Evolution

[Phred]

"Unitl quite recently it was thought by many people that the leading scientists universally support atheism, that science is the rational alternative to theism. However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism. There is now strong scientific evidence for the exitence of God. Scientists, without presupposing God or creation, without trying to prove them, have come up with findings that strongly supprt the existence of God, His creation of the Universe and man, and supports a supernatual purpose for the world we live in."

Only one problem. This statement is inaccurate. There is no "scientific evidence" for the existence of deity. I don't wish to derail the thread, but I don't want to let this disinformation stand unchallenged. If you'd like to present such "evidence" perhaps you could start a new thread?

.
​

 

[Peiper]

And there you have it, folks: the failure of modern education.

x2

 

[Cassandra]

Only one problem. This statement is inaccurate. There is no "scientific evidence" for the existence of deity. I don't wish to derail the thread, but I don't want to let this disinformation stand unchallenged. If you'd like to present such "evidence" perhaps you could start a new thread?

.
​

Of course, you have to remember "absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense"

(That was mainly for Lucas' benefit. We don't want him to walk away thinking that because God cannot be scientifically proven that means we don't think He(she/it) can't/doesn't exist.)

 

[Ledifni]

I have a whole library of knowledge sititing beside me,

Then I suggest you do something you apparently never do -- delve into it. Because neither the First nor the Second Laws of Thermodynamics state what you claimed. It's very easy to claim that you have "a whole library of knowledge" but it's much more difficult to demonstrate that knowledge. You've successfully demonstrated nothing but ignorance.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Of course, you have to remember "absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense"

While as a general maxim that it always an advisable point, it's not always accurate or true. If my house has been robbed, absence of evidence definitely means evidence of absence--if I can't find it, it's evidence that it's been stolen! Or, if I have a scientific theory that, say, there's a third kind of blood cell--the Yellow Blood Cell--that is responsible for clotting, then absence of evidence--i.e., checking blood samples for the YBCs and finding none--is most definitely evidence of absence.

One of the reasons I'm an atheist is because everywhere humanity has thought deities were, they've looked, and found nothing. Gods move the Sun across the sky! Um, no, that's Earth rotating, actually. Gods create thunder and lightening! Um, no, that's meterological phenomna, actually. Demons make us ill! Um, no, that's viruses, actually. Gods created the heavens and Earth! Um, no, the evidence is for astrophysical and geophysical processes.

In the case of gods, I do indeed believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," because no one has ever given me any justifiable reason to believe that this trend won't continue. Everywhere we look, there's no evidence. Sure, a deity might be around the next planet, or behind the next rock, but after awhile you really begin to doubt it.

 

[Loukuss]

Ok...
Let me first start by saying, if I have said anything to serious offend anyone, I am truely sorry. Reading back over so of what I wrote, I can see that it didn't sound as good as I intended it to be. Please forgive me for that.

As I stated before, I was going to post some of the readings I have. Well, here they are for whoever is interested. I've most focused on thermodynamics because I feel that most people posting about it do not fully understand the principles and significance. Enjoy!

Creationist Interpretations of Chemical Organization in Time and Space," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (March 1986), pp. 157-158.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).
Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 185-215, and "Creation and the Laws of Science," in Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), pp. 153-188.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), pp. 3-10.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970), and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968).
Walter L. Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of Life," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 13-14 (addresses some arguments raised by Dr. John W. Patterson and Francis Arduini, etc., shows that the basic arguments used by Evolutionists against the 2nd Law have no relevance to the origin of life).
Robert A. Gange, "Commentary on the Patterson/Walter Exchange," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 14-16, and Origins and Destiny (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986) (contains an explanation of The New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics and the information content in biological systems).
Tracy Waters, "A Reply to John Patterson's Scientific Arguments," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 8-9.
Jerry Kelley, "Thermodynamics and Probability," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 11-13, and "On the Nature of Order," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 14-15.
Dudley J. Benton, "Thermodynamics, Snowflakes, and Zygotes," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 86.
David A. Kaufmann, "Human Growth and Development, and Thermo II," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June 1983), pp. 24-28.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 91-110.
Harold L. Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (March 1980), pp. 226-227, 206, and Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 72-73, 59.
Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, especially pp. 200-201, and Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
J. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1973).
Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis By Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), pp. 377-398.

God bless,
Lucas

 

[Cassandra]

While as a general maxim that it always an advisable point, it's not always accurate or true. If my house has been robbed, absence of evidence definitely means evidence of absence--if I can't find it, it's evidence that it's been stolen! Or, if I have a scientific theory that, say, there's a third kind of blood cell--the Yellow Blood Cell--that is responsible for clotting, then absence of evidence--i.e., checking blood samples for the YBCs and finding none--is most definitely evidence of absence.

One of the reasons I'm an atheist is because everywhere humanity has thought deities were, they've looked, and found nothing. Gods move the Sun across the sky! Um, no, that's Earth rotating, actually. Gods create thunder and lightening! Um, no, that's meterological phenomna, actually. Demons make us ill! Um, no, that's viruses, actually. Gods created the heavens and Earth! Um, no, the evidence is for astrophysical and geophysical processes.

In the case of gods, I do indeed believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," because no one has ever given me any justifiable reason to believe that this trend won't continue. Everywhere we look, there's no evidence. Sure, a deity might be around the next planet, or behind the next rock, but after awhile you really begin to doubt it.

You read too much into stuff, you know that?

I think in the context of what I was talking about, "abense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense" fits.


I was just merely pointing out for the benefit of creationists (and other theists for that matter) who think that because science does not and cannot (at the present time) touch God, that means science says there is no God (as a definite point)

Just pointing it out to avoid any misconceptions, that's all.

For the record, I'm an agnostic theist.

 

[notto]

As I stated before, I was going to post some of the readings I have. Well, here they are for whoever is interested. I've most focused on thermodynamics because I feel that most people posting about it do not fully understand the principles and significance. Enjoy!

Do any of them name a specific physical mechanism used in the explaination of evolution that violates a law of thermodynamics? If so, what is that mechanism and why does it violate the law of thermodynamics?

Considering that all of the physical mechanisms of evolution have been observed, I don't see how any claim that evolution violates these laws would have any validity. If we observe the physical mechanisms, obviously they can't be in violation of thermodynamics.

 

[larry lunchpail]

i miss the old lucas. the one who understood science.

 

[Cassandra]

Ok...
Let me first start by saying, if I have said anything to serious offend anyone, I am truely sorry. Reading back over so of what I wrote, I can see that it didn't sound as good as I intended it to be. Please forgive me for that.

As I stated before, I was going to post some of the readings I have. Well, here they are for whoever is interested. I've most focused on thermodynamics because I feel that most people posting about it do not fully understand the principles and significance. Enjoy!

Creationist Interpretations of Chemical Organization in Time and Space," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (March 1986), pp. 157-158.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).
Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 185-215, and "Creation and the Laws of Science," in Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), pp. 153-188.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), pp. 3-10.
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970), and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968).
Walter L. Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of Life," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 13-14 (addresses some arguments raised by Dr. John W. Patterson and Francis Arduini, etc., shows that the basic arguments used by Evolutionists against the 2nd Law have no relevance to the origin of life).
Robert A. Gange, "Commentary on the Patterson/Walter Exchange," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 14-16, and Origins and Destiny (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986) (contains an explanation of The New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics and the information content in biological systems).
Tracy Waters, "A Reply to John Patterson's Scientific Arguments," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 8-9.
Jerry Kelley, "Thermodynamics and Probability," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 11-13, and "On the Nature of Order," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 14-15.
Dudley J. Benton, "Thermodynamics, Snowflakes, and Zygotes," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 86.
David A. Kaufmann, "Human Growth and Development, and Thermo II," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June 1983), pp. 24-28.
Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 91-110.
Harold L. Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (March 1980), pp. 226-227, 206, and Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 72-73, 59.
Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, especially pp. 200-201, and Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
J. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1973).
Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis By Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), pp. 377-398.

God bless,
Lucas

It might be worth saying: If you're looking for information on evolution, it isn't very wise to get it from creationists. Think of it like asking an athiest for information on Christianity (not saying athiests don't know anything about Christianity, but a Christian would be likely to know more and more accurate details...)

Are you planning on posting reviews?

 

[larry lunchpail]

Do any of them name a specific physical mechanism used in the explaination of evolution that violates a law of thermodynamics? If so, what is that mechanism and why does it violate the law of thermodynamics?

Considering that all of the physical mechanisms of evolution have been observed, I don't see how any claim that evolution violates these laws would have any validity. If we observe the physical mechanisms, obviously they can't be in violation of thermodynamics.

how do YECs account for the apparent anomoly? i thought God played a hands off role as far as "micro evolution" was concerned? how do YOU account this. please, in detail.

 

[notto]

how do YECs account for the apparent anomoly? i thought God played a hands off role as far as "micro evolution" was concerned? how do YOU account this. please, in detail.

What anomoly? I don't think I understand your question.

How do I explain that creationists can't identify a mechanism that the real theory of evolution uses that violates the laws of thermodynamics? They don't understand evolution or the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[larry lunchpail]

I QUOTED THE WRONG POST (weeps softly)

i meant that i havent heard a YEC explanation to the very anomoly they cite.

sorry. at least its friday.

 

[HRE]

A lot of Books...

Your posts, however, demonstrate that you have either:

A) Never actually read them

OR

B) Never pursued the claims beyond the books...

 

[Arikay]

1) Your reading material needs to be updated.
2) You shouldn't try to learn evolution through creationist sources. They have shown that they are not truthful when it comes to explaining evolution. Many of the people and groups listed are required to sign a statement that says, paraphrased, creationism is correct no matter what the evidence.

It would be like,
The Catholic truth, by Jack Chick.
The big bang, by Fred Hoyle.
Psychic predictions, by Sylvia Browne.
Faithfulness, by Bill Clinton
Public speaking, by George Bush Jr.
etc.

 

[Dennis Moore]

As I stated before, I was going to post some of the readings I have. Well, here they are for whoever is interested.

Two things leap quickly to my mind:

(1) Why are you getting information on science and evolution from nothing but religious apologetics and Creationist publishing houses?

(2) Why is there nothing on there newer than 1987?!?

If this is the cream of your library crop, then it's obvious why your understanding of evolution is so flawed.

However, since you were kind enough to "reveal your cards," so to speak, let me reciprocate by listing some of the best books and places where you can get REAL information on evolutionary theory, and some of the favorites on my own shelf ...

• Coppinger, Raymond, and Lorna Coppinger. Dogs. Scribner, 2001. [Believe it or not, a book about evolution, in part. Fascinating read.]
• Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. Reissue edition. W.W. Norton, 1996.
• ---. The Selfish Gene. Reissue edition. Oxford, 1989, 1999.
• EvoWiki. http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page.
• Gould, Stephen Jay. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap, 2002. [Okay, I don't "own" this one, but I checked it out of the university library.]
• The TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/.
• Tattersal, Ian, and Jeffery Schwartz. Extinct Humans. Westview Press, 2000.
• Weiner, Jonathan. The Beak of the Finch. Vintage, 1995. [This is a great one--a Pulitzer Prize winner!]
• Zimmer, Carl. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. HarperCollins, 2001.

I'm sure others can/will share more, if they're inclined. There are books out there I haven't been able to read yet, like Dawkins' most recent, The Ancestor's Tale, but which I hear are just great. And then all the articles, none of which I really have on hand at the moment, but that any good journal database [ProQuest, FirstSearch] should get you too--look for titles like Nature and Science and the International journal of Develomental Biology, and countless others--all peer reviewed, all trustworthy, all scientific.

 

[eternal_flame_1988]

hi everyone. I understand what you are saying. I will now retrieve my facts and lay them down for you.

eternal_flame_1988

 

[eternal_flame_1988]

Okay guys, here are some things i included in my essay/debate. I have had a lot of criticism over my last post and i understand. It was my first day using this website and I didn't have a lot of time to think about what i was saying because I was to busy checking out other paraphernalia. I also apologise for the wait you have had to endure for my reply. Year 12 is really busy. After I post this, I will post another couple, just to keep you busy. God Bless, eternal_flame_1988



This brief study is to offer logical, practical and sensible proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.

-----------------------------------------
THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. All galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards. If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, the galaxies would have had a beginning.

Another reason why the universe couldn't have been here forever is for fuel reasons. For example, I attempt to drive my car without putting any more petrol into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of petrol! If the universe has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago. The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. Hydrogen is still the most abundant material in the universe. This could not be unless we had a beginning.

The atheist assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question. Was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God.

Atheists tells us that matter is self-existing and not created. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. That is a logical problem. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard the known laws and principles of science.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self existing is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer. What was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. The atheist, on the other hand, says that we are the product of chance.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. Modern-day scientists are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." This says that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are forced to reject atheist claims and believe that we are the product of an intelligent God.

​

 

[eternal_flame_1988]

​

According to the theory of evolution, the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species. That sounds pretty reasonable, if you don’t know anything about genetics. Modern scientists know something about genetics. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.

The commonly used definition says that if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species. This definition isn’t perfect. A perfect definition would be transitive in the mathematical sense. In other words, if Organism A is the same species as Organism B, and Organism B is the same species as Organism C, then Organism A is the same species as Organism C.

Sometimes evolutionists argue that there are some instances of “circular discontinuity” in populations of mice and certain birds, where the geographically closest populations can interbreed, but the most widely separated populations can’t. They claim this shows speciation in progress, but it really just shows that the definition of species is imperfect.

Take the Key test for example:

You can usually tell if two keys are the same by trying them in a lock. If they both open the lock, they must be the same kind of key.

The 1988 Honda Civic came with a “valet key.” The valet key looked just like the regular key. The valet key opened the doors and started the ignition, but wouldn’t open the trunk. The regular key worked in all the locks.

If we used the door lock as a test to see if the keys were the same species, both keys would pass the test. The trunk lock, on the other hand, would indicate that the two keys are different. Trying a key in a lock is an imperfect test.

Reproduction requires that the egg and the sperm (the key and the lock) fit together well. Perhaps the different populations of mice living around the great lakes are different species, but are so similar that some of the different species can interbreed. Maybe they are all the same species, but the variations are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed. The common test can’t distinguish between the two situations.

All dogs are the same species, but there are breeds of dogs that are very different in size. Theoretically, at least, one can breed a tiny dog, like a Chihuahua, with a large dog, like a Great Dane. In practice, the difference in physical size may make that impossible. If the mother is the tiny dog, there might not be room in her womb for the puppies. If the father is the tiny dog, he might not be able to penetrate far enough to impregnate the mother. Perhaps small physical differences in mice and birds prevent individuals from different populations of the same species from breeding.

Different species must be able to cross breed, if evolution is the true explanation for the origin of the genes. (But, if they can breed, then they aren't really different species, by the common definition.)

Of course, the other explanation is that species don’t have a common ancestor. A common designer, who used different arrangements of similar or identical components to create different kinds of organisms, designed them. This is in perfect agreement with molecular observations.

Their critics often label creationists as “anti-science”. But creationists aren’t against science. Science is in complete harmony with what they believe. Creation science doesn’t have a problem with any of the recent discoveries in molecular biology. It keeps confirming what creation scientists have believed for years.

On the other hand, evolutionists are always trying to explain away new scientific discoveries. Evolutionary history is constantly being revised to try to fit the new discoveries. Students are largely kept in the dark about these discoveries because certain groups don’t want the general public to know that science is against evolution.​

 

[Dracil]

Just remember, you have to take into account that the position of the majority of the Christians in the world is Theistic Evolution. You can't just argue against atheists.