Theory based on raw data.
Finding about 10 entirely different distinctly transitional shell forms just in one formation is limited evidence? Organism sets that look more and more like the recent over time in virtually every location ever examined is limited evidence?
It does no such thing: it states “This is the best explanation we’ve got, given the evidence we’ve got, and why would a process cease to operate only when the data is deficient.”
Guilty until proved innocent?
You clearly accept that science doe not have all the answers but , because it is the best theory (for science), it is accepted. Then you moan at Christians for interfering because their theory is not scientific.
Because the data is not available you assume it is either still to be found or just unavailable (lost in time)
You do claim that anyhitng is possible with time. Tell me how long would it take for man to develop the ability to swim the Atlantic? Is that even reasonalble?
Why is it so outrageous to suggest that some developments are beyond the scope of Evolution?
When I was taught, evolution was a straightforward progression one deviation at a time. Now, we seem to have a DNA lottery that can make massive changes in one hit. And just discard wrong directions as “junk” Hmm. I wonder why I am incredulous. It solves all yor problems about complexity without actually addressing them. You can just dismiss any notion of the impossible change. Philosophy be damned.
Richard
The advantage of inert junk is that it could, in the future become something useful.
Richard
That, I can agree with. Even if we disagree about how much “inert junk” used to be useful and even necessary, and a direct result of having our species emerge from earlier species which used it to their advantage. Some often used example are our broken genes for the production of vitamin C, enzymes to break down chitin that no longer are as effective, and so forth.
And, while much of the DNA may be junk from the standpoint of transcribed functionality, it may still be useful and necessary to the overall scheme, just as when you visit modern Rome, the AirBnb you stay in is probably built on the ruins of the ancient city, and while the ruins are “junk” and fill, the foundation of the current building rests upon it and would collapse without it. Still, that fill is the evidence of what stood there before.
Which is again true and again irrelevant. You said that scientists base their belief in nonfunctional DNA on the assumption that they know all of its functions. That’s wrong. Your response didn’t address my question: do you know why scientists have concluded that a lot of DNA is nonfunctional?
I wonder how much adult junk DNA was necessary for the developing embryo?
I just had a rather wicked idea…(See Delen in Babylon 5) that the reason some of the transient fossils do not exist is because there was none. Instead there were pupae stages which, being flesh not bone, would not fossilise. It works for insects, why not vertebrates? 
Richard
Well, you and are from (I assume) different countries and Christian backgrounds so it stands to reason that we may have different experiences on this issue.
Perhaps, then what we have here is not disagreements about the truth, but rather different (and complimenting) perspectives.
That’s false. If there was scientific evidence for a designer then science could include it. For example, science could determine if a genome had been designed by humans by looking for the hallmarks of human design.
What science doesn’t allow is unfalsifiable claims and arbitrary supernatural events.
As @glipsnort has pointed out with many different examples, design is not the best explanation. Common ancestry and evolution are. There are mountains and mountains of evidence that design does not explain, but common ancestry and evolution explain perfectly.
First, philosophy is in the very foundation of scientific enterprise. Good science cannot be done without that foundation. And when it is ignored, there are sometimes deleterious consequences. John Lennox illustrates that clearly in his book God and Steven Hawking.
Methodological naturalism is a useful tool and concept in science. But when it “requires” that evidence can only be interpreted through natural causes, and excludes intelligent causes, even when that is the best explanation for the evidence, it turns into scientism–that science as seen through methodological naturalism can answer every question. And that is clearly a philosophical position–a very flawed philosophy.
I would suggest that is the viewpoint that drives Evolutionary theory
Richard
I suspect that you assume the very same thing for the vast, vast majority of nature. For example, if we don’t know who committed a murder you don’t think God or some other supernatural being did it. You assume a human did it. If someone has what appears to be an infection you assume it is due to microorganisms and not some evil spirit. When you see clouds form in the sky you assume it is being caused by natural processes, even though you have no evidence for how that storm is forming. So why is it different for evolution?
The only outrageous part is that you expect scientists to take your opinions seriously. I don’t doubt that you believe what you claim, but science needs more than uninformed opinions.
My opinions. Ad hominem.
What ever happened to common sense and logic?
Richard
That philosophy is methodological naturalism. That’s the foundation of science.
Intelligent causes can be included in the scientific method. There is nothing preventing it. Forensic science does this all of the time.
What science requires is a testable hypothesis, and that is completely lacking in ID/creationism. ID/creationism also can’t explain the data we do have, such as the pattern of transition and transversion mutations that @glipsnort has mentioned multiple times. YEC in particular can’t even explain one of the most basic observations, that of a nested hierarchy. YEC can’t explain mountains of data in astronomy and geology. Moreover, YEC is based on this:
That’s why YEC is not science.
I am criticizing your arguments, not attacking you as a person.
Indeed. You are making bald assertions of how biology works, all the while demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of how biology works. Common sense and logic would tell us that your opinions shouldn’t carry much weight.
That’s simply not true. There is mountains and mountains of raw data that the theory is based on.
That’s from 1882. It describes the raw data the theory is based on. That is still the raw data that the theory is based on, and it has only increased by several orders of magnitude as more and more genomes are sequenced.
The genetic evidence is overwhelming.
The theory makes no such assumption. This is what I mean by an uninformed opinion.
Only in your own uninformed estimation.
wrong (ad hominem)
Anyone who thinks that weather formations are caused by an intelligence needs their head examined.
ad hominem
The fact that science cannot measure or identify does not mean it cannot exist. It just means that you need faith, and faith is not generic to science (Although I claim it is part of evolutionary theory)
The point here is that you know that I am a Christian and therefore must refute or try and belittle me. heaven forbid that any of my arguments might hold water!
Richard
.
That’s not an ad hominem. What happened to common sense and logic?
So when you see a cloud form in the sky do you not think it is forming through natural processes?
That’s not an ad hominem. What happened to common sense and logic?
We don’t have to take evolution on faith. We have the evidence.
I have uninformed opinions on many different topics. We all do. There’s nothing belittling about it.
You aren’t making arguments. You are making bald assertions. Arguments are based on evidence, but that’s not what you are doing.
The link between human and ape is comparatively small (but bigger than 2% implies)
The further back in history you go the more tenuous the linkage. (Ignoring you genetic stuff, of course)
Fossils only exist in a relatively short span of historical rocks. And much of your conclusions are based on interpretation.
I have seen the so called feathered reptile fossil(s) and they are tenuous at best. There is no good reason to “create” a display when scales can be any colour. And it is so convenient that feathers suddenly become essential for avian flight. There is not even any certainty that these feathers you see were coloured or not!.
Incredulity?
I am certain that I am not alone.
(Ad hominem)
Richard
That is also my question. I referenced the fine tuning of the universe. Lots of evidence there. Richard notes irreducible complexity. Tons of evidence there. The only arguments I have seen against irreducible complexity are pretty weak. I noted the incredible complexity of the cell that includes numerous examples of irreducible complexity. And then the information basis for life. And even if you think that random natural processes can rearrange information into another form of useful information, there is no rational naturalistic explanation for the information for first life.
But oh yes, “even though intelligence is an excellent explanation, we can’t accept that. We have to keep waiting for a naturalistic answer–that is “required” by methodological naturalism.” Well, good luck, keep searching. But don’t require the rest of us to refrain from embracing intelligence and design as the best and only explanation currently available, and eminently reasonable. The “check is not in the mail”–there are no naturalistic explanations on the horizon.
It rather reminds me of the atheist (who will remain unnamed as I don’t remember who it is). He was asked how he would respond if God asked him why he refused to believe. The answer–“You didn’t give me enough evidence.”
The evidence is all around you.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
