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 ...
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.
B: LOL. I wasn't trying to use HTML. But on other forums I've used angle brackets to highlite certain things. Here they get interpreted as HTML, not in most other forums.
Every human being filters through his bias.
B: Except that science over time removes bias because theories have to make predictions regarding nature which are either confimed or denied.
The problem with evolutionists and a related species...(possibly from alleles) liberal journalists.
B: Ever notice how the religious nutters blame everybody for their problems except themselves.
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.
B: In science, nature is the objective standard. If you ahve a problem with that, find another universe.
Yet they somehow fail to recognize that scientists hold to their theories even in error, until overwhelmed with contrary evidence.
B: Sometimes thats true. But here you offer good evidence for science in action. Eventually theories not borne out by the data are discarded. Religious beliefs usually require wars for that to happen, if ever.
Do you know what was the prevailing theory before plate tectonics?
B: Uniformitarianism. Although PT is in itself consistent with uniformitarianism.
Do you know what scientists did to the first that were pointing to continental drift?
B: Wegner made a lot of mistakes. His claim that the continents moved due to the Eotvos effect is as patently absurd today as it was 80 years a go. Wegner also made a lot of key observations. Wegenr also had prominent allies, like Sir Arthur Holmes and James Dutoit. Holmes was the greatest geologist of the 20th century. But indeed, continental drift was hotly debated. I should point out that Plate Tectonics draws from Holme's ideas, such as subduction and mantle convection, not Wegner's.
That germ theory was welcomed with open arms. Not to mention quantum theory.
B: The British termed it " German Physics". Of course then they realized it gave the right answres in experiments.
Or dozens of scientific theories that were debunked, sometimes men destroyed, emotionally, financially, for going contrary to you pristine, holy defenders of truth.
B: Science isn't for that faint of heart or cowards. Perhaps its not for everyone.
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.
B: When Einstein formulated General Relativity, there was no evidence that the universe was anything but static. But his equations predicted the Universe could not be static. Hence he added in the cosmologocial constant. When Hubble later found that the universe was indeed not static, Einstein called his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life. As it turns out, the cosmological constatn has made a come back, but for different reasons.
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.
B: Thats right. Except that evolutionists have made any blunders of that magnitude.
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.
B: The first geologists and evolutionists were all Christian scientists.
B: perhaps you should write a book; "Idiots guide to the history of science"
Not the scientists. Just the kooks. If you want to talk biological science and why it substantiates evolution, let me know.
Let's try to stick to the subject.
Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.
(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.
Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.
(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.
Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.
(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.
It gets to the point where it just becomes a waste of time.
My vehemence in rejecting this is because of the almost stupefying acceptance you and other evolutionist have that blind chance could evolve such interlocking systems which are far more complex than any computer chip yet designed and manufactured by man. I know since I have designed a few myself.
B: Well then, you're behind the times. I pity the company you work for. Because things like electrical circuits are now being designed by "Genetic Algorithms" which are mathematical algorithms which mimic Darwinian evolution. In fact Genetic Algorithms such as the Monte Carlo Method have been a staple of mathematicians and engineers for decades. I suggest you consider retirement, and let a younger generation of engineers who know what they are doing have a crack at it.
You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself, or even worse, that the addition of complex interactions of biological materials, somehow gives them the ability to produce even more complexity.
B: THat biological materials have complex properties and interactions is a fact of nature. Again, here we have a creationists that is at war with reality.
And this all the way up to the human brain, the most complex thing we know about in the natural universe. Where does it ever end?
B: Beats me.
Someday this theory will produce an all knowing God that will punish evolutionists for never believing in Him in the first place. And you would have no problem with THAT god, cause your EVERYTHING that has ever happened MUST have happened via evolution theory is set like concrete in your minds.
B: Ah yes, when all else fails, and the creationist runs out of arguments, he threatens the opposition with hell. That sums up creationism folks..
"In science NATURE is the objective standard."
Then how come evolutionists don't believe what "NATURE," tells them in the fossil record in no uncertain terms? Species appear in-toto! No transition, no slow gradual changes, zip, nadda. Get back to me on that one, O priest of science.
B: Because speciation is a process which occurs on time scales to short to be geenrally well represented in the fossil record. Speciation is an observed process; whether we see species to species transitions in the fossil record is irrelevant. But the fact is we do. They are not common; but so what?
Why not read what Gould had to say about it:
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 transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and continiuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.
The vitamin C mutation is shared by the great apes. If you deny evolution, you are faced with the implausible coincidence that chimpanzees, gorillas and humans suffered exact the same mutation in exactly the same gene at exactly the same place.
I don't know everything, but I do know that if three similar species had exactly the same mutation in the same place in their genomes, odds are it was one mutation in a common ancestor of all three.
Danger Will Robinson, Tautology alert, tautology alert!
Not at all. if you ask me the probability that you exist, i say it's 1.0; because, after all, you do.
You should take up bridge. In bridge, even if only a miracle lie of the cards can let you win the hand, you play that lie, because after all, what's the point in losing by the most probable method? Likewise, all your probability calculations have to, in the end, consider the fact that you do in fact exist.
In that book you love to cite it tells you not to tell fibs. The fossil record is full of transitional forms. You know that.
"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? "
Tell me how it has no purpose if you are ever stalked by a Lion.
B: I don't see how a broken down gene which was essential for vitamin c production in our prosimian ancestors serves much purpose when you're being chased by a Lion. Then again, I'm not a creationist.
We know genes suffer mutation from cosmic radiation alone over time, (among other reasons) another argument against evolution, thanks for reminding me. Most mutations are deleterious to the organism, if not all.
B: Like much of the stuff you write, this is wrong. Most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness. And thanks to the redundancy of the genetic code, many mutations have no effect whatsoever.
e just found the DNA "code" (who is the code maker?) in 1952, and you already know everything about it?
B: An appeal to incredulity is not a scientific argument. We don't have to know everything about DNA in order to know some of it is junk. Two logical fallacies in one sentence. Not bad.
Including what is junk or not?
B: That junk DNA exists is not in dispute by anybody with half a brain. There is a species of newt with 10x the DNA humans have. Do you not think most of that is junk? Especially when closely related species to that newt have much less DNA? Buy a clue.
This is what happens when you sip at the cup of Darwin, pretty soon you are drunk on an arrogance and assumption that you know it all.
B: UM no. Your remarks are what happens when sombody uncritically sips the bilge stored in creationist garbage cans. You haven't written one thing thats correct. Not one thing.
So what role does intracellular communication play in the end form of the organism? You must know. If the entire blueprint of the organism is within the DNA...what tells the DNA what genes are expressed at what time, in what sequence?
B: Thats a good question. We know that there exists a whole suite of regulatory genes which regulate biochemical signals which in turn set off a cacade of activity. There are master control genes like PAX-6 which control the development of eyes. THis is all well and good stuff, but has no bearing on junk DNA. Your question is a non-sequiter and another attmept to argue by personal incredulity.
Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based life
B: Given ours is the only planet in the solar system known to contain life, I suggest that if you call that fine tuning, I hate to see what bad tuning is.
"Because, in all the universes where they are not, you aren't around to ask that question."
Danger Will Robinson, Tautology alert, tautology alert!
B: The crux of the matter is, is that any universe capable of supporting human life must have certain characteristics whether it is designed or not. Hence, we cannot use the fact that we exist in a universe capable of supporting us to suggest that in turn the universe is designed. Designed or not designed, those characteristics which allow carbon base life to exist must be present. Furthermore, there is no evidence that our Universe is the only one capable of supporting carbon based life, much less the best tunned universe possible for carbon based life. Ergo, your argument is circular --- The Universe is desinged because we exist. We exist because the universe is designed.---
Its the old "heads I win, tails you lose" style of argument creationists practice all to well.
I've already given you a perfectly reasonable explanation of symbiosis that you give no reason for rejecting other than that it upsets your religious pre-dispositions. No doubt next year you'll still be saying that no-one has ever explained symbiosis to you from the POV of ToE.
You continue to shout that no transitional forms exist in the fossil record despite having been shown references to numerous TFs. Amusingly you attack Arch'rix as a TF on the grounds that some biologists think it is a bird and others think it is a reptile. Difficulty in classification is exactly what one would expect with a TF; like the ape skulls that scientists think are TFs while creationists all give them different human/not-human classifications. (the creationist credo being that no ape skull can be difficult to classify, difficulty in classification is a defining characteristic of transition)
What is your problem with the other phenomena that you mention? Let us imagine the highly intelligent being from the planet "designia" who has never heard of or seen evolution, and tell him how it works by fixing tiny alterations that improve fitness in the gene pool while rejecting tiny alterations that are deletrious and allowing drift through tiny alterations that are neutral. I would expect that creature after some long thought to predict that mimicry and symbiosis, parasites and mitosis would occur.
Curiously the things you see as an argument for design I see as an argument against design. Why would a designer make a stick insect good at mimicry while its predators are good at discernment? The ToE explains this as an arms race between the species. A designer would just make the insect less good at mimicry and the predators less discerning. There's no need to make them good at it. Nature is over-designed from the POV of an aware designer.
But nature is rather poorly designed as well as overdesigned from the POV of an aware designer. Obvious improvements can be suggested for (eg) the human body but evolution has not found these because no evolutionary intermediates on the pathway to the improvement that aren't deletrious exist. This wouldn't be a difficulty for your designer though so why don't our bodies work in a more sensible way to achieve their effect with less complexity and innefficiency?
You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself
No, you are the one who wants to believe in supernatural intervention, not me. The whole point of ToE is that it says there isn't any pixy dust (as I think you know which begs the question why do you word your attack that way). As you have said most mutations or miscopyings aren't beneficial, but natural selection works to select for those which are beneficial (however rare they are) and to select against those which are deletrious (however common they are). You never talk about natural selection do you? The real way in which competing phenotypes select for the continuation of the genotype that caused them. You characterize the whole process as random without acknowledging that nature is a selection engine forever culling the less fit and promoting the reproductive prospects of the more fit.(fit being a value-free term in this instance)
Why don't you find out EXACTLY the complexities of any symbiotic relationship
It wasn't that complex all the way back. It got that way through many generations of gradually increasing co-operation as the increased symbiosis improved the reproductive chances of individuals in both species.
What they mean when they say they have never seen a transitional is no one can "prove" to them that this is the node of the branch.
They, as usual, refuse to infer that there was a more transitional form slightly prior to the one we find.
It is the same as saying no one has ever observed speciation or that microevolution and macroevolution are the same underlying process. They won't admit that the difference between species is so slight as to be undifferentiable to the layman. If you can get through this barrier, their argument reverts to macroevolution is different than micro because there is no explanation of how one mammal is a cow and another is a horse.
Of course the explanation is there for anyone to see, but
there are none so blind as those that will not see.
We infer nothing unfound or unfounded. That's the point.
I will take on an "unprovable" premise if Scripture demands it and I admit it. TOE demands the acceptance of certain premises without any divine involvement. Who is more gullible?
Evolution is a weak theory that I don't believe in. I KNOW G-d exists.
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.