A conversation on science, evolution, and creationism between Twitter user @splinteredca and I.

Introduction Scientia (must admit I like that pseudonym) and myself have agreed to have open discussion concerning evolution. He has much more knowledge on the topic than myself; that is a point I readily concede. I'm engaging in this discussion to further my knowledge, not to necessarily argue, though that will likely come into play. I believe any worldview should be challenged, but challenged respectively. I have bias, as does everyone. I think it's critical to be open about bias, and will admit my own within this introduction. I speak for no one other than myself, and as careful as I try to be with phrasing, please assume the best or most logical possibility if I am unclear. I am aware you may consider certain arguments already refuted, but please address them regardless. Forgive the predictability of arguments. He has graciously allowed limited links to support our respective views as I do not have his scientific background; we will try to be selective as we want this to be as conversational as possible. The origin of the universe, abiogenesis and human consciousness all need to be considered IF the argument is for naturalism, and naturalistic evolution stemming from that. Assuming any of those 3 happened because, had they not happened, we wouldn’t be having this discussion is a prejudiced argument. It’s no different than a super-naturalist saying we exist therefore a god exists. Either view is possible, but neither is an argument that in itself removes skepticism. However, this conversation is, ultimately, concerned only with biology evolution - I do not accept naturalism, and my approach will reflect that; Scientia, I believe, does and his approach will reflect that. That reflection is not the light of the discussion that we want to focus on, but glimpses of it will surely be seen throughout the discussion by default and by bias. John Lennox has said there are two explanations for the Model T: the law of internal combustion and Henry Ford. 1 is the natural law, 1 is the agent cause. Neither conflicts with the other. If evolution is the natural law of creation, it does not, ultimately, affect the agent Creator. Intent of Argument In regards to evolution, obviously I accept certain tenants - my argument is against the scope of accepted evolution: single cell creatures evolving to the humans having this discussion. The condescension humour that passed through some of your minds reading that isn’t an argument, nor invited; I consciously avoided using words that would tempt it. To those who’s minds didn’t interpolate, thank you. My argument is not against science. If I can prevent getting disease by getting a vaccination, I’ll get a vaccination; if I slice my thumb open, I’ll use antiseptics - but both were being developed concurrently of, not because of, Darwin’s theory. Science has a rich history before Darwin, and many critical and foundational discoveries were made prior to any knowledge of the theory. It may now be fundamental in science, but it is not fundamental to science. William Kirby (introduced atomic theory into chemistry) wrote On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God. As Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in Their History, Habits and Instincts slightly prior of Darwin writing his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - both had a mind for lengthy titles, but titles expressing very polar views. Reasons for Skepticism Platypuses, once thought a hoax, are very unique. Had they been found as fossils, would they have been considered transitional? Having variety, even if we have a broad scope that seems to range from 1 animal to another entirely, does not necessarily imply they were, or are, transitional. If they are always found buried in the required and expected order and layer, it is very compelling, but not conclusive without the presupposition that it is, in fact, the only explanation. That is not an argument for a deception of a god who layered bones in a way to evidence evolution; that argument of deception is ravings, and doesn’t belong in any discussion. I'd prefer to not have to say that, but I feel I need to clarify my position on that. In terms of what has been observed since Darwin we have rabbits to rabbits, birds to birds. The argument is the only difference is time; that is not persuasive, even considering the persuasive fossil record. YouTube channel ViceRhino used the analogy of a car; we can use the same car to move a local distance, or to move from Seattle to New York. The problem with that analogy (and how I view the argument itself) is that there are limits in that. Yes, we can move from Seattle to New York with that same car as easily as we can move locally. We cannot move from Seattle to London with that same car alone. We assume the cars motor has no limitations or that all destinations are within those limitations; no car has a limitless lifespan; each vehicle has a different expected lifespan. We assume, at least in this analogy, that we have neither mechanical problems nor limited fuel; or, if we do, we have resources to address both. Breeding of domesticated animals has less-elasticity, David Berlinski says, than what we would expect within the naturalistic evolution premise. As an example, it’s believed dogs have been bred for specific purposes for 6,000 - 9,000 years, but still remain dogs even with human intent to stretch it as much as possible. We have tea-cup Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but no more. Recorded history of civilizations only extends 5,000 - 6000 years; within that, dogs are still dogs. Admittedly, that is a spec in 4 billion years, but considering the extensive scope of single cell organisms to us, it bears weight. In that, there seems to be an ocean we can’t cross; the car seems to break down; the low fuel indicator seems to light up our dash. Different levels of eyes have been identified in different creatures, but that they conclusively demonstrate the developmental stages of the eye isn’t persuasive; it’s only evidence of unique characteristics of the eyes of the different creatures observed or examined. Anything else is conjecture. Similarities in physical characteristics or genetics does support evolution, but exclusively only if you consider it the 1 possibility. An analogy (source unknown) was computer coding; if they can re-use existing code, they do. Even great artists who’s work is extensive in form (painting, poetry, sculpting etc) or muse (death, love, nature etc) have similarities within their art. A designer incorporates past designs into new ones. "Most mutations, or many more mutations, are negative than those that are beneficial. The best you get is a ration of 10,000:1. In other words, mutations will tend to drive a species to extinction before it has the opportunity to naturally evolve. Unless it has a truly enormous population size, a body size less than 1 cm, and a generation time briefer than 3 months. Then you go to the field biologists: Where do you see speciation going on in the real world? They only see it for those species matching the mathematical limits. Those that don't, all they see is extinctions...When the species population drops to a few thousand, you have a zero probability of evolutionary advance. If you look at the fossil record, where do you see the evidence for the so-called transitional forms: it's creatures like whales and horses. And these are creatures with population levels so small, generation times so long, body sizes so huge, they have a zero probability for evolutionary advance. " - Hugh Ross Dating 13.8 billion years and 4.5 billion years is beyond the scope of the understanding of most (infinitely including myself), other than accepting the process done by those with the intelligence, education and means to do so. Dating the universe within seconds is striking. I accept both as true; but I would not stake my life, or the change in my pocket, against either claim. The age of the earth doesn’t impact my existence; if the earth is 4.5 billion years or 10,000 years, I still bleed and heal the same. If evolution is true, I still bleed and I still heal; but, the wound would require some stitching if I were to lose all skepticism.