Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[conservative_crusader]

"I don't debate bratty children."

How does it feel to get out argued by a "bratty child?"

[conservative_crusader]

"Look up "cyclic universe" on Google, "

I did... the idea of a cyclic universe also does not contradict a creator. Even if there is a cyclic universe that goes through a series of big-bangs, and big crunches, does in no way indicate that a god cannot exist. As a matter of fact, the idea of a cyclic universe, actually indicates that some intelligent being set the entire process into a certain "countdown," that would cause the restructuring of the universe several times.

"take a course in logic,"

Maybe you need to learn that ad hominem fallacies don't do a lot for your credentials.

"learn to spell,"

already did.

" most especially, grow up."

Physically or mentally? If physically, I'm growing up at an age of one second per second, if mentally: maybe ending your addiction to ad hominem attacks would help you see the how ridiculous your statement is.

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!

Now that you know everything, I predict a long and disappointing life for you.

[conservative_crusader]

So you're really a fortune teller?

[Thatcherite]

For a hypothesis to become a theory it must go through a demanding set of processes. Scientists try to tear it to pieces by finding logical or evidentiary errors.

So you agree that since Evolution has legions of logical and evidentiary errors that it is overly charitable to call it "Theory"?

For the benefit of the lurkers I will explain your joke, just in case they think you have made a telling point:

I didn't explain that if scientists are able to find logical or evidentiary errors in the hypothesis then it doesn't get accepted as a theory. This was so obvious that it didn't need saying. You humorously chose to interpret this backwards.

Scientific hypotheses have passed this test and moved a step closer to becoming theories when scientists cannot find logical errors or evidentiary conflicts in them. The theory of evolution has passed this test and all the others that I mentioned in my OP. Scientists have not been able to find any logical or evidentiary errors in it.

[Thatcherite]

Newton and numerous other brilliant scientists prior to 1800 had no opportunity to formulate the Theory of Evolution because science and our knowledge of the world had not advanced to that point.

What are you saying? That prior to Darwin there weren't any fossils? There weren't layers of dirt holding different kinds of rocks? What kind of unique scientific technology did Darwin haul out with him to the Galápagos Islands that was crucial in the formation of his so-called "theory"? So new and cutting edge that man had to wait until the 19th century before he could possibly have a grasp on his origins?

In the decades prior to Darwin geologists had begun to systematically analyse rock formations and the fossil record in a way that hadn't previously been attempted. They concluded a number of things from their observations:

1. The earth was very old; far older than a literal reading of the bible would permit

2. Numerous different kinds of creatures had existed in the past. Similar creatures appeared together in particular strata bands but not elsewhere in the rock.

3. The oldest creatures found (in the lower, therefore older strata) appeared to be simpler than the more recent ones.

This was part of what Darwin took to the Galapagos with him. Not a wonderful new instrument, but knowledge (the most wonderful instrument of all, in a way). Specifically the knowledge that the species living on earth had changed over geological time. His theory helped to explain those observations.

Another clue to the answer is contained in the question. The Galapagos contains wonderful examples of adaption through selection and Darwin was able to see these with eyes untainted with familiarity. Who can say how much this helped him have his "dangerous idea"? Very few naturalists had travelled round the world prior to Darwin because safe ocean travel was a comparatively new phenomenon, made possible by inventions such as the marine chronometer in the previous century, and improved understanding of safe diets on long sea voyages.

Further evidence that suggests that by the early 19th century evolution was a theory waiting to be discovered is that Darwin was not unique in his studies. Other naturalists were working towards similar conclusions but Darwin published first.

[Thatcherite]

The science behind the technology of the internet is the same science that you reject. The fact that the growth of the internet has shown some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour is a separate issue that you appear to be confusing with the science and technology involved.

LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)

(snip comical fable)

You appear to be the one doing stand up, and very funny too. But your joke has little to do with what I wrote. "..some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour" is not the same thing as saying the internet grew entirely spontaneously by evolutionary processes. The science I was referring to in my first sentence was the vast body of physics that would collapse if young-earth creationism were shown to be true. (constant light-speed, sub-atomic particle behaviour, relativity etc)

Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.

More ad hominems from the poster who gets upset if 10% of what he dishes out comes back at him.

[Thatcherite]

No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.

OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)

Once again the poster who freely chucks around words like "liar" and "God hater" and "ape" as insulting epithets and who likens his opponents to Nazi leaders is thin-skinned.

... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill

The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.

Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did.

The clue is in the word "uplift"

I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?

Not necessarily, no, look at a delta for example. But I am not aware of "these remnant tributaries" or what their purported significance is.

But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.

Imagine a huge dam burst across Northern Arizona. Big enough to carry away billions of tonnes of rock in a short time. If the rock is strong it won't dig a huge canyon (as you implicitly acknowledge with your unsupported statement that the rock was "not yet solidified" when the canyon was cut), it will spread out and take the path of least resistance. If OTOH the rock is weak then the walls of whatever canyons that form will be shallow, not steep. Any canyon formed would be much wider and shallower. The rock needs to be strong to support the huge vertical drops that we see in the Grand Canyon but strong rock would not be cut away quickly in some kind of post-noachian drainage event.

[stremba]

I don't understand the 2nd Law??? Please! The second law states that in a closed system, the overall entropy must increase. This does not imply that the local value of entropy in a closed system must always increase. The local value of entropy at a given point in the system can decrease if there is an even larger increase in entropy at another point in the system. Entropy and disorder are not identical, by the way. Entropy is difficult to define in words, but refers to the amount of dispersion of energy. Concentrated energy sources represent lower entropy, whereas more dispersed energy represents areas of higher entropy. The correlation between entropy and disorder arises from a law in statistical mechanics which relates the entropy of a system to the number of microstates available to the system. Typically the number of microstates available to a system is a pretty good measure of the common sense notion of disorder, but it is not a perfect measure.

[stremba]

I am arguing nothing about the existence of God. My point is that for someone who is not convinced that God exists, Pascal's wager would not be convincing.

[stremba]

Not contradictory at all. The big bang theory is a very specific theory. It can and will be modified as new evidence comes to life. The product of this modification will be a new, very specific theory. That is how science works, and how it always has worked.

[stremba]

BTW, why do you assume that anyone believing in evolution doesn't believe in intelligent design? The two (despite your insults to the contrary) are not inconsistent. You must first understand that evolution does not go beyond the point at which the first living organism has been formed. The origin of life could be a result of intelligent design even if evolution is completely true. Furthermore, you seem to believe that evolution must necessarily proceed via random processes. Not true. The theory of evolution in its modern form states that mutation and natural selection is a primary mechanism (but not the only one) for speciation. It actually does not make any reference to purposelessness or randomness. The question of purpose is actually outside the realm of science. Science will never be able to determine whether there is purpose behind evolution. Please avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future. Not all people who study science and believe that the theory of evolution is an accurate and useful explanation for many observations in the biological sciences are "God haters."

[Thatcherite]

Not all people who study science and believe that the theory of evolution is an accurate and useful explanation for many observations in the biological sciences are "God haters."

I'd go further than that. The words "God haters" are unpleasant and emotionally loaded and have no place in this debate at all regardless of whom they are applied to. (unless Reuben can unearth evidence of a sect that specifically espouses God Hatred and show that members of that sect are posting here.)

[Thatcherite]

I am arguing nothing about the existence of God. My point is that for someone who is not convinced that God exists, Pascal's wager would not be convincing.

I am not sure if someone has already posted this, but you may both find en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager interesting as it contains a number of refutations.

[conservative_crusader]

thats some neat stuff there, but it's still something that I cannot agree with. Let me analyze this:

"Pascal's wager can be said to suffer from the logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

1.)the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or
2.)no God exists."

The actual argument would assume that it is better to bet that there is a god. Not necessarily the Christian god, but it suffices to believe in a creator. Pascal's argument may have been that one should bet that the Christian god exists, however the argument is better supported to say that a god must exist.

"The wager cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith. In societies where faith is often rewarded by economic and social benefit, its potential moral significance is dubious."

This is a very intriguing argument, however, I would like to pose the question: why would a god punish people for believing in him?
Answer: He wouldn't.

I can understand perhaps rewarding reasoning, thats why post #126 is so important. I can also understand punishing feigned or fake faith could be punished. The actually says those who fake their faith will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21 "



"The "many-gods" argument points out that we can find indefinitely many other possibilities offering eternal bliss and threatening eternal torment. For example, non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them."

This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.

"Even if (contrary to Pascal's original argument) we can assign greater probability to one of the possible outcomes, it makes no mathematical difference. As the previous section mentions, any non-zero probability multiplied by infinity yields an infinite expected value."

Actually there is a mathematical difference. Its still very small, however: 0/infinity < 1/infinity. 0/infinity can be written as zero, however 1/infinity can only be written as 1/infinity.

"In this way, Pascal's Wager could be used to deduce that it would be advisable to believe in any or all of a variety of gods; however the belief systems of some religions are exclusive, leading to theoretical contradictions with Pascal's Wager for those practicing an exclusive faith. "

This actually does not contradict believing in a creator, which we have already established is better than not believing in a creator. As long as we're on the subject, this actually supports the argument in favor of believing in a creator(s).

"The wager assumes a non-zero chance that God exists. This makes it ineffective on strong atheism which assigns the chance that God exists to zero, making choosing to believe or not believe provide an equal reward (0). Others have argued that the utility of salvation cannot be infinite, either via strict finitists or belief that an infinite utility could only be finitely enjoyed by finite humans."

Why assume the chance is zero? If there is no chance we'll all be worm food anyway, there is nothing to lose.

Also, the idea of salvation teaches of a "resurrection body." It is my contention that God would create this body for the sake of allowing us to indulge in eternal reward.

"Although many people, even those highly critical of the Wager, have conceded that it is logically valid, some have argued that it is not. Given that the choice of wagering has an infinite return, then under a mixed strategy the return is also infinite. Flipping a coin and taking the wager based on the result would then have an infinite return, as would the chance that after rejecting the wager you end up taking it after all. The choice would then not be between zero reward (or negative infinite) and infinite reward, but rather between different infinite rewards."

This also supports believing in a creator(s).

"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."

Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.

[Thatcherite]

why would a god punish people for believing in him? Answer: He wouldn't.

Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better"

"Many Gods Argument"

This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.

This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) .

"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."

Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.

I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner.

[Jehu]

What would you call the attitude of a bunch of people in an art gallery looking at a masterpiece and the artist is standing next to this great painting. All the visitors exclaim and gasp over the painting. Some even propose "theories," about how the paint threw itself against the canvas and produced this beautiful work. All the while ignoring the artist and his pleas.

I guess I would call that total disrespect, if not outright hatred of the artist.

Part of what evolution is all about is to deny God as the creator...O, but in such a soft, reasonable sounding way. But hatred and denial are kissing cousins. You guys want it both ways. To seem so intelligent, so sophisticated, and yet you disguise, even to your own selves the distaste for a ever present, omnipotent (and here is the real problem) an MORAL God.

To whom all human beings will eventually answer. Including spitting in His face and denying him the wonder and awe due Him for this marvelous, incredible, and beautiful creation. The creation was made to point back to the creator, so that you in your dim little intellect might grasp the awe and splendor and beauty that IS in God.

Actually your sin is that you have dull and stupid minds incapable of wonder, too stingy to worship, and too self-centered to admit a mind greater than your own. You would rather revel in tedium and process, and pointless semantics over minutiae, rather than just enjoying the painting and getting to know the artist.

[Thatcherite]

What would you call the attitude of a bunch of people in an art gallery looking at a masterpiece and the artist is standing next to this great painting. All the visitors exclaim and gasp over the painting. Some even propose "theories," about how the paint threw itself against the canvas and produced this beautiful work. All the while ignoring the artist and his pleas.

I guess I would call that total disrespect, if not outright hatred of the artist.

Part of what evolution is all about is to deny God as the creator...O, but in such a soft, reasonable sounding way. But hatred and denial are kissing cousins. You guys want it both ways. To seem so intelligent, so sophisticated, and yet you disguise, even to your own selves the distaste for a ever present, omnipotent (and here is the real problem) an MORAL God.

To whom all human beings will eventually answer. Including spitting in His face and denying him the wonder and awe due Him for this marvelous, incredible, and beautiful creation. The creation was made to point back to the creator, so that you in your dim little intellect might grasp the awe and splendor and beauty that IS in God.

Actually your sin is that you have dull and stupid minds incapable of wonder, too stingy to worship, and too self-centered to admit a mind greater than your own. You would rather revel in tedium and process, and pointless semantics over minutiae, rather than just enjoying the painting and getting to know the artist.

I suggest that you calm down a little, and wipe the spittle off your screen.

Apparently you not only know the mind of God. You also have the startling ability to see inside my mind, and the minds of other atheists, and believers who accept evolution (and want to use the intellects that they believe God gave them to further their knowledge of His creation). What incredible arrogance and presumption you exhibit. I can't speak for other rationalists who accept the scientific method, but you are dead wrong in almost every way in your assessment of my mental attitude.

Do you you have any actual arguments, or is empty hysterical rhetoric your speciality?

[Jehu]

My observation stands. Evolution is an EXCUSE to NOT worship the creator. You have not invented anything new, Paul writes in Romans 2,000 years ago of men who did not want to retain the knowledge of God and that they were given over to reprobate minds to worship the creature instead of the creator.

What else do you call the moronic exaltation of biological processes over the discovery of the one that set the laws, and determined the processes? Your defensive reaction is proof enough that you were tagged in my last missive.

Men have rationalized evil since Cain. Intellect without faith always leads to error. Faith without intellect leads to fanaticism. Both must be married in the human heart. You evolutionists are just the other side of the coin as any religious fanaticism. Your psuedo-scientifc cult has produced the WORST in science, and is the bedrock philosophy of all the nihilism of the 20th century.

And you hold to this discredited theory with the same zeal as leaders of the inquisition held to their error, or current day mullahs hold to the error of Whabbism.

[Thatcherite]

Well I guess that's answered me, you do only have empty rhetoric. At least that post wasn't quite so hateful.