His fundamental point was the fossil record which I've shown through multiple quotes is flawed to put it kindly. Not sure what this has to do with the kalam so I'm not going to continue with it here. Start a new thread and we'll do it again if you like.



I have no idea what any of this has to do with Craig's article. If you're right about what scientists think about things that aren't scientific then they are more myopic and close minded than I thought and my position that they are idiots concerning philosophy and theology is validated. I wonder why you think Christians are arrogant?

This is extreme nitpicking. Craig was simply pointing out that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism which I've argued and demonstrated through many quotes from scientists.

All he's saying here is that microevolution of mammals doesn't support the macro required. Why is that nonsense?

That's all great and I admit I'm not a history buff, but can you answer my second question?

why do theists with no expertise in evolution insist on making arguments against it? i have little knowledge of evolution myself and have no more interest in trying to debate it than any other scientific theory that i know little about (almost all of them).

Sigh. I was talking about from a professional standpoint. A better way to say it is that the vast majority of scientists would never claim that any scientific findings say anything about the existence or nonexistence of god or the supernatural. The problem is that when you (or Craig) tries to invoke science (in this case cosmology) to support an argument, you have opened yourself up to scientific arguments. When he claims he has scientific support for his arguments, that support has to be able to stand up to scientific inquiry with no help from theology or the supernatural. Otherwise he's supporting theology with more theology, which is fine but that's clearly not what he's trying to do with this argument.

As far as your (and Craig's) skepticism of evolution, the fact that you're wrong is irrelevant. The relevant point is that when you make claims like "there are problems with the level of scientific support for the neo-darwinian synthesis," you are establishing that the level of support for the neo-darwinian synthesis is not sufficient for you to accept the scientific claims it makes. So when you try to base this cosmological argument on scientific claims that may or may not even be testable, and certainly do not even begin to approach the level of support enjoyed by the neo-darwinian synthesis, you are being horribly inconsistent.

Again, the fossil record overwhelmingly supports evolution from a common ancestor. Do you mean phyletic gradualism or are you just using the the term to mean the gradual change of natural selection accounting for the diversity of life?


Oh so we're sliding the micro/macro barrier up to Classes now? Anyway, it's nonsense because its a straw man. The evolutionary relationship between mammals and other classes is completely independent of their evolutionary relationships to each other, and is supported by it's own evidence.

UFB. I'm not sure whether you are just lying, or that you are so deluded you honestly don't remember the other thread(s) where this was discussed.

Those quote mines you gave support (at most) the observation that transitional forms in the fossil record are rare (though NOT nonexistent) at the species level, which, it has been argued, weakens the case phyletic gradualism. That's NOT the same thing as the fossil record being "flawed," or that there is no scientific consensus that the fossil record supports evolution. Or that transitional forms aren't abundant between larger groups.

Phyletic gradualism arguably wasn't even part of Darwin's original theory, much less an important part of the theory now. Are you seriously suggesting there is no scientific consensus that the fossil record supports evolution? If you do, you are a complete moron. (But we already know that.)

Sorry for the off-topic rant, but when NR makes ludicrous statements like this, it shouldn't go unopposed.

Nobody in this thread has defined causality and you are using it completely different from how physicists use it. What does it even mean?

Like with all science, we don't know anything with 100% certainty. You really should find an intelligent theist and talk to him about this if you don't trust us. This is incredibly basic and your arguments as to why god must exist or is required are some of the worst I have ever heard.

On a side note, why would anyone be basing a major premise of an argument derived from theoretical physics on intuition. Again, Max can probably help with this, but doesn't intuition become woefully unreliable when the scale gets very large or very small. It seems like "nothing can be in two places at the same time" is just as valid in terms of intuition as "everything that exists has a cause," and yet...

In a perfect world, anyone who made a ludicrous statement would be opposed. IMO both sides of these debates are guilty of letting ludicrous statements by their comrades pass unchallenged.

For the record, I am a theist but I cannot for the life of me understand why some theists feel that they have to go after evolution. The fossil record does not have to be complete without gaps or questions for the theory to be compelling. It fits seamlessly with our understanding of genetics all the way down to the molecular level and the expected effects are observed in organisms with short reproduction times so that we can observe selection occurring.

That's really the crux of it all, isn't it? It doesn't matter what evidence you are presented in support of descent through natural selection from a common ancestor. You will not accept it. You cannot accept it.

But it is curious that you will readily use the consensus of physicists on one point to try and support your position - on a question we may never be able to answer, while you deny the overwhelming consensus among many groups of scientists on evolution, in the face of mountains of evidence.

Anyway, back to Kalam. I objected to the entire argument. You didn't like that. So I objected to a single premise. You claimed I ignored the reasons for the premise. I asked what those reasons are. I still want to know. What are they?

Scientific inquiry found evidence that contradicted geocentrism. The Catholic Church said that the scientists were wrong, because their position violated Holy Scripture. And as far as I know, the truth of Holy Scripture is an important part of theology. Perhaps not your theology - but the enormous range of theistic views just adds to the challenge.

You said: "But metaphorically the earth is central because the human race is important, perhaps the most important part of the universe, because we are created in God's image and God Himself became one of us in order to redeem us, something He didn't do, as far as we know, even for the angels. IOW, man is important because God considers us important, not because of any merit of our own."

Do you expect anyone to believe that if scientists find evidence that the Earth is actually at the centre of the universe, that your response will be limited to - "Huh, that's interesting."?

I don't understand what you're asking.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this statement, but if you are saying the following:

You cannot accept descent through natural selection etc. because to do so forces you to accept that man is ultimately no more than an animal;

than I disagree completely. I fully accept evolution as a valid scientific theory explaining the origin of species. Despite that I hold human life above animal life and believe that humans are possessed of a free will and self awareness that animals do not have. That part is a belief. I experience those things personally so for me alone it is a fact. I cannot know that you or anyone else possesses those things, but part of my religious framework is to accept that you do, so that is my belief. None of this is addressed or impacted by the scientific theory of evolution.

I don't know what the scientific consensus is on the fossil record and have never said what it is - you're a complete moron or an outright liar if you say different.

What I do know is Craig and Denton are right that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinian gradualism - the quotes I gave were just to show there are many others who say the same thing, but the fact the record doesn't show gradualism stands with or without the agreement of science.

WTF is "Darwinian Gradualism?" Also, could you define gradualism as you are using it?

Edit: I cannot believe you can say that you can make ANY statement about the fossil record's implications for a process you have almost no understanding of. I'd be willing to wager you probably know as little about the fossil record as you do about evolution, but you haven't demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the former as thoroughly as the latter yet. You and Craig both demonstrate profound misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, and yet you feel confident making statements like these.

The atheistic morons on this board don't understand that neither Craig nor I are going after evolution. Craig is open to the idea as shown in his post and I have stated it many times.

What we both say is the fossil record doesn't support Darwinian gradualism. A two year old could see and understand that. The morons on this board can't stand the idea that anyone would question any facet of evolution so, being the genius debaters they are, they go around accusing people of stupidity and lying.

The only stupid thing I've done in this thread is believing for 1/1,00000000000 of a second that any athiest would actually engage in reasonable, civil debate.

And by the way, they brought up evolution in a thread about the kalam cosmological argument which reveals the level of thinking of which they are capable.

I don't know. Who knows? Hey, Bill, do you do? No, NR, I don't know. Nobody knows. You made it up.

I tell you what. You explain to me why the heck we are debating the fossil record in a thread about the kalam argument and if you can manage to make a reasonable case for why it belongs here I will consider continuing this idiocy.

Because the fact that you thought modern science validates this "argument" in any way and the fact that you continue to insist the fossil record doesn't support evolution both speak to your level of ignorance about modern science.

As for why this thread deteriorated, perhaps it's because the Cosmology Argument could just as easily be named the Craig's As-Yet Unsubstantiated Thoughts and Intuition about Cosmology Argument. Also the fact that even if his entire argument were accepted as true (which would be a huge stretch) it still offers no support for the idea that the creator is even in our universe, much less that he can come, go, and intervene as he pleases.

So what's your position on Harvard Ph.D.'s in math?

I'm sure they're mostly good at math...

I have met and interacted many of them. The smartest among them are truly special and imo clearly amongst the smartest in the world. All of them are bright, but the bottom 10% or so are not any better than a person in the top 30 or so % from a lesser school. Whats your position?

Your quotes (at least the ones by real scientists) most certainly did not support the crackpot idea that the fossil record does not support "Darwinian gradualism." And yes, you attempted to imply your idiotic claim is supported by the mainstream scientific community.

Craig is setting up a transparently ridiculous straw-man when he implies that (1) phyletic gradualism is necessarily part of evolutionary theory and (2) the fossil record does not support phyletic gradualism. Statement (1) it totally wrong, and even statement (2) is debatable.

When Craig writes stuff like whale evolution implies we should find "millions" of transitional whale fossils, it just shows what an idiot he is, and how poorly he understands evolution.

If by "Darwinian gradualism" you (and Craig) mean any change that is not saltation, then you are not only wrong that it's not supported by the fossil record, you are also wrong (or lying) that quotes you provided by reputable scientists support that notion.

You could fill a library with arguments aimed at that elusive demographic: "Atheists who worry that God threatens their anthropocentric biases."

It's as if Christian apologists have never listened in good faith to the actual reasons that people reject Christianity. Weird.