Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Slam Dunk Creationists on Evolution
RealClearScience ^ | August 3, 2017 | Paul Braterman

Posted on 08/06/2017 9:38:48 AM PDT by EveningStar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: blackpacific
"Give a single example. Then we can talk."

Well more than just one...

Basic evolution: a small number of more or less "random" DNA mutations are observed in every offspring of every species.
Most are harmless and serve really only to help us track our ancestry through passed-down harmless mutations.
Of those which have some affect, most are harmful and often get acted on by natural selection.
But a very small percentage can be helpful and those can accumulate over many generations leading to speciation.
That's evolution in a nutshell.

So speciation can be observed at every step of the way, from simple short-term adaptations which create, for example, new breeds & varieties, to much more significant & long-term changes creating sub-species, species & even genera.
An example of one mankind forced & witnessed from the beginning, is the creation of dogs as a species separate from wolves.
Another example illustrating degrees of biological separation are polar bears & brown bears, once classified as separate genera in the Ursidae family, now discovered to be simply two species in the genus Ursus.

Point is: evidence clearly shows increasing degrees of biological separation -- evolution -- on a continuum from mere breeds through species, genera, family, class etc.
And fossil records reveal these degrees of separation take longer times (millions of years) the greater the separations.

So mankind has been around just long enough to create a separate species from wolves, dogs, but not yet long enough to have witnessed, say, the separation of Indian elephants as a distinct genus from African elephants.

However, evidence of it is all around us, from the fossil record to comparisons of their DNAs.

Is that a good enough start for you?

81 posted on 08/12/2017 9:10:54 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Gravity is not a theory, the explanation of gravity
is a theory or maybe not even that, we’ll have to
wait and see.

It does appear to be the law however, at least around here.


82 posted on 08/12/2017 9:17:49 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tet68

And personally I’ve been very diligent in abiding by the law of gravity, making allowances for it in everything I do.

On the other hand, I mostly ignore the theory of evolution.


83 posted on 08/12/2017 11:36:16 AM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

No, adaptation within species is an argument by association. Which is the weakest form of argument.

The ability of a computer program to adapt to differing conditions and random inputs also has to be programmed in.

When moderns look at the fossil record they assume that similarities between species implies that evolution was the cause.

But see, now we are getting glimpses into the complexity of the genome, which is complex beyond all imagining. No serious mind can look at the human genome or bovine genome and walk away from that knowledge thinking that any of it arose from inorganic chemistry and random unguided processes.

Charles Darwin was an ignorant fool, and those who continue his stupid legacy do so in the face of mountains of information theory that have come to light in the last 100 years.

I know my first parents by name. That little rib thingy that God took from Adam to make Eve, what do you think it was? I’ll tell you, it was an X chromosome. Moses was shown it, had to write about it in language that mankind would comprehend, knowing that we would not see it for thousands of years.

Here is a prediction of mine. As scientists continue to crawl over the human genome they will find a counter that increments by one every time a generation has occurred. When that happens, each person will be able to have their DNA examined, telling them how many generations have passed up until now. That number will not correspond to millions and millions of generations.


84 posted on 08/12/2017 1:49:31 PM PDT by blackpacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific
blackpacific: "No, adaptation within species is an argument by association.
Which is the weakest form of argument."

OK, so I "get" that you took Philosophy 101 and now consider yourself a licensed master of philosophical insults, such as "argument by association... the weakest..."
In fact, my example of creating the new species of dogs from wolves has nothing to do with "association", but rather observed fact, we know for certain it happened.
And that helps confirm the theory of how these things work, evolution theory.

blackpacific: "No serious mind can look at the human genome or bovine genome and walk away from that knowledge thinking that any of it arose from inorganic chemistry and random unguided processes."

Well, organic chemistry, of course.
As for "guided", if you put raw materials in a chemical reaction chamber, and use it to create new compounds, is that not "guided"?
So, if God puts His raw materials into His reaction chamber (Earth) and creates new living organisms, using evolution among other processes, is that not also "guided"?

blackpacific: "Charles Darwin was an ignorant fool, and those who continue his stupid legacy do so in the face of mountains of information theory that have come to light in the last 100 years."

And they taught you this form of argumentation in that same Philosophy 101 class??
In my classes, they called that a false argument, ad hominem and factually in error.

blackpacific: "As scientists continue to crawl over the human genome they will find a counter that increments by one every time a generation has occurred."

I think there are already many such "counters", in the form of more-or-less random mutations in non-coding DNA which allow us to trace our ancestries back through history and pre-history.
And there are also coding-DNA mutations which can be seen in other species and so allow us tell how closely or distantly various species are related to each other.

blackpacific: "That number will not correspond to millions and millions of generations."

I'd not be surprised if that's true of some "counters", but not of others.

85 posted on 08/13/2017 3:10:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Wolves and dogs are the same species. So after numerous tries you have not produced a single example of one species “evolving” into another. Adaptation within a species is what you have showcased.

Darwin's arguments by similarity rely upon ignorance of what is going on at the cellular and molecular levels. Those who continue to promote his ignorant ideas are stupid, and having a Darwinian world view retards the development of true science.

My organic chemistry teacher noted that the production of human growth hormone in the lab takes about 11,000 carefully controlled reactions to produce outside the cell. Which is both a testament to the gift of reason and the awesome majesty of our Creator.

86 posted on 08/13/2017 7:31:28 AM PDT by blackpacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific
blackpacific: "Wolves and dogs are the same species. "

Factually, they are not the same species, you can look it up.

blackpacific: "So after numerous tries you have not produced a single example of one species “evolving” into another.
Adaptation within a species is what you have showcased."

I've mentioned dogs & elephants, but could mention any number of others.
For example, domestic cattle are no longer the same species as the Aurochs from which they descended.
Domestic cats are no longer the same species as wild cats they descended from.
Domestic pigs are not a separate species, but are a different sub-species from wild pigs.

The key point here is that evolution happens relatively slowly and continuously, such that great differences between species take longer times.
As a result, measuring the amount of difference between any two species gives us clues as to their most recent common ancestors.

"Darwin's arguments by similarity rely upon ignorance of what is going on at the cellular and molecular levels.
Those who continue to promote his ignorant ideas are stupid, and having a Darwinian world view retards the development of true science."

If I had taken your philosophy 101 course, where your instructor taught you to argue by insult, I'd demand my money back.
You were clearly defrauded in that class.

As for your claim, "development of true science", it's a fact that US courts have consistently ruled that anti-scientists are not permitted to call your own fake-science "true" or re-define real science to suit your own non-science beliefs.

blackpacific: "...organic chemistry ...11,000 carefully controlled reactions to produce outside the cell.
Which is both a testament to the gift of reason and the awesome majesty of our Creator."

Right, the Earth is one of God's chemical reaction chambers.
He designed, intended & made it to produce what we see:

Immortal, Invisible

87 posted on 08/13/2017 9:32:02 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Your arguments continue to be circular, assuming what it is you must prove. I have stated numerous times that similarities between species is no argument for evolution of species. As they say in statistics correlation is not causation.

My eyes are always open to the truth, no matter where it may be found, but there simply is no evidence that the order we see around us comes from chaos or that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can ever be violated.

Scientific knowledge is to be found in many differing disciplines.
Drinking the Kool-Aid of the evolutionary world view is not a prerequisite for the true scientist, but it is in the minds of many who perhaps are motivated by their desire for research funding.

You continue to lay down the “philosophy 101” insult, but it is an insult without merit. I think it was a beauty for you to insist that your world view constitutes science while those who disagree with you are un-scientific. I’m glad the US court system has sided with the evolutionists like yourself, after all they were the same entity who decided that slaves were property and that innocent little babies can be ripped from their mothers’ womb piece by piece, regardless of their age or viability.

God does not need evolutionary processes to create, but godless men do need a system that can explain the origins of living creatures without a Creator.

Of course, every one of us must die, for at least from the fossil record we are pretty sure that not a single human body has ever exhibited the trait of immortality (although with evolution anything is possible?). Oh, if you believe in the Bible then maybe we can make an exception for Enoch and Elias, and Jesus for that matter. Nevertheless, every human being will have to render an account before the judgement seat of Christ. What will He do with our vain theories/conjectures about the origins of life that seem to be constructed to leave the Maker out of the picture? “He came into the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” Do you think that He will be giving out atta-boys for the minds who have foisted these unscientific hoaxes upon the rest of mankind so as to sever them from their true End?


88 posted on 08/14/2017 10:27:15 PM PDT by blackpacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific
blackpacific: "Your arguments continue to be circular, assuming what it is you must prove.
I have stated numerous times that similarities between species is no argument for evolution of species.
As they say in statistics correlation is not causation."

No, it's you who assume that evolution theory cannot, must not under any circumstances be valid and so you cherry-pick data to support your assumptions.
By contrast, I only assume what science itself assumes in these matters, assumptions such as:

  1. Only natural explanations for natural processes.
  2. Processes we see today operated the same in deep-time.
  3. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation which fits all the data is best.

Given those assumptions, basic evolution theory is the only one which works, namely: speciation from 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

blackpacific: "My eyes are always open to the truth, no matter where it may be found, but there simply is no evidence that the order we see around us comes from chaos or that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can ever be violated."

Sure, I "get" that you people put a lot of faith, a near religious faith, in the Power of the Second Law to defy any & all confirmed evidence of evolution.
You use that Second Law the way, oh, say, a fictional Harry Potter uses his magic wand to wave at things and force them to obey his commands.

But like all magic, the Second Law's power over material evidence is illusory when you misunderstand it and misapply it.
In this case, the Second Law does not prevent "complexification" inside a human made chemical reaction chamber, and neither does it prevent similar "complexifications" in God's reaction chamber, the Earth.

blackpacific: "Scientific knowledge is to be found in many differing disciplines.
Drinking the Kool-Aid of the evolutionary world view is not a prerequisite for the true scientist..."

Not "Kool-Aid", but evolution theory is essential to many scientific fields, from A (astronomy) to Z (zoology).
You won't find work in those fields if you reject it's basic ideas.

blackpacific: "You continue to lay down the “philosophy 101” insult, but it is an insult without merit.
I think it was a beauty for you to insist that your world view constitutes science while those who disagree with you are un-scientific.
I’m glad the US court system has sided with the evolutionists like yourself, after all they were the same entity who decided that... "

First, I have not insulted you, only told the truth.
By contrast, you have gratuitously insulted both me and science in general, several times.

Here's the truth of this matter: by law, anti-scientists like yourself have no authority -- none, zero, nada authority -- to say what is or is not science or to redefine science to suit your anti-science beliefs.

Legally, only scientists themselves get to say what is, or is not, real science.
Think of it this way: scientists own the copyright or patent on definitions of the word "science", you don't.

blackpacific: "God does not need evolutionary processes to create, but godless men do need a system that can explain the origins of living creatures without a Creator."

Neither you nor I nor anybody else knows what God "needs" or doesn't "need", but it does appear that He left us many clues to how He worked some miracles.
Those clues suggest the Earth's old age and evolutionary processes.

But natural-science by definition assumes what I listed above, including: only natural explanations for natural processes.
By assumption and intention, science does not ever touch on the super-natural, leaving all that to other fields of knowledge, such as theology.

blackpacific: "Do you think that He will be giving out atta-boys for the minds who have foisted these unscientific hoaxes upon the rest of mankind so as to sever them from their true End?"

Yes, by definition, only explanations which leave out the super-natural can be called "scientific".
As soon as you bring in the super-natural, you've left the realm of natural-science and entered a different classification of knowledge, possibly theology or metaphysics.

As for God's "atta boys", my church teaches those are reserved for people who accept Christ as our savior, regardless of our opinions on various scientific or political controversies.

You disagree?

89 posted on 08/15/2017 12:08:22 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Scientific knowledge and natural science are as genus to species. Yet the moderns think that natural science rules. For those who are educated, philosophy, which is the love of wisdom, is the highest science which human reason can attain. Theology can be divided into natural theology, which is the theology we can attain by the light of our natural reason, and sacred theology, which is based upon divinely revealed propositions. Philosophy is the hand maid of theology, as theology treats of the highest object, which is God. Anyone with a rudimentary foundation in the liberal arts would know these hierarchies of knowledge.

The study of nature has blossomed in the last few hundred years primarily due to the emphasis on measurement and the knowledge gleaned from these data. There have also been some truly remarkable explosions in mathematics in conjunction with these careful observations that have propelled us to where we are today.

But the stupid evolutionary world view invented by Darwin, and propagated by willful men, has masqueraded as scientific dogma. And those who poke fun at it get treated rudely, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

Here is something for you to ponder. The first principles of any science are known by intuition, not by demonstration. Do you have any idea why?

The point I was making earlier is that the evolutionary world view leads mens souls away from God. Those who promote it participate in the apostasy and scandal. If you do not see this I cannot help you ( I cannot “see” for you).


90 posted on 08/17/2017 9:01:09 PM PDT by blackpacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific
blackpacific: "Scientific knowledge and natural science are as genus to species.
Yet the moderns think that natural science rules. "

It's true, by definition of "science" it comes from Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge", any knowledge including knowledge of magic or supernatural processes, not just the natural or material realm.
For centuries, studies & knowledge of nature were called "natural-philosophy", as in the time of our Founding Fathers.
But even in their time the word "science" meant pretty much what it does today: natural science, as in the US Constitution:

There's no possibility that our Founders intended the word "science" to include anything other than natural-science.

Of course we do recognize other forms of science -- social-science, political-science, formal science (math), applied science (i.e., engineering, medicine), economic science, etc.
Some of these (i.e., poli-sci) are questionable as to whether they really are science or just hokum.

But I've never seen words like theological-science or religious-science, or supernatural-science -- those terms just don't fit a word intended since the time of our Founders for the natural/material realm.
They are not appropriate.

Indeed, any attempt to combine something supernatural with the word "science" would likely fall into categories like: fake-science, pseudoscience, fringe science, junk science, or my favorite: "cargo-cult science".

blackpacific: "Anyone with a rudimentary foundation in the liberal arts would know these hierarchies of knowledge."

Right.

blackpacific: "But the stupid evolutionary world view invented by Darwin, and propagated by willful men, has masqueraded as scientific dogma.
And those who poke fun at it get treated rudely, as you have so aptly demonstrated."

Noooooo. Are you telling me that those who treat science rudely are sometimes themselves treated rudely??
I don't believe it, whoever would do such a thing?

As for "scientific dogma" that's just your anti-scientific opinion showing.
You don't like it so you say bad things about it.

blackpacific: "The point I was making earlier is that the evolutionary world view leads mens souls away from God.
Those who promote it participate in the apostasy and scandal.
If you do not see this I cannot help you ( I cannot “see” for you)."

Apostasy??
But nowhere in the Bible or any Confession of Faith I've ever seen is evolution theory even mentioned, much less declared a matter of essential belief.
Of course, in your church it may be different, but in most churches believers are delighted to learn that God left us amazing clues as to how He accomplished His greatest miracles.
And I don't think Christ will disown us for recognizing that.

You do?



91 posted on 08/19/2017 10:23:03 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson