Alternatives to Common Descent
First I want to make it clear that when I say Common Descent I am talking about all of today's diversity of living organisms owing their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.
Next it should be pointed out that there is more than one flavour of Common Descent. There is at least CD via the blind watchmaker and CD by design.
And finally that evidence for Common Descent relies heavily, if not solely, one the similarities observed but says nothing about the differences, except to note they exist.
The evidence demonstrates a diversity of living organisms exists today, on this planet. The question is (if not by Common Descent) How did that diversity come to be?
For starters:
1) A separate and special Creation of differing populations with the built-in variation that would allow for adaptaion into environmental niches as they present themselves.
2) A separate designing of differing populations...
3) Colonization by an existing and perhaps dying civilization- including various modes of terra-forming
1 & 2 are very similar with perhaps only semantic quibbling being the difference.
3 may appear to push the "issue" back, but I say the "issue" is living organisms on this planet. IOW first deal with what we have in front of us.
Now some people may say that special Creation isn't science. However if science deals with reality and special Creation is that reality, it has to be science and everything/ anything else would be science-fiction at best.
Next it should be pointed out that there is more than one flavour of Common Descent. There is at least CD via the blind watchmaker and CD by design.
And finally that evidence for Common Descent relies heavily, if not solely, one the similarities observed but says nothing about the differences, except to note they exist.
The evidence demonstrates a diversity of living organisms exists today, on this planet. The question is (if not by Common Descent) How did that diversity come to be?
For starters:
1) A separate and special Creation of differing populations with the built-in variation that would allow for adaptaion into environmental niches as they present themselves.
2) A separate designing of differing populations...
3) Colonization by an existing and perhaps dying civilization- including various modes of terra-forming
1 & 2 are very similar with perhaps only semantic quibbling being the difference.
3 may appear to push the "issue" back, but I say the "issue" is living organisms on this planet. IOW first deal with what we have in front of us.
Now some people may say that special Creation isn't science. However if science deals with reality and special Creation is that reality, it has to be science and everything/ anything else would be science-fiction at best.
posted by Joe G @ 10:12 AM
9 Comments:
At 1:57 PM,
Anonymous said…
re: 2) A separate designing of differing populations...
Are you proposing that there was more then 1 "designer"?
Some people might say that "special creation is not science" but if you can generate a prediction that can be then verified, it's 1 step further to being science. Can you?
At 8:52 PM,
Joe G said…
C. Loach:
Are you proposing that there was more then 1 "designer"?
I would never deny the possibility of more than one. I am sort of partial to the "Time Bandits" version- that is a hierarchy of designers, each with their own purpose.
C. Loach:
Some people might say that "special creation is not science" but if you can generate a prediction that can be then verified, it's 1 step further to being science. Can you?
I think it has been done. For example Dr Humphreys states he predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of a couple of gas giants by verses in the Bible. And I suspect that Dr Pasteur set out to falsify spontaneous combustion because of his acceptance of a special creation. Then we have some of the greatest scientists to ever walk this planet saying that one creator would most assuredly use one set of laws to govern all that we observe.
There is also the prediction that "accepted" radiometric dating will be shown to be only as accurate as the assumptions it relies on.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Here is a link for Dr Humphreys' prediction:
Creation in the physics lab
An illuminating interview with physicist Dr D. Russell Humphreys
So if we use Zachriel's 'logic' the Bible has just been confirmed to be scientifically valid.
At 9:53 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "So if we use Zachriel's 'logic' the Bible has just been confirmed to be scientifically valid."
Humphreys' 'prediction' was a simple extrapolation from known values. There was nothing extraordinary in that. As he also claims the Earth's magnetic field is becoming exponentially weaker with time, and we know from ocean sediments that this is not true, and that the Earth's magentic field actually reverses.
But none of this matters to you, of course.
At 7:35 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "So if we use Zachriel's 'logic' the Bible has just been confirmed to be scientifically valid."
Zachriel:
Humphreys' 'prediction' was a simple extrapolation from known values. There was nothing extraordinary in that.
Then there must be something wrong with all the other non-YEC scientists who FAILED when the attempted to do what Dr Humphreys did.
Zachriel:
As he also claims the Earth's magnetic field is becoming exponentially weaker with time, and we know from ocean sediments that this is not true, and that the Earth's magentic field actually reverses.
It becomes weaker, exponentially, before it reverses. If you knew anything about the Earth's magnetic field you would have known that.
At 8:03 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Then there must be something wrong with all the other non-YEC scientists who FAILED when the attempted to do what Dr Humphreys did."
You're making a claim. No one knew the internal composition of Neptune or Uranus, so theories varied considerably depending on the mechanism believed to be in effect, e.g. tidal relations or thermal convection. In addition, the orientation of the magnetic fields are of the primary interest to scientists as they attempt to understand the properties of these dynamos.
joe g: "It becomes weaker, exponentially, before it reverses. If you knew anything about the Earth's magnetic field you would have known that."
That's not Humphreys' position. Why do you keep doing that?
In any case, this had to do with your gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is quite possible to make predictions without any understanding whatsoever. Did you know that I can accurately predict whether the stock market will rise or fall for days in a row?
When you cling to the barest shreds of evidence, it only demonstrates the extreme weakness of your position.
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Then there must be something wrong with all the other non-YEC scientists who FAILED when the attempted to do what Dr Humphreys did."
Zachriel:
You're making a claim.
Supported by the interview with Dr Humphreys.
Zachriel:
No one knew the internal composition of Neptune or Uranus, so theories varied considerably depending on the mechanism believed to be in effect, e.g. tidal relations or thermal convection. In addition, the orientation of the magnetic fields are of the primary interest to scientists as they attempt to understand the properties of these dynamos.
"No one knew", yet Dr Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields. No one else- just Dr Humphreys.
joe g: "It becomes weaker, exponentially, before it reverses. If you knew anything about the Earth's magnetic field you would have known that."
Zachriel:
That's not Humphreys' position.
How do you know? Have you talked to him lately?
Zachriel:
In any case, this had to do with your gross misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The only misunderstanding here is yours.
Zachriel:
When you cling to the barest shreds of evidence, it only demonstrates the extreme weakness of your position.
Seeing that is ALL you ever do I will duly note the projection.
At 2:27 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: ""No one knew", yet Dr Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields. No one else- just Dr Humphreys."
That's incorrect. You might try reading some of the relevant literature. A variety of estimates were made. Consider that scientists launched an interplanetary spacecraft loaded with radiometric equipment to Uranus. Interestingly, the magnetosphere of Uranus is apparently not generated in the core, but from a thin conducting shell in the interior.
At 7:44 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: ""No one knew", yet Dr Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields. No one else- just Dr Humphreys."
Zachriel:
That's incorrect.
It is true- no one else predicted those mag fields as accurately as Dr Humphreys.
Zachriel:
You might try reading some of the relevant literature. A variety of estimates were made
I have read the lit and no one came close to Dr Humphreys.
However if you think you have some support please reference it.
Post a Comment
<< Home