Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[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.

[Jehu]

"The conjecture that God must have intervened to originate life in the first place would not damage or invalidate the ToE in the least if it were shown to be true. In fact the belief that God started the process and then let evolution take over is quite a common one. Did you not know that?"

Which goes to my conjecture that TOE is simply a way to give you a weak or distant God. What TOE is seeking to avoid, as well as any other agnostic, or atheistic belief, is in the immediate creative power of God. It is just the scientific mind's reaction to the presence of God in our fallen state. Or what do you think Adam's fig leaf symbolizes?

Maybe God worked by evolution...something I doubt since the only evidence that evolution occurred as given by agnostic scientists (whatever their first names) that I can discern is the continual squawking like maddened parrots: "Evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact." All the red-faced shouting does not make it so, but appears to me as the clenched-fists tantrum of a lot of spoiled brats.

Once again you, or any scientists named "Steve," are unable to give me a fair mathematical description of this "theory," that you would fight to the death to defend, something I find peculiar for "objective" scientists.

And I guess actual evidence does not mean much to evolutionists, but by your own admission, just a majority opinion. Which just reveals that you do not make up your own minds, (rather your minds were already made up, and you went looking for a confirming theory) but are impressed by numbers, and credentials, and need those numbers to buttress your faith.

"Numerous laboratory experiments and mathematical predictions have confirmed the ToE. Your use of the words "prove the theory" betrays that you don't understand the scientific method. No theory is ever proven."

Name them, give me the math. Of course theories are not proven. But at least the evidence ought to confirm that theory to some degree. But the fossil record (the beginnings and first basis of TOE) shows NO evidence of ANY transitory species, when there ought to be millions. Where are they?

Not to mention the complete inability of TOE to account for irreducibly complex structures. Or symbiotic life, or parasites. Or the complex behaviors of animals, some of them with brains far to small to have figured out such behaviors. From whence came all of this?

And remember we are not dealing with just individual species in isolation, we are dealing with interlocking systems, all the way down to certain properties of matter and compounds that if THEY did not first exist, in incredibly exact proportions, no life could exist.

All just happy circumstances in the view of the idiots that rush to agree with each other and continue to publish such fallacies and slaps at God (THE CREATOR) as TOE.

[Jehu]

Judas was a Christian...for a while.

[mvpel]

Notice that it says "days", not "billions of years".

The meaning of the word "day," as in "24 hours" or "86400 seconds" depends on the relativistic inertial reference frame of the clock.

A clock at the center of the sun (i.e., deep inside a deep gravity well), or riding on the back of a near-lightspeed particle, would tick more slowly than one here on Earth:

A clock travelling at 99.99999999999997% of the speed of light would take 742,552 years and about four months to tick out seven days.

I asked an astrophysicist about this in a lecture about the Big Bang and the formation of stars - "when you talk about the universe being six to ten billion years old, you're using an earth-bound inertial reference frame, right?"

He answered in the affirmative, and it seemed like it hadn't occurred to him that time would have a different meaning in a far more dense universe in the early stages of the Big Bang, though maybe he was just stifling a burp from his lunch.

I wonder, too, what effect gravitational time dilation might have on the prospects for controlled fusion break-even on Earth.

[mvpel]

Maybe God worked by evolution...

Genesis 1:24 - God said, 'The earth shall bring forth particular species of living creatures, particular species of livestock, land animals, and beasts of the earth.' It happened.

Genesis 2:7 - God formed man out of dust of the ground...

[Thatcherite]

What TOE is seeking to avoid, as well as any other agnostic, or atheistic belief, is in the immediate creative power of God. It is just the scientific mind's reaction to the presence of God in our fallen state. Or what do you think Adam's fig leaf symbolizes?

It isn't seeking to avoid anything. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. I don't understand your theological argument I am afraid. I always thought that the fig-leaf symbolised Adam's loss of innocence and emergent self-awareness without which shame is impossible.

Maybe God worked by evolution...something I doubt since the only evidence that evolution occurred as given by agnostic...

and numerous believing scientists of course, a fact that you seem incapable of getting your head round

...scientists (whatever their first names) that I can discern is the continual squawking like maddened parrots: "Evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact." All the red-faced shouting does not make it so, but appears to me as the clenched-fists tantrum of a lot of spoiled brats.

All of the red-faced shouting in this argument comes from the creationists. For some examples study some of your earlier posts. Do you deny that the species living on earth have changed over time? (which is one of the facts of evolution as opposed to the theory). If you deny that you are denying much more science than the ToE, yet you have stated in an earlier post that it is only ToE that you take issue with.

Once again you, or any scientists named "Steve," are unable to give me a fair mathematical description of this "theory," that you would fight to the death to defend, something I find peculiar for "objective" scientists.

Where did you get the notion from that a scientific theory must of necessity have a mathematical description?

And I guess actual evidence does not mean much to evolutionists, but by your own admission, just a majority opinion. Which just reveals that you do not make up your own minds, (rather your minds were already made up, and you went looking for a confirming theory) but are impressed by numbers, and credentials, and need those numbers to buttress your faith.

The list I supplied is a humorous parody of a common creationist argument but it does make an important point. When you say that the ToE is religion not science you are calling the entire scientific community liars, fools, or lying fools. Yet you allow them to be right about everything else which seems a curious position. Creationists sometimes misrepresent that science is divided about the ToE or that ToE is in crisis which is not so. However science is not a democracy as you rightly point and it does listen to the evidence. Publish your evidence that the ToE is wrong and the 500 Steves and everyone else will switch their opinion and you win a Nobel Prize.

Name them, give me the math. Of course theories are not proven. But at least the evidence ought to confirm that theory to some degree.

And it does, to a degree that practicing scientists regard as conclusive as any part of science. Try this. Feynman's quote near the beginning is insightful (as one would expect).

But the fossil record (the beginnings and first basis of TOE) shows NO evidence of ANY transitory species, when there ought to be millions. Where are they?

Your statement is a common creationist misapprehension. Many transitional forms have been found. Whoever told you that there are no transitional forms is misinformed. Whoever told you that there ought to be millions of them is also misinformed. Fossilisation is an incredibly rare event.

Not to mention the complete inability of TOE to account for irreducibly complex structures. Or symbiotic life, or parasites. Or the complex behaviors of animals, some of them with brains far to small to have figured out such behaviors. From whence came all of this?

Natural selection is the answer to all of the above except irreducible complexity. Most modern informed irreducible complexity arguments refer to abiogenesis, about which the ToE has nothing to say.

And remember we are not dealing with just individual species in isolation, we are dealing with interlocking systems, all the way down to certain properties of matter and compounds that if THEY did not first exist, in incredibly exact proportions, no life could exist.

Curious that you should use this argument which is not an argument against the ToE at all. It is a argument for the existence of God commonly used by believers who accept the ToE (you know, that group of people that you refuse to acknowledge). You characterised the God of this belief as "Weak" and "Distant". Your much more interventionary God doesn't need conditions to be suitable in the general universe. He can do anything, right? So why would he bother to make the general conditions suitable?

[shubi]

"because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this "

The above is from the article Thatcherite cited. All arguments about the ToE not supporting Creation are just empty, moot and silly. As I have repeatedly stated, Creation is not part of the ToE. Thus, to say that scientists cannot believe in Creation or that Christians can't find the fact of common descent and the ToE compelling is just totally wrong.

[Thatcherite]

Apologies if you find my use of the word "creationist" offensive. I use it as a blanket term for those who deny science in order to believe in their religion. I am not referring to everybody who believes in divine creation (as I hope my posts make clear)

I managed to find the Augustinian quote that I referred to earlier.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

[shubi]

No need to apologize. I am familiar with the Augustine quote. You see, many of the church fathers are ignored for the sake of keeping the cult alive. I think there may be some security in having this "mystic" agreement on hatred for science. It is somewhat like the various heresies the early church stamped out, like gnosticism etc. They "know" the truth and there ain't no one gonna convince em otherwise. ;-)

[derheimwill]

Scientists have not been able to find any logical or evidentiary errors in it.

...and with a straight face, I'll bet.

[Jehu]

"It isn't seeking to avoid anything. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. I don't understand your theological argument I am afraid. I always thought that the fig-leaf symbolised Adam's loss of innocence and emergent self-awareness without which shame is impossible."

The response of fallen man is to hide from God, or the immediate presence of God. Spirituality and Religion are two different things. Religion is the observance of God though ritual. Spirituality is the seeking of God and his actual presence. The actions of all men are RELIGIOUS, whether they are in a dead church, or are following the dead instinct to cover up and hide from God.

TOE, for all the brilliance and cunning of man (and I will admit man has devoted great intellect to this effort) is a "fig leaf!"

Is it any surprise that man would come up with a "scientific" theory in a scientific age? In the dark ages men did not have science, so they hid from the face of God in their cathedrals, in dead religion and ritual. The church of modern times is SCIENCE. The proponents of TOE are the priesthood.

All scientific argument aside...you cannot accept TOE and actually believe in the principle of redemption, which requires that there was original sin from a single set of parents.

If evolution took place, it could not have taken place for humanity. I believe species were placed in the earth as they are...they did not evolve. Whether God did this personally, through the agency of angels, or some physical mechanism...I don't really care much, I need to make a living.

We only have evidence of variation in species, which evolutionists stretch into a belief that species evolve one from another. The evidence cuts both ways, IMO, it cuts far better toward special creation.

Evolutionists can never get around the fact that the fossil record does not back the idea of slow changes from one species to another. Even Darwin was in despair at the end of his life over this growing fact. At least HE was honest enough to realize it was a bullet to the head of HIS theory.

It simply shows what I maintain: Species appear as they are, and for the most part remain UNCHANGED, or go extinct! Gould (first name Steve), a brilliant man, realized this and so proposed the punctuated equilibrium theory. A ridiculous theory from an otherwise very brilliant mind. He did this because he was driven to try and explain this terrible (theory-killing) lack of transitional forms.

You can play around with the limited plastic nature of life to your heart's content. I do not believe, and it has not been shown that species give rise to unique and various species...even given the MAGIC of millions of years.

And the physical constants of the universe make it clear to any but the most closed (and hostile to God) minds that the universe was created/designed to support carbon based life. The earth is unique in so many ways, just for this end goal it would take a book hundreds of pages long to detail all the unique factors of the earth that setup the atmosphere and conditions for life. And this goes all the way down to the subatomic level, up to the force of gravity!

Evolutionists simply express a tautology. They look at all this wonder and say..."hmmm, life appeared because all the conditions were EXACTLY preset in some way so that life appeared." Duh!!

[shubi]

"Evolutionists simply express a tautology. They look at all this wonder and say..."hmmm, life appeared because all the conditions were EXACTLY preset in some way so that life appeared." Duh!!"

Again, the Theory of Evolution (biological) does not contain any speculation about the origin of life.

Thus, the "tautology" is a figment of the imagination.

[Thatcherite]

Science is not interested in your lack of capacity to believe the ToE. If you wish to refute it you need to bring more than your personal incredulity to the table. You need to address the crushing evidence.

Steve Gould (who you believe to be a brilliant mind apart from his proposition of punctuated equilibrium) was a lifelong opponent of creationism who was angry about the way his scientific work was misrepresented and misquoted by creationists. You point him out mockingly as "(first name Steve)" without realising that Steven was chosen as the name for the "Steve's" list in his memory and honour that you traduce in the name of your cult.

Please supply a citation for your statement that Evolutionists can never get around the fact that the fossil record does not back the idea of slow changes from one species to another. Even Darwin was in despair at the end of his life over this growing fact. as I had not heard of Darwin's despair about this issue previously. (though even if it were true it would not change the modern evidence for ToE in the slightest)

BTW you have not yet explained whether you hate Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, Osiris, Zeus, Athene etc etc or believe in them. I'd love to know which it is.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory, by Dr. Ray Bohlin

Link

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution

2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model

3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations

4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis

5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)

[Thatcherite]

I know its an ad hominem, but I can't resist it. Would that Ray Bohlin by any chance be married to this fruitloop

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I have no idea if he's married to her or not. Frankly I could give a rip.

Welcome to FR! (12/6)

[Thatcherite]

Why thank you. Its a nice place.

[Jehu]

I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, no clear explanation of the "forces," that supposedly produced the millions of species that have existed on this earth. And the cheap labeling game to try and pull camels out of donkeys, or visa versa. Read my lips, "There are NO transitional species in the fossil record."

Here is to you and shubi about abiogenesis and why I WILL hold your feet to the fire in that TOE assumes the following, even if it does not explicitly state, what this evolutionist made clear on YOUR website:

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.

I love how they have to make disclaimer after disclaimer that TOE does not address abiogenesis. To bad they did not make this too clear in Time/Life depictions of evolution, nor make this REAL CLEAR in secondary education in the 60's, 70's, 80's.

And they do not make this clear in beginning biology classes in college EVEN today. But you and shubi must stress this point and isolate TOE from its own axiomatic conclusions. I guess if I must love TOE, I must love its dog, might as well introduce me to all its implications in the beginning. Your theory is false, and it is continually presented in a deceptive manner.

Here is to transitional forms:

Note the following from Dr. Alan Feducia of University of Northern Carolina, one of the world's leading bird experts AND an evolutionist.

‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’2

Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway.

I made fun of Stevie's name because I WAS aware of the origin of the Steve list...it is called irony.

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

"BTW you have not yet explained whether you hate Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, Osiris, Zeus, Athene etc etc or believe in them. I'd love to know which it is."

I believe in real people and real events, which one of the above do you consider REAL? You already believe in the utter fantasy of life popping up everywhere without any discernible cause, I suppose you sup up on Olympus in your spare time.

[Jehu]

Nice link, cold day in hell when a Darwin worshipper will leave his Pew to read it! Here is one for you, a little old but still worth a visit: http://www.custance.org

[shubi]

Sorry, abiogensis is not part of the ToE.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Good thing it isn't, or the theory would look even more bankrupt.