To the evolution deniers

[BradB]

Mere "similarity" will not cut it. Evolution theory predicts very specific things concerning "similarity". Most important of which would be the pattern of similarities. The pattern of the distribution of traits, genetic markers, genes, etc..

I understand that you see this as evidence. The problem is that creation theory predicts very specific patterns to be present. The prosecution in the Blake trial predicted that the closest person to Mrs. Blake with GSR on his hands and clothing would be her killer. But the defense showed there was a very logical alternative reason for GSR. Anyone who owns an handgun and frequently target practices will are "predicted" to have GSR on their hands and cloths. One would "predict" that a common creator would make various life forms who had to perform some of the same functions to have very similar features. Its called the economy of design techniques.

Creationists can not do this. They can't even show that this supposed designer actually exists.

I can. And I won't have to crack a Bible to do it.

The race is already over. Evolution (not as "the only competitor") won the race some 200 years ago..

Well there you have it then. I guess we have no more to say?

 

[Almost there]

I understand that you see this as evidence. The problem is that creation theory predicts very specific patterns to be present. The prosecution in the Blake trial predicted that the closest person to Mrs. Blake with GSR on his hands and clothing would be her killer. But the defense showed there was a very logical alternative reason for GSR. Anyone who owns an handgun and frequently target practices will are "predicted" to have GSR on their hands and cloths. One would "predict" that a common creator would make various life forms who had to perform some of the same functions to have very similar features. Its called the economy of design techniques.



I can. And I won't have to crack a Bible to do it.



Well there you have it then. I guess we have no more to say?

Clearly, the science is settled.

 

[BradB]

Which measurably happens. Every human born, for example, has 40-60 mutations that neither of their parents do.

If its so common then why when the exact same question was posed to famous biologist Richard Dawkins, was he stumped for a reply?

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that you see this as evidence. The problem is that creation theory predicts very specific patterns to be present. The prosecution in the Blake trial predicted that the closest person to Mrs. Blake with GSR on his hands and clothing would be her killer. But the defense showed there was a very logical alternative reason for GSR. Anyone who owns an handgun and frequently target practices will are "predicted" to have GSR on their hands and cloths. One would "predict" that a common creator would make various life forms who had to perform some of the same functions to have very similar features. Its called the economy of design techniques.

Right. So now we have two scenarios:
1. Evolution, in which patterns of similarities which we observe are the patterns which one would predict from the nature of the process.
2. Special Creation, in which no particular patterns of similarity are predicted, but which is not disproven by their presence.

It appears, then, that the patterns of similarity which we observe do not rule out either scenario, because the first scenario, evolution, makes specific predictions about similarities--which are in fact observed. The second scenario, special creation, makes no specific prediction so it doesn't matter what we observe.

 

[BradB]

Of all the shallow, condescending, pathetic, self-righteous garbage I see from creationists, this sort of BS probably annoys me the most.

I'm not mad at you. This is what Jesus said would happen when His truths are asserted. He said "if the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world the world would love its own, but because you are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world therefore will the world hate you." He said that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil, neither do they come to the light lest their deeds be revealed. I once hated Christians and thought they were all full of "BS" too. The very nature of people is to reject God's authority. In the Garden Satan tricked humanity into rejecting God's authority and that nature has become our nature. It is the nature of a world full of people (including biologists and paleontologists) who reject God. But God is still calling each and every one of us today "Adam where are you?" God says come let us reason together, though your sins are black as sack cloth, I will make them white like snow. I don't say these things out of any sense of "self-righteousness" but rather out of love. I am the chief of all sinners and have no stones to throw at anyone.

 

[BradB]

It appears, then, that the patterns of similarity which we observe do not rule out either scenario,

BINGO! Exactly what I have been asserting. This type of evidence is polysemic and useless in this kind of a debate.

so it doesn't matter what we observe.

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have to have better and stronger evidence to support one scenario or the other. To support UCD we have to have at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms, or we need an example of observed new and beneficial information being added to the genome of a multi celled organism. To support creation we need to observe examples of specificity in the formation of the universe, our planet, laws of physics, and life. (Specificity: meaning anything with an observable intent or purpose)

 

[Motherofkittens]

Since when? I know from observation that adaptation is fact for most species. Evolution must be taken on faith in the material world. A "faith" based on suppositions.



Most Christians don't who actually know Biblical allegorical language. Genesis 1-9 exhibits no allegorical language in the Hebrew. The paleo Hebrew used to record the Pentateuch was very concrete and communicated historical events in the language and observable world of the people of the time.

View attachment 210826
The above is what Moses worked with.

If a Christian treats Genesis as allegory then they must conclude Jesus Christ was wrong for claiming it was literal history.

Evolution has been a known fact for over 100 years and is getting stronger everyday. You have faith. Science has evidence and helps us progress and have better lives.

Jesus never claimed genesis was literal history. I know creationists like using analogies (although they usually use them wrong), so here is one for you.

Imagine someone saying "Jesus was a literal door and lamb! He says so! If you don't believe it, you are calling Jesus a liar!..."

Some Christians actually do believe that during communion the bread and wine literally turn into Jesus body and blood. And some of them used to say "it says it right there in the bible! If you do not believe and trust this is true then how can you trust any part of the bible? Especially where Jesus is raised from the dead..."

You can see what is wrong with that, right? And then of course there is the possibility that Jesus was divine and lied, or he wasn't divine, or he didn't even exist, etc.

 

[Herman Hedning]

If its so common then why when the exact same question was posed to famous biologist Richard Dawkins, was he stumped for a reply?

Maybe because it wasn't the question, but the situation that stumped him?

Dawkins own explanation:

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

Full explanation including answers to the actual question: The Information Challenge

 

[Speedwell]

BINGO! Exactly what I have been asserting. This type of evidence is polysemic and useless in this kind of a debate.



No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have to have better and stronger evidence to support one scenario or the other. To support UCD we have to have at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms, or we need an example of observed new and beneficial information being added to the genome of a multi celled organism.

Many well-regarded authorities maintain that such evidence already has been discovered. I am not going to argue that point myself, because I don't know enough about it (and because my objections to biblical creationism are theological rather than scientific) but there is at least something to discuss.

To support creation we need to observe examples of specificity in the formation of the universe, our planet, laws of physics, and life. (Specificity: meaning anything with an observable intent or purpose)

That won't work; such evidence would also be polysemic.

 

[SeventyOne]

Evolution has been a known fact for over 100 years and is getting stronger everyday. You have faith. Science has evidence and helps us progress and have better lives.

Well, the delusion gets stronger and sucks more and more people into its black hole, like yourself.

Jesus never claimed genesis was literal history. I know creationists like using analogies (although they usually use them wrong), so here is one for you.

Imagine someone saying "Jesus was a literal door and lamb! He says so! If you don't believe it, you are calling Jesus a liar!..."

Jesus never spoke of Genesis using symbolic language. Besides, this argument is like saying that if you've ever used symbolic language in your life, then it's perfectly reasonable to interpret anything you say as symbolic. Just because He uses symbols from time to time, doesn't automatically allow one to interpret what He said any way they wish.

 

[BradB]

Maybe because it wasn't the question, but the situation that stumped him?

Hmmm… That’s funny, you seem to have missed something very important he says in this response. Under the heading “Information in the body” the fifth paragraph down we read in his own words the following:

The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring – whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome – there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.

Here he admits that the question is controversial -and he is talking about “among evolutionists.” He says it is bound up in vigorous debates among evolutionists. He even admits that he and renowned evolutionist Stephen Gould were at opposition on this issue. He said there are two important considerations on the matter. 1. He says is information increase even found? (The question he never answered in the video) 2. Then the evidence that might appear to support it is “bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals as to undermine the very idea of progress.” So contrary to any “spin” on the video (his or others) his own words admit that he paused because he had no answer. Basically he was caught with his pants down. There is no clear cut example of an increase of information to the genome due to genetic mutations.

 

[Jimmy D]

I understand that you see this as evidence. The problem is that creation theory predicts very specific patterns to be present. The prosecution in the Blake trial predicted that the closest person to Mrs. Blake with GSR on his hands and clothing would be her killer. But the defense showed there was a very logical alternative reason for GSR. Anyone who owns an handgun and frequently target practices will are "predicted" to have GSR on their hands and cloths. One would "predict" that a common creator would make various life forms who had to perform some of the same functions to have very similar features. Its called the economy of design techniques.



I can. And I won't have to crack a Bible to do it.



Well there you have it then. I guess we have no more to say?

Unfortunately I’m just on my phone at the moment so I’ll be briefer than I would like.

Can you please share the”Creation Model” with us and go into these predictions in more detail?

In all my time on the forum no one has been forthcoming with this mysterious model.

 

[BradB]

Jesus never claimed genesis was literal history.

Actually He did. He said in the beginning God made them male and female (talking about Adam and Eve) and He speaks of it in a "literal" sense. (Matt.19:4 & Mark 10:6)

 

[BradB]

That won't work; such evidence would also be polysemic.

How exactly would specified features be polysemic?

 

[HitchSlap]

If its so common then why when the exact same question was posed to famous biologist Richard Dawkins, was he stumped for a reply?

And with this, you've squarely set yourself in the middle of all the other dishonest creationists around here. Well done.

 

[BradB]

Unfortunately I’m just on my phone at the moment so I’ll be briefer than I would like.

Can you please share the”Creation Model” with us and go into these predictions in more detail?

In all my time on the forum no one has been forthcoming with this mysterious model.

By all means you go first my friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually He did. He said in the beginning God made them male and female (talking about Adam and Eve) and He speaks of it in a "literal" sense. (Matt.19:4 & Mark 10:6)

That appears to be only your interpretation of the verse. Where does he say that Adam and Eve really existed? Since we know that we are a product of evolution you appear to be denying the deity of Jesus by saying that he took Genesis literally. Many Christians do not interpret that verse in the same way that you do. You try to claim that he meant that literally when there is no obvious reason to interpret it in that fashion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By all means you go first my friend.

How can he "go first"? You were the one that used the phrase "creation theory". Perhaps you do not understand what the word "theory" means in science. A theory is a testable refutable model. What is this model? What tests would refute it? Remember the tests need to be reasonable tests. The theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed countless times. That is why over 99% of the scientists that understand the theory accept it.

If creationists could actually come up with a testable hypothesis, one does not immediately jump to theory in the sciences, they might find some more support in the world of science.

 

[BradB]

That appears to be only your interpretation of the verse. Where does he say that Adam and Eve really existed? Since we know that we are a product of evolution you appear to be denying the deity of Jesus by saying that he took Genesis literally. Many Christians do not interpret that verse in the same way that you do. You try to claim that he meant that literally when there is no obvious reason to interpret it in that fashion.

I derive this from several Old and New Testament Bible texts would show both old and New Testament authors took the Genesis account to be literal. For example in the Psalms, David expressed his understanding of Genesis one as God speaking the word and the stars were created. Psalm 33:6. Psalm 148:4-5. This demonstrates that he did not see the Genesis 1 account as merely a fable. Also we must not forget that the same person who wrote Genesis also wrote Exodus. In Exodus 20:8-11 he describes the sabbath in context with a literal 7 day week and clearly compares it to the creation week. This shows us that he did not intend for it to be taken as a fable but rather to be taken as 7 literal days. Next we have to consider the fact that both Jews and Christians alike believe that because of Adam's sin in the garden, sin came upon all of humanity. 1 Corinthians 15:22. This view makes no sense if you believe the creation of Adam was merely the creation of the Jewish race. How would his sins have effected other living humans? In the Old Testament genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-7 Adam is listed as the very first man, and this theme is carried on into the New Testament genealogy of Luke 3 where all the men are assigned human fathers with the exception of the first man Adam who is called a direct descendant of God. Also I would direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 where the issue is settled "Biblically" and we are clearly told that Adam was in fact the first living being.

 

[BradB]

And with this, you've squarely set yourself in the middle of all the other dishonest creationists around here. Well done.

Perhaps you should look at my response to Hermann before you make such an accusation?