A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

Mallon · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Deism has nothing to do with a creationist. In fact, that is just the audacity of pro-evolutionists speaking. The truth is, God is in control of everything

Great. Then we're in agreement. God is in control of everything, including natural processes. So if you really believe this to be true, then why do you think some natural processes (like evolution) exclude God? You're contradicting yourself. Is God in control of all natural processes, or just some of them?

lucaspa · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
It attempts to explain how the universe works, excluding any god.

You are describing atheism here, not evolution. Evolution never attempted to explain how the entire universe works. It never even attempted to explain how life arose, as you noted.

Evolution doesn't exclude God. It simply says God didn't use miracles to create species.

Science doesn't exclude God. It simply says God didn't use miracles to create the members of the universe.

So not all science is atheistic, except of course, what you believe.

NONE of science is atheistic. Science is agnostic.

ToE is a disgrace to the name of God. Yes I said it. Because it is bogus. You are really going to argue with a theist who is bringing criticism to a theory that goes directly against God's word,

Ah there we have it. Evolution is "bogus" because you think it "goes directly against God's word." It's not that there is evidence that contradicts evolution, it's that evolution contradicts your interpretation of parts of scripture. Why should we put your interpretation of scripture above what God tells us?

because I never see pro-evolutionists bring anything to the table other then 'well this scientist said so'.

You haven't been listening to Mallon and I. We are bringing to the table "God says so" Says so in His Creation. I am also bringing specific observations of particular scientists. Observations you could make yourself if you wanted to.

Creationists should not be getting the shaft over a paranoid system of life.

Why do you call evolution a "paranoid system"?

It's dead bush being beaten, creationists won a long time ago and evolutionists just play semantics.

*staff edit* Evolution won a long time ago! It is modern creationism that is reduced to playing semantics.

Part of the evidence is in the second quote in my signature. More evidence is in these quotes by Christian theologians:

"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.

"It seems something more majestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one day, thus to impress his will once for all on his creation, and provide for all the countless varieties by this one original impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he had previously made.'' From Creation to Evolution. - The Final Effort of Theology.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.
"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.
"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'. JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition,
"Creation is continuous --it is a creatio continua. The ongoing cosmic processes of evolution are God himself being creator in his own universe. If I had to represent on a blackboard the relation of God and the world, including man, I would not simply draw three spheres labelled respectively 'nature', 'man', and 'God' and draw arrows between them to represent their interrelation. Rather, I would denote an area representing nature and place that entirely within another area representing God, ... When I came to depict man, I would have to place him with his feet firmly in nature but with his sef-consciousness (perhaps represented by his brain?) protruding beyond the boundary of nature and into the area depicting God." A Peacocke, Biological evolution and Christian Theology in Darwinism and Divinity, 1985, pg 124.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp
This site contains statements by Christian denominations accepting evolution and rejecting creationism.

Sum1sGruj · Jun 14, 2011

Mallon said:
Great. Then we're in agreement. God is in control of everything, including natural processes. So if you really believe this to be true, then why do you think some natural processes (like evolution) exclude God? You're contradicting yourself. Is God in control of all natural processes, or just some of them?

No, see you are concocting a giant straw man. You are implying an invisible rationale stating that since God is in control of everything, ToE is true.

God is incontrol of everything, which means He does not have to wait for light to travel 13 billion years through the expanses of space, He does not have to wait over 18 billion years to produce His children. There is nithing in science that indicates that ToE is a must unless God does in fact not exist.

You should look up Spinoza's god. Then you will get a real through-and-through on what pro-evolutionist theism ultimately assumes. You might even begin to notice who the deist is.

lucaspa · Jun 14, 2011

CTD said:
*staff edit*

Ah, the Argument from Ridicule.

CTD, scripture is very clear that God sustains the universe. Mallon didn't write "trash"; he wrote sound Biblical doctrine.

Interestingly, Jesus out and out said several things against scripture. You should read Mark 10 and Matthew 19 carefully.

Speaking of syllables, you're nuts if you think you can fool anyone into thinking I've denied one syllable of scripture. No such denial is to be found in anything I said. Your eagerness in serving your master is duly noted.

CTD, since you are new, I should tell you that it is agaisnt forum rules to imply that anyone Christian is not. That last sentence is such an implication, since you are implying my master is Satan, are you not?

Yes, I am eager to serve God. One thing Jesus commanded was to try to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. Both Mallon and I are trying to do so with you.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". When you insist we must find evolution in scripture and that finding it in the heavens and earth is invalid, you are denying this verse that God created. Think about it, please.

Mallon · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
No, see you are concocting a giant straw man. You are implying an invisible rationale stating that since God is in control of everything, ToE is true.

I'm not arguing that ToE is true, though. I'm arguing that it isn't inherently atheistic, as you're saying. Evolution does not in any way exclude God. The only way that evolution excludes God is if you hold the a priori deistic or atheistic belief that God is not present in nature. And since you believe evolution must exclude God, you must therefore subscribe to either deism or atheism.

lucaspa · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Mallon:
Great. Then we're in agreement. God is in control of everything, including natural processes. So if you really believe this to be true, then why do you think some natural processes (like evolution) exclude God? You're contradicting yourself. Is God in control of all natural processes, or just some of them?

No, see you are concocting a giant straw man. You are implying an invisible rationale stating that since God is in control of everything, ToE is true.

I'm afraid you either read Mallon carelessly or are using bait and switch. Mallon didn't comment on whether evolution was true, but on your assertion that evolution excludes God.

Mallon, I, and apparently you agree that God sustains everything, which includes all natural processes. No natural process happens except it is willed by God. Under that condition, how can evolution exclude God?

God is incontrol of everything, which means He does not have to wait for light to travel 13 billion years through the expanses of space, He does not have to wait over 18 billion years to produce His children. There is nithing in science that indicates that ToE is a must unless God does in fact not exist.

No, God does not have to do it that way. It's rather that God chose to do it that way. Light does indeed travel 13 billion light years from the most distant galaxies, because God wants it that way. God did wait 13.7 billion years from the Big Bang for the universe to produce humans. Because God wanted to do it that way.

What you are missing here is that thru all that time God was intimately involved in the universe because God was sustaining every "natural" process in it. Or do you believe those natural processes are happening on their own without God?

You should look up Spinoza's god. Then you will get a real through-and-through on what pro-evolutionist theism ultimately assumes. You might even begin to notice who the deist is.

I have. And Spinoza believed in an impersonal God. Theistic evolutionists don't. You keep trying the fallacy Guilt by Association but you never actually address what theistic evolutionists believe.

Mallon talks about deism because creationists have God create in the past and then is never involved with creation again. Creationists have God only work by miracle. That seems to be what you are doing: God is only working when He performs a miracle. The problem with that is the corollary: God is absent when not performing a miracle. And God being absent is deism.

lucaspa · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
No, it equates to atheism because the Bible clearly states how the world was created.

Ah. Here it is. Something is atheism because it contradicts with a literal reading of the Bible! It's all about a particular interpreation of the Bible.

Actually, the Bible states 3 ways the world was created, and they contradict.

But stop and think about this a moment. As you say, the Bible says 2 things: God created and a "how the world was created". Atheism says God did not create.

Evolution offers an alternative "how the world was created". An alternative how. That doesn't make it atheistic. Evolution is still theistic but simply offers a different "how" than scripture.

But here we have to bring in something else. What did God create? The "world" (or universe), right? We agree that everything in the universe was created by God, right? OK, if that is the case, then we can look at "the world" or the universe and see how God created.

The Bible isn't the only book of God.

because you are trying to find a middle ground between two completely different realities.

Are they different realities? Again, what did God create? There is only one reality but God has 2 books. Those 2 books cannot contradict. Is it possible that your interpretation of scripture is in error? This is what Christians think happens when there is a conflict between sound science and scripture. See the first quote in my signature.

I think that pro-evolutionist theists simply just have not taken the time to build a theology. They're still in that world where everything has to have cause and effect, that assuming the initial condition of anything is that of God.

No, theistic evolution has a theology. It just appears that you are unaware of it. *staff edit*

Mallon · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
There is a term for Christians who believe in ToE, and that is a Christian Deist.

Actually, the term is "evolutionary creationist" or "theistic evolutionist". And if you've been paying attention, you will have noticed that evolutionary creationits are nothing like deists because we've been strongly advocating that God's presence in the world is constant and all-pervasive. It is the anti-evolutionists who have been pushing deism here by arguing that nature exists apart from God, and that evolution is therefore atheistic.

YouTube - ‪Crazy Pills‬&rlm;

Sum1sGruj · Jun 14, 2011

Deism amounts to nature acting on it's own accord, and if God simply set forth a Big Bang, then Christian Deism is the correct term.
Because what exactly is He maintaining? It seems that all it amounts to is that He set forth existence and that's about it.
Genesis explains how it was done, and nothing truly omits that idea except assumption based on observation. Because we see how fast light travels, we can tell how long the universe has been around. Works perfectly for Deism, not for Christianity.
There is a direct rationale that omits scientific observation in lieu of Genesis. Why cling on to it? Is it fear?

David Evarts · Jun 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
There is a term for Christians who believe in ToE, and that is a Christian Deist.
quote]

You seem to misunderstand Deism. Young-Earth Anti-Evolutionism is inherently Deist, as it postulates a God who is no longer involved in creation. Evolutionary Creation is the best fit with traditional Christianity, as it allows for God to be continually involved, as described in the Bible.

The Outlier · Jun 14, 2011

Do you see this? We build upon previous experiments and work. We use previous work as background and essential to the new experiment. If the new experiment doesn't "work" as planned, it may be because the previous work was not correct. I can give you some examples how this has actually found some bad work in science.

Science isn't "faith" the way religious faith is. We don't "trust"; we can check. But religion and science, for Christians, are both about God. Science is about God's other book and reading it.

Thats still faith. You can't possibly check every experiment from everyone else, just like they couldn't check every experiment that they built upon. I understand in that specific experiment you reworked Urist's experiments, but what he did his experiments on still could have been based on the research of others. Look at this in terms of time. If every scientist reworked every piece of research for everything they researched themselves, as well as every piece of research that the person before tghem based their research on, all the way down to the charts, graphs, journals, and original data, it would not be mathematically possible to do all of that. In every experiment there are assumptions. A biological researcher at Duquesne University told me that. Without assumptions, there is no progress at all. Assumptions are faith.

I'm not saying that what you do is trivial or even innacurate, I'm saying that sooner or later there are assumptions made and those assumptions are faith. Its one thing to say that every fact and finding can be researched. Its another to actually take the time to do it and rework every other persons work before you and every other person's work before them. You can't possibly have time for that.

Greg1234 · Jun 14, 2011

lucaspa said:
But the previous enzyme didn't degrade nylon. So we can't compare efficiencies,

Based on enzymatic activity.

The formation of the nylonase was "random" because it was a random scrambling of the previous DNA sequence.

To you it is.

Now, if you are going to claim that nylonase was "non-random" in the sense of "planned by a Creator",

Governed by an adaptation feature programmed in DNA.

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

The importance of the organization of the various lac regulatory sites is that they permit the molecular computations that allow E. coli to discriminate glucose from lactose � that is, to control expression of the lactose metabolic proteins so that they are only synthesized once glucose is no longer available. The basic biochemical reactions and molecular interactions involved in this computation can be stated as logical propositions that can then be combined into partial computations (Table III). These partial computations illustrate the molecular logic allowing the cell to execute the following overall computation: "IF lactose present AND glucose not present AND cell can synthesize active LacZ and LacY, THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP."

Now, the Kilias paper also showed that, when such matings did occur, then the F1 and F2 hybrids were sterile. That is 2 (c) and 2(d). The result of all these isolating mechanisms is reproductive isolation or a new species.

Again,

A genetic investigation of speciation theory was carried out on the basis of critical multifactorial tests incorporating both the genetic system and the ecological regime (environment-dependent allozyme and behavioral genetic variation). It was found that stable environment-dependent sexual isolation has been established between cage populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under different environmental conditions for about 5 years, whereas the isolation of populations alone did not lead to ethological isolation. The highest isolation index detected was 0.388 ± 0.108. Postmating barriers were not associated with premating ones; yet, a tendency for the development of postmating isolation barriers was observed. The genetic differentiation among the populations studied, as measured by the allozyme frequency analysis of nine loci, proved to be low ($\overlin{I}$ = 0.982, D̄ = 0.018) and not associated with the sexual isolation observed. In general, the evolution of behavior of Drosophila melanogaster is strongly influenced by environmental conditions. Hence, it appears that the initial steps in the genetic process of speciation could be considered as the result of adaptation. However, one can not exclude the contribution of random events, which in combination with selection could speed up speciation processes. (bold mine)

Various fitness components (fecundity, fertility, viability, developmental time, sex ratio, oviposition rhythm) have been studied in three sibling species, D. melanogaster, D. simulans, D. mauritiana, and three interspecific hybrids Mame, Masi and Masi-2, fertile for both sexes. The hybrid Mame originated from one D. mauritiana female crossed to a D. melanogaster male; Masi and Masi-2 resulted from different D. mauritiana females crossed to D. simulans males. Each species and hybrid was found to exhibit characteristic values for each fitness component. In many cases the hybrids did not exhibit intermediate values, compared with their parental species. The contribution of each fitness component to the speciation process, and the polygenic theory of reproductive isolation are discussed. The conclusion is that even the early speciation steps are accompanied by the same kind of genetic changes that have been described for species isolated for long periods. (bold mine)

There was reproductive isolation from the species that were not on the tailings. In this case the isolating mechanism was 2(c) and 2(d). When wind borne pollen went from the prairie (non-heavy metal tolerant species) and fertilized tolerant species on the mine tailings, the offspring on the mine tailings were less viable and died. Pollen from the tolerant individuals on the mine tailings to the tolerant species on the prairie produced sterile or less fertile hybrids.

And?

CTD · Jun 14, 2011

Mallon said:
Do you not see that it's YOU who subscribes to deism if you're the one advocating that natural processes like evolution and the Big Bang occur apart from God? Evolutionary creationists don't think that way. We believe that ALL natural processes occur BECAUSE of God, not in spite of Him. Unlike you, we do not restrict God's actions to miracles alone.

For anyone having trouble connecting the dots, God is excluded from performing miracles in this so-called ''theistic evolutionism. In this less-popular version, nature itself is instead deified so that no "other god'' is necessary. It's poorly-disguised pantheism, very popular even among evolutionists claiming to be ''atheist''.

All one has to do is pay attention.

The more common version posits a god who plans everything out in advance and then sparks the big bang. The resultant universe evolves and evolves and evolves on its own, while the god goes off to sleep or whatever. It only stops evolving when people are watching.

Anthony022071 · Jun 14, 2011

David Evarts said:
1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)

Click to expand...

There could never be a testable hypothesis on the history of all organisms.
It is not possible to repeat or experiment upon natural history. The main claims of common descent theory cannot be verified by experiment.

2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current observations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution is not just about descent with modification from a common ancestor. It is a narrative of what happened in natural history. It makes claims about the history of organisms that cannot themselves be tested for truth,because the events in question are unattainable and unrepeatable.

CTD · Jun 14, 2011

Mallon said:
Not at all. No one here has denied that God performs miracles and I defy you to point out where anyone did. What evolutionary creationists reject is the positing of miracles where none are needed.

And none are ever ''needed'' in the imaginary magical universe that is its own god. I can keep up, and I'm guessing others can as well.

It's really fairly boring. Aside from slapping 'christian' onto pantheism or neo-deism, what's been accomplished?

CTD · Jun 14, 2011

Mallon said:
Not at all. No one here has denied that God performs miracles and I defy you to point out where anyone did. What evolutionary creationists reject is the positing of miracles where none are needed.

I already did point it out. If God performs miracles, there is no such thing as a ''god-of-the-gaps'' fallacy. It is not automatically wrong to suppose God might have actually DONE something, something more than lying around all inert or being ''nature''.

LanceCohen · Jun 15, 2011

lucaspa said:
Let's do human beings.

Ok. Lets do.

Premise#1: Non-constancy of Species.

You said somewhere, among other things, that the basic theory of evolution is the "nonconstancy of species". I accept this for argument sake.

By implication, then, it means that human beings, the species, was another species in the past, and will be so too in the future, something which the evolution hypothesis predicts.

Of course human beings will change, in physical aspects, maybe more brains, or less, more or less body hair, taller, shorter, fatter, skinnier, more uniform skin colour or whatever, but these are all non sequitor for human still remains the same species.

What I understand of evolution is that human beings will become a new species in the future, and perhaps you can tell me what this species can possibly be (and it can be a falsibility test for evolution, albeit million of years into the future, if it is predicted and recorded now.)

Premise#2: Man made in the image of God.

Now I know too, from non scientific sources - science not having the monopoly of truth, unless you disagree (which then renders everything below irrelevant) - that human beings were "made" in the "image of God".

Now there are a few questions immediately arising from this fact and what evolution hypothesize.

I can firstly reconcile "made" with the interpretation that science informs us how God made man, namely that it was the process in which God created all the laws of physics (which is ultimately the basis for all nature processes) which allows organism to change either within itself or induce by its external environment, and to become more complex entities, at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere in the universe.

This interpretation is open to the possibility whether God, now and then, or even constantly tweak this innate mechanism, or even not at all, and that Nature runs as a perfect machine. Natural selection seems to say such tweaks are not necessary but does not preclude them either.

And this then is the scientifically informed and reconciled picture of the creation, than merely the idea that someone waving a wand over dust and abbacadabra hey presto there was naked man standing, all talking, all thinking and relating with his creator.

Further, and secondly, it also implies that various species in the lineage of man, evolved over a long long period of time before a particular species, became the man which is in the "image of God". The question is then, when did this happen, or has it even happened yet, ie the present species is not yet the "image" that God intended, and man is still evolving to be the species that will be the image of God.

Premise#3: Jesus Christ.

[Now] He is the exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible];
He is the Firstborn of all creation.

[Col 1:15 (Amplified Bible)]

Of course if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you need not read further, and, again, whatever I have to say can be dismissed outright.

However if you do not, then we can arrive at some conclusions.

First, we know that, at the latest, by the time Christ was born, man as a species, have attained the exact likeness of the unseen God.

You may say its only Christ, who is the the perfect image, but not any other man at that time. But Christ was of the same species as the rest of humanity, or unless, again, you disagree to that, and thus suggesting that he is of a different species other than man, perhaps a star-child(?).

But we know elsewhere that Christ is our brother, for if not his sufferings are irrelevant and inapplicable to us. And therefore, I rather hold the view that man, at the latest, attained the perfection of the image of God when Christ was born, and Christ, the Son of Man, was of the same species as each and every single human being since then till now, for all the world, even as I am, ie homo sapiens.

And, from the same passage, it said that Christ was the firstborn of all Creation, which seem to imply that this perfection was there from the beginning, but I need not go there for this argument.

Secondly, if man do indeed evolve into another species - million and million of years onwards - are the redemption plan, and the purpose and will of God, originally intended for man, still applicable and valid for this new species?

To be honest I dont know, even as I don't know whether God has any salvation plan for aliens on other planets, if ever one day we discover these. But what I know is that at the end of the world, in the new heaven and earth, God will be with men, eg The abode of God is with men [Rev 21:3]. And we know from elsewhere too that perhaps there will also be the wolf, leopard, asp, adder and lion in this new world.

However the most critical and fatal objection to the evolving human species hypothesis is the question does perfection needs to be further evolved? For if perfection needs changing how can it still be perfection?

Conclusion

Thus on the basis of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man, I conclude that man as a species have attained the perfect image of God, and, by definition, perfection needs no changing.

PS: Evolution seemingly have become the proxy battleground for believers and non-believers of Jesus Christ, where previously it was perhaps a more direct confrontation: Christians versus anti-Christs. But evolution, the study of change in mere physical aspects of living beings, is only one tiny tiny aspect of the fullness of reality and truth that is out there, for example the unseen and invisible realms, the spiritual dimensions of reality, the mind, plan, purpose and heart of God, the destiny of humankind, etc and how in all these does the revelation of Jesus Christ gives us insight otherwise not possible. There is ultimately a bigger picture into which science is, at best, a small part, if at all. And this bigger picture, encompassing things visible and invisible, times eternity past and eternity to come, is really the far more relevant and necessary thing for all knowledge and for life.

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2011

Anthony022071 said:
There could never be a testable hypothesis on the history of all organisms.
It is not possible to repeat or experiment upon natural history. The main claims of common descent theory cannot be verified by experiment.

A misconception of science that it must be done by repeating an experiment. Science works by making a hypothesis and then deducing consequences of that hypothesis. Those consequences are observations that we should see today.

As it happens, there are several hypotheses that tested common ancestry:
1. If common ancestry is true, then living beings can be classified in a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are a consequence of common ancestry or "descent with modification". As it happens, evolution passed that test. Not only that, but every measurement to put living beings in a nested hierarchy worked: morphological (Linneaus), physiological, sequences of amino acids in proteins, genetic analysis.
2. If creationism is true and God created separate basic kinds, then we should find that sequences of bases in DNA in comparable genes are independent observations. OTOH, if evolution is true, then those sequences should not be independent. Result: phylogenetic analyses have been done in the last 20 years when cheap and fast DNA sequencing became available. Time after time, it has been found that DNA sequences are not independent observations, but related by historical connections. And this involves DNA sequences from creatures as varied as corn, ferns, worms, insects, rats, and humans.
3. If common ancestry is true, then we should find a sequence of "kinds" in the fossil record. The ancestors should be at the bottom in the oldest strata, with creatures resembling creatures alive today in the top layers. OTOH, finding mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian strata would falsify common ancestry.

The theory of evolution is not just about descent with modification from a common ancestor. It is a narrative of what happened in natural history. It makes claims about the history of organisms that cannot themselves be tested for truth,because the events in question are unattainable and unrepeatable.

Sigh. This has been corrected before, Anthony. Repeating refuted material doesn't make it true.
1. We don't have to repeat history to know what happened. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Unless you care to discard cause and effect. Evolution and creationism provide predictions of data we should find in the fossil record. For instance:
" For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be foundand in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene." Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science
Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

See, a "narrative of natural history" that was tested by predicting the data that should be found if the theory is true. OTOH, creationism would predict there would be no such fossils. In fact, Michael Behe (and IDer) a symposium held at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 March, 1992, predicted that no intermediates would be found connecting land animals to whales. Gingerich and Thewissen the next year provided exactly the fossils Behe demanded.

Anthony, I strongly recommend you go and read the entire essay there.

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
I'm saying that it is only assumption that guides human logic into 'knowing' the origins of life and reality.

You think it is only "assumption" that guides us in knowing the reality of God?

It's not Solipsism, it is the correct way of interpreting an almighty being who stated how reality was created.

And here we go again. This is about defending a particular interpretation of the Bible, isn't it? Genesis 1-3 states 2 ways that reality was created. And they contradict.

But why are you rejecting God's Creation as a way God tells us how He created? Can you correctly interpret an almighty being if you refuse to listen to everything He has to say?

Who is your god, Sum1sGruj, God or your interpretation of the Bible?

Christian Deism> Spinoza's metaphorical god who just so happens to the God of Abraham.

That would be Jewish deism. Remember, Spinoza was a Jew and rejected Christ.

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
I have a very good theology, believe it or not.

YEC is terrible theology, based on the evidence.

YEc's are simply outnumbered and therefore pushed around with the concepts of ToE. It holds no real bearing on the accuracy of it, only that majority tries to masquerade as truth simply by volume.

That is refuted by the history of science. Remember, YEC was the accepted scientific theory from 1500 - 1800. All scientists held it as true. So YEC was the majority. However, those YECers, many of whom were scientists and ministers at the same time, decided YEC was false. On the evidence. YECs are "pushed around" by the evidence. YEC is a falsified scientific theory, like flat earth and geocentrism are falsified scientific theories. YECs hold onto YEC only because they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

Spinoza's metaphorical god is that of nature, which elegantly provides a reality that can bear life. See, this works if realty is infinite, as such an idea requires that there is no cause of nature's effect. Otherwise, there is indeed a maker. The origin of Deistic bliss, in other words.

Can you please provide a source for your information? Everything I have looked up on Spinoza doesn't jibe with this.
"Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. " Spinoza's God

That would be pantheism, not deism. Deism has God outside the universe, not being Nature.

There is a term for Christians who believe in ToE, and that is a Christian Deist.

LOL! That is just trying to turn Mallon's argument around.

That is, if you believe in ToE, you have to believe that the universe came about 13 billion years ago and that cause and effect through the ages formed life on this planet today.

But theistic evolutionists do not believe that cause and effect was able to work on its own. God must sustain the cause and effect. Deism has God being absent; Christians who accept ToE do not believe God was absent.

In other words, it goes much much deeper then simply believing the theory of evolution, and yet there is no realistic way life came of it's own accord without divine incident.

1. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution assumes life exists. Evolution doesn't care how the first life came to be. If God zapped the first cell into existence, that would be find. People who include abiogenesis in evolution are arguing the theism vs atheism debate using god-of-the-gaps theology. That is very bad theology. Since you are using it, I thank you for refuting your own first statement in the post.

2. I agree in that God is required for every "natural" process to work. However, you mean "miracle' by "divine incident", don't you? You think God had to manufacture the first cell.

3. There is a realistic way for live to arise from non-life without God performing a miracle. I've given the method at least twice so far in this thread. I can even give you a protocol for you to get living cells from non-living chemicals in your kitchen or backyard, without "divine incident". Do I have to go over So if reality is only subject to God, then where does the rest come from?

Atheistic intrigue. That is what is at the bottom of the barrel. You cannot go in between both and expect to be closer to any truth then a creationist. Or an atheist for that matter.

Sorry, it's not atheistic intrigue. Let me explain the relationship of evolution to atheism. In the Middle Ages several logical "proofs" for the existence of God were proposed. One of these is the cosmological argument. Another was the Argument from Design. The AfG is an argument from analogy: human manufactured artifacts have design and must be produced by an intelligent entity -- humans. Plants and animals exhibit design, therefore by analogy they must also be manufactured by an intelligent entity. The only qualified intelligent entity is God.

Up until 1859, no one could find another way to get design but manufacture by an intelligent entity. The Argument from Design was considered a "proof" of the existence of God Even as ardent an atheist as David Hume had to concede the argument. Therefore atheism was an irrational faith. By irrational, I mean it was contradicted by the evidence. Today flat earth is an irrational faith.

However, Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that produces design. At that point the AfD ceased to be "proof" of the existence of God. God was not disproved. Rather, an argument was found to be wrong. Natural selection allowed, for the first time (as Dawkins has noted), atheism to be "intellectually fulfilled" and not irrational. Natural selection does not require someone to be an atheist. Even the IDer Phillip Johnson knows this:
"The blind watchmaker thesis makes it *possible* [emphasis in original] to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection." Phillip E. Johnson Reason in the Balance Pg. 77, 1996.

What creationist want to do is restore the Argument from Design. That is what you are doing when you say "there is no realistic way life came of it's own accord without divine incident" A problem (among many) is that you are using god-of-the-gaps to do so.

You are somewhere between a general Gnostic and a militant atheist, but not that of the Abrahamic God. That is my contempt for anyone who concludes that creationists are un-Christian, as faith in the Pentateuch does not seem to avail as it should.

1. Did you notice that you just equated Christianity with faith in some books? Christianity is not about faith in books; it's about faith in Christ. So right here we are seeing another unChristian aspect of creationism.

2. Gnosticism doesn't apply here. And, of course, we are somewhere shy of being militant atheists! LOL! We are quite a bit away from being militant atheists. In fact, we argue against militant atheism.

A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

In the beginning was El

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

LanceCohen

Guest

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency