Theistic Evolution - What is it?

[Dutchunter]

99.9% of practicing biologist disagree with you. Your suggestion that these educated individuals have 'half a brain' is unfounded.

Show me the evidence to support your claim.

 

[notto]

Show me the evidence to support your claim.

After you back up your claim that evolution has been falsified. This would require actual evidence that falsifies the theory, not statements about practicing scientists having 'half a brain'.

 

[Vance]

Here is the quote I think he is referring to:

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%."

from http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CA/CA111.html

 

[Dutchunter]

AIG and others have done that for me notto. Read the links. Don't forget many evolutionists have crossed over to the Creation side- I didn't even specifically mention "practicing scientists".

Vance...skipping again huh? How did they come to those figures and what are those figures now? It directed me to Talkorigins btw. I guess it's a little outdated.

 

[notto]

Read the links. Don't forget many evolutionists have crossed over to the Creation side

Name one who has done it for other than religious reasons. Why are there not scientists who are not Christian Literalists who are convinced by the evidence that AIG presents? Why are there biologists who accept evolution from every faith, creed, nationality, and age? (hint, because when the evidence is followed, it leads to evolution).

Why does AIG have a set of tenents that they follow that explicitly lays out a non-scientific approach to the evidence. They boldly claim that they will not accept any evidence that contradicts the bible and claim that it MUST be wrong, without actually addressing why it is wrong (similar to your approach on this thread). This is not scientific.

PS. AIG has not presented any information that falsifies evolution. If they have it, they should submit it for peer review and they would be up for a Nobel prize. What one piece of evidence from AIG falsifies evolution?

 

[Dutchunter]

I can't name one off hand but I know I have read of some. Quite a few who became "religious" after seeing the light. The didn't do it for religious reasons per se....


I could be wrong but I think the guy here is a muslim: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/index.html

Why do you only mention AIG btw? There are other groups out there. I am just going to keep directing you to the AIG website as well as others. So many instances where evolution or the methods used to age or determine how evolution took place have been disproven are laid out for all to see.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/foreword.php

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter14.php

etc etc

 

[Vance]

Listen, if you want to use AIG as your primary source, that is fine, but you can not expect us to address every concept they have come up with. If you think that they have come up with ANY evidence which falsifies evolution, then link us to that particular argument. You don't even have to rephrase it. Just say 'here, this falsfieis evolution' and we will take it from there.

You can't ask for better than that!

 

[Dutchunter]

Seemed to work for you- maybe I should ask you to do it first since you were the one who gave the talkorigins page with all the links.

Take your pick...try this one: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

I can't help it there are so many to choose from even from that article.

Or try this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

 

[Vance]

Fine, I will break it all down for you shortly, if one of the others does not beat me to it. None of this is new, by the way, stuff that has been refuted many times before. Much of it is using the typical strawmen like half fish-half lizard type stuff which is simply ignorance of how evolution works. This is a typical YEC approach: "if evolution were true, we would expect to see X, Y or Z and we don't!" when the truth his that X, Y and Z are not things that evolution would predict at all.

You set the straw man up and then you knock it down. Not good science, but lots of fun!

 

[Dutchunter]

So you're saying because evolution is so flexible you can just make things up as you go and say YEC"s are wrong because we don't want to look stupid. Just like a certain pine tree that was supposed to be extinct turns up....2 stands are found miles apart....and there's no genetic variation(or whatever) between the two. It was expected- even the evolutionists admit it on that one- so now they're trying to figure out what to say next. But oh no..YEC's can't say that it was supposed to show this or that!!

 

[Vance]

Provide the details and we will address it.

And it is not a matter of evolution being flexible, it is a matter of YEC's not understanding how it works and making false statements about it.

 

[notto]

Seemed to work for you- maybe I should ask you to do it first since you were the one who gave the talkorigins page with all the links.

Take your pick...try this one: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

I can't help it there are so many to choose from even from that article.

Or try this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

Neither of these falsifies evolution. To falsify evolution, you need to show evidence that the mechanisms used to explain the evidence we see are invalid. You would need to show that natural selection plus random mutation over time does not lead to change in species. This is the premise of evolutionary theory that would need to be falsified.

These two articles address the validity of specific pieces of evidence. None of the evidence discussed in these articles if shown to be false would falsify evolution because the theory does not rest exclusively on these pieces of evidence. You need to go much deeper and discuss biology, not fossils, to falsify evolution. Fossils only provide evidence that supports evolution.

Unfortunately for their case, creationists already accept the validity of the mechanisms that lay the foundation of evolutionary theory. They accept mutation and natural selection as valid (and several of their theories depend on it). If they falsify evolution based on the biological mechanisms that make up the theory, they will end up falsifying their own theories as well.

 

[Dutchunter]

Yes it is about it being flexible. You can't expect something to be there and then when it's not say the YEC's just don't understand it. You can't claim something is this many years old and then when it turns out to be a fraud say it's the YEC's that just don't understand it. On and on.

Besides...like I said even the evolutionists are scratching their heads on this one.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4416livingfossil_tree12-25-2000.asp

http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/peakall_group/Rod/wollemi.html

Notice:

An unexpected biological finding in the Wollemi Pine has been a lack of detectable genetic variation.

Page 2 here: http://www.ssrvideo.com/images/tg/30_3.pdf

 

[Dutchunter]

notto...that's your view. That's your opinion. The fossil record does not prove evolution. You can keep repeating it though. This is the same nonsense you get from non-believers who believe in evolution, folks.

 

[Ben_Hur]

LOL. Hope y'all realize I didn't ask if TE was valid or invalid. I just wanted to know what exactly it was.

Actually, the other part of my question was not answered. I'm curious what the apologetics are, in light of TE, with regard to say, Genesis 1? Or is Genesis 1 just written off as fable? Do TE'ers use the "gap theory" (the details of which escape me right now)?

 

[Dutchunter]

It's a metaphor Then they say science backs them up. But the science is flawed. The fossils do not prove evolution. They are pretty darn flexible though.

 

[Vance]

Dutch, I notice that you did not respond to the points raised in Notto's response.

Ben Hur, there are a number of possible interpretations of Genesis 1 that conform to an old earth and evolution.

1. It is not an allegory, but uses some symbolic language. The "days" are extended periods of time (which is one of the literal definitions of YOM), and morning and evening is a phrase meaning "continuing on and on". When God said that the "earth shall bring forth" and created "out of the dust of the earth", these are entirely consistent as poetic language for evolution.

2. Genesis 1 is an allegory for God's creative process and Man's fall from Grace and need for salvation.

 

[notto]

notto...that's your view. That's your opinion. The fossil record does not prove evolution. You can keep repeating it though. This is the same nonsense you get from non-believers who believe in evolution, folks.

I agree, the fossil record does not prove evolution. I never said it did (that was the point). The fossil record is however, consistent with evolution and is one of the several independent lines of evidence that is consistent with it. Your use of the word 'prove' once again shows that you do not understand how science works. Your examples do not falsify evolution, therefore, evolution remains a valid scientific theory. You can keep repeating that it is not though but considering that the scientific community disagrees with you, I'll stick with them since they have the experience and expertise to make such judgements.

As far as 'nonsense' from 'non-believers', what you have been given is the mainstream, scientific, peer reviewed, answers. You accept much of what this community offers, why not evolution? It is approached the same way as all science. You are basically saying that you accept science as long as it does not conflict with your religious view. You are not accepting or rejecting evolution based on the same criteria you use accept any other mainstream scientific theory or idea. Your acceptace is biased by your beliefs.

Science is agnostic and can be accepted by anybody (and pursued by anybody), regardless of their faith, that is the beauty of it. It is universal. It is when supposed 'scientists' allow their religious views to interfere with their acceptance of the evidence (such as with the tenents of ICR and AIG) that they stop doing science and start warping it into their religious beliefs.

You have shown in your postings here the dangers of this approach. You make God (and all of your religious beleifs) falsifiable. You set up your understanding of God to be disproven.

 

[Dutchunter]

Vance....you of all people shouldn't be trying to point out when you think somebody didn't respond to someone's points. In my short time here you have repeatedly ignored responses to yourself. You also ignored my post on the pine completely.

notto...you need to quit harping on certain words and just provide the evidence- yes, the proof. In fact I've used the word "proof" and "prove" before and in fact responses have been "yes I can prove" etc.

I don't accept it because it's flawed. As pointed out before they also have an agenda. They lie. This is not the same kind of science that results in visible results, the kind that ends up "working"(A-bomb), the kind that is consistent. It's extremely flexible as well.

My God cannot be disproven. He does not have as His defenders those who don't believe in Him. He Created this world as he so stated in Genesis- in 6 days.. And the evidence of his wonderous Creation are there for all to see.

 

[notto]

Evolution works as a theory to explain the biology thousands of scientists work with every day. To suggest otherwise is ignorance. To suggest that thousands of scientists would work everyday with a theory that is falsified is also ignorance. What would be the purpose?

Two words for you to look up related to lies and agendas.

Moab Man