Are creationism and evolutionism compatible models?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn: (in a continuation of the conversation here: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/theories-as-distinct-from-conceptual-models-evolution-creationism/ )

    I’m concerned about the amount of interest that people have here in precise communication. How is it that Nate could reference “JR’s arguments against evolution?” Is that a fair paraphrasing?

    I was quite clear in what I wrote and perhaps Nate just read Kerry’s interpretations. Let‘s raise the reading comprehension levels here.

    Why is it that if I consistently state that I have no issue whatsoever with the primary theory of evolution, some people continue to state otherwise? Are the actual questions / issues that I raised that terrifying? Perhaps they are to some….

  • Nate Morehouse:
    I, for one, am not terrified, JR. It is not my intention to go toe-to-toe with you, but your communication above was hardly precise or clear. And yes, I did read it carefully. You seem willing to easily condemn scientists, science and scientific theories with big sweeps of your hand. This includes the current working model of human evolution, which is indeed an incomplete working model, but one repeatedly updated with new information. However, what my post takes issue with is the eagerness to identify gaps in knowledge and make them into arguments for dismissing whole areas of scientific thought. It does not help your case that you are selective about applying this criteria.
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

    • I think it’s also worth pointing out that there is a MAJOR difference between what scientist’s think about their own work and how that work is represented by the mainstream media. Reality rarely fits into sound bites.

  • To J R Fibonacci Hunn… Please cite in detail compelling evidence for your assertion that, ” … the mainstream theory of human evolution… does not fit very well with archeological (sic) evidence or genetic evidence.”
  • Jason, I pass. You can Look up any DNA analysis of Neanderthal DNA vs. Homo sapien DNA. The term “missing link” is not new and is not a matter of scientific controversy.
  • The only controversy has been whether any particular bone sample or DNA sample provides “the missing link” and how well. The idea of a huge gap is uncontroversial.
  • Nate, I do not identify any of your stated criticisms as relevant to me. Competent scientists are highly valued by me. I am just highly selective about what I call “competent.” Popularity is no proof of competence.
  • My stated concern is precisely the dismissal of evidence. Ancient texts are not evidence per se, but there is plenty of evidence that is overlooked.
  • You are making a claim without providing evidence. Look it up? Why should I do your research? If your position is tenable your evidence should be forthcoming. If it is not then this discussion is moot.

    Also, there is no single “missing link” in the human evolutionary lineage any more than there is one for any other species. Evolution is not a clearly linear process. It occurs in fits and starts responding to always changing environmental conditions and a myriad of external influences.

    Imagine you see a coiled chain resting on the floor. Can you see all the links at once? Do you doubt the existence of the chain merely because you cannot see it in its entirety? Science has shown us thousands of links in a chain that may have millions. Rejecting the the existence of the chain is willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    15 hrs · Like · 1
  • I read carefully thru this thread and your statements, J R Fibonacci Hunn seem deliberately contrived to overwhelm readers with content, most of which is beside the point. It’s smoke and mirrors.

    It takes a high degree of self editing and a deep care for readers to clearly communicate an idea… especially one as in depth as evolutionary theory where readers are likely to be ignorant of important points of contact in the discussion. I have no respect for writers who attempt to hold their subject over the readers head.

    Whether you are doing it on purpose or not, I cannot say. But having read several of your posts and comments over the last couple weeks, I can say that it appears you are.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

    Jason, I don’t doubt the existence of the chain in general. If you wish, you can read my posts again and see that.

    Your chain metaphor shows intelligence. In particular, your reference to “external influences” is – (I presume, without you knowing it) – in total agreement with what I have continually referenced (however vaguely).

    You should not do my research. I already have. You can either do yours or not. I have no obligation to present any evidence because I have not presented a specific claim (not here). You can say I have made a claim (or proposed a theory), but can you quote it to me?

    I have simply said that anyone who dares to question the popular theory of human origins may, like me, conclude that there are gaping holes in the evidence. Mainstream “scientists” have made a claim and have not, in my opinion, shown conclusive evidence to explain the sudden evolution of homo sapiens from hominids in the last few hundred thousand years. They are the ones who even made up the phrase “the missing link.” They all know there is an immense gap. Many of them present “Lucy” (and other bone samples) as “the missing link” (or one of several links). However, my personal evaluation, along with lots of PhDs and laypeople, is that the bones and DNA samples of hominids and homo sapiens are WAY too different to be explained ONLY by evolution.

    Until you understand what I am saying, you can’t critique it. You can critique “strawmen” arguments as if I made those arguments. However, I did not make them, so I am not going to defend arguments that I did not make. Finally, I also have no obligation to do “your” research for you.

    http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/…/ardipithecus…

    PROOF-OF-EVOLUTION.COM

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

    Jason wrote: “Rejecting the the existence of the chain is willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.”

    Willful ignorance is precisely what I am “claiming” that “mainstream scientists” have been “practicing.” Of course, lots of mainstream scientists have chosen not to reject evidence that does not fit the popular theory. Thus, they are rejected by the “mainstream.” (In other words, they have rejected the mainstream.)

    Why? Because of the willful exclusion of evidence that is rampant in the mainstream.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

    I don’t really have a big interest in human origins. I’m more interested in practical things like health. However, in the case of health, we still find that mainstream quackery is very popular (for instance, about how cholesterol is allegedly a poison manufactured by the livers of so many species to commit a slow suicide).

    That is idiotic. The amount of different cholesterols present does correlate with health problems, but correlation is not causality. Cholesterol helps to repair problems. That is not in controversy. However, mainstream “science” continues to refer to cholesterol (or certain forms of it) as a problem. No, it is nature’s solution for various problems. Some modern people are so ill that when the liver increases cholesterol production, that is not enough to produce a reversal of symptoms.

    However, sabotaging the liver’s capacity to produce cholesterol does not promote healing now and never did and never will. In general, interfering with the immune system’s capacity to eliminate toxins (such as through the use of a cough suppressant) produces chronic health issues. In particular, crippling the immune system (such as by crippling the liver’s capacity to manufacture cholesterol) is not healthy.

    THAT is suicidal. The fact that livers produce cholesterol, some of which is made in to a variety of essential hormones, is not suicidal. The mainstream “science” is pure quackery.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

    So, I can claim that livers produce cholesterol and that cholesterol is a good thing. Millions of people can deny that as they point to their familiar textbook and some headlines in a magazine or an ad for a statin drug. What they cannot do is provide any credible evidence of cholesterol as anything but one layer of the body’s healthy physiological function.

    Their claim of cholesterol as a poison is preposterous, but popular. I reject it.

    Likewise, certain mainstream claims about human origins are familiar and popular. I have looked at some contrary theories to the most popular one (and at evidence that is consistent with some theories but not others). My conclusion is that the mainstream theory of human origins is “grossly inadequate” and that other theories are “consistent with all of the evidence,” but I could be wrong….

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn:

    Kerry, you will have to judge for yourself what is “beside the point” and what is “on point.” You can respect whatever you respect.

    I consider the theory of evolution to be reasonably simple and further to be totally established in general. However, I began my involvement in this thread with a very specific reference: the breeding of dogs.

    How did the vastly swift mutations of dogs happen? How did the incredible diversity of dog breeds blossom in only several thousand years? Does evolution alone account for all of these species differentiating so fast?


  • The DNA diversification of dogs in the last several thousand years is not explained by evolution alone. All the different breeds of dogs did not “just simply evolve.” They were bred. They were CREATED.

    How were they created? They were bred by a “higher intelligence.”

    Skeletal analysis of dog species would show unprecedented variation in dogs in recent millenia (while in the same time period, we see no such evidence of rapid change in, for instance, sharks or rats). Likewise, what I have repeatedly stated is that evolution alone is CLEARLY insufficient to explain the changes from hominid to homo sapiens in such a short period of time (as mainstream theories suggest).

    Who has addressed the point that I keep raising? No one. Is it cryptic? Not really (or not anymore at least).

    Is it too disturbing for you to consider? If so, that is fine. If not, that is fine too.

Advertisements

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: