Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[HitchSlap]

not all people who believe in a creator think the earth is young i most certainly do not. its roughly 4.5 million years old.

Is your shift button broke?

 

[renniks]

It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.

So a whole post to say creationists are just dumb and uninformed? You might as well just admit you are a true believer and will not be convinced because you don't want to be.

 

[pitabread]

So a whole post to say creationists are just dumb and uninformed?

I never said "dumb".

But I do think that majority of creationists (at least in my experience) are uninformed re: biology and evolution. That's not in their favor when they're trying to convince others of their views on said subjects.

You might as well just admit you are a true believer and will not be convinced because you don't want to be.

I'm afraid you're just projecting.

On a related note, I've noticed I also generally read more creationist and ID literature than most creationists. I actually think the idea of ID is quite amazing; it's just that the science aspect of it is wholly disappointing.

Odd thing for someone who allegedly doesn't want to be convinced.

 

[Job 33:6]

It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.

Well the truth is that people who are capable of understanding the theory of evolution on the level that you describe, They typically aren't young earth creationists or if they were they usually step away when they begin understanding the information.

But yea, knowledge and honesty are key.

 

[Job 33:6]

how did the barrel eye fish evolve with eye balls like tree tops, by theory only according to evolution.
View attachment 300232

I think that if you want to respond to the OP, you should start by demonstrating that you understand what the theory of evolution is.

Are you aware of the fossil succession and aware that this fossil succession matches phylogenetic trees constructed with use of our genetics? And that we can use DNA in modern day species to predict where fossils exist within the earth?

As noted earlier in this thread, we still find people asking questions like "if people evolved from apes, why are chimps still around?" and "why aren't there any transitional fossils?". These question display a complete lack of familiarity with the theory.

 

[HitchSlap]

So a whole post to say creationists are just dumb and uninformed? You might as well just admit you are a true believer and will not be convinced because you don't want to be.

Also another thing creationists hate; the fact we can follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we don’t have to accept only things that fit with a narrow biblical interpretation.

 

[BeyondET]

This is the disconnect all creationists have; I don’t really understand the science, but I have bible. Checkmate.

that is your opinion everyone has one. Checkmate.

 

[BeyondET]

I think that if you want to respond to the OP, you should start by demonstrating that you understand what the theory of evolution is.

Are you aware of the fossil succession and aware that this fossil succession matches phylogenetic trees constructed with use of our genetics? And that we can use DNA in modern day species to predict where fossils exist within the earth?

As noted earlier in this thread, we still find people asking questions like "if people evolved from apes, why are chimps still around?" and "why aren't there any transitional fossils?". These question display a complete lack of familiarity with the theory.

yes i am and I have no problem with designed evolution.

can you tell me when and how the butterfly stem cell is turned on and what turns it on to create the structure of the butterfly from soup of the old caterpillar.

learning of nature man has come along way yet its still just a grain of sand to fully understand.

How does the many kinds of mantis shrimp have advance vision. no other type of shrimp or animal on the planet has that kind of vision were did it evolve from if not designed. man can not even create optics that good but nature did it all without thought or knowledge just simply by chance yea right that is something that evolutionist cannot grasp or just will not.

i do have the bible and Romans 1 speaks of that very thing.

Romans 1
19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

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 His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

 

[pitabread]

man can not even create optics that good but nature did it all without thought or knowledge just simply by chance yea right that is something that evolutionist cant grasp or just will not.

I wouldn't exactly use this as a criteria to conclude design, since evolution can produce outcomes that planned design cannot. This has been demonstrated in fields like computer science and engineering.

 

[BeyondET]

Is your shift button broke?

probably font size

 

[BeyondET]

I wouldn't exactly use this as a criteria to conclude design, since evolution can produce outcomes that planned design cannot. This has been demonstrated in fields like computer science and engineering.

name one outcome? when has man created a living thing, man cant even get all the stuff needed for life in one single cell nor nature by chance

 

[BeyondET]

Also another thing creationists hate; the fact we can follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we don’t have to accept only things that fit with a narrow biblical interpretation.

wheres the evidence that leads to how life formed? its only narrow because of narrow minds

 

[BeyondET]

gen 2:7
Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

today people are clearly learning that process from dust to man evolution yet they don't want to see a design but a chance

 

[pitabread]

name one outcome?

One of my favorite examples is the evolution of an FPGA circuit:

As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required. And no one had the foggiest notion how it worked.

...

It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method⁠— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.​

On the Origin of Circuits

This is wild stuff, to be sure.

Another example is the NASA evolved antenna:

The evolutionary algorithms we used were not limited to variations of previously developed antenna shapes but generated and tested thousands of completely new types of designs, many of which have unusual structures that expert antenna designers would not be likely to produce. By exploring such a wide range of designs EAs may be able to produce designs of previously unachievable performance. For example, the best antennas we evolved achieve high gain across a wider range of elevation angles, which allows a broader range of angles over which maximum data throughput can be achieved and may require less power from the solar array and batteries. ​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

These types of things dispel that notion that evolutionary processes are someone incapable of producing complex or innovative outputs. If anything, it seems that evolution has the potential to be more powerful than conventional design methodologies.

 

[BeyondET]

One of my favorite examples is the evolution of an FPGA circuit:

As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required. And no one had the foggiest notion how it worked.

...

It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method⁠— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.​

On the Origin of Circuits

This is wild stuff, to be sure.

Another example is the NASA evolved antenna:

The evolutionary algorithms we used were not limited to variations of previously developed antenna shapes but generated and tested thousands of completely new types of designs, many of which have unusual structures that expert antenna designers would not be likely to produce. By exploring such a wide range of designs EAs may be able to produce designs of previously unachievable performance. For example, the best antennas we evolved achieve high gain across a wider range of elevation angles, which allows a broader range of angles over which maximum data throughput can be achieved and may require less power from the solar array and batteries. ​

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

These types of things dispel that notion that evolutionary processes are someone incapable of producing complex or innovative outputs. If anything, it seems that evolution has the potential to be more powerful than conventional design methodologies.

all that was done by pre designed thank you for agreeing with design. they just didn't let the computer decide

quote from the site
As predicted, with each breeding cycle the offspring evolved slightly, nudging the population incrementally closer to the computer’s pre-programmed definition of the perfect individual.

 

[pitabread]

all that was done by pre designed thank you for agreeing with design.

You're missing the point. Yes, there was an explicit goal set insofar as what the evolutionary algorithms are designed to optimize towards. But the specific design of the circuit for that outcome was not pre-planned.

If the design was already known, then the designers would have just created it from scratch. The design was not already known: it took the evolutionary algorithm to find it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You're missing the point. Yes, there was an explicit goal set insofar as what the evolutionary algorithms are designed to optimize towards. But the specific design of the circuit for that outcome was not pre-planned.

If the design was already known, then the designers would have just created it from scratch. The design was not already known: it took the evolutionary algorithm to find it.

One could perhaps say that the selection pressure was programmed, but not the mutations.

 

[BeyondET]

You're missing the point. Yes, there was an explicit goal set insofar as what the evolutionary algorithms are designed to optimize towards. But the specific design of the circuit for that outcome was not pre-planned.

If the design was already known, then the designers would have just created it from scratch. The design was not already known: it took the evolutionary algorithm to find it.

yes as God intended it to be, free will everything even animals, difference between man and God is He already knows the outcome

 

[pitabread]

yes as God intended it to be, free will everything even animals, difference between man and God is He already knows the outcome

Huh? This doesn't seem to follow from what I wrote?

If you want to have a discussion re: free will, that's a whole separate topic that belongs in a different subforum.

My entire point is that evolution as an approach to problem-solving and design is *not* inherently inferior to planned design.

 

[BeyondET]

Huh? This doesn't seem to follow from what I wrote?

Anyway, if you want to have a discussion re: free will, that's a whole separate topic that belongs in a different subforum.

My entire point is that evolution as an approach to problem-solving and design is *not* inherently inferior to planned design.

doesn't seem to follow, heres another quote on the unorthodox meaning a type free reacting. its not inferior but part of the design

The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method⁠