Evolution- a holdover of foundationalism

[daveleau]

Foundationalism is the basing of knowledge on one sure fact and expounding upon it. This is a good way to discern knowledge, if done correctly and without prejudice. Evolution is based on the idea of natural selection and mutation, both known and observed facts. But, evolution takes it a step further and explains the whole of creation based on these two observable principles. Men rationalized these theories because these men insisted on the idea that there was no God. They took the small knowledge that they had (animals' built-in ability to change with the inherently changing environment (Thank You, God!)) and turned this simple set of observations into a detailed and complex rationalization based on nothing more than similarities. These men did not take into account that random meshing of molecules to create man would have caused wide differences in the basic building blocks of species. Instead, we have 20 amino acids and 5 nucleotides that make up the building blocks of life. We have one type of material that transmits data from parent to offspring (DNA). Even the material used by prions and viruses use products of this single material (DNA->RNA->Protein). Also, they assume that complex structures could have come about by selective mutations that would have been disadvantageous to the carriers. For instance, they say that the wing evolved by first being a flap and then grew and grew to become a wing. They say that the flap was used to move about by swimming or by pulling up onto land. They ignore the fact that the wing is a very brittle structure, much too weak to be used in motion on land and much too complex to be effective in swimming.

The truth is that God built in a simple way for animals and humans to change from generation to generation to adapt to changing environments. This simple flexibility has been blown out of proportion to the point where scientists actually abandon the scientific method of doubting first, then gathering empirical evidence to cancel their doubts. Instead, scientists uncharacteristically take an idea and attempt to find information that supports their ideas rather than discount them.

It is simply irrational to believe that species came from other species. There is no evidence to support that there are any links between creatures. There are similarities in genetics and similarities in phenotypes, but there is no evidence to show that they are linked. It simply means that God built the earth with a specific set of natural laws in mind that He enacted and which animals had certain ways that they could navigate nature with- hence the similarities.

The only question that remains is- where did the dinosaurs come from? This is the only unanswerable question in regards to the evidence that brought about evolution (evolutionists consistently and again uncharacteristically discard the fact that the fossil records are contrary to their theories).

God bless,
Dave

 

[notto]

Can you name a few of the 'men' your post references. What 'men' did the things you suggest?

Evolution explains the origin of SPECIES. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't deal with the creation of life and it doesn't deal with whether there is a God or not. And I hate to break it to you, but we have observed new species evolving both in the lab an in the wild. You might want to reword your post to adjust for this fact.

It is the best explanation for the biodiversity we find both living and in the fossil record. Life in the past was very different than life today and evolution explains why.

To suggest that this explanation is just based on 'similarities' is simply a lie. To suggest that it was not founded on the scientific method is a lie. Special creation was THE mainstream theory before evolution came around. Evolution was severely criticized when first proposed and eventually became the prominent one because it has not been falsified after numerous tests and attempts. You seem to be suggesting that it has not been legitimately challenged. That would be another lie.

I would like to ask you a simple question. Have you read Darwin or any other mainstream book on evolution? What parts of these books match your description above?

 

[daveleau]

Evolution science does in fact deal with issues they call prebiology. This is the science that theorized the primordial ooze.

I have not read an entire book by Darwin. I have taken a college elective during my pursuit of my BS Biology (Citadel 1996) which was strictly regarding the subject of evolution. It included much more than just Darwin and focused on all the sources of evolutionary thought (Gould, Lamarck, Darwin, etc) We went over all of the theories and all of the evidence. The course was at a secular state university and the idea was to educate us on the theories. I originally took the course to see what the other side thought in regards to Creation and origin of man. The course shook my faith for several years and was not solid again until I graduated. My faith changed from being a strict 4004BC Creationist to being open minded and less dogmatic about Creation. The only things we are absolutely certain of are that God took 6 periods (either 24 hour periods or ages) to create the Earth, universe and man ex nihilo. I have also been published in several scientific journals in the work of genetics and endocrinology. Believe me, I am not speaking from ignorance. Look me up on PubMed, if you like. I will PM you my name if you want to do so.

I recently read "Darwin On Trial" for a Master's class, which has rekindled my interest in evolution. It is a critique of evolution much like the ideas that I had concluded after years of reflection on my college course's material. It takes the scientific data and refutes it from scientific stances outside of the world of the theological (even though Johnson is a Christian).

Gould said: "the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history [is] the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."

The Cambrian explosion of 600 million years ago occurred with nearly all of the animal phyla without a single evolutionary fossilized ancestor.

Darwin said: "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

The men I mention are a generic term for the founders of the theories.

The only reason that evolution has grown is because no better and suitable theory for creation, speciation and life exists other than Creation, which they (evolutionists) refuse to give credence to. The fossil record is not evidence for evolution, but evidence proving stasis. If speciation had occurred via evolution, there WOULD be transitional forms interlaced throughout each age strata.

On a separate and grave note:
Please do not call me a liar. It is well outside the rules. And this is a friendly reminder, not an official one. If you want to discuss it more, you must drop your heavy handed language.

 

[notto]

Evolution science does in fact deal with issues they call prebiology. This is the science that theorized the primordial ooze.

I have not read an entire book by Darwin. I have taken a college elective during my pursuit of my BS Biology (Citadel 1996) which was strictly regarding the subject of evolution. It included much more than just Darwin and focused on all the sources of evolutionary thought (Gould, Lamarck, Darwin, etc) We went over all of the theories and all of the evidence. The course was at a secular state university and the idea was to educate us on the theories. I originally took the course to see what the other side thought in regards to Creation and origin of man. The course shook my faith for several years and was not solid again until I graduated. My faith changed from being a strict 4004BC Creationist to being open minded and less dogmatic about Creation. The only things we are absolutely certain of are that God took 6 periods (either 24 hour periods or ages) to create the Earth, universe and man ex nihilo. I have also been published in several scientific journals in the work of genetics and endocrinology. Believe me, I am not speaking from ignorance. Look me up on PubMed, if you like. I will PM you my name if you want to do so.

I recently read "Darwin On Trial" for a Master's class, which has rekindled my interest in evolution. It is a critique of evolution much like the ideas that I had concluded after years of reflection on my college course's material. It takes the scientific data and refutes it from scientific stances outside of the world of the theological (even though Johnson is a Christian).

Gould said: "the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history [is] the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."

The Cambrian explosion of 600 million years ago occurred with nearly all of the animal phyla without a single evolutionary fossilized ancestor.

Darwin said: "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

The men I mention are a generic term for the founders of the theories.

The only reason that evolution has grown is because no better and suitable theory for creation, speciation and life exists other than Creation, which they (evolutionists) refuse to give credence to. The fossil record is not evidence for evolution, but evidence proving stasis. If speciation had occurred via evolution, there WOULD be transitional forms interlaced throughout each age strata.

On a separate and grave note:
Please do not call me a liar. It is well outside the rules. And this is a friendly reminder, not an official one. If you want to discuss it more, you must drop your heavy handed language.

Do you understand that the cambrian explosion was not a 'sudden' event but took place over millions of years? Do you realized that we now have found fossils that predate the cambrian?

Do you realize that evolution doesn't define 'progress' as anything other than survival?

Do you realize that your quote from Darwin is out of context and that his question has been answered?

Can you provide more context around any of the quotes you gave? Have YOU read the original source of the quotes for yourself?

You stated things that are not true. Perhaps you are using a poor source. I guess you wouldn't be a liar unless you repeat them again in the future now that you have been corrected.

Your most recent post contains a few more of this misstatements:
1) 'without a single evolutionary fossilized ancestor'
2) The fossil record is not evidence for evolution
3) which they (evolutionists) refuse to give credence to

Special creationism was THE prevailing theory. It was falsified and replace by evolution over the course of about 50 years because the evidence led scientists that way. Special creation has been falsified over and over leaving evolution as the only unfalsified scientific theory that explains the evidence we find in both genetics and the fossil record. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.

What alternative theory describes the fossil record and the double nested hierarchy we see? How does special creation explain the distance in the fossil record between man and dinosaur? Between dinosaurs and the earliest fish? It doesn't.

How does special creation explain similar markers in multile species DNA from endogenous retroviruses? It doesn't.

It fails as a theory because it can't explain the evidence. Those that hold to special creation are left to ad-hoc explanations involving the flood, the fall, and a deceiving God. These ad-hoc explanations don't hold up to actual review of the evidence from geology and biology.

 

[notto]

I have also been published in several scientific journals in the work of genetics and endocrinology. Believe me, I am not speaking from ignorance. Look me up on PubMed, if you like. I will PM you my name if you want to do so..

- found em. Have you looked at ERV's?

 

[daveleau]

Endogenous retroviruses? I've never been involved in any type of RNA research. We had an in-house MB that supported us with RNA work and did his own projects. I applied for a job in the RTP that would have had me in that field (working with HIV), but I decided not to take it and eventually got out of the field all together. I disliked the work because of pay, repetitiveness, monotony and the looseness in which scientists manipulated their data (no offense to other scientists out there- this was common in the area I worked in). And ultimately, I don't feel that that was where God wanted me.

We did discuss that observation in class. The introns are very interesting topics.

 

[daveleau]

One question- what is your view on the validity of Genesis 1?

 

[notto]

One question- what is your view on the validity of Genesis 1?

It gives us the theology we need to understand God and that he created. The history is a bit shakey and I think it is better to actually look at the creation to understand how God created, after all, the creation is a direct work of God. This is what evolution, geology, physics, science, etc do. They explain the how, the bible explains the why.

 

[daveleau]

I agree. Nature is the other major source of revelation from God. It does not trump Scripture, though. That is why I can not believe in the evolution of man based on the shaky, hole-ridden evidence purported.

 

[notto]

I agree. Nature is the other major source of revelation from God. It does not trump Scripture, though. That is why I can not believe in the evolution of man based on the shaky, hole-ridden evidence purported.

Then I would have to assume that you are not making an objective decision. To claim that evolution is based on shaky hole-riden evidence suggest that you must be seeing it differently than 99% of scientists in the field. I'm guessing that you are seeing it differnetly because of your subjective beliefs, not because of the actual evidence.

You mentioned that one of the sources you used to determine that it was shakey and full of holes was a book written by a creationist lawyer. Why not look at what the scientists write?

Why do you think that the huge majority of scientists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Budhist, Atheist, or whatever accept evolution. Why is it accepted by scientists from around the globe. Why do they all come to the same conclusions when the examine and reexamine the evidence. Why can't it be falsified with evidence?

From what I can tell, God's creation is pretty clear on the issue. I guess for me the direct handiwork of God does trump an interpretation of scripture. Nature cannot lie or be faulty. Mans interpretation and transcription of the bible can be.

 

[daveleau]

It is accepted because it is the only theory out there. It is accepted because the faulty science is already written in proverbial stone. Instead of trying to prove evolution wrong, scientists have consistently assumed it was right and tried to find supporting data in a shameless tossing of the scientific method.

Simply put, there is not enough evidence to support the leap from Natural Selection to evolution. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but nothing that supports full scale acceptance of atheistic evolution and especially the evolution of man from primate. To think otherwise is a fairytale and against all that science has tried to accomplish since Newton or Bacon. The heated flailing from an indefensible positions seen above with the rantings of someone desperate enough to use words like "lie" and "liar" are simply sad side-products of a dead theory on life-support by a science that does not want to believe in God.

You say that the quotes were out of context above, yet the author of those quotes does not defend against their use as such. He had read them as stated above in print, yet not called them misquotes himself. So, how can you defend his words when he (the late S.J. Gould) approved of their use in this manner?

Much of the evidence taught in evolution classes are frauds. Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, the Piltdown Man and other Neanderthal men have all been found to be either frauds or not to be what they were proposed to be. (Genetically, the Neanderthal has been found to be too far away to be assumed a ancestor of man)

 

[notto]

It is accepted because it is the only theory out there. It is accepted because the faulty science is already written in proverbial stone. Instead of trying to prove evolution wrong, scientists have consistently assumed it was right and tried to find supporting data in a shameless tossing of the scientific method.

That is because all other theories have been falsified. Each test of falsification is an effort to prove evolution wrong. Continued digging in the fossil record and in the genetic code is continued testing to prove evolution wrong. It continues to pass each test. To suggest otherwise is misleading and doesn't represent what science continues to do and how it works. Science works on falsification. A theory is assumed to be tenatively true until it it is falsified. Evolution has withstood the scientific method for over 100 years. It explains the evidence and makes predictions about what evidence will continue to be found. It is one of the most heavily testing scientific theories out there.

Simply put, there is not enough evidence to support the leap from Natural Selection to evolution. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but nothing that supports full scale acceptance of atheistic evolution and especially the evolution of man from primate. To think otherwise is a fairytale and against all that science has tried to accomplish since Newton or Bacon. The heated flailing from an indefensible positions seen above with the rantings of someone desperate enough to use words like "lie" and "liar" are simply sad side-products of a dead theory on life-support by a science that does not want to believe in God.

Evolution does not equal atheism. When you state things that are not true, that is a lie. Saying that science doesn't want to believe in God is a lie. Darwin believed in God and even attributed the creation to a Creator. Your notions are contrary to 99.9% of all scientists working in the field. Thats quite a conspiracy, isn't it. Usually (expecially when they can present no evidence to the contrary) when there is this much consensus and a few people who wont accept science on religious grounds, it isn't the scientists who are accused of accepting fairytails.

You say that the quotes were out of context above, yet the author of those quotes does not defend against their use as such. He had read them as stated above in print, yet not called them misquotes himself. So, how can you defend his words when he (the late S.J. Gould) approved of their use in this manner?

The perhaps you can provide references to the works they appear in. I'll ask again, have you read the ORIGINAL works the quotes appear in YOURSELF.

Much of the evidence taught in evolution classes are frauds. Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, the Piltdown Man and other Neanderthal men have all been found to be either frauds or not to be what they were proposed to be. (Genetically, the Neanderthal has been found to be too far away to be assumed a ancestor of man)

Piltdown Man is not taught in 'evolution' classes as anything other than a historical example (of scientists discovering a fraud). Don't confuse Ontogenty with old drawings of it. Neanderthal is not an ancestor of man and is not proposed to be. It is a cousin. This last paragraph shows some significant misunderstandings of how evolution is taught. You should pick up a good mainstream book on the subject and not get your information from attorneys who write books for the popular press on the subject.