Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

LovingMother · #**271** 24th November 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by David Gould

When I speak with Christians in this area of the board - the science area - I do not mind taking on the assumption that God could have been involved.

I do not wish to challenge anyone's faith here. However, I wish to oppose what I see as the dangers of young earth creationism to science generally. I also recognise the very real dangers that young earth creationism presents to Christianity. While I personally have no stake in Christianity, it is not disengenuous of me to point out those dangers.

I see in this something where an atheist such as me and a Christian such as Mike can come together.

That is very cool. It's refreshing to see some compassion and understanding for others on this board. I'm adding you to my list of favorites right up there with Mike.

bevets · #**272** 24th November 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by bevets

The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

Thus, the Bible is the final authority on God himself...who he is, how we are related to him, what we need to do to get in touch with him. However, we can learn very little about God's creation in that book (thats not its purpose). We can learn far more about creation by examining it directly than from reading it in the Bible.

The fact that Genesis does not give extensive detail, does not preclude the accuracy of the account in the details it does provide.

The fact that an account has theological implications, does not preclude historical accuracy. e.g. the resurrection

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

Why is it important to maintain a consistent hermeneutic? Is this not simply your opinion? We all seek the original intent bevets...not just the literalists.

Originally Posted by bevets

Please explain to me why creation texts should be interpreted metaphorically, but texts on salvation or ethics should be interpreted literally

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

Because God's creation in every single measurable way tells us that the text on creation should be treated metaphorically.

Are you suggesting that EVERY SINGLE measurement points UNAMBIGUOUSLY to evolution? If you are going to rely on the interpretation of evidence which happens to be the consensus of atheists, perhaps you should also consult the atheist consensus on the interpretation of evidence for the resurrection.

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

However, savation and ethics are the whole point of the Bible, correct?

John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Luke 1.1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 26.26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.

1 John 1.1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

What was the purpose of the incarnation? I will submit that one purpose was that by entering the space/time continuum, God was demonstrating his desire to interact meaningfully with us. Does this sound reasonable? Do you suppose that a God who whould personally die on the cross for us, would also personally form Adam from the dust of the ground?

Originally Posted by bevets

I thought you were claiming to know God through nature? Isn't it your position that you understand our Creator (and his creation) better than I do.

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

No its your position that you understand God and creation better than I do. I am explaining my understanding to you, not claiming that I know better than you. Your the one who is saying that I *am* wrong.

It is my opinion that you are wrong. Is it your opinion that my opinion is correct?

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

The Bible is not the last word and final authority on CREATION bevets.

The Bible is the final authority on everything it addresses.
The Bible addresses Creation.
The Bible is the Final authority on Creation.

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

I won't judge you for your beleifs about Genesis bevets. Please stop judging me for mine.

Most people who know me would tell you that I am a friendly person. If we were to meet at a church potluck, I suspect we would go together like peas and carrots. This is not a church potluck. This is a thread entitled 'Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale' When you post messages in support of evolution on this thread, please do not be offended if I challenge those messages.

Pete Harcoff · #**273** 24th November 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by bevets

Are you suggesting that EVERY SINGLE measurement points UNAMBIGUOUSLY to evolution? If you are going to rely on the interpretation of evidence which happens to be the consensus of atheists, perhaps you should also consult the atheist consensus on the interpretation of evidence for the resurrection.

To borrow Arikay's favorite saying around here: Evolution does not equal atheism. And the consensus of atheists is irrelevent with respect to evolution. The consensus of biologists is what counts.

bevets · #**274** 24th November 2003, 01:54 AM

(These are excerpts from a previous discussion. If you would like to read the full discussion, it can be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t71110&page=2)

Originally Posted by JGMEERT

Darwinism, as a topic is rather vague. Can you provide me an outline of your lecture?

Originally Posted by bevets

This should give you a pretty good idea:
http://www.christianforums.com/t68408&page=1

Originally Posted by JGMEERT

Hmm, I saw a lot of name calling, broad brush generalizations and some poor spelling. I don't know how valuable that would be in a college lecture setting. Let me know if you have any substance you'd like to talk about.

Originally Posted by JGMEERT

I'm asking you to provide an substantive outline of your lecture. Instead you point me to a thread where you equate evolution to atheism, you engage in unecessary personal attacks and provide no substance for your points.

Originally Posted by bevets

I have given a detailed outline of my view on my web page and on the thread that I linked to. I am still waiting for a substantive argument from you against any point Ive made (and I suspect it will be a LONG wait...)

If you think of something, please post it on my thread.

Originally Posted by Cantuar

Wow, Joe, a whole lecture of misquotes from scientists. Your students are such lucky people to have that to look forward to.

Originally Posted by JGMEERT

Yes, I can do that too:

(http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/quotes.html)

Anyway, they both would make a really boring lecture.

Allow me to take you under my tutelage:

When I request a substantive response, I am expecting you to cite a specific point I have made. You should then make comments that directly address the point you are contesting.

If you intend to impeach my character, please cite a specific example of my error and then explain why this flaw detracts from the veracity of the position I hold.

If you intend to dispute the accuracy of my quotes, please cite the specific quote and then offer evidence or commentary to explain why the quote is inaccurate or misleading.

As for the accuracy of the quotes you presented, you can find my response here:
http://bevets.com/misquotes.htm

JGMEERT · #**275** 24th November 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by bevets

(These are excerpts from a previous discussion. If you would like to read the full discussion, it can be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t71110&page=2)

Allow me to take you under my tutelage:

JM: If you had anything to 'toot', it might be worthwhile. Let's see where you end up.

When I request a substantive response, I am expecting you to cite a specific point I have made.

JM: Umm, you wanted to come and lecture in my class. I don't need to provide any 'substantive' response other than to ask you for a detailed outline of what you wanted to cover. You linked to a series of misquotes which would make a tremendously boring lecture. I provided my own set of misquotes, that you laughingly took the time to check up on. I would guess you are sarcastically impaired since the entire point of posting those was to show how quotes can be twisted to mean the opposite of what the author intended. I suggest you apply the same rigor to the many misquotes you linked to. In the meantime, should you honestly desire to lecture my class, the invitation stands providing you give me a detailed outline of your lecture points. .

Cheers

Joe Meert

myutmost4him · #**276** 24th November 2003, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by David Gould

I agree. Proof that it can isn't proof that it did. But the thing is that even if life did start without intelligent intervention that still does not disprove God. Science and faith are two separate things - unless you insist on tieing them together, always bad theology.

The big difference between the approach of the creationalist and evolutionist is we admit our faith...evolution requires faith but this fact is hidden by the "science method". The problem is that evolution is a theory which requires so much faith to even get started it's absurd, but instead of dealing truthfully with this we usually get pushed ahead to scientific interpretations of biologic charactoristics. Basically, this + became T which then became Y which became V. I guess the + evolved into the V given 900,000,000 years give or take.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! Morris

David Gould · #**277** 24th November 2003, 02:51 AM

This is the problem with the above calculation: it completely ignores how evolution actually works and tears proper statistical analysis into pieces.

Let us look at it this way: imagine just one type of living thing on the earth.

Imagine that the chances of it mutating in a good way are one in a billion.

Then imagine that there are five billion of them.

They all mutate.

Maybe five mutate in a good way.

The rest die off.

These five (and this is the crucial part which Morris completely ignores) replicate.

After a little while, there are five billion organisms again.

Then they mutate.

Repeat ....

You see, Morris has chosen to treat it like a series where 1 being mutates continuously. But that is not the case. Replication means that each event has to be treated independantly. Elementary statistical theory should have shown him that ...

David Gould · #**278** 24th November 2003, 02:55 AM

I should also point out that the above is a tremendous simplification of evolution and ignores many things. But it suffices (I hope) to demonstrate that the statistics put forward by Morris are dud ones.

myutmost4him · #**279** 24th November 2003, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

Of course you realize that Mr. Orgel supports the theory of evolution in his research. Are you saying that you agree with him in that respect? He is referring to the formation of RNA in the above quote. So now you are talking about abiogenesis. This question remains an open one (although I may not be up to date on this research).

Notice how in your quote it says 'at first glance'? Here's the conclusion to this little bit:

Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic system, its development was probably the watershed event in the development of life. It very likely led to the synthesis of proteins, the formation of DNA and the emergence of a cell that became life's last common ancestor. The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future. Nevertheless, as chemists, biochemists and molecular biologists cooperate on ever more ingenious experiments, they are sure to fill in many missing parts of the puzzle. Leslie E. Orgel

First of all I know Orgel supports evolution still...faith dies hard, but that's why I used his quote. See the problem with RNA over and above those stated by Orgel himself.

The first problem involved in the origin of these large complex molecules is the fact that there is a thermodynamic barrier to their spontaneous synthesis by chemical and physical processes. The formation of the chemical bonds between amino acids to form proteins; or between sugars, phosphoric acid, and the purines and pyrimidines to form nucleotides; and between the nucleotides to form DNA and RNA, requires an input of energy. Rupture of any of these bonds, on the other hand, releases energy. What happens naturally and spontaneously, therefore, is not the formation of these compounds, but their destruction. Automobiles do not spontaneously run uphill, they spontaneously run downhill. To drive an automobile uphill requires the expenditure of energy, and specific means must be used to utilize that energy, namely a complex engine and drive train. As long as this mechanism is operating, the automobile can be driven uphill, but if the motor stalls, or the automobile runs out of gas, it promptly runs back down to the bottom of the hill. So it would have been with these complex molecules. Only what could have happened naturally and spontaneously would have happened on the primordial earth. Proteins and DNA and RNA do not form naturally and spontaneously, but if they do exist, they spontaneously disintegrate. How then could they ever have formed on the hypothetical primitive earth by natural processes? Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

As I have said, just because we are able to comprehend the mechanisms God has used to form life, doesn't make it any less miraculous. We are free to examine and understand God's creation...I see it as a gift. It is not surprising that we don't see God in the process. If we did it would contravene the free nature of faith. In the mean time, there is no point in disaproving of evolution if God has chosen to form life with such things. We shouldn't let narrow-mindedness blind us to possible truths.

As I stated earlier, I don't care if God used evolution or not, my faith isn't based upon this topic at all, I just don't see the standards of science being applied by many of the scientists claiming to uphold them. Evolution requires extrodinary faith which is fueled by interpretations and conclusions which contradict highly accepted Laws of Nature and common sense. I believed in evolution before becoming a Christian as well most of my Christian life. I didn't have any problem with that until I started to look closer at evolution's evidence, up until then I just accepted it as most others. We accept it because it's taught as fact and nobody questions it. If God used evolution fine, He's God and can do whatever He wants, but His systems always work together and don't contradict themselves.

myutmost4him · #**280** 24th November 2003, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by David Gould

This is the problem with the above calculation: it completely ignores how evolution actually works and tears proper statistical analysis into pieces.

Let us look at it this way: imagine just one type of living thing on the earth.

Imagine that the chances of it mutating in a good way are one in a billion.

Then imagine that there are five billion of them.

They all mutate.

Maybe five mutate in a good way.

The rest die off.

These five (and this is the crucial part which Morris completely ignores) replicate.

After a little while, there are five billion organisms again.

Then they mutate.

Repeat ....

If the above doen't require faith then I don't know what does? Read what you just wrote. This is what I'm saying about how the evolution argument starts...we start with 5 billion organisms...ok let's start with 5 billion...they all mutate...maybe 5 mutate in a good way(sounds like sound scientific method) the rest die off... well I guess they would, they were strong enough to live at one time but now they must all die off I guess. Then the five lone survivors have to replicate. Hopefully they are able to replicate, Hopefully the mutation replicates with them, hopefully there is nothing that adversly affects them in their environment, hopefully the mutation proves to be a truely helpful one and not one that would end up doing more harm in the future than good. Then they reach 5 billion again and do it all again.

I wouldn't bet my almost worthless american equity mutual funds on this one. We are talking about some major hypotheticals here.

I should also point out that the above is a tremendous simplification of evolution and ignores many things. But it suffices (I hope) to demonstrate that the statistics put forward by Morris are dud ones.

You mean it's more compex than this? Does that increase the odds or decrease?