We have. No one says that Genesis must be literal. Most scholarship has interpreted it as allegorical from the beginning. Even when hard evidence is presented that the universe is much older than YEC asserts, the response will usually be to reject the data.
Nice to know your mind's convinced. For now I won't bother listing the PHDs that disagree with evolution strongly, and as well it's fair to say the Bible is purely allegorical. Let's simply argue on grounds of validity of evolution.
There is no belief. There is a theory, and there are mountains of data to support it. That it has essentially remained unchanged since Darwin and Mendel were combined in the early 20th Century speaks well to its sticking power.
My apologies on the 'core belief' statement, I'll be more shrewd in my word choice. As of yet, perhaps I haven't scaled these mountains of data. Also, Darwin's use of the geological column via influence from Lyell is largely considered a fallacy by many evolutionists, as it isn't observable.
Evolution and abiogenesis are two different concepts, and it's disingenuous to conflate them. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a first cause created the universe, and then evolution happened because of the rules the universe was created by.
I agree they're different concepts, and I wasn't attempting to conflate them. Rather, without an abiogenesis account of first cause of life, where do we look? Or do we simply hope, if even not within our lifetime, that science will prevail and eventually yield a proper explanation for this current misunderstanding? As of yet, RNA hypothesis is unsubstantial.
Once again, biogenesis and evolution are two different fields.All of these subsequent things are easily explained through natural selection and genetic variation. Nervous ganglia in an invertibrate could have one or a thousand genetic variations that caused them to fuse into a notochord. Then further variations could have caused this notochord to calcify, and form a spinal column. From this point, variation can run wild, as there is a solid structure. One million years is a long time.
I suppose, given that such genetic variations are possible (is there evidence in biogenetics to support this?), this could be possible, as one million years is indeed a long time.
The sun has stayed in a very similar state over the last 2.5 billion years, slightly dimming over that time - we know this because the mathematics involved with astronomy tells us this to be the case. Likewise, that's a big assumption that life requires a similar environment to the current one to exist. Extremophile bacteria persist and thrive in high temperature and high acid environments. The only thing life generally can't tolerate is high ionizing radiation - and water does a good job of creating a barrier around that.
Ahh, I'm not too familar with said mathematics involved with astronomy, but I am aware of the widely accepted view of the time cycle for a star, and that our sun is still in its main sequence. Though, I find it curious that we've never witnessed (to the extent of my awareness) the birth of a star inside of any observable nebula, though I suppose that within our short timeframe of observation, it's unplausible to suggest otherwise. I also find it curious that there's numerous historical accounts regarding Sirius as once a red star, while it's now considered a white dwarf (this issue is still in debate by many). Or that we've found very few supernova remnants, relative to how many one would imagine there would be for a universe billions of years old. Though, these are all probably just explainable quibbles.
No. It's a scientific fact. It supports all the evidence, and has for over 150 years. The question since Darwin has never been whether there is evolution through natural selection, because it's that apparent. The question has been the mechanics of this evolution, which we now know to be genetic variation.
150 years ago there was little evidence to support the theory, it was mere hypothesis. It gained wind due to social pressure from the British East India Company not for any scientific reasons, but for cultural ones. Since then we've been trying to puzzle piece the theory to make sure it remains plausible within the public field. As for genetic variation, I've yet to see any beneficial mutations that result from an increase in genetic complexity, what would be required to lend credence to genetic variation's plausibility.
All of modern biology is built on this data. Modern biology is also incredibly good at making predictions based on this - once again, see the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This was predicted just a few
years after penicillin was discovered, and did not surprise the scientific world as many would have you believe.
This is not proper evidence. In every case I've witnessed, the antibiotic attacks the bacteria's ribosome, in which case the bacteria develops a structural deformity in its ribosomes, rendering the antibiotic ineffective. The problem here is that there is no gain of genetic information, and while this new resistance is beneficial to the bacteria, the structural deformity itself is not. Though, I'm sure there's a plethora of other examples that support genetic variation, given how strongly it is asserted.
Radiometric dating? Mountains of research affirming its effectiveness. The math works, too. The only real "evidence" that could disavow it is the idea that "God created it that way" - a non-scientific hypothesis. Oh, and we also measure the decay rate in recently deceased organisms, too, just to calibrate the numbers.
That's very knowledgable. Though, no matter what we radiometrically date, we have no way of knowing what the initial amount of the daughter (or parent for that matter) isotope is- if there were to be any, the radiometric date we obtain is unreliable. Furthermore, this assumes the object was subject to no forms of contamination, which is also impossible to prove, though the conditions for contamination are numerous. It also assumes that the decay rate of these isotopes has remained the same for whatever period of time (though there is only hypothesis to suggest otherwise). If you'd like, I can provide evidence that exhibits flaw in carbon, argon, and uranium dating methods.
Mutations and genetic drift? Once again, the very famous case of moths in England, whereby the black variation would thrive in a polluted environment with soot-covered trees while the white variation would be dominant in the cleaner areas with white-barked trees. Oh, there's also the thing about my being lactose tolerant, which arose in only two places in the world - Northern Europe and West Africa. Every other population stops producing lactase after weaning. Variation within a species? Last time I checked, humanity was able to reproduce among itself, regardless of ethnicity, each of which has traits specific to it (skin color, average height, temperature tolerance, etc). There's lots of variation within homo sapiens sapiens.
You misinterpreted me. I was suggesting that mutations and genetic drift (rather, genetic variation, as drift is a derivative thereof) are only evidence of variation within a species, and don't provide any evidence for speciation, despite our willingness to interpret it as such. The examples you provided are just that, variation within species- as to my understanding, none of those are evidence for macroevolution.
There is nothing within that statement that fits the evidence that we have. Until you provide substantial evidence for a global deluge (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence), this hypothesis completely collapses on itself.
Many would argue that the fossil record, as well as many geographical structures, provide evidence for a flood. I'll elaborate on either if you'd like.
And that's a bad thing? Like I said, put up the evidence, then we'll talk. Until then, it's not worth consideration.
What bothers me is that despite the evidence that the creationists provide(and I will admit, there are certainly situations in which there is bias and misinformation at hand), the line of logic I provided is consistently what scientists fall back on to disregard the evidence entirely without giving it proper consideration.
No, it doesn't. It means that these are the rules of the universe as it currently exists. Just as we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang (or if there is such a thing as before), unless some spectacular evidence arises to explain this, or some powerful equation describes the relationship, we cannot make any assumptions on where the universe came from. The null hypothesis is that matter and energy are eternal and uncreated, and until we have distinct evidence otherwise, that's the place to start from. Second law only states that by current energy transfer methods as we understand them, the tendency is for entropy to increase. It doesn't mean that something else completely different on a quantum scale starts happening when a system is fully entropic; it just means we don't know, and can't observe otherwise. It implies nothing about the start of the universe whatsoever - it just means that we don't know, beyond a heat death, what would happen when the universe reaches full entropy.
Thank you for clarifying on my misuse of entropy. Though, from the theological standpoint, my point stands. We have no sufficient scientific explanation that supports a metaphysical account regarding the creation of the universe or its laws. Not that this has a negative (or any) implication, just a point I think that should be kept in mind.
The Big Bang is science. We have evidence (intergalactic background radiation) that it happened, and its mathematical implications square away with all other known scientific knowledge. We're not just making it up.
I was unaware of the implications of intergalatic background radiation- if you can elaborate, or provide any links, I'd appreciate it. Either way, I'll do some investigation on my own as well.
No, anthropology has made it abundantly clear that humans are social beings. Evolutionary theory has taken this and through the application of game theory and other mathematical constructs, made it very apparent that it's to humans' survival advantage to be social and altruistic - the real basis of religious morality. Selfish behavior is punished because we need our group surroundings and social cohesion - a single human doesn't last long in an unfriendly environment, as we have no claws nor fangs. Likewise, many seemingly contradictory traits (such as homosexuality) make a lot of sense in this context (you personally do not reproduce, but you help your brothers/sisters reproduce, and since they have half your genes, that helps self-perpetuation).
Yes, we are social beings. It is advantageous to be social, but altruistic is quite circumstantial, and these two ideas are hardly the basis of religious morality, save for those religions that have stemmed from evolutionary principles. Selfish behavior is punished when the selfish have no authority to avoid consequence, but as governments around the world continually remind us, selfish behavior will be exerted and go largely unpunished. My reason for referencing Hitler was because his claiming the Aryans superior and Jews inferior was directly influenced by evolutionary thinking and a social darwinist mentality.
The evidence exists. Are you willing to accept it?
I'm accepting it as I come across it and it's considered rational to me. I've began reading the pdf you linked in one of your later posts.
I won't be responding for a few days, I've a busy weekend ahead of me.