Evolution, one more argument against

[Aussie Pete]

That's fine but you think being a atheist is less absurd than a believer regardless of their creation belief is messed up.

Do you know exactly what God did at every second minute and hour of a day?. If you do you might have a case. If not you are no better at knowing what took place than the next person.

I found it odd you would place a secular evolution person above a creator evolution person that's basically what it was when you find someone who believes in God as the agent of evolution as even more absurd.

What social science?

It's only psuedoscience because you don't believe God let the earth bring forth vegetation and animals.

An atheist has little choice but to accept evolution. At least it is logically consistent. Denying the creation account in Genesis is not logically consistent. I know what God said. That should be enough for any believer. It is enough for me.

 

[BeyondET]

An atheist has little choice but to accept evolution. At least it is logically consistent. Denying the creation account in Genesis is not logically consistent. I know what God said. That should be enough for any believer. It is enough for me.

The absurd part is you implying someone who doesn't believe in God is less absurd than someone who does. Again it has nothing to do with the creation account and what took place.

It was a bad analogy

 

[shaul]

I think the general problem with most who hold to an evolutionary view of Creation can be summed up very simply.

Show me some actual evidence in recorded history where we see a transmutation taking place. It is always past the dates of recorded history or extant writings. That does not even make for good science, let along a plausible argument.

Are there accepted mutation among species? Yes. Are there actual evolutionary trends in certain sub-human species? Yes. But all of these can be explained within the genetic code and DNA resident within these species. We see no such evidence when examining homosapian DNA structures.

 

[trophy33]

I think the general problem with most who hold to an evolutionary view of Creation can be summed up very simply.

Show me some actual evidence in recorded history where we see a transmutation taking place. It is always past the dates of recorded history or extant writings. That does not even make for good science, let along a plausible argument.

Are there accepted mutation among species? Yes. Are there actual evolutionary trends in certain sub-human species? Yes. But all of these can be explained within the genetic code and DNA resident within these species. We see no such evidence when examining homosapian DNA structures.

Dont you recognize that almost all sins Christians are against as "the deeds of the flesh" are inclinations and instincts from the animal kingdom?

Evolution explains so much of our biology, psychology and theology that there is no other unifying model able to replace it. Even if there was no scientific evidence for it, it still makes the most sense theologically - why we must struggle with our animal desires to be spiritual beings.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I think there are two considerations.
1. Theistic evolution is guided by God.
2. The fall of creation caused the evolution machine to go haywire just like all the other processes in nature.

Theistic Evolution is the most plausible and logical explanation for what we are seeing today.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I think the general problem with most who hold to an evolutionary view of Creation can be summed up very simply.

Show me some actual evidence in recorded history where we see a transmutation taking place. It is always past the dates of recorded history or extant writings. That does not even make for good science, let along a plausible argument.

Are there accepted mutation among species? Yes. Are there actual evolutionary trends in certain sub-human species? Yes. But all of these can be explained within the genetic code and DNA resident within these species. We see no such evidence when examining homosapian DNA structures.

All humans of European descent have between 1% and 3% Neanderthal genes in their DNA. Africans have almost 0%.
Peoples of southeast Asia have 4% to 6% Denisovan DNA. European humans have a small percent of Denisovan DNA, but what they do have is likely to have come from the Denisovan crossing with Neanderthals.
My DNA test shows 2% Neanderthal DNA. That is due to my Scottish and English ancestry.
The faster a species reproduces the quicker it will mutate and change. We have watched the COVID virus swiftly mutate from one strain to another.
There is really nothing to be afraid of. This is how God created life. He made it to adjust to a changing environment. Genius really. I am completely at peace with the reality of it.

 

[DamianWarS]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

theistic evolution would assert that plausibility can be found through divine intervention

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Life is Designed to Prevent Evolution – CEH

In brief, the article states that DNA is constantly being repaired. So the mutations that evolution require are rare. Less than 1 in 1000 survive the repair process. Not only that, the mutation has to be beneficial, far from a given. Then there have to be immeasurable numbers of beneficial mutations to produce a novel creature. The only recourse to evolutionists is to claim that evolution happens because it happens. Cue outrage, but no plausible explanation.

We have today approximately 3,200,000 men and women who have earned one or more doctorates in one or more fields of science, who are currently employed as scientists, and who endorse the theory of evolution. On the other hand, we have fewer than five men and women who have earned one or more doctorates in one or more fields of science, who are currently employed as scientists, and who deny that the theory of evolution is true. These fewer than five men and women have never completed so much as one college course in Evolutionary biology and yet are denying the truth of a theory that they do not even understand.

Moreover, these fewer than five men and women who are denying the truth of a theory that they do not even understand are denying the truth based upon a Bible that they have never read. Indeed, they do not know even so much as the first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet and are relying upon substandard translations of the Bible to read Genesis 1-11 and the many scriptures in the Bible that are dependent upon those eleven chapters.

There are today literally millions of Christian young people who endorse the theory of evolution and whose testimony for Jesus is very often fuller and more vibracious than that of their counterparts who are wasting God’s time and resources arguing against the truth.

 

[David Lamb]

We have today approximately 3,200,000 men and women who have earned one or more doctorates in one or more fields of science, who are currently employed as scientists, and who endorse the theory of evolution. On the other hand, we have fewer than five men and women who have earned one or more doctorates in one or more fields of science, who are currently employed as scientists, and who deny that the theory of evolution is true.

Fewer than five? What of all the scientists associated with Creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis?

 

[Job 33:6]

Fewer than five? What of all the scientists associated with Creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis?

There are almost none that deny the theory of evolution. In the US for example, you have to understand that there are tens of thousands of scientists with degrees in focused areas such as biology, paleontology, geology, or even chemistry or physics.

Answers in Genesis for example, references very very few scientists. Maybe a dozen? Maybe you could fight for 2-dozen. That's if you work really hard to build a list of anyone they've ever referenced.

Compared to:

Biological scientists | Data USA

Biological scientists are most often employed by the Scientific research & development services industry. The average yearly wage for Biological scientists was $84,067 in 2023.

datausa.io

You're talking about tens of thousands of biologists in the US. And 10s of thousands more geologists, and chemists, and so on.

So, you have to understand that those that deny the theory of evolution are of an extremely small or minority in the broader scheme of things.

What is, 100/100,000? That's 1 in 1,000. Or 0.1%.

And we could even be super generous here and imagine there being 1,000 if we expanded to other broad areas like intelligent design or other sort of fringe positions. But that's still, a very very small fraction of the whole.

And that's in the US where people tend to be more religious. The disparity would be even greater if we went to Europe for example.

Arguments from authority are a logical fallacy.

But, it is fair to say that no one has ever heard of a scientist turning to YECism strictly due to evidence. That has literally never happened on record, anywhere.

Rather, 100% of the time, opponents of conventional science hold to presuppositional theology, that directs how they frame their beliefs.

And it's the exact same thing for intelligent design as well. It's actually impossible to be directed toward intelligent design based on evidence, because supernatural evidence doesn't exist by its very definition. If it's supernatural then it's not something that makes sense in empirical terms and thus, science wouldn't be able to explain it via empirical evidence.

So really what we are left with are faith based interpretations of evidence (which is similar to biblical eisegesis, holding a position and reading it into Scripture). In opposition of interpretations derived out-of and from the evidence (something like text analysis/criticism).

And without it being a debate over evidence, it turns into, essentially an ideological issue. Opponents of the theory of evolution do so for ideological reasons, or for political reasons, among other things. Which, in their own category may be justified. But in terms of scientific evidence, they aren't justified.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International are NOT scientific organizations—they are religious organizations and the people that they employ are NOT scientists but religious workers whose job it is to refute science and promote their organization’s religion—that religion being creationism that opposes Biblical Christianity.

 

[River Jordan]

Fewer than five? What of all the scientists associated with Creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis?

AiG doesn't even describe themselves as a science organization.

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively."​

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[PrincetonGuy]

AiG doesn't even describe themselves as a science organization.

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively."​

This quote is from the AIG website About Answers in Genesis Here is the quote in context:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is a foundational book of Christianity and the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their bedfellow: a “4.5 billion-year-old” earth (and an even older universe).​

They say that they “focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is a foundational book of Christianity and the most-attacked book of the Bible.” I have here in my study more than thirty commentaries on the book of Genesis (mostly on the Hebrew text) and I am fairly familiar with what Genesis says. I also have in my study more than 200 commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament in which the book of Genesis is quoted, cited, or alluded to. Having a good understanding of the book of Genesis is foundational to having a good understanding of the rest of the Bible—and especially the New Testament, but Answers in Genesis treats the book of Genesis as if it is of no more value than used toilet tissue. Indeed, it is they who are brutally attacking and mutilating the book of Genesis. All of the 30+ commentaries on the book of Genesis that I have here in my study treat it with utmost care and staunchly defend it!

 

[Job 33:6]

This quote is from the AIG website (Evolution, one more argument against). Here is the quote in context:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is a foundational book of Christianity and the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their bedfellow: a “4.5 billion-year-old” earth (and an even older universe).​

They say that they “focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is a foundational book of Christianity and the most-attacked book of the Bible.” I have here in my study more than thirty commentaries on the book of Genesis (mostly on the Hebrew text) and I am fairly familiar with what Genesis says. I also have in my study more than 200 commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament in which the book of Genesis is quoted, cited, or alluded to. Having a good understanding of the book of Genesis is foundational to having a good understanding of the rest of the Bible—and especially the New Testament, but Answers in Genesis treats the book of Genesis as if it is of no more value than used toilet tissue. Indeed, it is they who are brutally attacking and mutilating the book of Genesis. All of the 30+ commentaries on the book of Genesis that I have here in my study treat it with utmost care and staunchly defend it!

But I bet that of all of those commentaries, none have 500+ thousand people buying copies of them every single year like they sell in Ark Encounter tickets. It's all about the green paper in the end.

 

[o_mlly]

Fewer than five? What of all the scientists associated with Creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis?

Imagine a biology Ph.D. candidate writing his dissertation on "The Problems of Evolution Theory". Not likely to happen. Even If the topic did get through the topic approval process, the candidate would not likely be awarded a Ph.D. So much for the numbers game.

Now imagine a Ph.D. candidate in the Philosophy of Science department doing the same. More likely.

Biologists often hand-wave the philosophical arguments that challenge their interpretations of the empirical data. Absent the epistemic disciplines accorded to right reason, imagination and speculation enter into the biologist's inferences. After some number of repeated similar speculative inferences, the biologists often elevate their guesses to now be scientific facts.

 

[sfs]

Imagine a biology Ph.D. candidate writing his dissertation on "The Problems of Evolution Theory". Not likely to happen. Even If the topic did get through the topic approval process, the candidate would not likely be awarded a Ph.D. So much for the numbers game.

Now imagine a Ph.D. candidate in the Philosophy of Science department doing the same. More likely.

Biologists often hand-wave the philosophical arguments that challenge their interpretations of the empirical data. Absent the epistemic disciplines accorded to right reason, imagination and speculation enter into the biologist's inferences. After some number of repeated similar speculative inferences, the biologists often elevate their guesses to now be scientific facts.

I hope you will note that everything you just wrote is from your imagination -- no facts involved at all.

The reality is that scientists are highly pragmatic people. We use evolution as a framework for understanding biology because it works very, very well for an enormous range of data. If someone comes up with a framework that does a better job, we'll use that instead. To date, however, the arguments raised against evolution have been so profoundly bad that the vast majority of biologists have better things to do than spend any time on them.

 

[River Jordan]

Imagine a biology Ph.D. candidate writing his dissertation on "The Problems of Evolution Theory". Not likely to happen. Even If the topic did get through the topic approval process, the candidate would not likely be awarded a Ph.D. So much for the numbers game.

How do you know that? How much experience do you have in biology doctoral programs?

Now imagine a Ph.D. candidate in the Philosophy of Science department doing the same. More likely.

Is that something you have experience in?

Biologists often hand-wave the philosophical arguments that challenge their interpretations of the empirical data.

Where? I've noticed how it seems to be a habit of creationists to make claims about what biologists do and/or say but if anyone asks them to give an example they don't. So how about you break that pattern?

Also, if creationists think they have better interpretations what's stopping them from doing their own brand of science under their preferred interpretations and showing the world how much more productive it is?

Absent the epistemic disciplines accorded to right reason, imagination and speculation enter into the biologist's inferences. After some number of repeated similar speculative inferences, the biologists often elevate their guesses to now be scientific facts.

Where? Give an example.

 

[Job 33:6]

Imagine a biology Ph.D. candidate writing his dissertation on "The Problems of Evolution Theory". Not likely to happen. Even If the topic did get through the topic approval process, the candidate would not likely be awarded a Ph.D. So much for the numbers game.

Now imagine a Ph.D. candidate in the Philosophy of Science department doing the same. More likely.

Biologists often hand-wave the philosophical arguments that challenge their interpretations of the empirical data. Absent the epistemic disciplines accorded to right reason, imagination and speculation enter into the biologist's inferences. After some number of repeated similar speculative inferences, the biologists often elevate their guesses to now be scientific facts.

We are each scientists here. And, I'll say that this is simply a misconception about how the scientific community operates. There isn't any grand conspiracy, contrary to what you might hear in social media.

We are all just regular, every-day people, listening to apologists that are essentially just spreading misinformation about actual science.

And it's actually the same thing among Biblical scholarship as well, as Princeton noted above. The vast majority of Hebrew old testament scholars and scholars of the Book of Genesis are not actually YEC, contrary to how the media portrays things.

YEC ministries speak incredibly loudly in the media. But not only among scientists but also among Christian Bible scholars, they are in-fact a significant minority. Not because of conspiracy, but because of their theology, hermenetics and lack of use of the scientific method.

And that's just the reality of the circumstances.
There is no grand cover-up or suppression of information, or whatever it is that people might be imagining.

 

[o_mlly]

I hope you will note that everything you just wrote is from your imagination -- no facts involved at all.

Did you not read the post? I expressly invited readers to "imagine". Similar to the beginnings of arguments from evolutionary biologists.

Here's some mathematical evidence:

Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive​

There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. ​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347

Where? Give an example.

Go through the thread and search the word "fact" and you'll find many examples.