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 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: Thatcherite

I now recall that that there is a further pair of response and counter response in the Theobald/Clark debate. Ashby's 2nd responses are in green in Theobald's response to Ashby, and are replied to in that document.


701 posted on 12/17/2004 10:53:29 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

The Theory of Evolution can be falsified, I don't know what Darwinism is.

To falsify the theory, just find a human fossil and a dinosaur fossil in the same rock strata (not burial of human).

Another way to falsify the Theory is to show that species are not continually changing allele frequencies in populations over time. Show that no one needs a different flu shot each year (that flu virus is not mutating to make vaccinations ineffective).

Just for interest sake, please tell us what Darwinism is and who told you it was a theory.


702 posted on 12/17/2004 11:15:11 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
You must be a liberal. They are the only ones that yell "racist," whenever anyone notes that humans come with different shades of skin.

You must be clueless about conservatism, if you think that.

Attributing aptitudes for particular classes of human endeavor based on racial origins is racism, by the textbook definition of the term.

703 posted on 12/17/2004 11:17:06 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Once again you cannot propose any other theory except Creationism, or Evolution to explain life"

Once again, the Theory of Evolution (biology) does not concern itself with creation. The ToE explains how life changes over millions of years, but NOT how life came to be.


704 posted on 12/17/2004 11:20:07 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
You can spank any creationist with obfuscations and meaningless wrangling over biological processes.

We can usually out-debate any creationist on about 10 different planes. But where's the fun in that? It's like playing a video-game on level 1. Even libs usually pose more of a challenge.

705 posted on 12/17/2004 11:20:50 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
To bad (according to Popper) Darwinism CANNOT be falsified. Therefor it is NOT a scientific theory.

Too bad Popper changed his mind about that. But since you've read Popper only in snippets on creationst websites, you wouldn't know, would you?

706 posted on 12/17/2004 11:22:48 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Link to a letter by Popper to the New Scientist, in 1980, emphasizing that he regards TOE as scientific.
707 posted on 12/17/2004 11:26:20 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Right, Darwin's theory, the Theory of Evolution (biology) does not contain creation. That is what he was saying in your quote.

The Creationists science objects to are those that try to use a strawman and place it into the Theory and then argue against it. Science probably cannot determine who created everything. For those that want to believe God did it, you are safe, unless you insist on a young Earth, worldwide flood, special creation or any of the other flatly ridiculous proposals ID and CS attempt to equate with science. To insist on such things turns people away from belief in God.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890


708 posted on 12/17/2004 11:26:24 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Yes, but Jehu inserted Darwinism for ToE and thus made his statement ambiguous.


709 posted on 12/17/2004 11:28:25 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"It seems to me that you are assuming omnipotence and/or omniscience on the part of your hypothetical God. Neither are necessary conditions of being Aquinus's uncaused cause. A lesser but still functional God who created the universe and the people on planet earth might create the malevolent being in error, or as an experiment."

Very neat argument, but I'm afraid we're misunderstanding each other. In order for god to have created the universe he does not have to be omnipotent nor omniscient. He merely has to be powerful enough to create everything that there is, and smart enough to be capable of mature thought. While I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent god, realizing that you've created something that will doom your own creation, is something that can easily be discerned. And of course remedying that problem is perhaps just as easy for this supreme being that created everything.

"Also to say that the God that creates beings cares about them is to presume your conclusion. You cannot be certain of this. Do we care about the bacteria in a petri dish? Yet God would be far further above us than we are above the bacteria. The Christian God of Love does care, but that God is only one possibility"


Also very good, however; a god would care about his creation in much the same way a biologist would care about a new strain of microscopic organism. If some third party were to enter the laboratory with the sole purpose of overturning the petri dish, the biologist would stop this third party.

" (though the truth as you see it?)"

correct.

"At the end of the day I think we are going to disagree on this one too. I think that Pascal's wager as stated with its 4 possible outcomes is so much simpler than the true set of possibilities with their varying possible outcomes that it is not a useful argument, unfortunately."

But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.
710 posted on 12/17/2004 11:53:23 AM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

If all there is to your attempt at evangelism is Pascal's wager, you better find some other ideas.

It is really pretty weak to threaten someone with not going to Heaven if they don't believe. Talk more about how God has helped you, your experiences in His service.


711 posted on 12/17/2004 1:43:01 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader
But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.

You don't benefit unless you believe in the right God and the right interpretation of God. If you accept the logic of thos on these threads who argue for creationism, you must belong to the correct sect and denomination to be counted as a believer. If you deviate in your interpretation of Genesis, you will be damned forever.

712 posted on 12/17/2004 3:22:36 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"My Pascal-CounterTM runneth over" placemarker
713 posted on 12/17/2004 3:40:21 PM PST by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

One bar is worth 100,000 Pascals.


714 posted on 12/17/2004 3:55:35 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

What kind of "bar". Are you referring to "Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man"?


715 posted on 12/17/2004 4:11:24 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man"?

Hey, it's Friday night, and that's exactly the kind of bar I'm thinking of, but a bar is also a unit of pressure. And a Pascal is also a (very much smaller) unit of pressure.

716 posted on 12/17/2004 4:17:05 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

God used evolution to create all life.
Those that do not believe in evolution, do not believe in God.


Original proposition placemarker


717 posted on 12/17/2004 5:47:42 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: shubi
The Bible is not science. It's theology.

That being said, I think you overstate your case when you claim that "those that do not believe in evolution, do not believe in God."

It is possible to believe in God, but misunderstand what scripture has to say about him.

718 posted on 12/17/2004 6:01:12 PM PST by TigerTale ("An America that is a force for democratic change is a very dangerous foe indeed."--Victor D. Hansen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; js1138
LOL!! Actually I meant the unit of wagers which is coincidentally also Pascal ;)

However, since my Pascal-CounterTM ran over I'll have to reset it anyway. Guess a bar is the best place to do so.

719 posted on 12/17/2004 6:22:33 PM PST by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: TigerTale

I think God revealed a lot of science in Genesis.
For instance the let there be light comports quite well with Einstein.

My little proposition is for those who insist on a simplistic literalist view of the Bible. To me it shows a lack of faith.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437


720 posted on 12/17/2004 7:05:36 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader
While I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent god, realizing that you've created something that will doom your own creation, is something that can easily be discerned. And of course remedying that problem is perhaps just as easy for this supreme being that created everything.

The statements that it can easily be discerned and that the supreme being would bother to remedy it if it did discern it are a pair of presumed conclusions. Even if there is a creator it is entirely likely that in the universe as a whole human beings are a totally insignificant and irrelevant accident as far as the creator is concerned.

...a god would care about his creation in much the same way a biologist would care about a new strain of microscopic organism. If some third party were to enter the laboratory with the sole purpose of overturning the petri dish, the biologist would stop this third party.

In this case your extension of my analogy works against you. The experiment (life on earth/the petri dish) may be already completed and the interesting results are noted. The scientist/God turns away and doesn't care as the cleaner/devil holds the dish of believers up to the flames. Perhaps the dish containing believers makes a pretty colour in the bunsen whereas the non-believers aren't so interesting and just get tossed in the trash. The point I am making here is that the motivation of supernatural beings might well be completely inscrutable to us (I would expect them to be inscrutable, you don't). The burning bacteria screaming in what seems like eternal pain wouldn't understand the cleaner's motivation, or why their creator was no longer interested.

721 posted on 12/18/2004 1:39:18 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
I can't believe this thread is still alive and existing in more or less the same form, if larger. Most comments are, "Your problem is...," or "I'm just being logical, why are you suddenly questioning my premises?"

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.

Neither gets you into heaven. Neither satisfies God's sense of judgement. Thank God that His mercy is greater. He put all we need to know about life and living into one book. From beginning to end, the same God is shown, a God who, in all He does, makes both His justice and His mercy evident. Evident. Nothing Man does is sufficient to impress the creator.

To examine the creation without acknowledging the Creator is to ignore the fact that it was put together in an orderly way. The Bible is also put together in an orderly way. No theories about what happened prior to 3800 B. C. have ever brought any bit of benefit to anyone, ever.

722 posted on 12/19/2004 3:47:25 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Sure, it can be falsified, BY evolutionists only, on their terms only. Imagine a theory that predicts that there must have been slow changes over time that produced all the millions of species extant, and extinct. Such a theory...from Darwin to present day devotees, predicts that these changes should be observed in the fossil record.

But what does the ACTUAL evidence show? Gaps, and gaps, and gaps. Species appear suddenly, then they go on for millions of years, until this present day, or they went extinct. Evolutionist can find only a few measly fossils (when there ought to be millions...more in fact than all successful species, over all time) that they claim as "transitional," and even that can be argued as labeling only...they have no way of knowing except by similarity of morphology.

And present day experts would have a hard time of identifying the difference between the mammalian wolf, versus the marsupial wolf, by their bones alone.

Not to mention the pre Cambrian explosion of almost all body parts...before that just some algae, a few single-celled animals. Then suddenly an explosion of all types of life. The actual fossil evidence argues persuasively for special creation NOT for slow evolutionary changes.

So instead of falsifying this amazing Gumby theory, like the observation of quantum radiation from black body radiation, which falsified classical physics, what happens?

Gould et. al., propose "Hey there are gaps in the fossil record...well, because there are gaps!" And not to falsify their precious pet theory, they invent punctuated equilibrium to explain the gaps!

Only evolutionary theory presents this circular logic, and that over and over, no matter the evidence that is AGAINST this theory, and there as an abundance, from molecular biology, to information theory, to the fossil record, to the actual study of genetic mutations, to the close scrutinity of the wild claims of (creating LIFE in the lab etc) of evolutionists.

I will not even mention the phony computer simulations by Denton, et al. All debunked by better minds such as Dembski and others. And many of those that do not accept ToE are NOT creationists as me, but world class (but honest) scientists.

And all this defense of the indefensible from probably the most smug arrogant lot that have ever been educated beyond their actual intelligence.

Many of us do not have to be molecular biologists to sense something hysterical, and all-encompassing, about this theory. No matter the data, evolutionary theory will NOT be discarded by its proponents, or even allow competing theories...to such minds evolution IS, they will just modify the theory to accept any data. Sort of, "I will MAKE, or CHOOSE the data that fits MY theory. That is NOT science!
723 posted on 12/20/2004 8:46:51 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Show how Popper maintains ToE can be falsified. Better yet, you show me. (que waiting music)

As I have already shown...when the actual empirical evidence is against ToE, it never allows itself to be falsified, no way is the ToE priesthood going to allow I.D., even absent any mention of a creator, to even be on the table as a falsification to their theory...even though the actual evidence both empirical and logical, and from many other scientific disciplines favors I.D.

How can a theory be falsifiable, if it can accommodate contradictory data over and over, and yet absorb that data? Evolutionist usually just label a criticism sneeringly and then wait 20 years later and say, O, yeah that is debunked, we sneered at that idea 20, 50, 100 years ago.

But you have never even answered the question of why does all life and ecosystems appear to be designed? And that overwhelmingly so! Why does all life scream, purpose, goal, design, teleology?

Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based life? Life that can ultimately contemplate its own consciousness and the nature of the universe, and all this came about by blind random chance, and some inherent properties of insensate matter?

You simplify things beyond belief for the sake of this sad pathetic theory, evolutionists speak of the evolution of the eye, as if it exists in a vacuum, but the eye is nothing without the entire body, and the brain that interprets the collection of billions of photons a second.

And that means nothing if not limited to a small spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and that means the earth has to be a certain distance from a certain kind of star, with a certain kind of atmosphere, and that solar system has to be in a certain part of a galaxy so it is not torn apart by gravitational forces, and on, and on to 1 x 10 to the 250 power of improbabilities...a number beyond all the atoms in the universe!

Only you geniuses seem to be able to take your eyes out with the red hot poker of evolutionary belief that you may then strive to ignore the obvious, let alone honestly investigate the possibility, even the necessity, of teleology to explain biological systems.

You were known and predicted two thousand years ago:

Romans 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
724 posted on 12/20/2004 9:20:49 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Heheheheh

You guys are sooooo clever, has anyone told you?


725 posted on 12/20/2004 9:22:56 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Prove IT! My placemarker.


726 posted on 12/20/2004 9:23:59 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
What are you saying? Men should not look around them and use their minds to figure things out? If that is what you are talking about then get rid of all modern technology. I like what science discovers. And men are supposed to explore the universe that God created, I think He likes that.

He wants us to discover His wonders, both spiritual and physical. And Christian scientists must ultimately debunk psuedo-scientific myths such as ToE. It is throttling the life sciences and causes much harm to all humanity, especially when this crazed biological theory is applied to social issues.
727 posted on 12/20/2004 9:30:47 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, B: What type of mathematical treatment are you looking for? And why is one needed? no clear explanation of the "forces," B: Evolution doesn't have "forces". It does have mechanisms, one of them being Natural Selection. 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." B: Your empty assertions are meaningless. Let Gould further illustrate that: In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 : "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have become a major target of these practices. We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or stupidity, I do not know as admitting that the fossil record record includes no transitional forms. Transistional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups" From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some to say about creatobabblers.. "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy. Later on.. Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all trasnitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and continiuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence. 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. B: ROFL. It doesn't. Anymore than stellar evolution addresses the formation of stars. There is a logical separation between the two processes. On the other hand creationists don't understand logic, which is why the above needs to be repeated over and over again. 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 B: Feduccia, is one of the very few paleontologists who argue that birds did not evolve from theropod dinos. However, there is nothing in this statement that indicates that Feduccia thinks archie is not a transitional form. 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. B: ROFL. When all else fails.. play semantics. Of course Feduccia thinks archie is transitional. It is not a modern bird in any sense. But there is no taxonomic rank or place for "transitional form". Most paleotologists agree that archie is more bird-like than dino-like, and hence call it a bird. But your post is typoical for creationists. No data, no substance, and the quote that you provide don't even support your claims. Creationists hope nobody will notice.
728 posted on 12/20/2004 10:08:25 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"So Feduccia (who is not mainstream, BTW, on the subject of bird evolution) says it's a bird. What has that got to do with it being transitional? It's a bird with several features that all modern birds lack, but which reptiles have. It is therefore transitional."

Heck Gould was not considered mainstream with his "Hopeful Monster Theory," but you guys consider him an authority.

B: Gould never proposed "Hopeful Monster Theory". HMT is a caricature of the ideas of Richard Goldschmidt.

There are no facts too simple and easily checked that a creationist can't screw up.


"Creationists are so fond of these idiotic semantic games."

You evolutionists have based your entire theory on tautologies, circular logic, and labeling games.

B: Give an example of circular logic. We'll start there.


729 posted on 12/20/2004 10:11:36 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
No theories about what happened prior to 3800 B. C. have ever brought any bit of benefit to anyone, ever.

Why stop at -3800, and not -2800, -1800,..., +800, +1800 or yesterday?

730 posted on 12/20/2004 10:37:24 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Only evolutionary theory presents this circular logic, and that over and over, no matter the evidence that is AGAINST this theory, and there as an abundance, from molecular biology, to information theory, to the fossil record, to the actual study of genetic mutations, to the close scrutinity of the wild claims of (creating LIFE in the lab etc) of evolutionists.

I wondered when you were going to wheel out information theory, as you have managed to wheel out every other tired canard of the creationists.

The problem with your repeated statement that "there is abundant evidence against the theory" is that the only people who even pretend to be scientists who accept a shred of your "abundant evidence" are religious fundamentalists like you, and even they wildly disagree with each other about the significance of their counter-arguments according to their particular sect and hence their version of scriptural pre-interpretation of evidence.

731 posted on 12/20/2004 10:43:10 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
B:I've seen this list. Its the stupidest argument going. Was Newton aware of the evidence we have for Big and Biological Evolution? So Issac Newton is stupid and ignorant according to you. How brazenly arrogant. B: LOL. Reuben, please indicate where I've calimed any such thing, or retract your post and apologize for lying. Let me guess, until you came on the scene, everyone was a drooling imbecile. B: Obviously my simple argument is way over your head. Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape. B: A ver distant one, but yes indeed. I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, B: Reuben is confused as to how one collects and evaluates evidence. Reuben's example is no more different than the simple child that looks at the clouds and imagines he see a cat or a dog. Simple fact is Reuben, your theories have no evidence. When has a dam burst produced a meandering river? for example. you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. B: No, Reuben, I see continental uplift. Just like what is happening in Fennoscnadia and is still happening in the basin and range. You see, we can meausre the, slow, motions of the of the Earth's crust. You're ignorant and wrong. Start getting use to the words "ignorant and worng". You'll be hearing them from me a lot. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", B: Even Leonardo DiVinci figured out what was wrong with this. THe problem is, is not only our fossils found on the mountain tops, they are found within the mountain itself. If Reuben can't figure out why this is a problem, then he is a few centuries out of touch. Or does Reuben think DiVinci was an idiot? you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories B: Noachian Flood theory is laughable. The early geologists gave up up on it by the early the 18th century. of how mountains rose up from no where, B: Again, Reuben is projecting his own, incredible ignorance onto others. THis is the thing that really bugs me about creationists. They are so cluless, they actually believe that nobody has answers to questions they dream up, when in reality they've been studied for centuries. And yet Reuben accuses me of ignorance? Thats too funny. Mountain can arise in two major ways. The most common is collisions between continent bearing plates. For example the Himalayas ae forming at the boundary between the Indian plate and Eurasia plate. They are still growing as indicated by geodetic measrements. GPS is good for other things besides guiding missles. Another important process which makes mountains is volcanic activity. I live on an old volcanic mountain. Its called Oahu. I guess Reuben never heard of a volcano? Never seen one? Never heard of GPS? Just all figments of my imagination? Eh? Reuben crawl out form under your rock and get educated. THis country has enough slackers as it is. for no know reason, B: no know reason? You mean no reason Reuben knows about. Which is quite a different thing than "no known reason". Who is the arrogant one, Reuben? and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. B: Oh its plenty disturbed in places. LOL. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" B: THey are, and you've scibbled several things that are wrong. You have no knowledge, no credibility. You've made a great case as to why creationism is devoid of anything of value. THanks.
732 posted on 12/20/2004 10:44:43 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
And yet you priests of sneering and fallacy have YET to dispute even one "tired canard," since Willam Paley proposed the idea that a watch would somehow self assemble, and a watch is NOTHING in comparison to a single living cell. But natural selection and chance are nothing if not gods, then certainly magicians of wonder.

All your arm waving and exclaiming proves NOTHING. Other than you can wave your arms and jabber seemingly intelligent "sounding," arguments.
733 posted on 12/20/2004 10:52:36 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
What are you saying? Men should not look around them and use their minds to figure things out? If that is what you are talking about then get rid of all modern technology. I like what science discovers. And men are supposed to explore the universe that God created, I think He likes that.

Monkeys and typewriters! Jehu types something sensible! It had to happen in the end. ;)

He wants us to discover His wonders, both spiritual and physical. And Christian scientists must ultimately debunk psuedo-scientific myths such as ToE. It is throttling the life sciences and causes much harm to all humanity, especially when this crazed biological theory is applied to social issues.

No scientist should be filtering the data through the prism of their christianity as you would have them do. That really does produce the "junk science" you are so fond of banging on about. You have to look at the data and see where it takes you. In this context there should be no such thing as a Christian scientist unless you want scientists to "lie for christ". There should just be scientists who happen to be Christians (many of whom support ToE, as it happens)

734 posted on 12/20/2004 10:54:23 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

Not to butt into the specific arguments you have with Reuben as I am not a flood geologist, nor young earth believer, but you might learn how to use the HTML on this forum before you call someone else an idiot.


735 posted on 12/20/2004 10:58:14 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
I have disputed a great many of the tired canards you have come out with. You come out with far too many assertions that are so vague as to be almost meaningless for anyone to dispute them all.

When are you going to tell me why the suggested falsifications in Theobald's article would not falsify ToE?

Why do you on the one hand say that ToE is falsified by various arguments that you put forward and OTOH say that it is unfalsifiable and therefore not science? Which is it, then?

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

736 posted on 12/20/2004 11:03:42 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
All your arm waving and exclaiming proves NOTHING. Other than you can wave your arms and jabber seemingly intelligent "sounding," arguments.

Well, intelligent sounding arguments are several steps up from stupid lack of arguments. Maybe those arguments sound intelligent because they are based on the data... and not the data as a particular religious sect would like it to be.

737 posted on 12/20/2004 11:08:20 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Every human being filters through his bias. The problem with evolutionists and a related species...(possibly from alleles) liberal journalists. They alone in all humanity figure they are pristine, holy, pure, sole possessors of objective truth. All other ideas must be measured from THEIR objective standards.

Yet they somehow fail to recognize that scientists hold to their theories even in error, until overwhelmed with contrary evidence. Do you know what was the prevailing theory before plate tectonics? Do you know what scientists did to the first that were pointing to continental drift?

That germ theory was welcomed with open arms. Not to mention quantum theory. Or dozens of scientific theories that were debunked, sometimes men destroyed, emotionally, financially, for going contrary to you pristine, holy defenders of truth.

How about Einstein? (not sure but probably smarter than you by about 40 I.Q points). Who fudged his relativity equations to get rid of the pesky evidence that the universe was expanding.

Cause all the "best scientists" knew that the universe was in a steady state. But he sees the redshift through Hubble's telescope himself, and unlike dishonest evolutionists, Einstein had the integrity to admit, "this was my greatest mistake" to wit, not believing what his equations told him right to his face.

I have enough confidence in God, truth, and objective science that they are in harmony. It will be Christian scientists, and at least non evolutionary scientists that will, and are debunking the evolutionary dead end.
738 posted on 12/20/2004 11:13:55 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"When are you going to tell me why the suggested falsifications in Theobald's article would not falsify ToE?"

When you tell me how symbiotic relationships arose in nature without using teleology. (Yucca plant, Yucca moth) Try coming up with an idea yourself that is not written by someone else...just raw logic, since your theory seems to explain EVERYTHING. This should be a snap for a genius like you to explain to a primitive like me.
739 posted on 12/20/2004 11:18:02 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"When are you going to tell me why the suggested falsifications in Theobald's article would not falsify ToE?"

When you tell me how symbiotic relationships arose in nature without using teleology. (Yucca plant, Yucca moth) Try coming up with an idea yourself that is not written by someone else...just raw logic, since your theory seems to explain EVERYTHING. This should be a snap for a genius like you to explain to a primitive like me.
740 posted on 12/20/2004 11:19:09 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Thank you for the compliment about my IQ anyway, to be within 40 points of Einstein is rare praise indeed....


741 posted on 12/20/2004 11:19:41 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
As I know nothing of Yucca sybmiosis I found this explanation on the net:

One possible scenario follows. The ancestral yuccas were plagued with small moth caterpillars that fed inside plants shoots. As with modern moths, there is some variation in each generation, and a few eggs are laid beyond the stems on blades and flower parts. Eggs laid in fertilized flowers discovered an untapped developing supply of seeds rich in protein, and their young survived in high numbers and reinforced this population of flower-inhabiting larval moths. The variant larval moths that ate seeds added a burden to the plant, but moths that moved from flower to flower also carried pollen with more accuracy than casting pollen to the wind. Such a tradeoff, perhaps only slightly in the plant's favor at first, became even greater as moth variants became more skillful at transfer of pollen, especially by selection for palps and behavior to comb the yucca pollen from anthers. Meanwhile, the yucca could save much energy by forming pollen that is gummy rather than fine and wind dispersed. To evolutionary biologists, confirming this sequence remains an exciting problem.

Biologists haven't proved that this happened, as the article says, but it is a plausible scenario of how symbiosis could arise. What puzzles me is why you have a big problem with symbiosis and evolution? Species can start out accidentally co-operating a little and over time because of the benefits of the co-operation increasing the "fitness" of both tend to need each other more and more. Why should that not happen?

742 posted on 12/20/2004 11:30:44 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
By the way, I have asked everyone of you worshipers of Darwin to explain, even in simple terms, how symbiotic life arose, or could arise by evolutionary processes (whatever they are), on this thread, and threads back for 15 years. Not ONE of you has said ONE word, not even to repeat back the question. You act like you do not have minds of your own, (or you alone of the human species missed out on the evolved ear) without it being published by one of your heros who do your thinking for you, you do not have a clue, not an idea how such a thing could occur in your materialistic natural order. Such things, and there are thousands of such relationships, not to mention the complexity of all the sub-systems of cells that doom your "explain every bit of data theory," but deny the existence of an organizing principle. Yet even you are damned to call specifically organized cells..."organs." The language itself betrays you.
743 posted on 12/20/2004 11:30:47 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Well there you are, you've got an answer now. Perhaps the difficulty people had was understanding why you had a problem with symbiosis and evolution. That's the question I asked you when you raised the issue before in this thread.


744 posted on 12/20/2004 11:31:46 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
That you are smart, and probably smarter than me, I have no doubt. That you are misguided I also have no doubt. And that IMO is the tragedy of evolutionary theory.

All the brilliant men that have spent countless millions of hours to confirm a theory that is false. It has stifled the life sciences for 100 years. If men would move beyond this flat-earth theory, we could plumb the secrets of life, develop medicines, and diagnostic equipment that would make penicillin and x-rays seem from the dark ages.

If men could at least entertain (even in the name of science) a creator, then they could begin to view the human body as engineered. If engineered, it also has diagnostics built in, as any good engineer would put such into his design, how much more so God? But no, we cannot go there, because of some stupid germ-washing fetish in science of not allowing the mention of the supernatural. Why this would pervert science I do not have a clue, as long as a theory still had to be confirmed by empirical evidence and repeatable experimentation. But without this first cause admitted, men will never look for the engineered qualities of life, just endlessly peering at endless process, endlessly peeved at the non-answers.
745 posted on 12/20/2004 11:42:54 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Nice story if I was 9 or 10. Do YOU actually believe this garbage? Have you read how specific the relationship is in symbiotic relationships? The Yucca moth has the only body shape that fits the Yucca flower. The Yucca flower is shaped only to accept the Yucca moth.

Incremental changes would work, I suppose, but only if synchronized over millions of years between the two species. Each slight change in anticipation of the end result. By definition ToE cannot anticipate anything. To believe ToE can account for symbiotic relationships is to believe beyond what I believe in a Supreme God.

At least I can pin my belief on a somebody...fanciful or not. But ToE is not even a well described system? of forces. And it cannot think nor plan...yet it can order species to appear at a future date in complete symbiosis with each other? Come on Thatcher...think about it!

What do you have to lose to go study about symbiotic life, look into the evolutionist literature, think for yourself. Do a thought experiment for a week, pretend evolution is in question, then examine such things as the cycle of parasites, or symbiotic relationships.

There are even some symbiotic relationships in nature of 3 species, (that I know about) Your eager acceptance of ToE has caused you to loose your questioning ability. You only train it upon any anti-evolutionists, in fairness you ought to be just as ruthless to evolutionary claims, what do you have to fear of finding out? If evolution is TRUE, it will bear any critical assault you can muster.
746 posted on 12/20/2004 11:59:10 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
You asked for an explanation. You got one that seems reasonable to professional biologists even if you don't like it. (though I didn't detect any meaningful objections in your post). So why be abusive?

No anticipation is required by nature; just a succession of slight changes over many generations, perhaps millions, with an increasing reproductive reward for both species in the nascent symbiosis for co-operation the tighter it gets. But nature didn't have to know where things were going. That is how symbiosis evolves. No magic needed. Just differential reproductive success rewarding those individuals best adapted to current circumstances.

The vehemence with which you reject the possibility betrays your fear that it could be true and the fear of what that would mean to your faith, which you have nailed to the falsity of ToE.

747 posted on 12/20/2004 12:18:13 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Show how Popper maintains ToE can be falsified.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_popper.html

Why does all life scream, purpose, goal, design, teleology?

On the contrary, it screams randomness. Why would a designer put a defective copy of a enzyme essential for the biosynthesis of vitamin C in the human genome? Why put defective retroviruses there? Why is our genome a junk heap of non-functional bits of genetic information?

Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based lif

Because, in all the universes where they are not, you aren't around to ask that question.

And spare us the Bible bashing.

748 posted on 12/20/2004 12:37:16 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Nice rant.

Merry Christmas!


749 posted on 12/20/2004 1:19:37 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Jehu said, "I do not have a clue".

Thanks for the honesty.

Merry Christmas.


750 posted on 12/20/2004 1:22:10 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,001-1,048 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