Why I do not accept evolution part one

[coffee4u]

Unfortunately, the order in the Bible doesn't work either, regardless of whether you go with the Gen 1 or Gen 2 account.

In the Genesis 1, the order is:

1. Plants on earth (Gen 1:11-12)
2. Animals in the water and birds (Gen 1:20-21)
3. Land animals (Gen 1:24-25)
4. Humans (Gen 1:26-27)

In Genesis 2, the order is:

1. Humans (Gen 2:7)
2. Plants on Earth (Gen 2:8-9)
3. Animals (all from the ground, none from the water this time) and birds (Gen 2:19)

According to science, the order was probably (very simplified):

1. Life formed in the oceans
2. Plants appeared on land
3. Insects appeared on land
4. Amphibians, reptiles and other land vertebrates appear at various times
5. Some mammals return to an aquatic environment to eventually become whales
6. Humans.

You can find a more detailed timeline of the development of life HERE. As you can see, neither of the accounts in the Bible matches what happened.

Genesis 1 tells us how God created the entire world.
Genesis 2 talks about how God made the garden of Eden and is also a recap.

In Genesis 1 it talks about trees and uncultivated plants covering the earth like forests. In Genesis 2 the word for plants here uses a different Hebrew word.
Siah and ē'seb, which are specifically describing the lack of cultivated crops grown for humans to eat.
A better understanding would be
5 Now no shrub (crop) had yet appeared on the earth and no plant (cultivated field) had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. These plants required the ground to be worked unlike the other wild plants.

God makes Adam from the ground outside of the garden of Eden, in this wilderness.
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

He then moves him to the garden of Eden.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Then moves onto a small recap.
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
Then brings them to be named. he wasn't making them then, they had been created before man outside in the wilderness.
He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

 

[Shemjaza]

That was Hoyle's characterization- I don't go that far. As above, I think Darwinian evolution is an entirely intuitive, elegant, logical and beautiful theory- just as classical/ Newtonian physics was.
The problem being that nature doesn't comply with our 'Occam's Razor' sensibilities!

How so?

Is there an explanation with less additional elements needed?

Because the addition of an intelligence that doesn't match the behavior or nature of known intelligences and uses undefined or undefinable techniques to build/modify life in undefinable ways doesn't sound like something that satisfies Occam's Razor on any level.

If you dig up the Rosetta Stone- what evidence leads you to the conclusion of ID?

i.e. creative intelligence has entirely objective fingerprints that can be observed and established- as used by archaeologists and forensic scientists.

The Rosetta Stone shows working consistent with human tools with content known to be human languages.

The fracture marks on a glacier are incredibly complicated... but we don't assume it's secretly the translation guide to two alien languages.

I agree:'scientists can stray from science' and so there's the crucial distinction between 'science' the method and 'science' the academic opinion- which have often been diametrically opposed historically.

'science progresses one funeral at a time': Max Planck- meaning that scientists generally don't accept 'shocking/different' conclusions than they are comfortable with- you have have to wait a generation for new scientists to be open to them

Some, certainly. But the evidence was still sound. Something ID has not been able to present.

in a limited capacity- as above- randomly mutating the text parameters here can create interesting new combinations - because the system is specifically designed to allow for this capacity for variation

Randomly mutating the operating system will crash it- because is not. i,e, random variation is a specifically supported design feature, not a comprehensive design mechanism.

You are assuming your conclusion.

The entire system of genetics can vary. Obviously some variations are fatal, but you have not described how the barrier between allowed and not allowed variation works.

 

[coffee4u]

@coffee4u,
Do you also know how the camel got its hump?

Yes God gave it one.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes God gave it one.

Yes, but how?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes God gave it one.

Can it give me one too?

 

[Tinker Grey]

 

[Kylie]

Genesis 1 tells us how God created the entire world.
Genesis 2 talks about how God made the garden of Eden and is also a recap.

In Genesis 1 it talks about trees and uncultivated plants covering the earth like forests. In Genesis 2 the word for plants here uses a different Hebrew word.
Siah and ē'seb, which are specifically describing the lack of cultivated crops grown for humans to eat.
A better understanding would be
5 Now no shrub (crop) had yet appeared on the earth and no plant (cultivated field) had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. These plants required the ground to be worked unlike the other wild plants.

God makes Adam from the ground outside of the garden of Eden, in this wilderness.
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

He then moves him to the garden of Eden.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Then moves onto a small recap.
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
Then brings them to be named. he wasn't making them then, they had been created before man outside in the wilderness.
He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Shame that the two versions disagree with each other and they both disagree with the one thing we actually have evidence for, but if that's how you want to justify it for yourself, you go right ahead.

 

[coffee4u]

Shame that the two versions disagree with each other and they both disagree with the one thing we actually have evidence for, but if that's how you want to justify it for yourself, you go right ahead.

I knew you would pay no attention, but that is the correct meaning. Go study Hebrew.

 

[Ophiolite]

Exactly. You see what is there and how you believe it got that way is the story woven around the facts. No matter how much it looks to be correct to you, it is still an assumption based on the facts. Assumptions can be wrong.

Would you take a moment to define, in some detail if possible, "assumption". I cannot reconcile my understanding of its definition with your application of it in this context. Also, you seem to be suggesting that there is only a single assumption ar work. Would you confirm that is the case, or clarify by noting there is a string or complex of assumptions. If the latter would you give an example or two. Thank you.

 

[coffee4u]

Would you take a moment to define, in some detail if possible, "assumption". I cannot reconcile my understanding of its definition with your application of it in this context. Also, you seem to be suggesting that there is only a single assumption ar work. Would you confirm that is the case, or clarify by noting there is a string or complex of assumptions. If the latter would you give an example or two. Thank you.

Something that is excepted as being true based on
1) How it can be tested in the here and now
2) and or a story that fits the facts and seems the very likeliest answer to what is seen.
One other time I gave the example of a boy outside a broken window. He's holding a bat and a ball is inside the house, so it appears he broke the window but nobody saw it and he isn't saying anything.

As an evolutionist do you not see common descent in animals that look similar or share a lot of DNA? Without God this is quite a good explanation. It's an explanation that I used to believe.
However with God, who told us that he is the creator, who makes a man come alive as easily as he walks on water, I assume like any artist that uses the same materials and style, that there will be similarities between each piece. The same way a Picasso can be spotted so can God's handiwork across creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[VirOptimus]

Something that is excepted as being true based on
1) How it can be tested in the here and now
2) and or a story that fits the facts and seems the very likeliest answer to what is seen.
One other time I gave the example of a boy outside a broken window. He's holding a bat and a ball is inside the house, so it appears he broke the window but nobody saw it and he isn't saying anything.

As an evolutionist do you not see common descent in animals that look similar or share a lot of DNA? Without God this is quite a good explanation. It's an explanation that I used to believe.
However with God, who told us that he is the creator, who makes a man come alive as easily as he walks on water, I assume like any artist that uses the same materials and style, that there will be similarities between each piece. The same way a Picasso can be spotted so can God's handiwork across creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

First, using magic (god(s)) in a science debate is an auto-loss as magic explains everything and therefore nothing.

Secondly, the ToE explains all the data, all of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How so?

Is there an explanation with less additional elements needed?

Because the addition of an intelligence that doesn't match the behavior or nature of known intelligences and uses undefined or undefinable techniques to build/modify life in undefinable ways doesn't sound like something that satisfies Occam's Razor on any level.

That would be the point yes-

Newtonian/classical physics satisfied Occam's Razor- subatomic/ quantum mechanics- not so much.

Darwinian evolution was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics at the time- a handful of 'immutable laws' + lots of time & space was, likewise, all that was deemed needed to produce all the wonders we see around us.

The Rosetta Stone shows working consistent with human tools with content known to be human languages.

The fracture marks on a glacier are incredibly complicated... but we don't assume it's secretly the translation guide to two alien languages.

I agree entirely and it's a very good point: So there is an entirely objective fingerprint for ID- which is NOT merely complexity, & it is not only 'human'. Consider the nest decorations of a bird of paradise. or the SETI 'WOW' signal for instance. (not conclusive obviously)

Some, certainly. But the evidence was still sound. Something ID has not been able to present.

Which is what skeptics said about QM.. as I have always said- I don't think there are any 'slam dunk' arguments either way- life is an incredibly complex and interesting subject- I think the weight of evidence has turned to ID yes, but difficult to lay it all out in a forum post!

You are assuming your conclusion.

The entire system of genetics can vary. Obviously some variations are fatal, but you have not described how the barrier between allowed and not allowed variation works.

well it's a hierarchy- just like this computer software, and this is not a controversial observation- variation in the text size/color parameters in this forum can never be extrapolated into a new program- not simply because of the improbability of stumbling upon the viable code- but because this variation is not altering the necessary level of the hierarchy.

There are many examples of this in DNA- just one being Epigenetics, you can even alter the entire gene sequence all you like, it's still not enough to account for all biological forms- something beyond this is happening- i.e. simply extrapolating superficial natural variation observed in finch beaks or dogs- into accounting for the entire diversity of the biosphere- is fundamentally inadequate. Though ToE is still often taught and understood this way.

That doesn't demand throwing out ToE in one fell swoop- but it demands going beyond the classical Darwinian mechanism

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you have no verifiable evidence of a creative intelligence, you’ve just made an assumption . This assumption might work in religion but they’re a no no in science

If an archaeologist or forensic scientist or data analyst at SETI- observes the fingerprints of intelligent intent- do they need to rely on religious arguments?

 

[Ophiolite]

Something that is excepted as being true based on
1) How it can be tested in the here and now
2) and or a story that fits the facts and seems the very likeliest answer to what is seen.
One other time I gave the example of a boy outside a broken window. He's holding a bat and a ball is inside the house, so it appears he broke the window but nobody saw it and he isn't saying anything.

As an evolutionist do you not see common descent in animals that look similar or share a lot of DNA? Without God this is quite a good explanation. It's an explanation that I used to believe.
However with God, who told us that he is the creator, who makes a man come alive as easily as he walks on water, I assume like any artist that uses the same materials and style, that there will be similarities between each piece. The same way a Picasso can be spotted so can God's handiwork across creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Thank you for your reply. You have a peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of "assumption" that does not accord with my lexical experience. I shall reflect on your definition and respond accordingly.
I will simply note, if you insist upon analogies, that Picasso's work evolved from the work of earlier artists and we can study that evolution by examing the remaining and accessible works of those artists. No untestable assumptions are involved.

 

[Speedwell]

If an archaeologist or forensic scientist or data analyst at SETI- observes the fingerprints of intelligent intent- do they need to rely on religious arguments?

No, because they rely on the "fingerprints of intelligent intent."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, because they rely on the "fingerprints of intelligent intent."

I couldn't have put it better myself!

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. The only thing we disagree about is what those fingerprints look like.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. The only thing we disagree about is what those fingerprints look like.

I don't know that we do..

We agree the Rosetta Stone exhibits those fingerprints- right?

how about 'HELP' written with rocks on a deserted island beach?

and SETI's 'wow' signal as I think you already agreed (albeit in an inconclusive quantity and quality in this case)

these things all point to intelligence to varying degrees right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Citation? That certainly is a creationist argument; I don't believe I have heard it put forth by a secular scientist.

He may be referring to the idea of 'gene toolkits' - ancient highly conserved collections of basic genes that may be used and expressed in many different ways. The Hox genes, for example. There's nothing particularly mysterious about them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Interesting point of view!- Tell that to Richard Dawkins and Bill gates:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . ": Dawkins

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Gates

Nevertheless, they are known to those familiar with both fields to be very crude similes. DNA is also somewhat like a recipe, a pattern template, a switching system, and so-on. Flexible complex systems inevitably have some features or characteristics in common.