Evolution vs Creationism

[Kitangel]

Go your hardest, guys.

 

[mont974x4]

We do have a place just for those debates.


But I think the Bible speaks against it. When God created everything He made it so each living thing procreated after its own kind. Also, He sets the standard for time...a day was a light/dark cycle.

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[stumpjumper]

Mod note:

This is the best place for such a thread

 

[BlueIceDragon]

Okay.... where were we.

I think we were discussing the difference between verifiable fact and unverifiable 'facts'. Science deals with verifiable facts, speculation (which may or may not be scientific) deals with unverifiable facts.

Evolution, meaning evolution from cells into apes into humans is unverifiable "fact" and therefore is better titled speculation or myth. It has as much credance as a fairy tale. Whether or not it has a solid basis at all... is very debatable.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

I'm a statistician by trade so forgive me if I at least give my first illustration from that genre.

Let's say you have points on at time scale. Measurements if you will. No matter what the number of the points, it is completely possible to create an infinite number of functions that will completely connet the points - and give completely different predictions on what the values for the missing points are.

Evolution is one theory that tries to fill in the dots when we can only verifiably observe X points. In my opinion, it is by far not the best theory.

Even creationism can be shown to have problems with the theory of "evolution between kinds" which it endorses assuming the same rate of deterioration as today. I can find the paper on this if you like, but I'm lazy at the moment.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

No matter how hard we try, we will not be able to go back in time. Time is a linear description of events and we cannot go back in time.

Therefore, we can't fill in the missing dots except by speculation. Therefore, an evolution scientist is an oxymoron when the evolution in question refers to the 'filling in the missing dots'.

 

[mont974x4]

Speaking of stats...what are the odds of something as complex as human coming about as a matter of chance?

I think I'll side with God and the explanation He gives in His Word.


I simply don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

 

[Molal]

Natural, we can not travel through time; however, we can observe the rock record and the multiple intermediate fossils, we can observe speciation taking place today in the lab and the field and we can observe DNA ERVs cross species.

The evidence overwhelming points to biological evolution.

 

[mont974x4]

Well, I biologically evolved from a a simple joining of sperm and egg into a 33 year old man with grey hair. LOL


No cross species evolution has occured. If it had, then God and the Bible are not reliable.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

As I mentioned in the CB, I also did my honours research project in the area of Genetic programming. This is not genetics in the sense of 'DNA' / biology. This is genetics in the sense that the area covers the concept of computer programs evolving over time.

Basically, the assumption was that if you gave a computer program the materials to solve a problem (ie meet a fitness criterion) then the computer program ought to be able to build the solution using 'fitness' of built programs.

Now, since this "worked" it was seen as a proof of evolution (macro).

Well... it doesn't explain the theory of evolution for the following reasons:
a) the building blocks all had to exist for the program to be able to solve the problem. If one of the blocks did not exist and could be reproduced from the existing blocks (ie it was a unique function) then the problem could never be solved. Evolution cannot explain where the blocks came from.
b) the genetic programming field overwhelmingly proves the complexity and necessity for extreme numbers of multiple tests and fitness evaluations to solve even the simplest problems. If things evolved... since life is so much more infinitely complex than, say, a regression equation, we'd need a LOT more than a few billion years... you're talking as many years as there are atoms in the universe and then some.

 

[Molal]

I understand that there is a want and need to interpret the bible literally, but in genesis a literal interpretation conflates inerrancy with a literal interpretation. Genesis can be theologically true without being literal.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

Does it though?

Bacteria even 'evolving' bacteria still remain bacteria no matter what is done to it (assuming you don't introduce NEW information externally). In this sense, bacteria "evolving" but remaining bacteria I support "evolution". HOwever, it is strictly within kind evolution and 999 times out of 1000 it involves the loss of information and not the gain of it.

 

[Molal]

I agree entirely, a computer program - software is not biologically active - it cannot respire, breed, eat, it cannot mutate randomly and it cannot experience environmental pressures.

 

[Molal]

Ahhhh - define the biblical kind.

 

[mont974x4]

There is no reason to not take Genesis as a literal historical account. However, if we don't take it literally, does it not make God a liar, and therefore not God and unreliable? How many times in Genesis 1 do we see the phrase "after its kind" or a variation of it?

 

[BlueIceDragon]

The main reason I do not see evolution (macro) = cells -> apes -> man as compatible with the Bible is that this process, by definition, involves death. If all the tests survive how would there be any fitness evaluation?

Evolution requires death. And not just a small amount either, but billions ^ billions ^ billions ^ a few more billions of lives all sacrificed for the meaningless purpose of "progress". The God I see revealed in the bible doesn't seem to be as wasteful. Furthermore, He introduced death as a punishment in chapter 3 of Genesis not in Chapter 1.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

Ahhhh - define the biblical kind.

Biblical kind = something akin to family as we understand it. It's a bit hard to define without access to what they classified.

I'd describe it as like saying there was once "ONE" cat from which we have all the varieties today: lion, tiger, domestic, etc, etc. Similarly, humans having the varities in skin colour. Even this assumption runs into problems with mutation rates.

 

[Molal]

There is no reason to not take Genesis as a literal historical account. However, if we don't take it literally, does it not make God a liar, and therefore not God and unreliable? How many times in Genesis 1 do we see the phrase "after its kind" or a variation of it?

For me (my opinion) by taking genesis literally one makes God out to be a liar. This is because His creation exhibits vast differences to the inspired word.

Again, for me, genesis was inspired to combat the numerous origin myths throughout the region. Genesis reduces the sun and moon to mere "lumps of rock" from gods. Genesis served a purpose. It says God made everything.

 

[Kitangel]

There is no reason to not take Genesis as a literal historical account. However, if we don't take it literally, does it not make God a liar, and therefore not God and unreliable? How many times in Genesis 1 do we see the phrase "after its kind" or a variation of it?

Yeah, but you could claim that for any part of the Bible. There are some thngs that are metaphors.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

I agree entirely, a computer program - software is not biologically active - it cannot respire, breed, eat, it cannot mutate randomly and it cannot experience environmental pressures.

Actually it can. The programs I wrote were written in such a way to be capable of enforcing "environmental pressure", random mutations, etc. I gave a simple mathematical example as it was easiest to work with.

Other work has been done with evolving "fish and shark" behaviour; "predator and prey", ants hunting for food, and many other much more complex "biological" problems.