Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 1,041-1,048 next last
To: bigdakine; Alouette; Yehuda; yonif; SJackson; rantblogger

Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion. THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure. The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews. I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.


841 posted on 12/21/2004 12:12:59 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
creationism?, Cinnamon Girl wrote: Here is a link http://www.hebrewworld.com/books/ByChance.html to a source called "Not By Chance,"

I assumed that "not by chance" was a response to the oft repeated canard that evolution is solely driven by chance, but of course I was wrong.

So has the author published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject as a pop-science publication is unlikely to overturn the central theory of modern biology?

842 posted on 12/21/2004 12:13:39 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; Thatcherite
Mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female side only. There are a limited number of types which occur. They can be traced to a common ancestor 100,000 years ago (using Thatcherite's number), if one assumes 15 - 20 year generations AND normal, 30-50 year fertility periods AND mutation rates based on these two.

(Bigdakine originally said that an old Noah means less generations. In my haste to contradict, I misspoke. I should have said: No, Noah living longer does not mean less generations.)

If females had longer fertility periods, the chance for mutation would increase. Etc.

843 posted on 12/21/2004 12:27:54 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: maestro

The Roman Catholic church finds no conflict between evolution and the Bible. What is your point?


844 posted on 12/21/2004 12:42:10 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; Cinnamon Girl

There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.


845 posted on 12/21/2004 12:47:46 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: shubi
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

846 posted on 12/21/2004 12:53:37 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion.

B: Obviously not. And those people who think they are are annoying to the rest of us who indeed are.


THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure.

B: All I have to go by is the stuff you write. Not convincing so far. As Jews tend to have enough problems, only a foolish Jew would criticize other Jews in the manner you have. So its a choice, either you're not Jewish or you're Jewish and foolish. For now, I opt for the former.

B: There is plenty of substantiation for Macroevolution. That you don't know about any of it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226071202.htm

Thats for staters. Macroevolution, speciation are observed processes. But if you wish to be at war with reality, thats your business.


The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews.

B: We can add another subject to the list of things you're ignorant of.

I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.

B: WHich disturbs me not at all.



847 posted on 12/21/2004 12:53:44 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

B: More specifically, it will never cease being a dino. Just as human beings haven't ceased being a primate, which haven't ceased being a mammal, which haven't ceased being a vertebrate. Isn't it time you actually learned what the theory of evolution is, or are you too committed to a straw-man version of it?


848 posted on 12/21/2004 12:57:47 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
"There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process."

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.

My argument is not semantic. It is factual and scientific. Microevolution is changes in allele frequency in populations that cause changes under the species level and macroevolution is changes in allele frequency accumulated at the microevolution level until there is a new species-macroevolution.

After many accumulations of macroevolution (speciation) you get things like birds from dinos occurring. Birds are descendents of certain dinos. But birds don't descend directly from dinos.

I know nothing of the sort. I know that evolution is a fact and the ToE explains that fact.
849 posted on 12/21/2004 1:01:35 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: shubi
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.

Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird. A literalist also believes that every descendant of a bacteria is a bacteria. But, you knew that.

850 posted on 12/21/2004 1:01:41 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.


851 posted on 12/21/2004 1:03:21 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Do you know what "semantic argument" means? Whenever there is an overall theory, one may freely name what that theory says about one of its particular subsets "Theory of [process]." For example, there are many theories of microeconomics but, all are part of "economics." It is simply a linguistic shortcut.


852 posted on 12/21/2004 1:14:31 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Semantics means it is only a matter of words.

You are correct that it is a semantic argument, but it is you that is using it. You are defining macroevolution as something other than it is. That is a rhetorical trick or a false semantic argument.

I simply restate that micro and macroevolution are exactly the same process. I have given you the scientific definitions. Please do not repeat the same semantic argument again in your defense of the cult.

Do you understand the definition of microevolution or not?


853 posted on 12/21/2004 1:19:48 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: shubi

There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.

B: Sorry Shubi, but this requires a bit more explanation. It is a source of confusion, not only for creationists, but for scientists as well.

B: Macroevolution is concerned with the splitting of lineages and long term trends in the fossil record. To explain some of these trends, GOuld, Eldrgidge, Stanley and others have proposed processes which operate on top of the microevolutionary processes with which you're familiar. The most often written about one of those is "species selection". Species selection is anologous to the selection that takes place within a population, but on the level of species. Species which are more fecund (in terms of spawning new species) will influence subsequent evolution more, than species which are not prone to splitting. Other things which effect the course of evolution, include macorevolutionary processes like "mass extinction".


B: What it boils down to, to a certain extent, is different levels of abstraction. For example, all chemical processes are ultimately reducible to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is why Physicists often joke that Chemistry is a solved problem. On the other hand to describe a simple chemical process such as dissolution of salt in water on a purely quantum basis would tax even the largest supercomputers. If you want to understand things like that, chemistry is the appropriate level of abstraction. You won't make much headway if you use QM, even though at its most basic level this process is governed by QM.

B: GOuld and others argue (and correctly IMHO, if that has any weight) that trends in the fossil record require a different level of abstraction to be explained rather than using microevolution. Still, one aspect of macroevolution, speciation, is indeed reducible to microevolutionary processes. But macroevolution is more than just *speciation*. Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes. I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.

B: For more information, I suggest "Macroevolution" by Steven Stanley and "Extinction" By David Raup. After reading those, you will certainly be up to speed on this issue.


854 posted on 12/21/2004 1:24:49 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Again, no. Cinnamon Girl said, "I just don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution." All I was arguing is that we all knew what she meant by it.
855 posted on 12/21/2004 1:37:28 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.

Good post - the terminology is laid out nicely.

Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes.

I don't know what other Creationists are saying but, as a biblical literalist, I don't find enough historical time for macro.

856 posted on 12/21/2004 1:43:05 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

You know far more about Hitler than I. And look how long it took you to accomplish that. You are almost too stupid to converse with...bye.


857 posted on 12/21/2004 1:47:37 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Archaeopteryx! OK, now click your heels together 3 times and say, "I wish I was in Kansas." That is an even better fantasy.

Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.


858 posted on 12/21/2004 1:50:29 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

I think I understand macroevolution better than you do.
Besides being a minister, I am also a biologist.

Micro and macro are the same process. It is allele frequency changes in populations over time. Macro is simply the result of accumulations of micro changes.

IT IS THE SAME PROCESS!!! SAME!!!!!!!


859 posted on 12/21/2004 2:00:29 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

What Bible college is your evolutionary professor in?


860 posted on 12/21/2004 2:01:22 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 1,041-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson