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.

[Thatcherite]

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.

[derheimwill]

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.

[Jehu]

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!

[Jehu]

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,

[Jehu]

Heheheheh

You guys are sooooo clever, has anyone told you?

[Jehu]

Prove IT! My placemarker.

[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.

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.

[bigdakine]

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.

[bigdakine]

"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.

[Thatcherite]

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?

[Thatcherite]

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.

[bigdakine]

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.

[Jehu]

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.

[Thatcherite]

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)

[Jehu]

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.

[Thatcherite]

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?

[Thatcherite]

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.

[Jehu]

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.

[Jehu]

"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.

[Jehu]

"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.