How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[BobRyan]

Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolutionism...all impossible.

That it true.

Thanks for sharing that point. Always good to get active participation.

Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.

Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?

Would be nice to ask that of the OP illustration.

in Christ,
Bob

 

[The Cadet]

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??

Feel free to present them if you'd like. However, please keep in mind that without the ability to examine the context of the quotes, they won't be of much use to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually WATCH the video, please. Then respond to it.

Actually PRESENT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."--Lord Kelvin

Not to mention that no one has seen deities producing life in labs, either.

Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

Any salient point in evolutionism that is testable -- is not "evolution"

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

No testable salient point in it - is.

A few non-T.E. Evangelicals noticed that already.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any salient point in evolutionism that is testable -- is not "evolution"



No testable salient point in it - is.

A few non-T.E. Evangelicals noticed that already.

29+ tests of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[BobRyan]

29+ tests of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And not one of them demonstrating the salient mechanism that would differentiate evolution from minor mutation, not one showing prokaryotes can ever in all of time become eukaryotes. WoW no batcteria crossing over to the amoeba milestone. Not one showing how to even get the bacteria in the first place. Not one showing how the single celled animal becomes a horse. etc.

from your link "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin"-- the take the "miracle" as Gratis -- the gift in the mind of the reader - given to blind faith evolutionism from the very start!

And of course - they never show animals actually "evolving" to the next level. No matter how many zillions of generations of bacteria to have it "shown" that a prokaryote becomes a eukaryote.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is it the "current opinion" of atheists on this board that Bible believing Christians who accept the Bible 7 day creation week (As even atheists such as James Barr describes it) -- are viewing atheist concepts of origins to be the best and most logical explanation for origins??

If that has somehow come about on this area of the board - can someone explain how that happened??

I would have presumed that they understood the opposite of that to be true.

No, how do you even get that from my post? I was stating that you made a post that harmed your position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We are talking about "observations in nature" that dictate "For a designer" and the fact that even these atheist sources admit to it.

Now if you want to argue that "a designer" is not at all an issue for atheists and T.E. when it comes to blind faith evolutionism - well maybe we do need to have that discussion.

If on the other hand you want a well known atheist biologist such as Collin Patterson talking about the "religious" nature of the argument for evolutionism. We can discuss that as well, since the title of this thread deals with "evangelicals" looking at blind faith evolutionism and deciding to trade-in their Bible on the subject of origins for a more atheist-centric understanding of that doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

I see many sources that says that it is easy to accidentally interpret the evidence as indicating a designer, but very few that actually say it does.

But, physics is not my area of study. I'll give better responses once you start talking about evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?

This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??



As I said before - I would never discount proclivity for name-calling and ad hominem attacks out of the favorite resort list for T.E and Atheism. I am not trying to discount the frequency for such options for those groups. Certainly they do enjoy that.

But I was talking about actual facts.

Sir, in your 4 things, not one was fact. You had bibles being thrown out windows. Also, Ad hominems are bad, no matter who uses them. Call people out on it; it makes for bad debates. Just because you don't call people out on it, doesn't mean you can use it as a legitimate tactic.

Also, for the record, I don't defend atheism, and I certainly do not hold myself accountable for every statement made by various atheists. I frankly could not give less of a crap about Leonard Susskind and Martin Reese; this is the first time I think I have even seen those names.

 

[Jimmy D]

That it true.

Thanks for sharing that point. Always good to get active participation.

Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.

Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?

Would be nice to ask that of the OP illustration.

in Christ,
Bob

Can I just ask, are you educated in biology or is your opinion based purely on your religious beliefs?

Thanks

 

[PsychoSarah]

And not one of them demonstrating the salient mechanism that would differentiate evolution from minor mutation

There isn't much of a difference, other than the fact that evolution includes more than mutations.

, not one showing prokaryotes can ever in all of time become eukaryotes.

If you found evidence of that, it would be extraordinary, considering the fact that eukaryotes probably didn't evolve directly from prokaryotes.

WoW no batcteria crossing over to the amoeba milestone. Not one showing how to even get the bacteria in the first place. Not one showing how the single celled animal becomes a horse. etc.

I have already had my say on the prokaryote to eukaryote bit, but here is some horse evolution http://static.wixstatic.com/media/7....jpg_srz_480_599_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
also, not going to get everything for it because I do not have the time. seriously, google search horse evolution and do some research before making empty claims about what is known or unknown in evolution.

And of course - they never show animals actually "evolving" to the next level. No matter how many zillions of generations of bacteria to have it "shown" that a prokaryote becomes a eukaryote.

There is no "next level", that isn't how evolution works. As for genus transitions being observed in living creatures, we have seen that, look it up, there are lizard and bird examples for the people who continuously have issues with bacteria for no apparent reason. In many animals, evolution is too slow to observe huge changes within a human lifetime, but much like how I can't show you how the rocky mountains are growing in terms of miles, most of the time, you aren't going to see fast, drastic change. We can, however, show "changes in inches" most of the time. But for the impatient and demanding, there are examples of pretty fast evolution, if you bother to look them up.

 

[BobRyan]

There isn't much of a difference, other than the fact that evolution includes more than mutations.

If you found evidence of that, it would be extraordinary, considering the fact that eukaryotes probably didn't evolve directly from prokaryotes. .

"probably didn't"??

That is pretty funny - because "evolution probably didn't happen at all"

As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.

And of course there are those who would argue that it is a massive decrease at the "local area" that is "ALL of Planet EARTH"!!l

However "imagining" that gas and dust contain inherent properties to eventually "self organize" into a human brain -- into Einstein -- is the mythology of blind faith evolutionism.


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

--------------------- Patterson die-hard evolutionist and atheist said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”


"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
==================================

As frank as that particular atheist scientist is on the subject - apparently there is at least one evangelical willing to leap right off a cliff in service to blind-faith-evolutionism -- "no matter what".

But I find it "instructive" that most evangelicals don't rush off that cliff so easily.

 

[The Cadet]

As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.

And this is a problem because...?

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/missquot.htm

Ancient quote-mine. Colin Patterson has since explained and repudiated the statements. To quote:

"I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views.​

Y'wanna try again? Also, y'wanna explain why you're still touting this ancient quote when Patterson's clarification was issued more than 30 years ago?

 

[The Barbarian]

As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.

And of course there are those who would argue that it is a massive decrease at the "local area" that is "ALL of Planet EARTH"!!l

Interestingly enough, there is a massive decrease in entropy over all of the planet Earth. Do you know what "entropy" means, and why it is decreasing over the planet's surface?

However "imagining" that gas and dust contain inherent properties to eventually "self organize" into a human brain -- into Einstein -- is the mythology of blind faith evolutionism.

Creationists are very sure that God could never create a universe like that, even in the face of mountains of evidence that He did. Creationists seem to get nervous thinking of a God that powerful and wise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Y'wanna try again? Also, y'wanna explain why you're still touting this ancient quote when Patterson's clarification was issued more than 30 years ago?

This was meant to be shown to people already convinced. It was never intended to be shown to anyone with any knowledge of biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

And not one of them demonstrating the salient mechanism that would differentiate evolution from minor mutation, not one showing prokaryotes can ever in all of time become eukaryotes.

Please show that mutations and selection could not turn prokaryotes into eukaryotes.

from your link "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin"-- the take the "miracle" as Gratis -- the gift in the mind of the reader - given to blind faith evolutionism from the very start!

There is an entire section discussing the evidence for all life sharing a common ancestor. Didn't you read it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

And of course - they never show animals actually "evolving" to the next level. No matter how many zillions of generations of bacteria to have it "shown" that a prokaryote becomes a eukaryote.

So you have no problem with all eukaryotes sharing a common ancestor?

 

[Jimmy D]

"probably didn't"??

That is pretty funny - because "evolution probably didn't happen at all"

As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.

And of course there are those who would argue that it is a massive decrease at the "local area" that is "ALL of Planet EARTH"!!l

However "imagining" that gas and dust contain inherent properties to eventually "self organize" into a human brain -- into Einstein -- is the mythology of blind faith evolutionism.


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

--------------------- Patterson die-hard evolutionist and atheist said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”


"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
==================================

As frank as that particular atheist scientist is on the subject - apparently there is at least one evangelical willing to leap right off a cliff in service to blind-faith-evolutionism -- "no matter what".

But I find it "instructive" that most evangelicals don't rush off that cliff so easily.

Can I just ask, are you educated in biology or is your opinion based purely on your religious beliefs?

Thanks

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

"probably didn't"??


....As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.....

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy, regardless that living species increase in the amount of organization and complexity.

Nothing in thermodynamics prohibits an increase in order and organization as long as there is a greater increase in disorder that is made to happen somewhere else. In the case of earth, gobs and gobs of entropy is created and exported via infrared radiation into outer space. All the objections based on thermodynamics are based on complete misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.

How do you know it's impossible? We don't know the exact conditions that would be required for abiogenesis to take place. There are many hypothesis being studied. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean a God did it. That's a God of the gaps fallacy.

However, Evolution has been observed in the lab......thousands of times.

Lab.Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?

If you know how to interpret empirical scientific evidence, it's quite clear that evolution is a fact. Also, 'evolutionism' is not a word. It's just evolution. You're trying to make it into a religion, which it's not. It's the science of biology. Science has no authority. It operates on falsifiable hypothesis' that can be repeatedly tested. Evolution has passed every test it's faced for 150 years.