Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers

Faith & Science Conversation
101

That is not part of the rquation. There is a balance in life, the weaker have mechanisms tha protect them. The strong do not aways win and it would not work if they did because they would wipe out their prey as well as their rivals. There have been few extinctions registered and most if not all are due to the interference of man.

You would make a good politician. Your spin may work for you but nit for me.

Lie I said aove thre is a balance in modern nature. Yes there is life and death wthin individuals and a weak animal may well die, but that is not the same as the evolutionary model. Evolution is looking at species not indidivduals.

Whether a balance could be achieved b Toe methodology is obviously a mute point. If ToE is correct then yes. but the preset state does not prove (or disprove) ToE.

Discussing specific "deviations2 or diseases does not change anything. By most viewpoints evolutions has slowed to a crawl at best and stopped atogether other than a few viruses or bacteria having to cope with humanity.

I am looking at the broad picture not any minutia. The principles behind ToE d not match (my view of) God. That is it.

IOW there has to be something that science has not identified to complete the picture. If it is not God then , fine, find something else, but as it standes ToE is incomplete., both philosophically and practically. (Although you refse to see the shortcomings.)

Richard

102

That is the evolutionary model. The death of less fit individuals within a population is natural selection.

Why aren’t examples of survival of the fittest occurring in the human population not capable of changing anything?

So it has nothing to do with the actual evidence in nature itself. Noted.

2 Likes
103

It is not speciation!

The examles given are minute changes. They do not prove that evolution can change a mirobe into a human

Thre is no evidence for speciation. let alone the changes needed for ToE to function completely.

Richard

104

It is survival of the fittest.

“I do not decide what God’s charachter is, But Survival of the fittest, and treading on the weak, is not charachters I see in God.”–RichardG

And if you don’t accept speciation, then where do you think all the species came from? There are over 400,000 beetle species. Were they all separately created? Where do you think they came from?

1 Like
105

I have told you before an will, this time, tell you again.

I do not claim any specific methodology. I just claim that ToE does not have all the answers. Evolution is part of the process, but there is more to it than ToE claims.

Richard

106

As shown in my previous posts, survival of the fittest is part of the process that is happening in nature.

1 Like
107

Especially since he denies there was a Fall!

I think it depends what you focus on: death, or life. Richard’s approach seems to focus on death, so it fails to see God’s character. But when I look at natural selection I see life growing, overcoming, diversifying, overcoming, spreading – becoming more abundant.

So? That has nothing to do with either scripture or natural selection.

Ninety percent of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Humanity was involved in only (so far) a single-digit’s portion of that.

You would make a good politician – you stick to your party line despite facts.

Whoa – I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but that’s contrary to every bit of science I’ve studied since about 1971.

You should show some. You keep repeating the claim, but have never substantiated it.

108

Emergence of new species has been observed.

109

As far as I can tell the fal does not fit wth ToE.

Not really. It is the concept behind ToE. (oos, i used the word concept.)

Methinks you are being blinkered.

But then it involves thinkng beyond the basic ideas and understanding the concepts involved. (Not your specialty)

Trust you to get the wrong end of the stick.

In the modrn era, there has been little positive or negative evolution. We seem to be in a staqtus quo.

Not the charachterisation I was referring to. My analogy was specific. Yours is an insult that is not even based on truth.

See above.

Mst of the modern data is artificaially generated rather than “in the field” as it were.

I was expecting that dort of thing in a veiled inocent question from @T_aquaticus .

We have been “discussing” this for several years now, during wich I have cited various “gaps” that you have failed to answer effectively.

Basically you have a large number of indivifual creatures that you have “joined” or claimed relaives, but, you have not /can not witness the birthing or direct heritage. Instaed you use your views of DNA comaprisoan to “prove” ancestry. Yet

You cannot deiscern a pattern or reason fr the “deviation” (hece random), or whether the changes have a guidance other than the secondary control of survival. You refuse point blank to define the scope of deviation. You do not now how a specific bone shape is derived from the DNA. You do not even know whether “trash” DNA is actually spent DNA or residail, or*etc, etc) You claim that progress is dictated by survival, yet “progress” is not an endemic direction within Nature (or sicence).

There is so much tht you ust gloss over with assuertions it is mazing that it has any d=credence at all, but of course it iis "the best we have" which means it must be right!

IOW it is a dogma.disguised as science.

Richard

110

Where’s the gap in the evidence supporting survival of the fittest?

1 Like
111

The other option is that God is just cruel.

Totally it does – you look at ToE and you see death and so you claim God can’t be there.

You mean “life finds a way”?

So where is your statement found in scripture or in natural selection?

Statistical facts are wrong now, too, when you don’t like them?

The modern era is too small a statistical sample to make such a conclusion – this is the same error the flat earthers make, thinking that because they don’t see it then it isn’t possible.

It’s based on the fact that you ignore the fact that “survival of the fittest” is not and never has been an accurate scientific description of the matter, yet it is what you focus on.

Maybe cite some journals where it is reported that evolution has “slowed to a crawl”.
Your bottom statement is also contrary to every bit of science I’ve studied since about 1971, since it gives the impression that data is fiction. The amount of data from the field is immense – and the observation of the emergence of new species has happened in the field.

The failure to grasp the concepts you’re talking about is abysmal. It appears you’re ignoring the scientific definitions and substituting the ones you use in everyday life, which is just a variation on the error of using one’s own definitions rather than the proper ones of any field.
The “gaps” you describe are found in every branch of science – including your favorite nemesis meteorology, along with geology and astrophysics.

I don’t gloss over anything because all I do is to try to make clear what science says, not defend it.

1 Like
112

No, the other option is that there never was a “fall”

And you claim to understand written English?

If i were you I would claim that you were making things up, but i am not you. I will just say that you have not understood me correctly.

Again, where do you get that from my posts?

It has everything to do with Natural selection, Natural selection is tha that the strong (Or adapted) survive and the weak (not lucky enough to adapt) do not survive. But if there are no weak, then the preditor has to get even stronger, until nothing can stop them, so the strong go unchecked and thee rest die out. (Slight hyperbolae)

No, when they are irrelevant.

Be cafeful, you might just argue yourself in my favour.

Everything you have is based on what can be seen wothin that period. So if you can’t draw a conclusion?

Tak about the pot calling the kettle black! You have continually failed to understand or reword virtually every concept within ToE!

Using my own words is not using my own definitions. Using my own words is what I was taught we are supposed to do. (Not one of yur specialties either)

Wrong sort of gap. (But that is just you running true to form)

The gaps afe in the progressions. IOW they are palces that ToE does not successfully cover.

Yes, well you keep trying to compare chalk and cheese. So I won’t bother answering what i have naswered many times before.

Don;t take it personally. (That seems to be prevelant though)

I know what science says.

Hmm,

I wonder if you know what arguing a scientific theory is?

If I am attacking it, what are you doing?

Richard

113

That’s the one you don’t like because it means that nature as we see it reflects God’s character.

That’s what natural selection is about.

Total failure to understand natural selection and ecology.
This is why people get impatient – you make pronouncements that show you don’t grasp the concepts involved.

That’s not correct if you’re talking about science.

But you continually use your own definitions instead of the proper ones for the subject.

Exactly that sort of gap.

Astrophysics filled in a huge gap when quantum mechanics came along. All of nuclear physics says there’s not enough pressure in the sun for fusion to occur, yet we observe all the expected results of fusion. There are still gaps like that, not that you would know it from listening to some cosmologists.

You have never drawn a logical distinction between evolution and meteorology. Both depend on what is observed, both utilize ‘fossil’ records, both rely on models full of things we don’t know – the differences are quantitative, not qualitative.

That is not evident from your statements.

2 Likes
114

So we persist? IOW you still do not understand my view, let alone agree with it, (or allow it!)

If you are trying to claim that Nature is corrupt and therefore proves Scripture, I would like you to show it to me. As far as i can see, that would be the only way to prove to me that the fall happened, as you claim with the result that all nature is corrupt.

Show me that the whole of creation is corrupt! (Rather than just claiming it form Scripture)

What way? To survive? Well we have already dismissed that because, as you were quick to point out, historically so many species have died out from so called transient s to the Dinosaurs.

Natural selection is subject to time and space. it fits the moment. What works in one area does not work in another, what is successful in one era does not necessarily thrive in another. As a producer of humanity, it sucks. It took a meteor and an ice age to get it back on track.

I have demonstrated an understanding f the principles of Natural selection. It boils down to the mighty (or best adapted) prevail. It does not account for the quirky, the beautiful, the Duckbilled Platypuss, the Peacock, the whale and the hummingbird.
(To name a few off the top of my head)

What concept are you claiming I do not understand?

Go on, SHOW ME! (Put your money where your mouth is)

Another wild correction, based on?

How long has man been on this earth? How long has man been able to view or observe? How does man deduce history that happened previous to his existence?

Is modern science the same as ANE? Or Ancient Greece? Aristotle? Robert Koche? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek?

Science may have existed since time immemorial, but people have not.

Define proper.

Definitions do not necesarily explain the conceots on which they are based.

GIve me your (the) definition of Natural Selection…

Gaps in knowledge, not gaps in progression. For someone harking on about concepts you seem to be mixing yours up. IOW you fail to see what I am saying and just throw in a disparate science as proof of it.

Maybe not to your understanding. I have done so many times, but you just doe not get (agree with) it.

Now that is an interesting claim. Where do fossils come into meteorology?

Again, I dispute that claim. The mechanics of meteorology are well established and known. What do we not know? (Other than exactly what will happen tomorrow) How is that relevant?

Despite the rules of this forum I will say

You are lying!

I will not claim that I know all science (I would expect you to be that honest as well) but I have qualifications that prove that I do know science. (and that includes Biology)

However, it would appear that my skills in the English language are not up to proving my knowledge to you.(And that is as near humility as I will get here)

Richard

115

Life is still here. As best we can tell, it is more varied and extensive than ever.

Exactly – life finds a way.

What “track”?

Another total failure to understand natural selection and ecology – because those account for what you listed quite handily.

Natural selection.

Based in the fact that we have data that goes back farther than there have been anatomically modern humans.

Artificial distinction that doesn’t bear up under scrutiny. Any time in science that we don’t know how things got from situation A to situation B it’s a gap in progression. Over time and with effort they get closed, as has been done with glaciology and volcanology.

I see exactly what you’re saying and it repeatedly boils down to an argument from incredulity and a bias against one kind of science. Conceptually and in terms of gaps there is no difference between evolution and star formation.

No – you’ve asserted it, but you manage by ignoring how meteorology really works. Just as an example, consider cloud formation: there are still vast gaps in our knowledge such that we can’t tell how no clouds become some become a hurricane, we just use rough schemes to fill in the blanks because we know that things in one stage generally lead to things in another stage – exactly as is done with fossils, except that with fossils we don’t get to watch the sequences play out again over and over. And when meteorology extends to climate, we’re on shakier ground than ToE is!

Seriously? You’ve never encountered the fact that ancient weather can be read from results it left behind?

That we do not have models that will back-predict weather shows that we are groping. We know lots of specifics, but if the mechanics really were “well established and known”, ten-day forecasts would be dependable.

1 Like
116

Then why have you not

Why do you refuse to define anything?

Why do you just claim I am wrong but do not show what you consider is right?

Are you incapable of defining Natural Selection?

SHOW ME!

Until or unless you can demonstrate the knowledge you claim I lack your words are empty and insulting. and this conversation stops dead.

In terms of winning or losing you lose!

Richard

117

There have been about 1000 extinctions registered, and that doesn’t include any species that went extinct prior to being taxonomically described.

Nor do weaker animals have mechanisms that protect them, as shown by almost any wildlife documentary.

Natural selection mostly looks at individuals, not species.

You should watch some David Attenborough programmes.

1 Like
118

Start with these two threads where you completely fail to understand what a nested hierarchy is.

He’s not lying.

Almost everything you say about science demonstrates you are completely clueless regarding “what science says”.

For example:

:point_up: :rofl:

1 Like
119

I think that’s a vast underestimate.

Fermi maths suggests that if species last 5my and the Cambrian was more than 500my ago, then there have been at least 100 extinct species for every extant one.

2 Likes
120

I have. i used to respect him but no longer.

I am not talking about nested hieracy, i am talking about Natural slection.

Or perhaps you feel as aloof as @St.Roymond so that you do not have to explain yourself.

Your opinion of me is quite clear>

Like everyone else you talk in black and white. All or nothing.

Perhaps a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

But ney sayers are nether use nor ornament.

If you cannot be constructive, go somehwere else.

At least I try and be polite.

I am guessing you are not understanding the parameters within which that statement sits…

Perhaps you have an example of a modern, visible change of species? (Not caused by human genetic engineering, or cross pollination) That is within the control of natural evolution.

Species, not sub species!

And after that you can show me an example of a descendant of a reptile that you have witnessed change into a mammal (all stages witnessed, not assuned or gussed at)

That would be something concrete in terms of the Scientific method.

Whoops

Richard

edit

Perhaps you would lie to discuss our knowledge of physics or chemistry? Some might even call Mathematics a science. your statement

Is a blanket statement that you cannot back up, and is as much a lie as anything said by @St.Roymond.