[_ Old Earth _] Why does Koonin consider the evidence for common descent to be "overwhelming?"

[Barbarian]

This paper, with comments by referees, might give you some idea of why he thinks so. Contrary to the stories being circulated on ID sites, Koonin sees common descent as a fact, even if he thinks a formal proof might be impossible.
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdf

 

[Vaccine]

"It is common belief that all cellular life forms on earth have a common origin. This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system."

"Belief" being a key word there. Curious, he used the word "origin" not ancestry.


Their argument hinges on things like the same gene in humans and chimps being broken or mutated in the same way. One way to explain that is common ancestry. That's the only explanation really allowed right now.
Another explanation is common designer. ENCODE is finding there is a functional reason many genes are broken or mutated in the same way. It turns out pseduo genes like Gulo and beta-globin, once examples of common ancestry, are broken or changed in the same way for a functional reason so are no longer considered evidence of common ancestry.
The problem is they are limited in how they can explain the evidence. If the only tool available is Darwin's theory, the only conclusion available is common ancestry. Intelligent Design theory offers a better explanation of the evidence and will eventually replace common ancestry, it just may take 20 years. Or sooner since he did use the word "origin" not ancestry.

 

[Sparkey]

Koonin sees common descent as a fact, even if he thinks a formal proof might be impossible.
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdf

Would you agree that a 'formal proof' might be impossible? I do note that the qualifier "might be" was selected with care. It 'might be' impossible. What is that about?

 

[Barbarian]

"It is common belief that all cellular life forms on earth have a common origin. This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system."

"Belief" being a key word there. Curious, he used the word "origin" not ancestry.

This argument depends on blurring the meanings of "belief" as in:"
"I believe in God." (faith statement)
"I believe that's checkmate." (assertion of an obvious fact)
"I believe, given the genetic, anatomical, embyrological, and fossil evidence, that living things have a common ancestor." ( scientific inference from evidence)
"I believe I'll have another Guinness." ( statement of intent)

Obvious, Koonin, refers to the third meaning.

Their argument hinges on things like the same gene in humans and chimps being broken or mutated in the same way. One way to explain that is common ancestry. That's the only explanation really allowed right now.

There are no "disallowed" meanings. Any scientist can assert anything he chooses. The problem, of course, is getting other knowledgeable people to believe it. That's harder. There are no "deciders" in science. It's just the consensus of people who know about the field.

Another explanation is common designer.

The problem is things like broken genes like the Gulo gene.

ENCODE is finding there is a functional reason many genes are broken or mutated in the same way. It turns out pseduo genes like Gulo and beta-globin, once examples of common ancestry, are broken or changed in the same way for a functional reason so are no longer considered evidence of common ancestry.

Nope. Turns out that in primates, it's broken in one way. For other organisms, it's broken differently. Same functional result, but the actual breakage sorts out by common descent (which can be tested by other genetic data)

The problem is they are limited in how they can explain the evidence. If the only tool available is Darwin's theory, the only conclusion available is common ancestry. Intelligent Design theory offers a better explanation of the evidence and will eventually replace common ancestry, it just may take 20 years.

"Intelligent Design" is dead. As ID inventor Phillip Johnson admitted, the Dover trial was a "train wreck" for ID, much as the Arkansas creation science trial was a train wreck for "creation science." In 20 years, it will be as forgotten as "Creation Science", which is what it was called earlier. The dwindling number of creationists will come up with a new alias, and the dance will go on.

Or sooner since he did use the word "origin" not ancestry.

I imagine he used it, because at the base, he sees not a single organism, but many very similar organisms, all contributing by lateral gene transfer long before eukaryotes evolved. If he was right, it wouldn't change evolutionary theory in any way that would matter to creationists. Koonin's support for common descent, which he says is supported by "overwhelming" evidence, makes that clear.

 

[Barbarian]

Would you agree that a 'formal proof' might be impossible?

In science, a formal proof is always impossible. Science isn't about logical certainty. I suppose Koonin is using a looser meaning of "proof."

I do note that the qualifier "might be" was selected with care. It 'might be' impossible. What is that about?

Given the fact that evolution is a stochastic process, it might be that "overwhelming evidence" is the best we can do.

 

[Vaccine]

I admit I just read the abstract, but after reading the whole thing, the article is actually about Koonin debunking Theibalds argument for common ancestry.

"It is interesting to note that this formal demonstration of the common ancestry of life seems to quickly gain quite some following. Thus, the Wikipedia article on the Last Universal Ancestor quotes Theobald's study as the principal argument in support of the UCA. We maintain, however, that the purported formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry of all known cellular life forms is illusory"

He goes on to say Theibalds experiment is hopelssly flawed:

"The tests described above show that there is currently no formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry of the extant life forms. The likelihood tests of the kind described by Theobald fail to address the problem because they yield results in support of 'common ancestry' for any sufficiently similar sequences. The alternative to UCA is convergent evolution of highly similar sequences of the universal proteins (under the convergence hypothesis, the phrase 'universally conserved' becomes an oxymoron)."
In the final analyses:

"Accordingly, common ancestry (or homology, in the modern, post-Darwinian sense) of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property demonstrated by the likelihood analysis."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdf

So no proof for common ancestry, only an inference. The bottom line is the same "overwhelming evidence" supports both common design and common ancestry. Also, FWIW Koonin supports individual tree's and mentions "common origin".

 

[Barbarian]

I admit I just read the abstract, but after reading the whole thing, the article is actually about Koonin debunking Theibalds argument for common ancestry.

And yet, Koonin's conclusion is that the DNA evidence for common descent is "overwhelming." So your claim that he rejects common descent is clearly wrong.

So no proof for common ancestry, only an inference.

Logical certainty is not part of science. A formal proof is not there, because we don't have all the rules. Science is mostly inductive, inferring what the rules are from the details. Deduction is knowing the rules and determining the details.

The bottom line is the same "overwhelming evidence" supports both common design and common ancestry.

Not according to Koonin, who says:
Conclusion:
A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is
unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by
comparative genomics is overwhelming.
Exactly the opposite of what you told me he thought. Far from denying common ancestry, he says the evidence for it is overwhelming. Which of course, rules out special creation. "Common design" is just a dodge; no one familiar with biology really believes it. You are entitled to assert that the evidence supports whatever you want it to support. You are not entitled to assert that a man of Koonin's stature in biology says so.

Also, FWIW Koonin supports individual tree's and mentions "common origin".

Show us where he denies common ancestry, which is your claim. He clearly thinks common ancestry is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. There's really no way to make him out to deny what he says is so overwhelmingly evident.

 

[Vaccine]

The truth is that title is very misleading. Koonin does not consider the "evidence for common descent 'overwhelming'" because there is no evidence for common descent.
"A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle."

See, there isn't any way to formally demonstrate UCA. What Koonin thinks is 'overwhelming' is the support for the hypothsis.
"Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming."

The title should be Koonin considers the 'evidence supporting the UCA hypothesis' overwhelming. UCA is just a hypothesis, comparative genomics supports other hypothesis as well.

 

[Barbarian]

The truth is that title is very misleading. Koonin does not consider the "evidence for common descent 'overwhelming'"

Well, let's take a look...
A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is
unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by
comparative genomics is overwhelming.
Eugene Koonin

So there it is. Koonin thinks the evidence in support of common descent is overwhelming.

comparative genomics supports other hypothesis as well

It's O.K. for you to say that you think so. It's not O.K. for you to say Koonin thinks so. He clearly and emphatically disagrees with you.

 

[Asyncritus]

Koonin seems to have 2 faces. Why he should think UCA is acceptable science, I don't know, especially when he wrote as follows, which leaves him stuck fairly high and dry.:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”.

I could have told him that, as I have been telling barbarian and his followers for years now.

If, therefore, there WAS a UCA, then to get from UCA to any other major group of organisms REQUIRED the sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”. Many times over and over.

That is not evolution by natural selection, which is alleged to be a step by step process. SUDDEN emergence is decidedly not that.

But ‘major transitions’?

Weren’t these the very transitions Darwin intended to explain? If these ‘major transitions’ represent a “sudden emergence of new forms”, the obvious conclusion to draw is that nature is right, and Darwin was a fool.

“The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

In other words, Darwin’s idea explains nothing.

In fact, Koonin tells us exactly what Darwinism cannot explain:

“The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.”

That’s just about everything.

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

No intermediate grades?

It is by appealing to these very same ‘missing grades’ that the whole evolutionary house of cards has been built. To doubt their existence is to risk being fired from most university biology departments. To suggest that they are IMAGINARY, is to bring down the wrath of the establishment in such force that it is impossible to carry on sensible conversations.

It is most remarkable, but not surprising, that the largest amount of modern support for evolution comes from molecular biology, not from the fossils which are the record of life on earth, a subject to which we will return shortly..

An enormous amount of fudging and statistical interpretation and misinterpretation can take place at this level, and look impressive.

But as the reviewers seemed to be saying, there is considerable room for opinion and error in Theobald's paper. Which, of course, is only to be expected. But I really don't know what Koonin is playing at, given the above.

 

[Barbarian]

Koonin seems to have 2 faces.

Nope. He just understands biology. So it's not surprising that he accepts that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. He actually knows what the evidence is.

Why he should think UCA is acceptable science, I don't know,

He says the genetic information persuaded him. And we know it works, because we can test it with organisms of known descent.

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”.

Which, as you learned, is consistent with common descent. And that's not a new discovery. Huxley understood this. Gould demonstrated how it works.

I could have told him that, as I have been telling barbarian and his followers for years now.

I'm glad you got it, but you're about 150 years late.

If, therefore, there WAS a UCA, then to get from UCA to any other major group of organisms REQUIRED the sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity”. Many times over and over.

Let's test that belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional form. (There are still a few yet to be found, so you might get lucky) Show us.

That is not evolution by natural selection

Turns out, it is. As Gould pointed out, rapid evolution shows "sudden emergence" but it still happens step-by-step, albeit faster than some biologists thought it could. But feel free to pick up the gauntlet and show us those two major groups, just to make sure.

But ‘major transitions’?

Yep:
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Gould

Weren’t these the very transitions Darwin intended to explain?

Yep. It's why natural selection remains the most important fact in biology, and why almost all biologists common descent as a fact.

If these ‘major transitions’ represent a “sudden emergence of new forms”, the obvious conclusion to draw is that nature is right, and Darwin was a fool.

We'll know that, when we see your two major groups. Let's see what you've got.

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

No intermediate grades?

Well, if you think you're up to testing that belief (it's entirely possible that this quote-mined bit, being out of context, is misleading) you can show us those two major groups without a transitional. If that's too stiff a challenge, you might what to show us two supposedly-closely related major groups that don't have closely similar genomes, relative to outgroups.

Or maybe quote-mining is the best you can do. Let's see...

It is by appealing to these very same ‘missing grades’ that the whole evolutionary house of cards has been built. To doubt their existence is to risk being fired from most university biology departments.

Nope. I learned immunology from a very nice old professor who was a creationist. He had tenure after his views were known. That's just something creationists like to say, but the fact is, such people as my professor show that it's false. Stephen Gould himself, acccepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. As Gould said, all that really counts is ability. On the other hand, you can't even apply to the creationist ICR graduate school without a loyalty oath to creationism. This is one of the most important differences between science and creationism.

It is most remarkable, but not surprising, that the largest amount of modern support for evolution comes from molecular biology, not from the fossils which are the record of life on earth

Here's your chance. Show us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected with no fossil support.

a subject to which we will return shortly..

Now's your time.

An enormous amount of fudging and statistical interpretation and misinterpretation can take place at this level, and look impressive.

To those not familar with biology. However, as you see, it's a good deal harder for you, if someone actually knows something about it.

But I really don't know what Koonin is playing at, given the above.

He's saying that the origin of life, and the evolution of prokaryotes had a large amount of lateral gene transfer. Having a degree in bacteriology, I learned that about 50 years ago. Maybe zoologists were so aware of it, but to a microbiologist, it was pretty well known, even in the late 60s. Koonin, as you learned, thinks that common descent is overwhelmingly evidence, because there is so much evidence to support it.

And let us know about those two major groups, hear?

 

[Asyncritus]

Just before I wreck your theorising, can we please return to the original question which I asked a little while ago, rather than chasing down every rabbit hole you can find?

The original question I asked, and which Vaccine picked up on, but you failed to do, was:

Here are these birds (godwits) flying 7.100 miles across the trackless Pacific Ocean, and returning every year.

1 How did this behaviour originate, and

2 How did it enter the genome?

Be careful with your answer, because migration is a most extensive, instinctive phenomenon in the animal kingdom, and your answer may be the petard on which we shall hang evolution, as I did in my little book 'How Does Instinct Evolve?'.

Perhaps a subsidiary question can be; SINCE YOU THINK THAT BIRDS EVOLVED FROM REPTILES, then can you show us a reptile which SWAM across 7100 miles of Pacific ocean and returned every year?

THAT WOULD GENUINELY DEMONSTRATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 2 GROUPS.

Perhaps one day they suddenly swam faster and faster, took off, and made the journey.

If 7,100 miles is too tough, then maybe you'd like to try the Pacific Golden Plovers which ONLY fly across 2,800 miles of the Pacific, from Alaska to Hawaii and back.

 

[Barbarian]

Just before I wreck your theorising, can we please return to the original question which I asked a little while ago, rather than chasing down every rabbit hole you can find?

You made the assertion; now we're testing it to see if it's true or not. Since you've declined to give us any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, we'll have to conclude that you realize you can't find any without a transitional.

The original question I asked, and which Vaccine picked up on, but you failed to do, was:

Here are these birds (godwits) flying 7.100 miles across the trackless Pacific Ocean, and returning every year.

As you learned, (and as I showed you) they use a combination of polarized light and magnetic sensing to do so. It works very well, even if it's adapted from less effective forms that are present in many other animals such as humans.

1 How did this behaviour originate, and

As you learned, it's merely a refinement of something already there. We have the same abilities, albeit in a very rudimentary form. You've already seen that evolution never makes anything from scratch; it always modifies something already there.

2 How did it enter the genome?

Again, it was already there before there were birds.

Be careful with your answer, because migration is a most extensive, instinctive phenomenon in the animal kingdom, and your answer may be the petard on which we shall hang evolution, as I did in my little book 'How Does Instinct Evolve?'.

Surprise. At some point, you should ask yourself why there's always an evolutionary path for these things. At least some of the time, you'd think there wouldn't be. Certainly, if there was no such thing as common descent, we wouldn't see this kind of adaptation.

Berhaps a subsidiary question can be; SINCE YOU THINK THAT BIRDS EVOLVED FROM REPTILES, then can you show us a reptile which SWAM across 7100 miles of Pacific ocean and returned every year?

THAT WOULD GENUINELY DEMONSTRATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 2 GROUPS.

Nope. Mososaurs are lizards. Very distant relatives of birds and dinosaurs. But birds and dromaeosauran dinosaurs share a huge number of conserved traits such as:

• unique lung system
  
• feathers
• a special form of bipedalism
• a special form of scales
• enlarged brains
• upper limbs adapted to flapping motions
• sternal "keeled breastbone and uncinate ribs (Cryptovolans)
• beak
  
• assymetrical flight feathers

And so on. There's some evidence that some dinosaurs migrated, so again, it's not surprising that birds would.
By analyzing fossilized dinosaur teeth, researchers determined that the dinosaurs migrated hundreds of miles from their home to find food and water during dry spells. This is the first direct evidence supporting the theory that certain types of dinosaurs migrated to avoid seasonal food slumps.
http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaurs-migrated-tooth-fossils-confirm-175406072.html

So the recent discovery that migratory birds use a combination of cues to migrate, isn't that remarkable. It seems to have a very ancient origin, indeed.

 

[Vaccine]

At some point, you should ask yourself why there's always an evolutionary path for these things.

It seems to me inferences can make the path go where they want it to.

if there was no such thing as common descent, we wouldn't see this kind of adaptation.

I'm not saying this as sarcasm but isn't that just glorifying men? I ask because I see you firmly believe common ancestry is right, Ok, how does a that belief glorify God?

At
Very distant relatives of birds and dinosaurs. But birds and dromaeosauran dinosaurs share a huge number of conserved traits such as:

• unique lung system
  
• feathers
• a special form of bipedalism
• a special form of scales
• enlarged brains
• upper limbs adapted to flapping motions

I don't see what that has to do with Christianity or science.
It's simply promoting the beliefs of naturalists. How does promoting their beliefs glorify God?

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 cor 6:14

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
At some point, you should ask yourself why there's always an evolutionary path for these things.

It seems to me inferences can make the path go where they want it to.

That's an even bigger issue. Why, for example, don't we find any transitionals where the theory doesn't predict them? What's not there is even more persuasive than what is there.

Barbarian observes:
if there was no such thing as common descent, we wouldn't see this kind of adaptation.

I'm not saying this as sarcasm but isn't that just glorifying men?

Only if you think men made their intelligence and abilities by themselves. Otherwise, it's glorifying God.

I ask because I see you firmly believe common ancestry is right, Ok, how does a that belief glorify God?

Pagans imagined little nature gods that pranced around, making a tree here, and a rabbit there. Our God built a universe, and made it to work for His purposes, without having to tinker and adjust it constantly.

Barbarian observes:
But birds and dromaeosauran dinosaurs share a huge number of conserved traits such as:

• unique lung system
• feathers
• a special form of bipedalism
• a special form of scales
• enlarged brains
• upper limbs adapted to flapping motions
• (and more)

I don't see what that has to do with Christianity or science.

Just evidence. That's what science is about. If a plumber fixes your pipes, do you ask him what that has to do with Christianity? If you do, you're asking way too much about plumbing. Same thing with science.

It's simply promoting the beliefs of naturalists.

In the sense that scientists (not naturalists in the sense you mean, who generally aren't scientists) believe that evidence is a way of understanding the natural world.

How does promoting their beliefs glorify God?

I can only point out that the more I learn about His creation, the more amazed and in awe of God I become.

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 cor 6:14

Matthew 9:[10] And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. [11] And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? [12] But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. [13] Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.

If your plumber is not a Christian, do you refuse to call him thereafter? Or do you make your conduct such that he would want to find out what it is that you have that he does not? We are not called to boycott others, but to be an example and an inspiration to them. And if you deny what they know to be true, that is not going to be very helpful to God.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

 

[Vaccine]

Only if you think men made their intelligence and abilities by themselves. Otherwise, it's glorifying God.

It doesn't matter, A hypothesis simply doesn't glorify God.

Pagans imagined little nature gods that pranced around, making a tree here, and a rabbit there. Our God built a universe, and made it to work for His purposes, without having to tinker and adjust it constantly.

I agree, God built the universe for his purpose. Its that Pagans have simply gotten more elaborate at their explanations.

Barbarian observes:
But birds and dromaeosauran dinosaurs share a huge number of conserved traits such as:

• unique lung system
• feathers
• a special form of bipedalism
• a special form of scales
• enlarged brains
• upper limbs adapted to flapping motions
• (and more)

All of that is a Perfect example of the pagan imagination. They dont KNOW they had feathers or flapping motions, it's just a hypothesis. A hypothesis doesnt bring glory to God. It does a good job convincing people little nature gods are true.

Just evidence. That's what science is about. If a plumber fixes your pipes, do you ask him what that has to do with Christianity? If you do, you're asking way too much about plumbing. Same thing with science.

True, science is about evidence, empirical evidence. If science explains everything by strictly natural causes, Dawkins is correct in his assessment that belief in God is irrational. It is not a question asking a plumber for theological advice, the plumber is saying theology is just make believe.

In the sense that scientists (not naturalists in the sense you mean, who generally aren't scientists) believe that evidence is a way of understanding the natural world.

Their understanding of the natural world is absent a creator. Its only a misconception the Big Bang requires a Creator:
" Stephen Hawking wrote in 1988 "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." Apologists will then most likely posit the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing', and the simple answer is "Nothing is unstable" -Frank Wilczek. According to the principles of quantum mechanics, not only is 'nothing' unstable, but it seems nothing is also impossible. Thus, gods are superfluous in explaining the origin and existence of the universe too."

Physicists routinely use imaginary numbers to make calculations easier, but Hawking is grossly abusing that practice to get those results. I hope people can see just how much of a persons worldview enters science.

I can only point out that the more I learn about His creation, the more amazed and in awe of God I become.

Me too!

Matthew 9:[10] And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. [11] And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? [12] But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. [13] Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.

If i understand this quote i think you're saying Jesus eating with sinners is on par with mixing science and theology?
By explaining everything through strictly natural causes, science is basically demonstrating belief in the God of the bible is irrational. As long as science is after explaining the universe with strictly natural causes, what does darkness have in common with light? Until science returns to its roots, an unbiased search for truth, I don't think appeasement is going to get anywhere.

If your plumber is not a Christian, do you refuse to call him thereafter? Or do you make your conduct such that he would want to find out what it is that you have that he does not? We are not called to boycott others, but to be an example and an inspiration to them. And if you deny what they know to be true, that is not going to be very helpful to God.

As long as they think belief in God is irrational, any effort to inspire them is going to look foolish. To me ID is an assertion belief in a creator is rational. I'm only advocating a boycott of seeking strictly natural causes explaining the universe.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

Appeasement can go to far. This is why I'm always pointing out "that's an inference" or "a hypothesis" or "only a suggested possibility". If common ancestry was a known fact, fine, we should follow St Agustine's advice. But it is not, it's a hypothesis.

 

[Sparkey]

This is why I'm always pointing out "that's an inference" or "a hypothesis" or "only a suggested possibility". If common ancestry was a known fact, fine, we should follow St Agustine's advice. But it is not, it's a hypothesis.

Well said, Vaccine.

There is a difference b/w what is known and what is imagined. Knowing that difference is critical. Why lose sight of this? I believe that there is a very specific reason for confusion, all confusion. The reason is called "plausible deniability" and/or "willful ignorance". Those who refuse to place rightful authority into every word of God mostly use willful ignorance to avoid being held accountable for their bad deeds. "I didn't know" is often the first words uttered from a child ...

Some "willingly ignorant" deliberately overlook and maintain their plausible (so-called) deniability by forcing themselves to ignore the fact that God created the world by water and it was through water that the world of old perished, was deluged and destroyed. They don't like the coming judgment where all works of men will be destroyed. Their "wood, hay, and stubble" things continue to be piled on high and they think that for this there will be salvation.

Salvation does not come through knowledge except it is the Knowledge of Christ well applied. We are to conduct ourselves as those who have inherited the knowledge of Christ, even the very mind of Jesus, so that we may escape and have no need of inventions of the mind, of a variety of inferences designed to cause doubt, or of hypo-thesis or even such things as "suggested possibilities" designed to state that the heavens and the earth have been here for billions upon billions of years and that just like one day proceeds another and we expect the sun to rise tomorrow so also should we expect this to continue beyond our days and the days of our children or their children. There will soon come a day when it is false to say, "The sun shall rise tomorrow," and not all things shall proceed as they have from the beginning.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. He is coming and I have no part of the, "Yeah, maybe..." crowd or their several ideas designed to suggest this.

There is evidence of a common descent for all mankind. God is our Father and ignoring this to concentrate on what may be seen in order to suggest that he did not flood the earth, in order to deny his immanent return, in order to concentrate and focus on stuff that shall perish by fire does nothing but confuse and add fire to the cause of His right judgment.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
if there was no such thing as common descent, we wouldn't see this kind of adaptation.

I'm not saying this as sarcasm but isn't that just glorifying men?

Barbarian suggests:
Only if you think men made their intelligence and abilities by themselves. Otherwise, it's glorifying God.

It doesn't matter,

It matters a great deal. If God gave us our intelligence, then using it to discern the truth is to His glory.

A hypothesis simply doesn't glorify God.

But as you learned, we're talking about a theory. Theories, remember are well-tested ideas that are supported by evidence.

Barbarian said: ↑
Pagans imagined little nature gods that pranced around, making a tree here, and a rabbit there. Our God built a universe, and made it to work for His purposes, without having to tinker and adjust it constantly.

I agree, God built the universe for his purpose. Its that Pagans have simply gotten more elaborate at their explanations.

As have creationists. The add-ons of YE creationism are as imaginative as any pagan belief.

Barbarian observes:
But birds and dromaeosauran dinosaurs share a huge number of conserved traits such as:

• unique lung system
• feathers
• a special form of bipedalism
• a special form of scales
• enlarged brains
• upper limbs adapted to flapping motions
• (and more)

Click to expand...

All of that is a Perfect example of the pagan imagination.

C'mon. You know that facts aren't imagination. All those are observably true.

They dont KNOW they had feathers

They do. Would you like me to show you?

or flapping motions,

We know that from the structure of the shoulder in such dinosaurs. Why that was, was a mystery, until someone looked at ostriches, and discovered that they use their feathered wings for control when running. And they have the same shoulder structure and feathered forelimbs as the cursorial dinosaurs. And (not surprisingly) the motion they make while running are the same as those of flying birds.

it's just a hypothesis.

See above. You've been badly misled on that.

A hypothesis doesnt bring glory to God.

The truth always glorifies God. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

It does a good job convincing people little nature gods are true.

Unless you're a Christian. Then it stuns you with the power and majesty of a creator Who could do it.

Barbarian observes:
Just evidence. That's what science is about. If a plumber fixes your pipes, do you ask him what that has to do with Christianity? If you do, you're asking way too much about plumbing. Same thing with science.

True, science is about evidence, empirical evidence.

LIke the evidence I showed you for bird/dinosaur transition.

If science explains everything by strictly natural causes, Dawkins is correct in his assessment that belief in God is irrational.

You and Dawkins are wrong. It's not irrational to believe in God. It's only that science can't shore up your faith for you. If God isn't enough, science can't help you. And it's yes, "irrational" to assert what Dawkins said.

It is not a question asking a plumber for theological advice, the plumber is saying theology is just make believe.

In fact, scientists (even Dawkins, when he's calmed down) will tell you that science can't say anything at all about God. You've been misled about that, too. Evolutionary theory, like plumbing, can only be about it's area of application.

Barbarian observes
In the sense that scientists (not naturalists in the sense you mean, who generally aren't scientists) believe that evidence is a way of understanding the natural world.

Their understanding of the natural world is absent a creator.

Nonsense. Most of the scientists I have known, believed in a Creator.

Barbarian observes:

I can only point out that the more I learn about His creation, the more amazed and in awe of God I become.​

Me too!

If so, why not just accept all of His creation?


Barbarian said: ↑

Matthew 9:[10]

I think you're saying Jesus eating with sinners is on par with mixing science and theology?

I have no idea how you got there. I pointed out that it is a bad misconception about Christianity, to suppose we should avoid unbelievers. If you follow Jesus, you will not do that.
​

By explaining everything through strictly natural causes, science is basically demonstrating belief in the God of the bible is irrational.

No matter how many times you're reminded that science doesn't "explain everything", you forget as soon as the conversation is over.

As long as science is after explaining the universe with strictly natural causes, what does darkness have in common with light?

There is no darkness. It is only the absence of light.

Until science returns to its roots, an unbiased search for truth, I don't think appeasement is going to get anywhere.

You should stop thinking of it as appeasement. Accepting God's creation is not appeasement, but a celebration of His power and majesty.

As long as they think belief in God is irrational, any effort to inspire them is going to look foolish.

You may write them off, but God told us to tell them, anyway.

To me ID is an assertion belief in a creator is rational.

It's just another way to tell God what to do. Accept it His way, not in the way that seems best to you.

I'm only advocating a boycott of seeking strictly natural causes explaining the universe.

You forgot again. Science doesn't explain the cause of the universe.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim​

Appeasement can go to far.

That was St. Augustine's point. Instead of appeasing those who would make up new and unbiblical doctrines, we should accept His creation as it is. Once you do that, appeasement won't be an option for you any more.

This is why I'm always pointing out "that's an inference" or "a hypothesis" or "only a suggested possibility".

You've just confused evidence and theory with hypothesis.

If common ancestry was a known fact, fine,

That's where we are now. The evidence is, as your guy Koonin said, "overwhelming,"

we should follow St Agustine's advice.

You should always follow that advice, if you care to win over unbelievers.

But it is not, it's a hypothesis.

You merely confused "theory" and "hypothesis."

 

[Barbarian]

There is a difference b/w what is known and what is imagined.

It all comes down to evidence. Common descent has it. Creationism does not.

The reason is called "plausible deniability" and/or "willful ignorance". Those who refuse to place rightful authority into every word of God mostly use willful ignorance to avoid being held accountable for their bad deeds. "I didn't know" is often the first words uttered from a child ...

Given the large number of theists who are scientists, I'd say that was not a plausible explanation for the fact of evolution.

Some "willingly ignorant" deliberately overlook and maintain their plausible (so-called) deniability by forcing themselves to ignore the fact that God created the world by water and it was through water that the world of old perished, was deluged and destroyed. They don't like the coming judgment where all works of men will be destroyed. Their "wood, hay, and stubble" things continue to be piled on high and they think that for this there will be salvation.

We probably should get back to the topic. Do you honestly think that's why scientists accept evolution?

There is evidence of a common descent for all mankind.

For all living things on Earth, actually.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you honestly think that's why scientists accept evolution?

Do I think that people put on blinders when they don't want to face stuff they find unfavorable? Name one who hasn't. There is only one name on that list: Jesus.