A Question for those who Deny Evolution

[SandRose]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

 

[Calminian]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

The main reason biblical christians reject evolution is the clear historical account given in Genesis. It directly challenges the naturalistic presuppositions of science and reveals the origin of the species to be a creative supernatural act of God.

As I've said many times, the confusion on this issue stems from a general misunderstanding of the philosophical assumptions that are so necessary to science, primarily methodological naturalism. There's actually an article by an atheist I'd like to refer you to, who really seems to understand the problem of miracles in relation to science.

Science and Miracles
Theodore M. Drange

This will help at least with the basic issue of presuppositions. Until both sides understand this, the debate will be nothing but two sides talking past one another.

Now from there, christians look to the many intelligent design arguments that are out there. But I have to admit these are more precisely arguments from logic rather than science per se. I think science is necessarily limited to natural explanations. It cannot extrapolate back to a miracle. It must dismiss them a priori. All origins debates, in my opinion, are broader epistemological issues regarding the validity of the various world views—specifically theism, deism and atheism. If theism is shown to be a valid possibility, then the epistemological value of science must be reevaluated and its limitations acknowledge. A lot more can be said, but I hope that helps for now.

 

[talitha]

I believed in Santa Claus until there was sufficient evidence for me that he did not exist. I believed dogs were boys and cats were girls until I saw something that disproved that theory. I believed in God until - well, I've never stopped believing in God - or in creationism. I believe the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. And I think they have failed to prove anything really.

blessings in Christ
tal

 

[RC1262]

G'day SandRose,

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

Firstly, let me say straight up that I don't want to get into an argument here on this topic...

I guess the main reason why I reject evolution is because the Bible says the exact opposite and to believe it would undermine the whole foundation or basis of the Good News of Jesus Christ because death would then not be the punishment of sin and hence, Jesus couldn't have paid the price or penalty for our sins.

Now, before you go on scoffing saying that my "religious" belief is the only reason why I disagree with evolution, it is not true. Since the Bible is the Word of God, then we should expect that science should match up with the Bible (i.e. evidence should not completely support molecules-to-man evolution). I look at the evidence and I believe that it is often best interpreted through a creationary worldview rather than a materialistic or evolutionary worldview.

One such reason is the fact that to change a microbe to a human being over how ever long you want to make it will take the addition of over 999 books of 500 pages of highly complex information that was previously unseen into the genome. An example of this can probably best be seen with putting feathers onto reptiles ... it would require a lot of new highly complex and encoded instructions for making feathers that were not previously in the genome of the reptile. Hence, this information must be added somehow, and to be blunt, mutations, natural selection, and every other way proposed of doing this can only be seen in re-arranging pre-existing information or removing it. There hasn't been a single observed mutation which has been seen to increase the information in the genome that previously did not exist. That said, in this very complex world, there may be one or two that we haven't observed ... but for evolution to have any chance of being true, then we should be constantly seeing these up-hill changes, yet we do not.

Another reason which has forced me to reject evolution is the lack of transitional fossils between ape-like creatures and humans, reptiles and birds (which ironically enough have totally different respirtory systems, different body tempteratures, and so on that make it very difficult to see how a transitional form could survive with "half-developed lungs" and what have you), and all the other proposed stages. Now, while they do have some candiates, most of these are heavily disputed, often times by evolutionists themselves.

Further more, I guess when you look at death itself, and the way that people in particular morn those who have died, it just doesn't seem "natural," (you know the "death is a natural part of life" tagline). I mean, when you look at the suffering that those people who have suffered a loss ... it is devastating and can go on for years and even decades. I honestly don't believe that human beings were originally created to endure the burden of death of a loved one. Our reactions imply that death is an intruder into this creation ... an enemy. Evolution treats death more as a friend than a foe, because it is through the death of the weak that the strong can rise up.

There are more, but those first two in particular are the only two that come to mind. Note that these are some of the reasons why I reject evolution and may not be the reasons why other Christians do.

From,
Scorch (a.k.a. RC-1262).

 

[talitha]

in agreement with broScorch......

and I came back to say that I don't think science has any business in origins philosophy - there is no way to test it scientifically - no one alive today was there - oh, wait - there is One......

hehe

blessings
tal

 

[SandRose]

I believed in God until - well, I've never stopped believing in God - or in creationism. I believe the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. And I think they have failed to prove anything really.

Just wondering if I could get a bit of clarification -- do you mean to say that given enough evidence you would abandon the idea of creationism in favor of evolution, or are you saying that you don't believe it's possible that such a theory can be proven? (And if it's the case of the former, what kind of proof would be required?)

Firstly, let me say straight up that I don't want to get into an argument here on this topic...

Don't worry... I want to make it clear (both to you and any future responders to this thread) that I didn't come here to start an argument or scoff at your religious beliefs. I'm only trying to better understand where you're coming from, to understand the reasoning behind arriving at the conclusions that you do, etc. Thanks for giving such a long and detailed reply.

 

[Optimax]

G'day SandRose,



Firstly, let me say straight up that I don't want to get into an argument here on this topic...

I guess the main reason why I reject evolution is because the Bible says the exact opposite and to believe it would undermine the whole foundation or basis of the Good News of Jesus Christ because death would then not be the punishment of sin and hence, Jesus couldn't have paid the price or penalty for our sins.

Now, before you go on scoffing saying that my "religious" belief is the only reason why I disagree with evolution, it is not true. Since the Bible is the Word of God, then we should expect that science should match up with the Bible (i.e. evidence should not completely support molecules-to-man evolution). I look at the evidence and I believe that it is often best interpreted through a creationary worldview rather than a materialistic or evolutionary worldview.

One such reason is the fact that to change a microbe to a human being over how ever long you want to make it will take the addition of over 999 books of 500 pages of highly complex information that was previously unseen into the genome. An example of this can probably best be seen with putting feathers onto reptiles ... it would require a lot of new highly complex and encoded instructions for making feathers that were not previously in the genome of the reptile. Hence, this information must be added somehow, and to be blunt, mutations, natural selection, and every other way proposed of doing this can only be seen in re-arranging pre-existing information or removing it. There hasn't been a single observed mutation which has been seen to increase the information in the genome that previously did not exist. That said, in this very complex world, there may be one or two that we haven't observed ... but for evolution to have any chance of being true, then we should be constantly seeing these up-hill changes, yet we do not.

Another reason which has forced me to reject evolution is the lack of transitional fossils between ape-like creatures and humans, reptiles and birds (which ironically enough have totally different respirtory systems, different body tempteratures, and so on that make it very difficult to see how a transitional form could survive with "half-developed lungs" and what have you), and all the other proposed stages. Now, while they do have some candiates, most of these are heavily disputed, often times by evolutionists themselves.

Further more, I guess when you look at death itself, and the way that people in particular morn those who have died, it just doesn't seem "natural," (you know the "death is a natural part of life" tagline). I mean, when you look at the suffering that those people who have suffered a loss ... it is devastating and can go on for years and even decades. I honestly don't believe that human beings were originally created to endure the burden of death of a loved one. Our reactions imply that death is an intruder into this creation ... an enemy. Evolution treats death more as a friend than a foe, because it is through the death of the weak that the strong can rise up.

There are more, but those first two in particular are the only two that come to mind. Note that these are some of the reasons why I reject evolution and may not be the reasons why other Christians do.

From,
Scorch (a.k.a. RC-1262).

This is really good!
Thanks

 

[talitha]

Just wondering if I could get a bit of clarification -- do you mean to say that given enough evidence you would abandon the idea of creationism in favor of evolution, or are you saying that you don't believe it's possible that such a theory can be proven? (And if it's the case of the former, what kind of proof would be required?)

Were such evidence possible, perhaps I would believe it. But I don't believe such evidence is possible. As I said in the later post, none of us were there - and origins theories cannot be scientifically tested.

blessings
tal

 

[sliced9emoness]

Were such evidence possible, perhaps I would believe it. But I don't believe such evidence is possible. As I said in the later post, none of us were there - and origins theories cannot be scientifically tested.

So because evolution doesn't seem to have enough evidence, you happily settle with the Genesis account of creation...?

 

[sliced9emoness]

I guess the main reason why I reject evolution is because the Bible says the exact opposite and to believe it would undermine the whole foundation or basis of the Good News of Jesus Christ because death would then not be the punishment of sin and hence, Jesus couldn't have paid the price or penalty for our sins.

What does Jesus have to do with the account of creation?

Now, before you go on scoffing saying that my "religious" belief is the only reason why I disagree with evolution, it is not true. Since the Bible is the Word of God, then we should expect that science should match up with the Bible (i.e. evidence should not completely support molecules-to-man evolution).

Although the Bible is the Word of God, it was written by men. Whose knowledge of science wasn't quite competent, considering they lived thousands of years ago.

but for evolution to have any chance of being true, then we should be constantly seeing these up-hill changes, yet we do not.

I may have read too quickly, but evolution in eukaryotes takes time and is not observable within a human's lifetime. If you want to constantly see these up-hill changes, go to a laboratory, sit in front of a microscope for the whole day, and see those microbes do wonder.

Another reason which has forced me to reject evolution is the lack of transitional fossils between ape-like creatures and humans, reptiles and birds (which ironically enough have totally different respirtory systems, different body tempteratures, and so on that make it very difficult to see how a transitional form could survive with "half-developed lungs" and what have you), and all the other proposed stages. Now, while they do have some candiates, most of these are heavily disputed, often times by evolutionists themselves.

Do you know the names of your great-great-great-great-great-grandparents? Have you ever seen their remnants? Does the lack of evidence make you reject the fact that they might be your ancestors at all?

Further more, I guess when you look at death itself, and the way that people in particular morn those who have died, it just doesn't seem "natural," (you know the "death is a natural part of life" tagline). I mean, when you look at the suffering that those people who have suffered a loss ... it is devastating and can go on for years and even decades. I honestly don't believe that human beings were originally created to endure the burden of death of a loved one. Our reactions imply that death is an intruder into this creation ... an enemy. Evolution treats death more as a friend than a foe, because it is through the death of the weak that the strong can rise up.

From the evolutionary point of view, it is survival of the genes that matters the most, not the survival of organisms themselves. As depressing as it is, the evolution theory implies that we humans are mere "shells" to protect these genes. If we are not made to endure death, it is because we don't matter in the bigger scheme of things.

And unfortunately, I am a nihilist anyway.


Edit: I'm not trying to convince you to be an evolutionist, but those are some responses you might want to know.

 

[talitha]

So because evolution doesn't seem to have enough evidence, you happily settle with the Genesis account of creation...?

I wasn't there, none of the evolutionists were there, I only know of One who was there, and I have no reason to doubt His word.

 

[Key]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

Hello again SandRose.

Hope I can help you with this.

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

Human Stupidity.

Now I am sure you would like an explanation of that statement, and I will provide you one, however, before I do, and given one of our former exchanges, I would like at this moment, to see what you think about what I just said.

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

It's a Theory, It's not proof, or evidence, or anything in and of itself, it is in the end of things, a story built from two points.

What we think happened.

What evidence we really have.

As far as Evidence goes, we don't have much.

As far as think goes.. we have tons.

So I am looking at a theory with tons of think and not enough stuff.

Sides.. It keeps changing.. I can't "Believe" in something mutable, I might accept that some kind of "Evolution" may have happened, but the Theory as it stands it does not deserve "belief", at best, it has earned some minor consideartion.

See for many, even those that "believe" in the Theory of Evolution, they really only believe in the "Concept of Evolution" they do not Believe in the Theory, because that keeps changing, are you going to believe in something that tomorrow is going to say "Ooops, we got a head wrong again" ? You can't do that, really, because when they fix it, what you "Believed" before the fix was wrong, if it was wrong then, what ensures that it is right now?

That I would say, not many "believe" in the "Theory of Evolution" but they do accept the "Concept Of Evolution" (And even the Concept is still in debate) even among it's most adamant adherents.

I hope I have given you Insight into this.

God Bless

Key

 

[SandRose]

From the evolutionary point of view, it is survival of the genes that matters the most, not the survival of organisms themselves. As depressing as it is, the evolution theory implies that we humans are mere "shells" to protect these genes. If we are not made to endure death, it is because we don't matter in the bigger scheme of things.

I'm going to disagree with you on this -- not because this isn't how organisms work, but because there's a lot more to being human than reproducing and dying. Our intelligence enables us to partake in language and arts and sciences in a way that allows us to have a much greater impact on the world than just acting as shells for our genes.

See for many, even those that "believe" in the Theory of Evolution, they really only believe in the "Concept of Evolution" they do not Believe in the Theory, because that keeps changing

Hello again Key, and thanks for your input. I didn't think to make a distinction between the scientific theory of evolution and the concept of evolution because I figured everyone would know what I was referring to (and because I rarely distinguish them that way in my mind). For the purposes of this thread and my original question, I don't think they need to be separated -- it's probably safe to assume that most people who believe evolution as a concept believe it because of the scientific evidence, even if that evidence is constantly being added to and refined.

are you going to believe in something that tomorrow is going to say "Ooops, we got a head wrong again" ? You can't do that, really, because when they fix it, what you "Believed" before the fix was wrong, if it was wrong then, what ensures that it is right now?

I didn't want this thread to turn into a big discussion, but since you asked a question... Even though I doubt that that any scientific theory is 100% correct right now, the theory of evolution has never undergone a change so drastic as to render previous versions of it completely "wrong." The theory makes testable predictions that no competing scientific theory (that I know of) can match, and I think that's what makes me believe that, even if its every detail isn't right at the moment, our body of scientific knowledge is at the very least verging on an answer.

 

[Eila]

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

Intelligent design. Our bodies, animals, plants, etc are too complex to be anything other than made by God.

 

[Key]

I didn't want this thread to turn into a big discussion, but since you asked a question... Even though I doubt that that any scientific theory is 100% correct right now, the theory of evolution has never undergone a change so drastic as to render previous versions of it completely "wrong."

That would depend on what needed to happen to make it wrong.

Like for example, Raptors, going from Lizard like, bumped skin, reptiles, to feather covered bird like animals. Would be a bit of a major change in the entire way the system should have been looked at. However, the "Theory" did not even receive a so much as a casual glance, and the "Concept" remained unchanged, the story just was modified to some how fit Raptos into the Bird Group, and say "Well that was the way it was supposed to go"

However, unless people keep up, constantly on the data, or the changes and look at what has been said, and what is said now about the process, then they remain in the sate of illusion that it is "Constant" and it is supported.

In this case, You do not believe the "Theory of Evolution" you just accept the "Concept of Evolution"

The two are not the same, because the "Concept of Evolution" can not be proven false ever, no matter what is found.

The "Theory of Evolution" states that "This is the way it happened" this is only looked at by some in a microscope level, IE: The Evolution of Man, and to them, that is "Evolution" however.

Grasp this for a moment. Every foot of our planet has life teeming though it, each and every one of those life forms has to have "Evolved", in this sense, we have so very little evidence.

The theory makes testable predictions that no competing scientific theory (that I know of) can match, and I think that's what makes me believe that, even if its every detail isn't right at the moment, our body of scientific knowledge is at the very least verging on an answer.

I believe you are confusing Adaptation, with Evolution. This a common mistake, many times people use the term Evolution, but when you look at what was done, it was selective breeding, or forced Adaptation. I may be wrong, in this. But that has been my experience when dealing with people , they confuse one for the other.

Let me show you something. This is just for fun, no debate or nothing, just something to show, to answer your own questions, as to why some of us don't believe.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable, or anything, ya know, just let me know, I don't want to pressure you or anything at all, just want you to see a few things, maybe help you understand things from my side of the fence. No pressure, no rush, if you don't feel like answering, or anything at all, it's all good. This is just for fun anyway.

Tell me what you think.

This is the skull of an animal that we have found, now I want you to look at the heavy under slung jaw, the cheek bones are quite thick, and the head is very round on top.

Now, we have found another skull, that looks very close to this skull, but with some major differences, however you can see clearly that the second skull comes from what can only be considered something that this first animal evolved from, we know the origin of the skulls and the skull below is older by quite a bit of time.

Notice how the Jaw is more inline to the skull, also notice how the lower teeth are not as pronounced as the skull above. You will see they share very common features, the high forehead (also this one has a slightly less projection on the to of it's head), the cheeks, even the back teeth are very close to each other.

Tell me what you think? Do they look like two separate species?

God Bless

Key

 

[Key]

I'm going to disagree with you on this -- not because this isn't how organisms work, but because there's a lot more to being human than reproducing and dying. Our intelligence enables us to partake in language and arts and sciences in a way that allows us to have a much greater impact on the world than just acting as shells for our genes.

You know SandRose, you are very correct, there is a lot more to us, then simple Genes, Reproduction and Death.

You are a precious person, a creation of God, who is willing to accept you and love you. You are an individual that could one day change the world culture, there are lives you will touch, people you will love and they will love you in return. You will change the lives of those that know you, and you will be changed by those you have met.

Your Life is a Journey, a wonderful journey of growth and adventure, and discovery, and you are a very special person in our world.

Just not to the Scheme of Evolution.

To the Scheme of Evolution, you are Genes, that have either passed on, or passed away.

Maybe that is also why some Christians reject it, it down plays their existence to such simple means. Might be a thought to ponder.

God Bless

Key.

 

[DArceri]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

. The following is the first of fifty arguments against the evolution of man.
1. THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD
The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computations:
At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648 Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.
Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.
Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number 15,393, 815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figure to be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.
While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.
Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the other various chronologies would make any material difference in these calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race.
Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.
Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.
All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.
Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.
That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since 2,000,000 divided by 30.75 is equals 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!
Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all Species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.
The testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true. The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hale's chronology. If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are imperfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?

 

[SandRose]

Tell me what you think?

Even though I didn't start this thread with the expectation of discussing or defending anything, I'm touched that you're interested in my point of view, and so I'll try my best to answer your post.

First of all (and this is one reason I'm already glad that I started this thread), I've never heard anyone make this distinction between the "concept of evolution" and the "theory of evolution." But I'm inclined to think it's a false distinction... the concept and the scientific theory go together hand in glove. Without the science, the concept would be baseless; without the concept, there would be nothing to hold the scientific observations together. We can continue to distinguish between these two things, but I honestly think we'd just be playing word games.

Like for example, Raptors, going from Lizard like, bumped skin, reptiles, to feather covered bird like animals. Would be a bit of a major change in the entire way the system should have been looked at. However, the "Theory" did not even receive a so much as a casual glance, and the "Concept" remained unchanged, the story just was modified to some how fit Raptos into the Bird Group, and say "Well that was the way it was supposed to go"

I don't see why fitting a new species into the phylogenic tree should be treated as undermining the theory of evolution... to me it's a bit like saying that the advances of modern physics somehow undermines the theory of gravity. Based on physical characteristics, age, location (and whatever else) of fossil findings, someone theorized that this was how birds evolved, and with enough evidence it was gradually accepted into the theory. If anything, this seems to me like a strong argument in favor of evolution.

I believe you are confusing Adaptation, with Evolution. This a common mistake, many times people use the term Evolution, but when you look at what was done, it was selective breeding, or forced Adaptation. I may be wrong, in this. But that has been my experience when dealing with people , they confuse one for the other.

I think that this Adaptation/Evolution (or micro-evolution/macro-evolution) business is another false distinction... To me, it's like saying: sure 1 + 1 = 2, and sure, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, but 1 + 1 + 1 a million times over would never add up to a million. It's impossible, no one's ever counted that high, you can't prove it. But where does the border lie between adaptation and evolution? Given enough time, why can't small changes eventually add up to large changes?

Tell me what you think? Do they look like two separate species?

This depends a lot on how you define separate species. Would you say that lions and tigers are different species? Would you say that great danes and chihuahuas are different species? The former are usually considered as such, even though they can interbreed. The latter are both dogs, but given the vast size differences in their bodies and reproductive organs, it would understandably be very difficult (if not impossible) for them to do so. The lines that we as humans draw between "separate species" are often arbitrary -- nature has no reason to obey them. Evolution operates on a gradient, and pointing out the precise moment when one species evolved into another is like trying to point to the spot where yellow turns to orange on a color wheel.

But other than that, I'm not sure what you're getting at -- yes, the two skulls are physically different, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an enough of an expert on animal anatomy or skeletal systems to conclusively say that one evolved from the other, or that these should be classified as different species, or whatever.

This is just for fun anyway.

Yes, I completely agree -- these discussions / question-answer sessions of ours have all been very intellectually stimulating to me, and I'd be happy to continue them as long as you're up for it

 

[SandRose]

Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?

Since you asked... no, to me this is anything but decisive and final. It's built around the unwarranted assumption that the human population was always increasing -- before agriculture and technology and such were developed, why should the ancestors of humans be expected to have increased their population exponentially?

(Also, you mention that this is the first of 50 arguments -- do you have the link to a page with the rest? I'd be interested in reading them. )

 

[DArceri]

Since you asked... no, to me this is anything but decisive and final. It's built around the unwarranted assumption that the human population was always increasing -- before agriculture and technology and such were developed, why should the ancestors of humans be expected to have increased their population exponentially?

(Also, you mention that this is the first of 50 arguments -- do you have the link to a page with the rest? I'd be interested in reading them. )

I believe the number was derived by backing into it (conservatively), so it is a plausable number.....

PUT IN YOUR OWN DOUBLING NUMBER ....Be as conservative as you need to be (within reason) and let me know what you come up with.... Start back 2,000,000 years ago.