Theories as distinct from conceptual models: evolution & creationism

  • I think that evolution in general is accepted- like anyone who breeds dogs knows that they select for certain traits when breeding. If you take two adults with certain traits, you can breed for those traits over time. No one argues with that, do they?

    However, what the “scientific” evolutionists typically present is a theory of human evolution that simply lacks scientific evidence and credibility. It is one specific theory about human evolution that skeptics are critiquing.

    The “missing link” between neanderthals and homo sapiens has been postulated, but by the standards of evolutionary science itself, there is a major problem. There are “millions of years of evolutionary change” speculated to have occurred in only the last few hundred thousand years.

    Are there “dismissive creationists” in addition to the skeptics that I just referenced? Sure there are. So what?

    The problem with the “science” of the mainstream theory of human evolution is that the theory does not fit very well with archeological evidence or genetic evidence. That’s all!

    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Steffan de Graffenried Well stated J R!
    3 hrs · Unlike · 1
  • Kerry Dawn Porter There are likely more ‘missing links’ than that JR… but I am not aware that that poses a fundamental problem for the theory of evolution You would have to be willing to hand over the arguments you are pointing toward for my consideration.

    It may be that there is a more refined view of human history coming that undermines this theory and much else… as it stands, the theory is on solid ground. Genetics is on it’s side.

    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Jason McClure Sr. The crux of this endless debate is that both Evolution and Creationism are simply theories. If conclusive proof existed for either argument, there would be no discussion. I don’t pretend to know that which I don’t know. Therefore, I’ll just live until I die.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn As long as the debate can be limited to two competing theories that are both “untenable,” then there is no real scientific debate. My understanding of creationists is that they say “we don’t really understand exactly how it all works [so this is not a theory], but we would like to consider certain documents as if they might have some important details even if we do not currently have other evidence besides the documents.” If someone finds that offensive, then I guess that shows how easily they can be offended (no self-respect?).

    There is another extreme in which some people say things like “if there is no reference to something in this document, then I am terrified of that idea.” That is another group of folks who are easily offended (again no self-respect?).

    1 hr · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn However, the idea that there is no evidence that fits the ancient documents can be (1) a position that people take in hysterical terror or (2) a speculative presumption stated by an individual with curiosity and respect for the possible existence of future discoveries of evidence or (3) an idea that is totally rejected because of personal awareness of an immense amount of evidence that is consistent with the ancient documents (even if not widely publicized in public schools and mainstream media etc).
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Anyone familiar with accurate translations of ancient manuscripts (and oral traditions) will note that there is a remarkable consistency across a vast range of cultures and geography. There is also considerable evidence in support of the claims in those texts.

    However, due to what I consider a lack of receptivity to science among mainstream “scientists,” there is a long list of “popular science theories” with no evidence (or considerable amounts of contrary evidence). I think my favorite is the theory of dark matter, which is really an attempt to salvage a specific theory of gravity that is so far away from actual data that “magical notions” of dark matter were invented so that the standard equations about gravity could be retained by saying that “there is more matter there than we actually measured because otherwise we have to admit that this equation has been invalidated by the last few decades of measurements.”

    Does gravity exist as a phenomenon? Of course it does. The mainstream theory about it just happens to be hilariously inconsistent with the evidence.

    47 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn But that theory is still taught widely and without any mention that the theory has been evidenced as invalid for many decades. Is there a “competing” theory that is consistent with the evidence? Yes, and there has been for decades. However, it is not mentioned in mainstream schools including most universities.
    46 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Kerry Dawn Porter There are not two competing theories here, JR. There is one theory, evolution, that is accepted, rejected, or elaborated upon. Creationists are saying ‘We deny evolutionary theory because we know God created the Universe. It says so right here.’ I don’t understand your POV.
  • Joel Fry With my limited understanding, I think it is safe to say that humans evolved from earlier homonid types, because bones and skulls have been found to confirm that. There is no missing link between Neanderthals and Nomo Sapiens because the two were competing subspecies which may have interbred.
    25 mins · Like · 1
  • Joel Fry ***Kerry was liking my unedited comment.
  • Joel Fry Oh well…
  • Joel Fry ***NOT substance–consciousness.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Kerry, when you say “here,” you may mean here as in within this thread of yours. That is fine.

    For me, there are two competing “theories of human origins.” The evolutionary theory OF HUMAN EVOLUTION FROM PRIMATES is a popular theory. There is simply not much evidence for it. I consider a contrary theory (which happens to be consistent with ancient manuscripts such as the Vedas and the Hebrew book of Genesis) to be well-supported by evidence, though lacking in popularity.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I understand that God separated the light from the dark and day from the night and the heavens from the earth. If you don’t know what the word God means in the prior sentence, then of course it might as well be in a foreign language. Of course you cannot assess the accuracy of a statement that you do not comprehend.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Further, in regard to the word “faith,” that is similar in meaning to the word “premise.” So, in the case of the popular theory of gravity, if we take it ON FAITH, then it makes sense to attempt to “salvage” that theory by inventing the idea of dark matter to account for the massive inconsistency between the popular theory of gravity and enormous amounts of data gathered in the last 100 years.

    The popular theory of gravity is imprecise scientifically. In other words, it is wrong… because the premise of that theory being accurate has been conclusively established as wrong. However, because the popular theory of gravity is reasonably accurate *for terrestial applications* (as long as one does not get too far from the earth), it is “good enough to keep teaching it as if it were precise.”

    In contrast, the statement about God separating light from dark is not a scientific statement. It is a principle. It is not a theory or an equation. It is just a conceptual model- such as celsius scales or fahrenheit scales are just conceptual models.

    There is no scientific debate between whether celsius or fahrenheit are “more scientific.” They are not theories. You just pick one of them ON FAITH and use it. Or, you can use both. But the idea that celsius or fahrenheit or kelvin can be compared for scientific merit against each other is nonsense. It is hilarious.

    And, that is what I am saying is going on with all of these “scientists” who are dismissing a “theory” of creationism that first they do not respect and second of course they do not understand. They are terrified of it. Further, given what the conceptual model of creationism points to, it makes total sense that they would be terrified of that conceptual model.

    In other words, people may reject creationism without understanding it. That is quite ironic when looking at this picture:

    the theory of evolution

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Joel, you made an assertion that bones and skulls have been found to confirm that humans evolved from earlier hominids. Are you aware of any critiques of those conclusions/ findings? Are you aware of contrary explanations by archeologists (etc) who challenge those findings (those speculations / theories)?

    • Joel Fry No, but I suppose it could be proposed that the other hominids were unrelated species, but that is very doubtful since they were so much like us and since there is a progression towards the modern human form appearant in them.
    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Humans did evolve from hominids to the best of my knowledge (in the general sense of hominids being ancestors of humans). However, there is a MASSIVE missing link that many honest archeologists recognize (and have been censored for publicizing). Further, it is also pretty interesting (in an academic way) how mainstream institutions have systematically publicized the idea that “the missing link” has been found.

      The old texts (if properly translated of course) are clear in what they assert as to the relationship between humans and hominids. I am not aware of any actual scientific controversy as to the fact of a massive “missing link.” However, that lack of evidence is simply ignored for the most part. The unsupported theory of direct human evolution from hominids is widely publicized. It just may be “grossly imprecise.”

     Joel wrote: ” There is no missing link between Neanderthals and Nomo Sapiens because the two were competing subspecies which may have interbred. “

    [JR again:] Or, there is a missing link. The mainstream theory of human origins is that homo sapiens evolved directly from prior hominids. However, the evidence of that is lacking.

    In fact, there is a massive amount of evidence showing that homo sapiens and other hominids were competing species that also have interbred many times. People who explore folklore or “the paranormal” may be aware of recent stories of modern-day neanderthals and interbreeding. However, in order to preserve an unscientific theory of human evolution from hominids, massive amounts of data must be censored or otherwise removed from consideration.

    Kerry wrote: “Genetics is on [the] side [of the theory of evolution].”

    But is genetics “on the side” of the theory of human evolution from primates? The entire idea of a “missing link” is based on a massive genetic gap between hominids and homo sapiens.

    Physical archeologists may have originated the idea of the “missing link.” However, geneticists are the ones who measured the size of the gap and said “major problem here: that is a few million years of mutation- mutation that we do not see in any other species on the planet at the time- that we can clearly measure between the DNA samples from hominids and from the first remains of homo sapiens that we have found.”

    What do geneticists say about the missing link? “Wow, there is an immense gap in the DNA and a lot of evidence that the theory of evolution does not account for a gap of that size.”

    What do archeologists say about the missing link? “How much research money will I get if I say that I think I have found some evidence to be that missing link that allows us to continue pretending that the mainstream theory has any scientific merit?”

    What do [some] creationists say? “We know exactly how to account for the actual evidence. We had the explanations long before geneticists provided evidence to support those explanations. And, some of us understand that many people may lack the courage and scientific integrity to even consider how well the ancient explanations match the actual observations.”

    • Kerry Dawn Porter:

      Nate Morehouse. I don’t know if you have the time or inclination to read and respond. I will read more carefully this weekend and respond if I can make sense of your arguments which feel deliberately dodgy, JR.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

      Do you mean deliberately cryptic? I am “testing the waters” here for logic and respect.

      The mainstream herds can be very upset if one “too directly” reveals the lack of scientific merit in certain popular foundations of mainstream “science.” Their antagonism and condescension can erupt with great fury.

      I am totally comfortable with my understanding of ancient explanations and their total consistency with modern observations. I am also fine with popular modern theories that misrepresent or simply ignore massive amounts of modern observations.

      Again, I don’t really mind if the popular theory of gravity is imprecise. I don’t mind if the popular theory of human origins is grossly misleading. That is just what propaganda is for, right?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: