the illusion of Evolution

[The Barbarian]

The Evolution story is just people wanting to believe that the world made itself

That's really wrong. For example, Darwin, in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Are the people who gave you that false story lying to you? Probably not. My experience is that most of them just confabulate such stories based on their own desires, and many of them sincerely believe those stories.

It's unfortunate, but that's how YE creationism works.

 

[coffee4u]

So you don't believe 1 Cor 15, then? You don't believe "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"? You don't believe "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins"?

There's no point in discussing with someone who doesn't believe the Bible.

What?? You are confused mate. Of course I believe the Bible, I believe in Sola scriptura.

You said if someone comes along and proves Christ never existed everyone's faith would vanish, or words similar to that (or that's how I took it)

So lets say Bob comes along with proof that Jesus never existed and Sally looks at the proof and renounces her faith. I am saying that people like Sally have more faith in what other humans say than in Gods word. If Sally truly had faith where she knew God in her heart and spirit it wouldn't matter what Jim says. Because ultimately no matter how logical Jim's proof is, its a lie. Because Christ has been raised no matter what proofs people may come along with to the contrary; but just watch, people will follow the 'proof'.

Is this reminding you of something? It should. This conversation is no different to the one I had with you over evolution. Its just another bunch of 'proofs' against God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

What?? You are confused mate. Of course I believe the Bible, I believe in Sola scriptura.

Actually, you can believe one or the other.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So the Bible itself says that it is not the only reliable source of knowledge about God. If you truly believe the Bible, you cannot consistently believe Sola Scriptura.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I had no idea that what I had said would cause so much offence and as a result I want to express to those who have taken offence that this was not my intention. In fact nothing was further from my mind. As you probably have realised, I take what the bible says as the word of truth and believe every word of it. I come from a different country and culture to many of you and from a small non denominational church with an old fashioned understanding of God's word and come from a strict bible believing background. I think I will lie low for a while!

 

[Job 33:6]

So if early paleontologists had found patterns of dinosaur and human fossils mixed together in mesozoic rocks, then the following story of Evolution would be that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at the time these layers were deposited.

Absolutely, that's called following the evidence and it's a good thing to do when conducting science.

Since "Evolution" could conceivably occur in countless numbers of ways due to countless possibilities of chance events and selection pressures, then it's just a matter of forming the general evolutionary story around whatever particulars are discovered.

Yes, let the discoveries guide the theory, that's right.

After a century of the public wandering through fancy museums with great artistic murals depicting the Evolution of man alongside dinosaurs, then today it would just seem to be the way that it is... just as we are so accustomed to our particular Evolution story today that has dinosaurs and man separated by many millions of years.

If the evidence demonstrates that dinosaurs and people lived side by side, for example, if our fossils were found in the same mesozoic layers, then yes, the theory would have to affirm that reality. Or perhaps a new theory might arise.

With all of the above said, why do you feel uncomfortable with the idea that theories are based on evidence?

 

[Job 33:6]

That's pretty much how all of science works. Fit the theory to the evidence. Probably seems like cheating to creationists, who try to make the evidence to fit the doctrine.

Bottom line, the evidence overwhelmingly shows common descent of living things on Earth. Not surprisingly, when the function of DNA was discovered, genetic analyses showed the same relationships between living things that had been inferred by anatomy, fossil evidence, and other data.

That's pretty funny, "probably seems like cheating" haha.

But yea, that's how it works.

 

[public hermit]

I had no idea that what I had said would cause so much offence and as a result I want to express to those who have taken offence that this was not my intention. In fact nothing was further from my mind. As you probably have realised, I take what the bible says as the word of truth and believe every word of it. I come from a different country and culture to many of you and from a small non denominational church with an old fashioned understanding of God's word and come from a strict bible believing background. I think I will lie low for a while!

I see you are fairly new. Welcome!

I can't see where anyone took offense by what you said. Whatever the case, there is no need to run off. I would say your position is probably the majority position among Christians on CF. At least, you are not in the minority as far a "strict bible believing background." There are lots of good folks on here.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's really wrong. For example, Darwin, in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

You responded to only half my sentence. I said:
"The Evolution story is just people wanting to believe that the world made itself and that they don't need to worry about judgment from their Creator."

Evolution and deism/pantheism mix quite well together. People don't mind a creator god who is distant, who set the billiard balls in motion billions of years ago, and is since uninvolved with the affairs of humanity. However, people really don't want the God who is lording over the earth, who has judged humanity in the past and is waiting to judge it again. Even many professing Christians are happy to see that aspect of God removed from reality. Evolution serves the demand of society to rule itself the way it sees fit.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's pretty much how all of science works. Fit the theory to the evidence. Probably seems like cheating to creationists, who try to make the evidence to fit the doctrine.

Not at all. Creationists are constantly updating their theories and models to fit the evidence. The difference is that they are usually honest and upfront about their prior philosophical commitments.

Bottom line, the evidence overwhelmingly shows common descent of living things on Earth.

Right.. everything is Evolution. Evolution, Evolution, Evolution. I'm well aware you cannot perceive reality in any other way.

Not surprisingly, when the function of DNA was discovered, genetic analyses showed the same relationships between living things that had been inferred by anatomy, fossil evidence, and other data.

Yes. Dissimilar things are dissimilar. Similar things are similar. Very similar things are very similar. These are the types of patterns that evolutionists herald as stunning confirmation of their theory... along with the incredible revelations that "things change over time", and "that which survives, survives."

 

[Derek1111]

So lets say Bob comes along with proof that Jesus never existed and Sally looks at the proof and renounces her faith. I am saying that people like Sally have more faith in what other humans say than in Gods word. If Sally truly had faith where she knew God in her heart and spirit it wouldn't matter what Jim says. Because ultimately no matter how logical Jim's proof is, its a lie. Because Christ has been raised no matter what proofs people may come along with to the contrary; but just watch, people will follow the 'proof'.

Is this reminding you of something? It should. This conversation is no different to the one I had with you over evolution. Its just another bunch of 'proofs' against God's word.

You and I clearly use a different meaning of the word "proof". I am not saying proof is a persuasive argument. Loads of people argue persuasively that Jesus never existed, still less rose from the dead. And to the wise, the things of God are foolish, so this should not surprise us.

If, however, someone were categorically able to show that Jesus had never been resurrected - for example, if they produced a skeleton that could only be Jesus' skeleton - then our faith would, rightly, be rocked. Because our faith rests on Christ crucified and resurrected, that we might share life eternal with our sinless Saviour.

I will concede one thing - it is very hard to "disprove" any part of the historical Christian narrative. Perhaps this is where you are coming from? I am not trying to persuade you that your faith is wrong, far from it; just to say that blind faith is not really confidence of things unseen, so much as a reckless unwilling to engage with facts outside of the Bible.

 

[Derek1111]

Yes, either way we'd have "Evolution" as the explanation. Regardless of where fossils are found, the inference will be in support of a philosophical commitment to Evolution.

Contrast this with the way Evolution is commonly taught to the public, as if the fossil record points indisputably to an evolutionary history. You yourself can see that an entirely different fossil record would just produce a different story of Evolution.

The Evolution story is just people wanting to believe that the world made itself and that they don't need to worry about judgment from their Creator. As a prideful civilization, we demand Evolution as our creation story because it gives us permission to live our lives any way that we choose.



This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

- 2 Peter 3:1-7

What Barbarian said.

Science - at least, if science is done right - makes obervations, inferences, and hypotheses based on these. If enough hypotheses are consistent and predictably right, they may ultimately lead to a theory, like the ToE. Scientific theories are never considered proven, so if a major data outlier or confounder were discovered - as you are proposing - it would certainly throw the whole of the ToE into chaos and require *at least* a comprehensive review, and possibly even a rejection, of it.

Is that what you mean?

 

[The Barbarian]

Not at all. Creationists are constantly updating their theories and models to fit the evidence.

Doctrines. Not theories. They start with the conculsion, and try to find evidence to make it sound reasonable.

The difference is that they are usually honest and upfront about their prior philosophical commitments.

"Honest and upfront" are not words normally associated with YE creationist websites. Answers in Genesis,for example, got caught edited the research of two astronomers to make it look as though they reported the opposite of their actual findings. AIG took it down,after the scandal went viral.

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

Notice that the Institute for Creation Research was also involved in this smear, which backfired big time. Yes, after getting caught, they took it down.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not surprisingly, when the function of DNA was discovered, genetic analyses showed the same relationships between living things that had been inferred by anatomy, fossil evidence, and other data.

Yes. Dissimilar things are dissimilar.

But we know that only common descent accounts for genetic relatedness. And we can test this by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent. So that excuse won't work for you.

Similar things are similar. Very similar things are very similar.

And here, you confuse homologous structures with analogous structures. Our forelimbs are very unlike the forelimbs of a horse. They are homologous; the same bones are in each of our limbs, although greatly modified to different purposes. The wings of pterosaurs and wings of bats are analogous; they are very similar, but are derived from different tissues. This is why anyone with even a slight familiarity with biology finds your argument to be absurd.

These are the types of patterns that evolutionists herald as stunning confirmation of their theory...

For example, based on the structure of certain bones in alligators and birds, Thomas Huxley, well over 125 years ago, predicted transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. And much later, the predicted transitions were found.

For example, when the structure of DNA was discovered, it was predicted that genetic relatedness would follow the family trees of organisms determined from anatomy and fossils. And that prediction was also confirmed. There are many, many such cases. Would you like to learn about more of them?

along with the incredible revelations that "things change over time", and "that which survives, survives."

And now you see why no one with any knowledge of the theory actually believes that's what evolutionary theory is about.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's really wrong. For example, Darwin, in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

You responded to only half my sentence. I said:
"The Evolution story is just people wanting to believe that the world made itself and that they don't need to worry about judgment from their Creator."

Since most of us are theists, that's obviously wrong.

Evolution and deism/pantheism mix quite well together.

Don't see how. A change in allele frequencies is certainly not part of any deism or pantheism I ever heard about.

People don't mind a creator god who is distant, who set the billiard balls in motion billions of years ago, and is since uninvolved with the affairs of humanity.

You're thinking of "intelligent design", not scientists. Guys like Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project), an evangelical Christian who accepts the fact of evolution, clearly doesn't think like that. Most Christians do believe that God created the world to bring forth life, as He says He did in Genesis.

However, some creationists really don't want the God who is lording over the earth, who has judged humanity in the past and is waiting to judge it again. Many want to suppose that Satan is lord of this world, which is giving Satan too much credit, and downgrading God. You shouldn't do that, if that's what you're telling me.

Evolution has no moral or theological implications whatever. It's just the way this world works. You might was well say gravity supports deism or pantheism.

 

[coffee4u]

You and I clearly use a different meaning of the word "proof". I am not saying proof is a persuasive argument. Loads of people argue persuasively that Jesus never existed, still less rose from the dead. And to the wise, the things of God are foolish, so this should not surprise us.

If, however, someone were categorically able to show that Jesus had never been resurrected - for example, if they produced a skeleton that could only be Jesus' skeleton - then our faith would, rightly, be rocked. Because our faith rests on Christ crucified and resurrected, that we might share life eternal with our sinless Saviour.

I will concede one thing - it is very hard to "disprove" any part of the historical Christian narrative. Perhaps this is where you are coming from? I am not trying to persuade you that your faith is wrong, far from it; just to say that blind faith is not really confidence of things unseen, so much as a reckless unwilling to engage with facts outside of the Bible.

I mean proof in the same vein I use it for evolution.
It comes back to the man who claims the skeleton is Jesus. He may have every letter after his name and done all the tests he can do, but it is still just some man's word. A fallen, imperfect human being. Scientist are not God. Those who follow him have more faith in that man's words than in Gods.
God says Jesus is risen, this scientists says no here is his skeleton. You have a choice.
You can go with the evidence or you can go with what God says. It is a cross roads. You either let your soul, that is your mind, the logical side of yourself dictate and follow that or you listen to your spirit and you step out in faith and trust.

Peter tried to do that when he stepped off the boat. That first step of his onto deep water in a storm that is an example of 'reckless faith' What stopped him walking the whole way to Jesus? He started to engage with the facts. The facts were he was walking over very deep water 4 km out in a storm. His logical mind told him he would die and normally his mind would be right, but the mind is not always right when it comes to matters of faith, it will lead you astray as it did Peter.

A scientist is just a man or woman. They are no different to you or I or anybody else. They have their own bias that they work from and limitations this world places. They are not some unbiased paragons.

It is no different than the proofs of evolution. Again people place it on the level of being gospel instead of viewing it as man trying to understand the world with only half the pieces of the puzzle. Man attempting to gather information about something that isn't his to know and can never know in this life. They put together an incorrect picture and Satan ensures it is promoted and believed as gospel.

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

They shall deceive the elect. Pharaohs magicians made snakes slither around the floor- it was a deception. Evolution flourishes- it is a deception. We have men claiming to be women- it is a deception. A skeleton of Jesus is found? It is also a deception.
The world is descending into chaos were evil is called good and good is called evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

It is at such a time that people need to hold ever more tightly to the word of God. Science gives us many things but when it comes to God's word and if God's word differs then it's science that has it wrong not God's word. If God can never lie we must believe everything in scripture over man. Scripture claims to be the breathed word of God able to divide between spirit and soul. It is not claiming to simply be a helpful book. I would rather have blind faith then be swayed by science.

 

[coffee4u]

I had no idea that what I had said would cause so much offence and as a result I want to express to those who have taken offence that this was not my intention. In fact nothing was further from my mind. As you probably have realised, I take what the bible says as the word of truth and believe every word of it. I come from a different country and culture to many of you and from a small non denominational church with an old fashioned understanding of God's word and come from a strict bible believing background. I think I will lie low for a while!

I don't see anything offensive by you so take no mind of it. There is always someone on CF ready to disagree, that is just how it is on certain boards. Do not worry or take it to heart.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is no different than the proofs of evolution. Again people place it on the level of being gospel

Since it's directly observed constantly around us, you might as well deny sunshine.

I'm thinking you've confused evolution with something else.

 

[chad kincham]

I have work for much of my working life as a design engineer and I can see the handiwork of a designer in all of God's creation. There is nothing remotely random about any of it. It's like all of creation is shouting "God made me!" I know that God made everything! Those who choose to believe otherwise, just don't want to accept God's rule in teir lives. The testimony of all creation is the God reigns, not only in the whole universe, but also in the affairs of men!

Romans1:19-20 Because that which may be know of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Not only that, but God's word in the bible tell me that in accepting Him, I can have eternal life and be with Him for all eternity. What you believe in this life has consequences for where you will spend enernity in the next life.

Dawkins admits life appears designed, to which I reply to him - DUH - of course designs appear designed.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I accept the biblical account of creation in every respect. The bible is God's word and He was there when it happened none of these so called experts where there. Interperting so called evidence is not the same.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dawkins admits life appears designed, to which I reply to him - DUH - of course designs appear designed.

Want to learn why life (and a lot of other natural phenomena like rivers, lightning, etc.) look designed? Read this:
Constructal law | Constructal Blog | Sharing information about Constructal Theory or, with lots more detail and documentation:

Of course, if you're a rational IDer in the direction of Michael Denton who thinks (whatever he thinks the designer is) "front loaded" the laws of nature to make things appear designed... that would make some sense.