nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote: I normally try to address posts in sequence, otherwise I’m going to lose track of things. But this one is such a fundamental issue that it deserves immediate attention.
What exactly do you mean by “there is no such thing as human evolutionary theory”?
So, this may just be semantics, but well see. My problem is with this statement:
Rather than giving predictions on evolution, I’m asking for predictions on human evolutionary theory.See, the 2 are inseparable. There is only one theory of evolution, and it applies to all life. There is not a separate one for humans. If you want to know about human evolution, then you just say human evolution. To call it “human evolutionary theory” implies that there is such a thing, which there is not, as I showed before.
I understand that the theory of evolution is foundational to the discussions here. I’m not saying that they are unrelated.
However, it does not necessarily follow that human evolution is true if evolution is true. For example, I accept microevolution, but that does not mean I accept monkey to man. Even some Christians accept evolution from single-cell to hominids, but believe that man was specially created.
If no human evolutionary theory exists, then I might as well just rest my case now. There is then nothing to compare the human creation model to. My model would be the only thing presented to account for human origins that has a set of descriptions of the model, a set of predictions that follows from this, evidence that supports the predictions, and a set of ways to falsify it.
And what if I had not presented the human creation model and simply said that since I believe in Creationism, then that is sufficient to show that humans were created? I don’t think many would buy that argument.
Also, to clear up the issue of prediction and what not, I suggest reading this. Its a cross of philosophy and science and is pretty good!
Are you suggesting that evolution cannot make any predictions?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=322187#p322187
nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote: I understand that the theory of evolution is foundational to the discussions here. I’m not saying that they are unrelated.Its not foundational to the discussion, it IS the discussion
From the OP:
Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.
We’re not discussing the general theory of evolution here. We are narrowing the focus to human origins.
However, it does not necessarily follow that human evolution is true if evolution is true.Actually, it totally follows. There is no logical or scientific reason to exclude humans from the evolutionary process
Only if one assumes naturalistic processes are the only thing in play.
Even some Christians accept evolution from single-cell to hominids, but believe that man was specially created.So what? They are not an authority.
I’m not claiming they are authorities. I simply gave one example of where a belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to a belief in human evolution.
Firstly, you never gave us a model. I think you need to re-examine what a scientific model is. You are trying to create a theory.
If you want to call it a theory, I will not stop you. But, I’d rather not play the semantics game of what to call it. So, I use the generic term model to all explanations that I present.
The plain old TOE is sufficient to compare your model to, we just limit it to a single species.
I want to confirm this with everyone else that is participating in this thread. Do you all agree with nygreenguy’s statement? Does no human evolutionary theory exist? Is the only thing that the human creation model can be compared with is the TOE?
Are you suggesting that evolution cannot make any predictions?No, I was trying to (if you see what statement of yours I quoted was) is clear up some of your misconceptions of after the fact explinations.
Then if you do not suggest that evolution cannot make predictions, is there a list of predictions in regards to the origin of humans?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=322789#p322789
nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote:
We’re not discussing the general theory of evolution here. We are narrowing the focus to human origins.Which is fine. Call it human origins, but do not call it human evolutionary theory. There is a big difference when you add those words in.
Is there any theory, hypothesis, or even a model for human origins from an evolutionary point of view?
Only if one assumes naturalistic processes are the only thing in play.Its the only logical choice, and the only one science can address.
It’s not entirely logical if one assumes naturalism for the sciences, and then say that the sciences show that non-naturalistic explanations is not possible.
The public can believe what they want but the fact that humans underwent and are undergoing the same evolutionary transformations as the rest of the life on earth is a fact.
I find it quite ironic that people accuse Christians of being dogmatic. Yet, evolutionists constantly say, “Evolution is a fact” and do not see the irony that they make dogmatic statements. Even I do not make the claim that “Creationism is a fact”. But, if evolutionists are going to continue to use the evolutionary mantra, then I might start using the same mantra for creationism.
If you want to call it a theory, I will not stop you. But, I’d rather not play the semantics game of what to call it. So, I generally the generic term model to all explanations that I present.This isnt semantics, this is a discussion about science. If you want to discuss science, you have to be very precise in the words that you use and you have to follow the same rules as real scientists. If I turned in a paper for review using the terms you did it would be returned for me to correct because by saying model, you imply something very specific and it just doesnt fit.
The term “model” is used in science. So, the term itself is not unscientific.
Then if you do not suggest that evolution cannot make predictions, is there a list of predictions in regards to the origin of humans?Im sure a list could be created.
By all means then.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=324341#p324341
Scotracer wrote: Yet you continue your crusade despite the fact your ‘model’ falls at the first hurdle: miracles/supernatural events aren’t allowed in science!
Because modern day science assumes naturalism.
If human evolution is science then, then it should be simple to meet the basic requirements of listing the claims, listing the predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. We’re close to 30 pages here and I have yet to see such lists produced for human evolution.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=326211#p326211