Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

originally posted by: cooperton
I was a zealous adherent to evolution for almost a decade.

LMAO. I don't buy that for a second, sorry. People don't "adhere" to evolution like a religion. You didn't understand it then and you don't understand it now.

After searching enough, there is not any compelling data to insist that it is true, or even possible.

Then why have you never refuted the talkorigins link I posted?

After relieving myself of this philosophical burden, I was able to realize universal truths, not being squandered by the imagination of material reductionists.

By universal truths you mean personal beliefs.

a reply to: cooperton

I was a zealous adherent to evolution for almost a decade. After searching enough, there is not any compelling data to insist that it is true, or even possible.

Whether you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. The fact is you don't have a clue how to analyze data. Your "searching" techniques are strictly ideological which says that whatever it is you believe, no one with an ounce of integrity could believe YOU. Cut and paste broken records get boring after a while.

originally posted by: cooperton

...That is, if evolution is true. It strips humanity and individuals of meaning. You can't argue any sort of meaning if we were generated by unintelligent chaotic material interactions. ...

In 1802, English clergyman and theologian William Paley expounded his reasons for belief in a Creator. He stated that if while crossing a heath, he were to find a stone lying on the ground, he might reasonably conclude that natural processes had put it there. But if instead he were to find a watch, he would scarcely come to the same conclusion. Why? For the simple reason that a watch has all the hallmarks of design and purpose.

PALEY’S ideas had a profound influence on the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Yet, contrary to Paley’s logic, Darwin later proposed that the apparent design in living organisms could be explained by a process that he termed “natural selection.” Darwinian evolution was seen by many as the definitive answer to arguments for design.

A great deal has been written on the subject since the days of Paley and Darwin. The arguments in favor of design on the one hand and of natural selection on the other have frequently been refined, elaborated on, and updated. And both sides of the subject have greatly influenced what people believe about purpose​—or lack of purpose—​in the universe. What you believe might well influence how purposeful you feel your life is. How so?

The Logical Consequences of Darwinism

Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”

By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons.

Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?
...

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009

originally posted by: TzarChasm
With all due respect cooperton, this seems to be less about the accuracy of evolution research and more about the integrity of your self image in relation to the universe at large.

Evolution presents an existential dilemma to those who believe it, because it is an incomplete answer. And you'll say "yeah they're figuring it out, and will eventually". But will they? You are putting your faith in an answer that will never come. The closest thing to an answer given by science was the conclusion of the quantum physicists, which you ignore because it disagrees with your beliefs. It is not just the philosophical conclusion of evolution that is deranged and worthless, it is also the lack of research - like real empirical demonstrations showing that evolution happens - that is the most telling that the theory is absolutely bunk.

originally posted by: Barcs

Then why have you never refuted the talkorigins link I posted?

I did. I discussed thoroughly why homology, the example I chose from the list, in no way proves evolution, and you never responded. I then asked you to tell me in your own words, which I realize is impossible for you and the others, why certain things on the list proved evolution and what was the empirical evidence for such. You never responded. You never really answer anything in your own words, just unwarranted pomposity.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Whether you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. The fact is you don't have a clue how to analyze data.

Haha no you're just too incapable of thinking on your own to even register what I am saying. The objective and unbiased have no problem understanding my argument. You just brush it off as being a threat to your dogma so you blindly dismiss it without actually addressing it logically. You, like barcs, do not / cannot explain things in your own words. So I realize why you still don't think I have presented a proper refutation of the lame material reductionist theory of evolution. It's because you don't understand what I am arguing. Or you close a blind eye to it.

If you want to actually have a discussion, then argue what I say, don't just claim I don't know what I am talking about, when all my scientific references are based in actual empirical data - something you are unfamiliar with being a blind adherent to evolution. Seriously, try to refute what I am saying from a logical perspective, using your own words. Otherwise it shows you are just an automaton reverberating the speculation of others. Let's start with the impossibility of evolving sexual organs:

the impossibility of evolving sexes

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING BIRD”?!
...

Birds are the only animals today that grow feathers. Most birds have different kinds of feathers. The most visible are the overlapping contour feathers, which give birds their smooth, aerodynamic shape. Contour feathers include the wing and tail feathers, which are vital to flight. A hummingbird may have fewer than 1,000 such feathers, and a swan more than 25,000.

Feathers are a marvel of design. The central shaft, called the rachis, is flexible and remarkably strong. Extending out from it are rows of interlocking barbs that form the smooth vane of the feather. The barbs attach to one another by means of several hundred tiny barbules, which hook onto neighboring barbules, forming a kind of zipper. When barbules unzip, the bird simply zips them back together by preening itself. You can do the same by drawing a frayed feather gently between your fingers.

Wing flight feathers in particular are asymmetrical​—the vane is narrower on the leading edge than on the trailing edge. This classic airfoil design enables each flight feather to act like a tiny wing in itself. Also, if you look closely at a major flight feather, you will see a groove running along the underside of the rachis. This simple design element strengthens the shaft, allowing it to bend and twist without buckling.

Feathers have many functions. Distributed among the contour feathers of many birds are long, thin feathers called filoplumes, as well as powder feathers. It is thought that sensors at the roots of the filoplumes alert the bird to any disturbance of its outer feathers and may even help it to judge its air speed. The barbs of powder feathers​—the only feathers that grow continuously and are never molted—​break down into a fine powder that is thought to help waterproof the bird’s plumage.

Besides their other functions, feathers protect birds from heat, cold, and ultraviolet light. Sea ducks, for example, seem to thrive despite bitterly cold ocean winds. How? Under their nearly impenetrable coat of contour feathers lies a dense layer of soft, fluffy feathers called down, which may be up to two thirds of an inch (1.7 cm) thick and cover most of the duck’s body. Natural down is so efficient an insulator that no synthetic material yet devised equals it.

Feathers eventually wear out, so birds replace them by molting​—shedding old feathers and growing new ones. Most birds molt their wing and tail feathers in a predictable, balanced order so that they always retain their ability to fly.

Safe airplanes are the product of painstaking design, engineering, and craftsmanship. What about birds and feathers? In the absence of fossil evidence, controversy rages among evolutionists over how feathers originated. “Fundamentalist fervor,” “vitriolic name-calling,” and “paleontological passion” pervade the debate, states the magazine Science News. One evolutionary biologist, who organized a symposium on feather evolution, confessed: “I never dreamed that any scientific matter could possibly generate such bad personal behavior and such bitterness.” If feathers clearly evolved, why should discussions of the process become so vitriolic?

“Feathers are a little too perfect​—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—​Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”* Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.

To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way.

Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.

*: The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.

Avian flight demands more than just feathers. The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones as well as an unusually efficient respiratory system and specialized muscles to flap and control its wings. It even has a number of muscles to control the position of individual feathers. And it has nerves that connect each muscle to the bird’s tiny but amazing brain, which is preprogrammed to control all these systems simultaneously, automatically, and precisely. Yes, this whole, incredibly complex package is necessary for flight, not just the feathers.

Keep in mind, too, that every bird develops from a tiny cell that contains the complete instructions for its growth and instincts, so that one day it can take to the sky. Could all this arise from a long string of advantageous accidents? Or is the simplest explanation also the most reasonable and scientific one​—that birds and their feathers bear the marks of a supremely intelligent Maker? The evidence speaks for itself.​—Romans 1:20.

20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Forged “evidence”:

Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found.

Interesting tidbit that also shows the hallmarks of design and purpose rather than the effect of chance and supposed “accidents” (see previous comment of mine, perhaps the comment before that with Dawkins using “accident”):

The vivid and often iridescent colors of feathers fascinate humans. But feathers may look even more interesting to other birds. Some birds have four types of color-detecting cones in their eyes, while humans have only three. This extra visual equipment enables birds to perceive ultraviolet light, which is invisible to humans. Male and female birds of some species look alike to humans, but the male’s feathers reflect ultraviolet light differently from the female’s. The birds can see the difference, which may help them to identify potential mates.

a reply to: cooperton

Haha no you're just too incapable of thinking on your own to even register what I am saying. The objective and unbiased have no problem understanding my argument. You just brush it off as being a threat to your dogma so you blindly dismiss it without actually addressing it logically. You, like barcs, do not / cannot explain things in your own words. So I realize why you still don't think I have presented a proper refutation of the lame material reductionist theory of evolution. It's because you don't understand what I am arguing. Or you close a blind eye to it. If you want to actually have a discussion, then argue what I say, don't just claim I don't know what I am talking about, when all my scientific references are based in actual empirical data - something you are unfamiliar with being a blind adherent to evolution. Seriously, try to refute what I am saying from a logical perspective, using your own words. Otherwise it shows you are just an automaton reverberating the speculation of others. Let's start with the impossibility of evolving sexual organs: the impossibility of evolving sexes

You have no evidence. You have no data. Whatever you believe is irrelevant without some validation. Come back when you have it.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution presents an existential dilemma to those who believe it, because it is an incomplete answer. And you'll say "yeah they're figuring it out, and will eventually". But will they? You are putting your faith in an answer that will never come. The closest thing to an answer given by science was the conclusion of the quantum physicists, which you ignore because it disagrees with your beliefs. It is not just the philosophical conclusion of evolution that is deranged and worthless, it is also the lack of research - like real empirical demonstrations showing that evolution happens - that is the most telling that the theory is absolutely bunk. 

To be fair, I'm not pursuing the theory of evolution for a sense of cosmic self fulfilment because that's not what the theory is for. Just like I wouldn't go to church to learn the taxonomy of the gastropod and its breeding habits. If it works for you, then thumbs up for you pal. But that's not the same as encouraging you to discredit a field of legitimate study without doing very basic homework and providing at least a moral basis that doesn't revolve around ego and insecurity. If evolution were to prop up a genocidal philosophy then I would agree with you, but it seems that purely clinical investigation of evolution has yielded very positive medical advancements and improved our grasp of agriculture and animal harvesting. Your higher intelligence concept doesn't appear to be directly responsible for such technical upgrades. Even quantum physics hasn't really demonstrated much beyond the simple fact that measuring instruments can mess with the activity being measured, specifically in regard to delicate atomic substances that are affected by minute forces we just can't control. And personally I'm grateful for that because control is more or less the whole point of science and spirituality and there has to be a fundamental fabric we can't tamper with or exploit to avoid the global warming on a reality level, sci fi kind of fallout. So your materialist and reductionist labels come across as more sour grapes terminology than anything else. Calling it like I see it, same as you. But I'm very open to compelling examples of supernatural influence because matters of national security should never be taken lightly.

"He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty. And we have to destroy him." - Bruce Wayne

Batman v Superman was a subpar movie but that quote is a very relevant concept to intelligent design and a higher power. I don't believe in killing gods but I do believe in unconditional oversight, equal representation, power of the people and accountability where cosmic monarchs are concerned. Anything less is dictatorship and slavery as far as I can tell.

But in terms of straight fact and measurable causality, evolution is still the leading contender. So we can continue with the understanding that there's no ultimate supernatural power in play. But if there is, see above.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

To be fair, I'm not pursuing the theory of evolution for a sense of cosmic self fulfilment because that's not what the theory is for.

Evolution attempts to explain the development of humankind. Origins are deeply involved with our meaning (or lack there of from the atheist's perspective). You think this is a fun little exercise but you are part of the delusion that is leading people into thinking they meaningless mutant progeny. If you're wrong, then people are deluded. If you are right, it doesn't matter anyway because this is all an accident.

but it seems that purely clinical investigation of evolution has yielded very positive medical advancements and improved our grasp of agriculture and animal harvesting. Your higher intelligence concept doesn't appear to be directly responsible for such technical upgrades

Upgrade to agriculture? We have the sickest agriculture in the history of humankind. They're so sick we have to blast them with antibiotics just so they can live long enough to be slaughtered. There is no medical application that relies on the validity of evolution. antibiotic resistance is reversible because it is an epigenetic mechanism - meaning it simply is an alteration of genetic expression, and in the case of antibiotic resistance it is a gene that codes for a detox pump that gets turned up higher. It is not evolution. There is no useful reason to keep holding on to the obsolete theory of evolution

originally posted by: Phantom423
You have no data. Whatever you believe is irrelevant without some validation. Come back when you have it.

My example refers to anatomy and cellular biology. This is real empirical data. Not speculation. You are incapable of debating so you make these excuses whenever the rubber meets the road. I'd love for you to propose a mechanism as to how mitotic cells could have evolved into meiotic cells, it would show you can think for your self.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution attempts to explain the development of humankind.

Far too narrow a definition.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.

originally posted by: Phage

Far too narrow a definition.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.

Tzarchasm was attempting to say that evolution has nothing to do with cosmic self fulfillment, my argument was that it is an explanation for the origin of humankind so it absolutely does involve self-realization. Why even post if you're not going to add to the discussion?

a reply to: cooperton

Tzarchasm was attempting to say that evolution has nothing to do with cosmic self fulfillment, my argument was that it is an explanation for the origin of humankind so it absolutely does involve self-realization.

Tc was right and your argument is specious. The evolution of man as distinct from any other creature is irrelevant to the theory. Your argument is that man is the crown of creation. We aren't and the theory does not say otherwise.

a reply to: cooperton

origins are deeply involved with our meaning

You keep confusing evolution theory with philosophy. That isn't what the theory is about.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

If evolution were to prop up a genocidal philosophy then I would agree with you,...

You're more likely to simply argue that there is no connection between evolutionary philosophies (referred to with: 'evolution'), such as Darwin's philosophies and the resulting genocidal acts of those who took these philosophies to the next level in what has been termed Social Darwinism. Anyway, why is it that we nowadays have football fans making monkey noises towards black players?

Answer and key points or clues at 8:10 below (note especially the quotation at 8:46):

a reply to: whereislogic

The theory of evolution is not a philosophy. It is a science. There is statistically far more connection between superstition and human cruelty, often because the moral ambiguity of such spiritual practices allows for cognitive doublethink that reinforces preexisting prejudice and irrational beliefs. Just to be clear here, the topic is creationism and evolution, the ecosystem and the science of how it happened. Let's keep racism out of it because that never goes anywhere.

a reply to: whereislogic

I learned a lot about this in the fallacy of race by ashley montagu and also man beast and zombie by kenan malik !

European exceptionalism combined with racial theory produced some really nasty humans and as a result lots of eugenics and racist ideology!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage

Far too narrow a definition.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.

Tzarchasm was attempting to say that evolution has nothing to do with cosmic self fulfillment, my argument was that it is an explanation for the origin of humankind so it absolutely does involve self-realization. Why even post if you're not going to add to the discussion?

Humankind is not the end goal of evolution -- nor is intelligence. Evolution is going to keep happening on Earth for a few billion years, during which time humans/Homo sapiens will be gone and other new species will be created.

Possible scenarios for the future include, but are not limited to, humans evolving into something else, or some other animal species evolving intelligence, or human lineage going extinct and leaving existing species behind who never evolve intelligence similar to humans.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?

Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.

Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?

Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?

Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.

Must be nice on your Island. We have other people where I live.

But I get it... Altruism is tough to explain through evolution.

originally posted by: Phage
Tc was right and your argument is specious. The evolution of man as distinct from any other creature is irrelevant to the theory. Your argument is that man is the crown of creation. We aren't and the theory does not say otherwise.

Involved in Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the origins of humankind. If you continue to argue this then you have lost your objectivity, or are just playing dumb.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Some questions don't need answers.

The questions of "why?" in regards to the origins of humanity is a very important question. You may look at it as a trivial whatever without meaning, but it is the integral question of ontology. If you think the "why?" does not need an answer, why are you even arguing your opinion? If "why?" cannot be answered, then your opinion is meaningless.