How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[BobRyan]

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's attack against Christians claiming those who are

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

 

[BobRyan]

By the way, in case anyone is wondering what happened in the last few decades; why most of these quote mines are from decades past...

We know why that is a "positive thing" for evolutionists - it is because in evolutionist "doctrine" the slippery teflon idea supporting evolutionism is the nonsense that any exposed flaw detected "no longer exists" as of 1 minute ago. Thus every objection is to be discounted in such orthodoxy.

 

[Loudmouth]

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Intelligent designers are also limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Humans can't design machines that violate the law.

It appears that you have no idea what thermodynamics is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's attack against Christians claiming those who are

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Yet more dishonest quote mines?

 

[Loudmouth]

I asked if you needed fusion reactions on the sun - to be inserted into reactions seen on earth - before those reactions demonstrate an increase in entropy. And the answer to that question is ... "no".

You need high energy photons from the Sun to drive a decrease in entropy from carbon dioxide and water to carbohydrates. That forms the basis for the energy that drives a large part of the other reactions that happens in life.

Have you never learned about the TCA cycle or glycolysis? Do you know how mitochondria work, why ATP is important? Do you know what enthalpy is? My guess is that your answer is no to all of these.

 

[The Cadet]

It argues that because someone notices the flaws in evolutionism - they must not be "able" to be a scientist, to study science, to be chemists, biologists, physicists, egineers.

No, it argues that the people who claim to show flaws in evolution are so obviously, so blatantly wrong, that it could only really be on purpose. Case in point: your arguments here about the second law of thermodynamics. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ask any physicist not bankrolled by Answers in Genesis and you'll hear the same thing: "No, the second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution, whoever told you that knows nothing about physics."

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/thermo.htm
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second
http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/evolution-and-the-second-law

And so on and so forth.

Similarly, your quotes (whether or not they are legitimate and accurately portray the people you are quoting; they aren't and don't) - if that quote is real, then all it says is that Patterson is a lousy biologist, because this:

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

Is trivial to any high-school student, let alone someone who works in the field of systematics. It is trivial to point out things we know about evolution. So when he says this:

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...

He's obviously not talking about the scientific community, given that this was offered more than a decade after we found what was actually responsible for mutations and varied descent, a full decade after Susumu Ohno's groundbreaking research on gene duplication, and more than a century after the observations that first led to the formulation of the theory! So even if you're completely correct in your interpretation and assertion of these quotes, do you know what that means? Only one thing: that Colin Patterson knew very little about evolution. Of course, given that the man made biological systematics his job, I find it hard to believe that the quote is accurate. And given that he has clarified his position, I find it dishonest to keep repeating the same bogus arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, in case anyone is wondering what happened in the last few decades; why most of these quote mines are from decades past... It's not because the science has become more clear - it has, but that's not the reason - but rather because scientists have gotten wise to this crap. Because they're realized that if they don't choose their words very carefully, they're going to find themselves dishonestly quoted out of context by Christians who think that the 9th Commandment doesn't apply if you're lying for Jesus.

I love what my foot-stomping, Bible-snorting, pulpit-pounding pastor said:

He said unbelievers can deny the Bible, unbelievers can ridicule the Bible, unbelievers can thumb their noses at the Bible; but what the unbelievers can't do is [scream] REFUTE THE BIBLE [/scream]!

Then he said:

"Notice this passage ...

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

This gets the attention of ... what do you call it? ... academia?

Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Notice the world's most elite intellectuals assemble before Stephen.

Note especially the Alexandrians.

Remember them?

They gave us "newer and better translations" of the Bible?

Riiiiight.

Anyway, they show up -- God likes all the unbelievers in one place, by the way; they're easier to deal with -- and what doesn't happen???

[scream] Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. [/scream]"

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm wondering why one guy who apparently was talking about evolution ( as it applies to systematics, not evolution as to whether or not it's true ) is more convincing to Bob than the evidence.

Bob, surely you've realized that quote-mining marks the person doing it at intentionally dishonest. Why not just try to put an argument together, using facts?

Let's start with this:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

That's an odd thing to say, since entropy is seen to increase whether or not you consider the sun itself. You do have to understand that energy is flowing into the earth from the sun no matter what you do to think about the entropy situation here.

Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

a blatent mischaracterization of the situation as regards to entropy. "Compensated only by fusion reactions?" That's nonsense. Energy flow to us from the sun, and we don't care, for our considerations of entropy, that it involves fusion. It could just as well be mere gravitational contraction. It could be fission. For us, that the energy is arriving all the time, that's what matters.

So now back to Asimov's "confession" about the non-science of blind faith evolutionism when it comes to "entropy".

Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

In point of fact, the great increase in entropy from millions of millions of living things DYING is part of the increase of entropy that outweighs all the "self organizing" patterns that cause such as Bob Ryan to wonder how that could happen without an increase in entropy. Every advance of a beneficial mutation requires the dying of generations after generations before it happens. This makes evolution take a while to happen.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I love what my foot-stomping, Bible-snorting, pulpit-pounding pastor said:

He said unbelievers can deny the Bible, unbelievers can ridicule the Bible, unbelievers can thumb their noses at the Bible; but what the unbelievers can't do is [scream] REFUTE THE BIBLE [/scream]!

Then he said:

"Notice this passage ...

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

This gets the attention of ... what do you call it? ... academia?

Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Notice the world's most elite intellectuals assemble before Stephen.

Note especially the Alexandrians.

Remember them?

They gave us "newer and better translations" of the Bible?

Riiiiight.

Anyway, they show up -- God likes all the unbelievers in one place, by the way; they're easier to deal with -- and what doesn't happen???

[scream] Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. [/scream]"

There isn't any argument against evolution in this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Bob, just in case you missed it, I'll post it again:

Let's start with this:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

That's an odd thing to say, since entropy is seen to increase whether or not you consider the sun itself.

I find you logic "illusive" just then.

How does that make sense as a response to my point that you don't need to factor in fusion reactions on the sun to each reaction you observe on earth before you can "observe" entropy increase instead of decrease as the overall result??

You do have to understand that energy is flowing into the earth from the sun no matter what you do to think about the entropy situation here.

Indeed - energy from other stars, galaxies -- the center of our own galaxy ... all not needed in these local equations to observe entropy in the reaction and its immediate environment. I think we can all see that point.

In point of fact, the great increase in entropy from millions of millions of living things DYING is part of the increase of entropy that outweighs all the "self organizing" patterns

There is not one single reaction in the lab for which that statement is remotely true - and we both know it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, just in case you missed it, I'll post it again:

Let's start with this:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

It is your "OWN" atheist evolutionist - Isaac Asimov that is making the claim that over the period of not just ONE reaction - but over the period of BILLIONS of years of reactions - as the mythology of evolutionism would have it--- we have a "VAST DECREASE" in entropy so that the dust-to-bunny-rabbit -- dust to human brain - fiction can take place. And this is at the domain space of "ALL PLANET EARTH" - according to Asimov such that only the appeal to the fusion reactions on the sun will bail it out.

That is the view that your own atheist Asimov argues for it.

Should the "Evangelicals simply not question it"???

 

[BobRyan]

Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

a blatent mischaracterization of the situation as regards to entropy. "Compensated only by fusion reactions?" That's nonsense.

Not true at all. Turns out that fusion reactions on the sun is exactly how that entropy is taking place on the sun -- and we all know it.

Turns out Asimov's only statement appeals to that as his "bail out" for the statement about a "VAST DECREASE" in entropy being the result on planet earth over billions of years of mythical evolution trying to get "Dust" to turn into a "human brain" - and this by his OWN statement - not mine.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm wondering why one guy who apparently was talking about evolution ( as it applies to systematics, not evolution as to whether or not it's true ) is more convincing to Bob than the evidence. .

I am wondering why T.E. believers on this thread - think we should not "notice" what these atheist pro-evolution scientists are telling us about the flaws in their belief system.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it argues that the people who claim to show flaws in evolution are so obviously, so blatantly wrong, that it could only really be on purpose.

True devotees to blind faith evolutionism are "expected" to make such faith-affirming statements.

But there has to be at least one person in the T.E. group that is "tolerant" of the inconvenient details being proclaimed by their own atheist evolutionist scientists.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem enjoy Asimov quotes so here's an apt one for you from the article I linked (which I doubt you even looked at).

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts ...

1. I quote atheist sources to evolutionists because for the evol POV - that is the "high priest" -- it is not because I am atheist or because I also blindly follow whatever atheists say.
2. The fact that you quote an atheist to "me" - as if this obectivity and parity with my find your own atheist evolutionists exposing flaws in evolutionism - is a confirmation of what Patterson calls "anti-knowledge" that evolutionism conveys to its true believers.

The text you give about Christians not being "Able" to be scientists - is the sort of utter nonsense we can expect from students of blind faith evolutionism. It argues that because someone notices the flaws in evolutionism - they must not be "able" to be a scientist, to study science, to be chemists, biologists, physicists, egineers.

That is the sort of "religion" that Collin Patterson lamented among his fellow atheist evolutionists.


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 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."
===============================
Hint: that text is not from a letter to Sunderland.

He's obviously not talking about the scientific community, given that this was offered more than a decade after we found what was actually responsible for mutations and varied descent, a full decade after Susumu Ohno's groundbreaking research on gene duplication, and more than a century after the observations that first led to the formulation of the theory! So even if you're completely correct in your interpretation and assertion of these quotes, do you know what that means? Only one thing: that Colin Patterson knew very little about evolution. Of course, given that the man made biological systematics his job, I find it hard to believe that the quote is accurate. And given that he has clarified his position, I find it dishonest to keep repeating the same bogus arguments.

You mean you find it "inconvenient"

“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”

 

[Loudmouth]

BobRyan said: ↑
As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

Photosynthesis shows a decrease in entropy, going from carbon dioxide and water to carbohydrates (i.e. sugars). How do you explain this?

 

[46AND2]

BobRyan said: ↑
As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.



I find you logic "illusive" just then.

How does that make sense as a response to my point that you don't need to factor in fusion reactions on the sun to each reaction you observe on earth before you can "observe" entropy increase instead of decrease as the overall result??



Indeed - energy from other stars, galaxies -- the center of our own galaxy ... all not needed in these local equations to observe entropy in the reaction and its immediate environment. I think we can all see that point.




There is not one single reaction in the lab for which that statement is remotely true - and we both know it.

lol @ you thinking we need not consider the energy we get from the sun, and that it isn't part of our immediate environment.

 

[BobRyan]

lol @ you thinking we need not consider the energy we get from the sun, and that it isn't part of our immediate environment.

If your "immediate environment" includes a fusion reaction 93 million miles away from earth - then you are 'remoting' on your internet connection a whole lot farther than I am.