A Question for those who Deny Evolution

SANDROSE, Do you believe man is uniquely different from all other animals? Or can you account for man's uniqueness via evolution?

talitha said:

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.

Click to expand...

Evolution is just a bunch of lies, that alot of teachers teach as fact not theory!

SandRose said:

Um... I think you misunderstand my objection. I don't doubt that the math works out... my objection is that this proof starts out with the assumption that the human population was always doubling. Based on every simulation of population growth that I've ever seen, it just doesn't work this way... populations may rapidly increase as resources increase, but they decrease again when the resources are exhausted.



This is one of those questions that I think makes a lot more sense to you guys than it does to me. Yes, I believe that man is uniquely different from all other animals, to the extent that penguins are different from all other birds and venus fly traps are different from all other plants. But to the extent that we have qualities that couldn't have possibly evolved -- no, I don't think we're that special.

Personally, I'm fascinated by studies of tool-making, language, empathy, metacognition, etc. in the animal kingdom. Just about any quality you can point to that distinguishes humans as being "uniquely different from all other animals" probably exists, in a primitive form at least, in some other species. I see no reason to believe that those traits couldn't have evolved into what we pride ourselves on being -- so unique and special that we could only have been supernaturally created that way.

Click to expand...

If you read the population example again it backs into the numbers. Thus it factors the non-growth periods into the number.....

As far as humans vs. animals, how do evolutionists account for the fact that primates intellegence (say apes) has been stagnant since its existance, while human intelligence continues to advance. When I say intelligence, I'm talking about everything, like technological know-how, analytical reasoning, creativity, etc. And I haven't even touched on ethical or moral values, emotions such as shyness, shame, modesty, etc...

SandRose said:

First of all, let me admit that I'm not used to discussing things like this, and so I'm having trouble explaining what I think is wrong with this model in a way that makes sense. Maybe a quick example would help...

Let's say a certain species has enough resources to maintain a population of 100. But then it invents agriculture and starts increasing at an exponential rate. When the population reaches 10,000, someone looks at the rate it's been increasing and deduces (correctly) that it's been doubling at a certain rate, once every x years.

Where I think it goes wrong is that, instead of working backward to a time when the population was a steady 100, this model assumes that the 100 must be a result of doubling as well, all the way back to a population of 2. As I understand it, the argument allows no concept of there ever having been a steady population, and I see no good reason for omitting that possibility.



They might say something along the lines of, apes' intelligence is stagnant because right now there's no significant evolutionary pressure favoring intelligence -- stupid apes are just as likely to pass on their genes as the smart ones. Early humans' environment on the other hand must have favored the ones that could form societies, build tools, and work together (and morality, creativity, and language are some things that would have been extremely useful in achieving that.)

But really, I'm not an evolutionary biologist -- this is just a guess based on the tiny fraction of what I know about evolutionary theory. If you're really wondering about this (and not just asking rhetorically), I'm sure there are books out there that explain it much better than I ever could.

Click to expand...

Your explanation still doesn't factor in population growth going back 2,000,000 years. Besides, the example purposely was over-conservative to begin with..... On the other topic, why is there only one intelligent species on earth? What are the odds of that? There are so many differnet species on this planet yet only one developed.

Sorry, to me that is what the bible means when it says:

Gen 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them."

I believe that some things are meant to evolve and other things, not. Immune systems evolve and adapt and are meant to, but Darwins theory goes too far with evolution, IMO, and has been refuted very convincingly by scientists as of late if one is easily impressed with large debates and great amounts of words.
Time is linear, but science shows us that there is a dimension of timelessness the Bible would term as eternity. There is neither past or future in the timeless state - only "now", and the Being able to create and have power over that dimension and the many other unseen dimensions we have recently discovered by mathematical theory would make time relative to His will. Of course I speak of God, and I do believe that we, as mere mortals bound to time as though it was a curse, have no reason to doubt God's control over time and eternity when we see it mathematically as near fct when dealing with speed, mass, and light. Ancient Hebrew texts speak of the universe being made with ten dimensions, and the last fifty years of science has revealed that a unifying theory of physics works best when using ten dimensions. It ties the theory of realtiviy and quantum mechanis together in a way that gives us a universe of the unseen, with only three dimensions being visible. If we live more in blindness to the dimensions, having only three visible ones along with time, why would we be so doubtful of the unseen God who actually is seen in all things that live? He speaks a language more complex that the mere movements of man's mouth, as life tells us much about God, to those that listen. The unseen dimensions outnumbers the seen and we struggle to even see how gravity is a distortion of time because we cannot escape our small three dimensional world of sight. What will we perceive when our senses are opened to these realities?
The Bible tells us that all things seen are made of the unseen long before man was clever enough to make a microscope, and the atoms and molecules, when they finally reveal all their secrets, will tell us of God's creation.
In my studies and observations in life, I have found the knowledge of mankind to be proud but not acurate or very great at all even though I was very enthusiastic to see it progress. In fact, through the years, it has been unreliable and ever changing because we are still very ignorant of even the base elemental powers and red faced on how to control them. Time, gravity, even a good basic explanation about why there is mass: all boil down to a mess of words for man with little power behind them to actually reproduce in kind what has been found already existing.
The even bigger problem for man is that no matter how much science and knowledge we aquire, it does not seem to help mankind escape the sin and death nature all inherited from Adam. The stark fact of this nature confronts us everytime we see the news on TV. Only one Man was ever born without a human father, that man being Jesus, and it was He that was able to live that one life for mankind that would be acceptable to a Holy God of love where sin and death cannot abide. When mankind is redeemed from the curse of sin and death, it will progress to knowing as it is known by God.

SandRose said:

Why not? What specifically is wrong with the simplified example that I gave?

Click to expand...

Ok...I'll do you a favor, instead of 2,000,000 years back, just go back to 10,000 bc (a time that wikopedia says agriciulture started) and work the numbers up. I'm disregarding 1,990,000 previous years, but I'll give you a break.

There are a multitude of species out there that can be said to have some type of intelligence -- dolphins, elephants, bonobos... crazy as it might sound, I have a dog that answers questions by barking and wagging her tail.

Click to expand...

GIVE ME A BREAK..Can they multiply 2x2? Every animal is trained by humans or is born with certain instincts. They haven't changed since mankind started.

Admittedly we've taken things like language and technology to a higher level, but I think we disagree about how far above the animal kingdom we humans actually are.

Click to expand...

Can they build rocket ships or computers. Can the beaver build a better dam than he did 1000 years ago?

SandRose,
Don't short-change yourself...You are unique. Every human is unique. God knows who you are and what you are thinking right at this minute. He gave you a special personality, a special soul.... Use it to you advantage and get to know God himself. That is what he desires. The bible says that Gods plan for us is salvation for all, but you need to trust and believe before your given the keys to his Kingdom... I gotta get some sleep now but I wish you would give God another look. Creation screams of a Creator.

Working from memory, the odds of a single cell organism springing into life is on the order of 1 in 10(followed by approximately 28,000 zeros). Calculate from that the probability of a 2 cell organism capable of sustaining life, or for the TRILLIONS of differentiated cells in all the various living organisms.


Secondly, explain the law of physics that allows/causes something to spring into existence from nothing.

Third, explain why the law of physics that governs the distribution of gaseous molecules in a vacuum was not in force when the big bang supposedly took place.

Explain how/what provided the magnetic attraction necessary to attract all those hydrogen molecules/atoms into one spot from all the way across the universe. (refer back to the first item to explain where the hydrogen atoms/molecules came from in the first place).

Lastly, you cited evolution as a theory. As I recall, even Darwin himself stated that he was only posing a POSSIBLE explanation for some of his observations.

In my book the similarity between various species and subspecies is explained by the concept that there are certain basic things/systems that work in our environment. That is why God (the Creator) used them in many of His creations.

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

Click to expand...

Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things. For through Him God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe through Him and for Him. Christ existed before all things, and in union with Him all things have their proper place.
(Col 1:15-17)

In the beginning the Word (Jesus) already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. Through Him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without Him.
(Joh 1:1-3)

Hope this helped.

SandRose said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am always open to see what someone has to say. If we do not know where we are, and where the other person is, then we can never get together, and meet. Only when we grasp where each other is, then can we come mutual ground.

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."

Click to expand...

Most people, never will, because they believe the two to be the same. But maybe I can explain this to you in a way that will make sense , so that you can grasp the difference. Really, it's never made, but simply because we do not define something, does not mean that it does not exist, or because we do define something, that it does.

But I'm inclined to think it's a false distinction... the concept and the scientific theory go together hand in glove.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. The Theory is Dependent on the Concept, the Concept is not dependent on the Theory.

As in, you can not believe the Theory, with out the Concept being integral, however, you can grasp the concept, with out accepting the theory.

Without the science, the concept would be baseless; without the concept, there would be nothing to hold the scientific observations together.

Click to expand...

Evidence is not Theory, and Theory is not Evidence. Evidence is what we have, it does not change, even if we put the wrong skull on a body, the evidence has not changed, only how we assembled the evidence has, but that does not change the fact that we had the skull, and we had the body, both are immutable evidence, and will not change, no matter what.

A Theory on the other hand is an attempt to explain the evidence, this, a Theory is not Evidence or Proof in it's own right. Many people miss the point, and think that the Theory is Evidence, or that it is necessary as a scientific base.

As such, we can hold the Concept based on the Evidence we have, while at the same time not believing in the the stories that have been constructed based on the limited evidence we do possess.

We can continue to distinguish between these two things, but I honestly think we'd just be playing word games.

Click to expand...

I suppose we could, however, I am sure you might enjoy this, as this is just a friendly exchange, and hopefully you will enjoy what I have to say regarding this, no pressure is intended, or desired.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a wonderful example. The Theory of Gravity, is based on the Law of Gravity, however the Law functions independent of the Theory. However, the Theory of Gravity seems to only apply within the confines of a singular solar system (or relative small scale), and when it is applied to something like a Galaxy (Larger Scale), it seems to fail. As such, when we need to use a projection model for a Galaxy, we use Einsteins Theory or Relativity, and when we need to make a Solar System Model, we use Newtons Theory of Gravity.

We grasp when it comes to Physics, that what may apply to one scale on the system, does not apply to other scales. Just as Einsteins Theory of relativity, and Newtons Theory of Gravity do not apply to the molecular level, so scales of the system, do affect what we can use to make an efficient model.

And we grasp that this is the case, when we play with something as exact as physics.

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?

Click to expand...

Exactly the case, we see above that scale, is an issue when it comes to science. Why do we treat something as mutable and chaotic as Biology as more secure then Physics, Is something I would like for you to ponder.

Given enough time, why can't small changes eventually add up to large changes?

Click to expand...

Great Question, and this is the very premise and foundation of the "Concept of Evolution" well, one of the concepts really.

There are different concepts on how this can happen as well.

However, if you do not go down the list, and look at the lower systems, then at this point, you only believe the "Concept" and do not follow the Theory, in a way, you only believe an Aspect of the Theory, or simply put "Just a part of it", as to the the Theory as a whole. But that is what I was talking about, many people just believe this aspect of it.

But to answer the Question:

They can.. to an extent.

Let me explain, we know that selection does have limitations, one of the most paramount limitations is the addition of Genetic information. We have yet to see a viable way to do this, beyond externally adding the Code to the life form (Genetically Engineered Plants), but have never seen a single case of genetic information being added in a natural way (Via Reproduction) that has been shown to be beneficial or non-detrimental to the life form (Downs Syndrome for example). However, we have witnessed the loss of genetic information to a life form, that has been non-detrimental.

As such, because of the evidence before us, we would then conclude that "Genetic Information" if added, needed to be added from an external agent for it to be beneficial. That would be a conclusion drawn from the Evidence.

Also note: Modifications within the existing genetic code, are acceptable, even to the point that some code can be removed, however, to change the code into a more complex code is not within the grasp of anything we have witnessed in nature, that is also supported by the Evidence.

Now, to say "Well it could happen".. that is to leave the realm of science and to make an assumption based on either no evidence, or evidence to the contra.

But that is excatly what the Theory of Evolution is placing down.

The Concept is, Changes over time, can be big changes. That concept is fine, but to the extent of those changes, is dependent on what evidence we have to show the limitations of variations within an species.

As it stands, we have no evidence that says, a Life Form can naturally become more complex in it's genetic code though natural reproduction of itself.

Thus, if I was to believe in Evolution, it would have been De-Evolution, that life is becoming more simplistic in it's genetic structure, and that could be validated by the evidence we do have.

This depends a lot on how you define separate species.

Click to expand...

Now again you grasp a powerful aspect, much of the theory is dependent of human terms and the limitations that humans have placed on things. Just because we say it's a species, does not make it one, it makes it fit what we think the dividing line it is.

Would you say that lions and tigers are different species? Would you say that great danes and chihuahuas are different species?

Click to expand...

Remember now, this is all just for fun and to have a joyous exchange, to see somethings and grasp the other side of the fence here. So, if this starts to go in a debate like direction, it will need to be ended, or if emotions or feelings of being hurt are present, then we equally should apologize and stop the discussion. I want this to be a joyous fun learning time for you, and maybe show you some things from the other side of the fence.

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.

Click to expand...

Well noted. You grasp this. Now, note, Lions and Tigers are both Cats, or felines. They can interbreed, (However I am not sure f they produce a viable offspring), but, now I may be wrong, but do not desire to do.

Dogs on the other hand, do desire to breed with each other, even the Toy Poodle, and the Mastiff will try to breed, as such, they view each other as viable mates. Thus, they should be considered the same species, by any human standard, because their very nature dictates them as such.

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.

Click to expand...

Awesome analogy, however, this is only one Concept of how it progresses, there are other Theories within the Theory of Evolution that point this in a different direction. There is the Caustic Theory , and the Punctured Equilibrium, these are the two major ones(There might be a few minor ones, not sure). Now you need to ask yourself, Which one do you subscribe to, and then when you ask this question, you then need to ask, well if I have to ask this question, then how do I know if I am believing in this Coherent Theory, if I have to ask this question.

Now usign yoru color wheel: you may say, on a 8bit scale, you can see the distinct lines quite well, on a 32 bit scale, it's harder, and on a 128 bit sale it's even harder to note the distinction.

The problem we possess, we do not know the color scale, or even if there is gradation into species, did a Lion and a Tiger at one time have the same ancestor? The Theory says Yes, the Concept says it does not matter. The Evidence says "We don't know".

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.

Click to expand...

Well they were two dogs, the one on top is an American Bulldog, the one on the bottom is a French Bulldog. However, I made this point to you, to show you something.

They were both dogs, and they were both in the breed of bulldog.

However, if you can notice such modifications within a sub category of species like breed, then when you look at a human skull, and trace it's history back, then maybe you need to look at a lot more then just the skull. However, the entire bases of the Evolution of man, is based on just that.. the skull. Which I was just trying to show you, can be misleading.

Like for example:




Could this have been just variants in the breed, as opposed to a completely different species? (Sorry about the damage to the skulls, it makes it hard to see well).

Can we make this assessment based on the skull alone?

Now here is a fun question I like to ask people, because, it just is a great question to put out, only because it makes people think about things different.

Did Humans evolve from Chimpanzees, or did Chimpanzees evolve from Humans, (Now the best answer is, we shared a common ancestor). However, can you prove that as well?

Can you prove that the Chimpanzee did not exist first, and we evolved specialty from what is current day Chimpanzees, because the chimpanzee did not need to change, just as the Great White shark has not needed to change for the last 65 million years. (Think about that, 65 million years, the Great White has been around and unchanged, and human has only been around for about 3.4 million years, and seems to have changed all over the place)

See these are questions, that the Theory of Evolution, seeks to answer. They say "We evolved from a common ancestor" however, that is not fact or evidence, that is opinion of the evidence.

In the end, we don't know, we can only formulate a guess, based on what we think should happen, and built off a concept of what we think is correct.

But in some cases what we do know, does not agree with how the Theory is laid out. And that is a problem, and it becomes a greater problem, when people do not look at all the diffrent aspects and see how they fit.

Imagine the Theory of Evolution is like a Jig Saw puzzle, but as you work the puzzle, you discover, that the pieces do not fit as well as what you have been told, and in the end, you end up with a different picture then what was on the box. Your first conclusion is "Something is very wrong here, either I have the wrong pieces, or they have the wrong image"

The problem I have now, is that I am told the image is right, despite that problem.

I am left to conclude one thing:

We both might be, but one of us must be, wrong.
Abraham Lincoln.

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

Click to expand...

I hope I have only given you food for thought, and allowed you to look at things from maybe a diffrent angle, no matter what you believe, it is always a wonderful journey to discovery when you can exchange between people, and still feel safe and secure in what you have to say will be treated with respect.

I hope that I have treated your words with respect and appreciation, and that you do not feel like we are having a debate, but an expression of hope to explain your question.

Always.

God Bless

Key

SandRose-

Christians who reject evolution are most likely rejecting the false evolution of something coming from nothing. This is false science and not even remotely has any missing link to it. My professors even rejected this as I have a biology degree. Darwinism - doesn't.

If you go to www.reasons.org - it brings true science and faith together. Evolution called microevolution and certain macroevolution is correct but the something coming from nothing so they can do "without God" is strange. Its like saying that your car just appeared in thin air. This isn't remotely possible for this to occur.

salida said:

SandRose-

Christians who reject evolution are most likely rejecting the false evolution of something coming from nothing. This is false science and not even remotely has any missing link to it. My professors even rejected this as I have a biology degree. Darwinism - doesn't.

If you go to www.reasons.org - it brings true science and faith together. Evolution called microevolution and certain macroevolution is correct but the something coming from nothing so they can do "without God" is strange. Its like saying that your car just appeared in thin air. This isn't remotely possible for this to occur.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis.

Believe it or not.. that is still around.. and still has some very strong adherents.

God Bless

Key.