rather than just pot-shot bits
and pieces.
We must use our own words and must not do any "quote-mining".
Citing and quoting actual data, of course, is acceptable. Here
is the text of the initial discussion about the debate.
Pastor Dave wrote:
> However, you have been persistent and you just might be
> someone who might turn to honesty in the debate, so okay,
> why not. We must have some rules though, that must be
> followed, or it is an automatic concession. I propose the
> following, as a start...
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) Any violation of the rules, will result in an automatic
> concession by the offending party, which will be publicly
> stated by said offending party. The other party is able
> to allow them a reprieve, if they so choose, but is in no
> way obligated to.
Sure.
> 2) The debate will be conducted in a polite fashion and
> there will be no discussion of the debate, nor the other
> person (except if someone asks if we are involved in a
> debate, in which case one may simply answer "Yes" and
> state this rule and end it there) in any other thread, in
> this, or any other group, while it is continuing. Plus,
> all other posts by other people in our debate thread,
> must be ignored by both parties at all times.
Sure.
> 3) The debate is regarding macroevolution, which will be
> defined as that which is represented as a simple example.
> That example being (but not limited to), proving that
> canidae, for example, came from non-canidae. It is not
> sensible to spend days debating exact definitions and so,
> this example serves as what it will be your obligation to
> show evidence for. It would be dishonest to deny that you
> believe this and it is that belief which I am talking
> about. Mice from mice and dogs from dogs and even dogs
> from wolves, is microevolution, which is observed and is
> therefore, science.
No, that will not do. This will be a discussion to determine
which of our two positions is best supported by the evidence
as a whole. It will not be a matter of one of trying to prove
our point. We will review each category of the evidence and
see whether it supports your position or mine overall.
I believe your position is that all life was created all at
once (over a few day period) within the last 10,000 years.
More particularly, I would assume you believe that all species
we have now actually developed from those exemplars that were
on the ark even a shorter time ago.
I believe that God used evolutionary processes over billions
of years to create all the species we currently have on this
planet, but I make no claim whatsoever about abiogenesis (as
above). I believe that it is most likely that this
evolutionary development occurred very much according to the
modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, meaning natural
selection, mutation, genetic flow and genetic drift.
> 4) Evidence of microevolution shall not be considered
> evidence for macroevolution. Microevolution is only
> evidence for microevolution and claiming that it "adds up
> to macroevolution", is a claim, not evidence and is no
> different than my saying that it doesn't. I have already
> stated that microevolution is indeed, science.
Well, no, we will not reject ANY evidence. All evidence
bearing on the subject will be considered and each of us
can argue the degree of weight it should be given and why,
and whether it supports our position or detracts from the
the others. If you are truly interested in a debate aimed
at getting to the truth, then you can't start by rejecting
evidence. You could argue why it should hold less value,
of course.
As for this evidence in particular, the processes that make up
micro-evolutionary development (natural selection, mutation,
genetic drift, etc) are the same mechanics that I believe lead
to macro changes as well. So, a series of micro changes within
a given species, and even leading to a new species, is
definitely some evidence for macro changes, I would argue.
Remember, in the end, this will not be a matter of whether
either of us has "proven" their position, but simply which
position is better supported by the evidence we have, as well
as the logical conclusions which can be drawn from that
evidence. It is the degree of certainty that should prevail,
not a matter of absolute proof or not.
> 5) There will be no attempts to shift the burden. You claim
> that it happens and therefore, it is not up to me to
> prove that it doesn't. This discussion isn't about me
> proving God. This is about your belief.
No, it is not about either of us proving anything, but about
both of us arguing the evidence to support our position and
show that the other's position is not supported.
But I agree this will not be about either one of us proving
God, since we both believe entirely in God.
> 6) Each point that is in line with the discussion must be
> fully discussed. Ignoring points is not allowed.
Oh, absolutely.
> 7) Each party shall be allowed up to 72 hours to respond. A
> person may need to actually have a life. :)
That is fine. I would suggest that with each category of
evidence, we both state our position: why the evidence in that
category supports our position and detracts from the others.
Then we each will have 72 hours to respond to the other's
position on that evidence. This can go on until we think we
have exhausted that category and we can move on to the next.
> 8) Conclusions about data, are not the same as actual
> evidence that is conclusive of a point. For example, a
> specific mutation that is common to say, chimps and
> humans, does not prove common descent. That is a
> conclusion. It could have also happened to both, as the
> result of common design.
Well, no, that is excluding evidence again. ALL evidence will
be considered, it is all a matter of the weight that it should
be given. Also, remember that we are not talking about proof
here, but the overall weight of evidence. If you restricted
the evidence to that which is conclusive on a point, then
neither one of us would have any evidence at all to use to
argue our position. There is very little data which can not
have differing interpretations. The point will be the argue
why your interpretation of the evidence is the correct one.
> Evolutionists also always ask why, if God created us this
> way, there is so much in common? The reality is three fold.
>
> a) If there weren't so much in common, it would be proof
> that there was not a common designer.
>
> b) A common designer would not keep reinventing the wheel,
> every time he wanted to make a new model car.
>
> c) If we were not all based on the same building blocks, we
> could only eat each other. A common designer would know
> that.
>
> Hence, the evolutionists statement that it proves common
> descent, is a conclusion about the data, not proof of common
> descent.
We are not talking about proof here.
> In other words, your "evidence" should only allow for the
> conclusion of common descent and no other. Genetic
> similarities do not do that and frankly, we have things in
> common with sea creatures, that we don't have in common with
> chimps and that chimps don't have in common with sea
> creatures, so that ammo can be fired back anyway and it
> would speak the opposite.
See above. I am not going to exclude you from using evidence
that only allows for the conclusion of special creation,
either. That would leave you with nothing to argue with.
> 9) ???
>
> This is a start and they can be discussed.
I would suggest that some of the categories of evidence we
could use would be the fossil record (which would include
dating, I suppose), genetic comparisons, anatomical
comparisons, biogeographical issues, and we could also get
into the flood geology if you like. I would even be willing to
include the Scripture as a valid form of evidence to argue
from, and so a category could be Biblical interpretation,
including literalism, etc.
Another rule should be that every post should be our own
words, not cut and past from others, as much as possible. If
we are quoting a particular piece of data, that is fine, but
the bulk of the argument should be our own.