What's wrong with evolution?

[theFijian]

Nope --- sure didn't --- or you would have posted it. I happen to remember what I said --- do you?

Oh I remember all right. When presented with the original hebrew of Genesis 1 you rejected it and said that you would stick with a non-inspired man-made English translation. Bibliolatry is heresy.

 

[Elduran]

None --- but now you check this:



Do you still think I'm YEC?

Yes, because you think that the earth was created 6000 years ago, regardless of what science tells us about the age. The fact that you conflate your YEC beliefs with the notion of "embedded age" or whatever you want to call it is neither here nor there: you believe that the earth is 6000 years old rather than the scientificly derived age of over 4 billion years, therefore you are a YEC.

Fairly straightforward really.

 

[tocis]

Both of these characters violate God's principles of love and harmony --- and thus cannot be of God.

Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. Are we supposed to be impressed now?

Is != ought.

 

[Jase]

Yes, because you think that the earth was created 6000 years ago, regardless of what science tells us about the age. The fact that you conflate your YEC beliefs with the notion of "embedded age" or whatever you want to call it is neither here nor there: you believe that the earth is 6000 years old rather than the scientificly derived age of over 4 billion years, therefore you are a YEC.

Fairly straightforward really.

AV lives in a world where 6,000 years old is the same as 4.5 billion years old, so the concept really just goes over his head. We've routinely tried to explain to him the meaning of age, and how embedded age is an oxymoron, but to no avail.

 

[shernren]

Do you still think I'm YEC?

I concur with Jase: the box really doesn't fit him. I think "confused" fits the bill a bit better.

 

[BVZ]

I take the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise. Jesus, and all the writers took took the Scriptures literally, and there's no reason we shouldn't.

There is a reason. When taken literally, the bible contradicts itself.

Another thing: You yourself do not take the entire bible litarally. I am pretty sure that you do not believe that Jesus was a loaf of bread. So, you take certain things litarally, and certain things not.

This implies that you have an objective process you can use to determine which parts of the bible are taken literally, and which parts not to.

Could you please describe this process?

As I have stated before, taking Genesis 1 allegorically is very dangerous, as it allows the mind of the reader to be the validating factor of how this universe came into existence, and thus there's no way an independent third party can verify its claims. This leads to junk theories about Creation at best, and cultism at worst.

You say that you may not rely on yourself as a validating factor. Yet, when deciding what to take litarally, and what not to, you DO use yourself as a validating factor.

So... according to you own logic, what prevents YOU from building junk theories, and propogating cultism?

Why do you think so many different brands of Chritianity exists? It is becaus God left us with no choise but to use ourselves as 'validating factors'.

Okay --- they're the same --- so Evolution sends out one hit man, instead of two. I submit that still disqualifies it to be included in God's plan of creating a universe with love and harmony.

Do you agree that organisms die?
(They obviously do.)
Do you agree that an organism that is better suited to its environment has a better chance of survival?
(They obviously do. If put a penguin in the desert with a camel, the camel has a better chance of survival. If you put them in an arctic environment, the camel will propably die before the penguin.)

THIS IS NATURAL SELECTION. Are you saying that God did not
create natural selection?

Ask yourself: Did God design organisms in such a way that they are able to die? (He did. This is observable. In fact, Jesus died before he was resurected.)

Ask yourself: Did God design the world in such a way, that certain organisms are better equiped to survive in some environments than in others? (God created penguins and camels. He also created deserts and arctic areas. So yes.)

God created natural selection.

No, thanks. There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

Then I strongly urge you to limit yout arguments to the following: "I disagree with the theory of evolution because it is against my faith."

I don't want to hear about the second law of thermodynamics from you from now on. I dont want to hear about natural selection and mutations from you from now on. I dont want to heat about information being added, deleted, ANYTHING.

You may claim it is against your faith, where we will go "Oh, ok."

No --- not at all. In fact, I'm claiming that's one of the reasons natural selection doesn't exist --- it violates God's principles.

I have already demostrated that God created natural selection. Why would God create something that is 'against his principles' ?

God did not create natural selection to operate before the Fall; and as I have stated before, it operates on a microevolutionary (adaptation) level, not a macroevolutionary level.

So it DOES exist? Why then argue that it does not? And by the way, there is not difference between micro and macro evolution.

Tell me, whats the difference between waling 100m, and 50km ? The one is further. Thats the only difference. The one is 100m, the other is 50000m. If you take 100m, and keep adding 1m to it, you will eventually reach 50000m, and even go further.

Micro evolution is when you evolved until you reach a certain point. (100m). You then micro evolve further, until you are macro evolved. (50km)

I do believe God created natural selection, but He did it knowing what was going to happen, and it sat dormant until after the Fall.

We ARE after the fall, so natural selection is active NOW. I am glad you understand now.

Once again, natural selection operates against God's principles on a microevolutionary level, but God draws the line at macroevolution.

Who are you to decide where God draws ANY lines? The only one who can decide is God himself.

Since speciation has been OBSERVED, macro evolution DOES happen.

I don't want to get into technicalities with you, so I'll agree with you, because I see the point you're making; but for the technically-inclined Bible scholars out there: yes, this world is within the scope of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not Heaven (the Kingdom of God), per se.

All I am saying is that this world doesnt seem to be designed to be NICE. It can be rather unpleasant sometimes (when lived ones die etc.) Not everything in this world is Godly. Evolution happens, and it is not always fair. It is not always nice. It is not always pretty. That does not mean that it does not exist though.

No --- but Jesus specifically mentions God making Adam and Eve.

Your argument looks like this:
1)The bible does not contain references to evolution.
2) Because of 1, evolution does not exist.

I can rewrite it like this:

1) The bible does not contain references to X.
2) Because of 1, X does not exist.

Heres a list of things that cannot exist accoring to this argument:
Computer mice.
Stainless steel.
Microsoft.
Superconductors.
Black holes.

The argument is flawed, and we are trying to demostrate this to you. We all make mistakes, all you have to do is go: "AAAHH! Ok, I understand now, I will not use that argument again, thanks for pointing it out to me."

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

It's called the Fall --- Sin entering the universe and setting off the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics --- entropy.

Entropy will eventually claim the Universe; but God is going to intervene before that happens.

Thermodynamics is an extremely complex topic. Since I don't really have a lot of knowledge onthis subject, I will refrain from commenting on it.

I suggest you do the same.

Time --- for one thing. Evolution does not allow for Adam and Eve. Let's compare what evolution says, to what God did, and see if God created it, okay?

• God created the earth before the sun.
• Evolution has the sun before the earth.
• God created the birds before the land animals.
• Evolution has the land animals before the birds.
• God created plant life before the sun.
• Evolution has the sun before the plants.

Do you see, BVZ, how evolution is so opposed to Creation?

Only if you read the bible literally.

Not a chance.

Why not? Know your enemy.

I have learned a few things. One that stands out is the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis (which I used to think were one and the same).

Thats good.

I learned the difference between an Apologist and a Defender of the Faith.

I never heard the terms Young Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation before I came here (I'm neither, BTW.)

The more we learn the better.

I never heard of Omphalos, Last Thursdayism, alleles, or Theistic Evolution until I came here. I was very surprised to see that there are Christians that embrace evolution.

If you had knowledge about evolution, you would not have been.

But one thing that really stands out to me, is how much Darwin and Evolution are seriously taken.

Since you don't know anything about evolution, why would this be sirprising to you either way?

On the flip side, I'm glad (albeit in a sad way) to see that people like Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, and Ken Ham are put down, as I would expect this. (I imagine Dave Hunt is hated, too; but I'm not asking.)

Yea. Kent Hovind irritates be A LOT.

 

[Elduran]

AV lives in a world where 6,000 years old is the same as 4.5 billion years old, so the concept really just goes over his head. We've routinely tried to explain to him the meaning of age, and how embedded age is an oxymoron, but to no avail.

Which in my view can't make him anything but a YEC, as he doesn't seem to comprehend that you can't claim that the universe was created 6000 years ago without also claiming that the universe is 6000 years old. The fact that he's a YEC almost by accident is irrelevant, he's still a YEC according to the definition.

 

[shadowmage36]

Thermodynamics is an extremely complex topic. Since I don't really have a lot of knowledge onthis subject, I will refrain from commenting on it.

Fortunately, I do have knowledge of thermodynamics. I'm rather amazed that AV hasn't used the common argument that the 2nd Law precludes evolution, since he's seen fit to invoke heat death theory (which, to my knowledge is true, while the 2nd Law precluding evolution is nonsense).

The second and third laws of thermodynamics have to deal with entropy and work. Basically, you can't win, you can't break even, you're going to lose. I'll post the equations when I have a few minutes later in the day. The Universe is eventually going to be nothing but heat, but by that point, there'll be no-one in the Universe left to care.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Universe is eventually going to be nothing but heat, but by that point, there'll be no-one in the Universe left to care.

actually... doesn't heat death say the other thing... eventually all in the universe will be energy-less particles?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fortunately, I do have knowledge of thermodynamics. I'm rather amazed that AV hasn't used the common argument that the 2nd Law precludes evolution, since he's seen fit to invoke heat death theory (which, to my knowledge is true, while the 2nd Law precluding evolution is nonsense).

I've actually stated before (somewhere) that Evolution cannot work in a Universe running on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - as I believe that the Bible states the law permeates every facet of God's Creation.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

Therefore you have genetic entropy as well.

In addition, where would the massive amount of information required to evolve upward come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

actually... doesn't heat death say the other thing... eventually all in the universe will be energy-less particles?

We'll either reach a point where the entire Universe is one uniform temperature (thus no work can occur), or everything will wind down to Absolute Zero --- I'm not sure which.

 

[Elduran]

I've actually stated before (somewhere) that Evolution cannot work in a Universe running on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - as I believe that the Bible states the law permeates every facet of God's Creation.

You stated wrong then, nothing about the 2nd law prevents evolution. Nothing at all.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The fact that he's a YEC almost by accident is irrelevant, he's still a YEC according to the definition.

It's not like anyone else got asked what label they would like. Personally, I think "Theistic Evolutionism" sounds like another dopey postmodern paradigm, I'd rather have a title with less emphasis on -isms.

 

[BVZ]

In addition, where would the massive amount of information required to evolve upward come from?

Why are you asking questions? Previously you said that you know nothing about avolution, and that there is no chance that you would learn anything about it either.

So, by asking this question, should we conclude that you DO want to learn about evolution? Or is this sort of a rethorical question, where no possible answer could address the question in your eyes, no matter how relavent the answer?

Since you know nothing about evolution, should we also conclude that any and all attacks made by you against the theory is worthless?

This is not an allegation I make myself, you admitted that you know nothing about evolution.

 

[shadowmage36]

I've actually stated before (somewhere) that Evolution cannot work in a Universe running on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - as I believe that the Bible states the law permeates every facet of God's Creation.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

Therefore you have genetic entropy as well.

In addition, where would the massive amount of information required to evolve upward come from?

Wrong. Just plain wrong. There is nothing about ANY of the three laws of thermodynamics that say evolution cannot work. They are, as follows:

The second law, which is of interest to us, effectively states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than what you put in, and that you in fact get less. So at first glance, this would seem to preclude evolution, as it would require a massive energy source to power something like that on a planetary scale.

Then, you take a look into the sky and have your answer as to how that's possible.

Next PRATT?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The second law, which is of interest to us, effectively states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than what you put in, and that you in fact get less. So at first glance, this would seem to preclude evolution, as it would require a massive energy source to power something like that on a planetary scale.

No way! If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it!

 

[shadowmage36]

Wrong. Just plain wrong. There is nothing about ANY of the three laws of thermodynamics that say evolution cannot work. They are, as follows:
<image here>

The second law, which is of interest to us, effectively states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than what you put in, and that you in fact get less. So at first glance, this would seem to preclude evolution, as it would require a massive energy source to power something like that on a planetary scale.

Then, you take a look into the sky and have your answer as to how that's possible.

Next PRATT?

No way! If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it!

*dies laughing*
*repeatedly*

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wrong. Just plain wrong. There is nothing about ANY of the three laws of thermodynamics that say evolution cannot work. They are, as follows:

The second law, which is of interest to us, effectively states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than what you put in, and that you in fact get less. So at first glance, this would seem to preclude evolution, as it would require a massive energy source to power something like that on a planetary scale.

Then, you take a look into the sky and have your answer as to how that's possible.

Next PRATT?

i prefer this version:


1. You can't win, you can only break even.
2. You can only break even at absolute zero.
3. You can never reach absolute zero.

from a longer list of physics laws at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/2_18.html

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a reason. When taken literally, the bible contradicts itself.

What may seem as contradictions usually aren't when interpreted in the right way. At first, the Bible seems to be full of errors and contradictions; until you read it over, and the more you read it and study it, the more the contradictions fade away.

Another thing: You yourself do not take the entire bible litarally.

That is correct --- there are passages that are literal and passages that are figurative.

This implies that you have an objective process you can use to determine which parts of the bible are taken literally, and which parts not to.

Could you please describe this process?

Context --- context --- context --- I cannot stress enough letting the context decide how a passage is to be interpreted. You don't interpret the phone book figuratively, and you don't interpret Alice in Wonderland literally.

]You say that you may not rely on yourself as a validating factor. Yet, when deciding what to take litarally, and what not to, you DO use yourself as a validating factor.

Not hardly --- there are rules to follow --- and I follow them.

So... according to you own logic, what prevents YOU from building junk theories, and propogating cultism?

Independent third parties, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, Bible churches, and the like.

Why do you think so many different brands of Chritianity exists?

Because there's a real devil out there using divide-and-conquer tactics to ruin the New Testament church. Also, other denominations exist depending on what parts of Scripture they place their emphases.

It is becaus God left us with no choise but to use ourselves as 'validating factors'.

As I said, there are checks and balances in place that make it hard to go astray.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you agree that organisms die?

Yes.

Do you agree that an organism that is better suited to its environment has a better chance of survival?

Yes.

If put a penguin in the desert with a camel, the camel has a better chance of survival. If you put them in an arctic environment, the camel will propably die before the penguin.

THIS IS NATURAL SELECTION. Are you saying that God did not create natural selection?

The earth used to be one tropical paradise before the Fall, thanks to the water canopy. After the Flood, natural selection took its toll.

Ask yourself: Did God design organisms in such a way that they are able to die?

Yes and no. The organisms couldn't die, so long as Adam obeyed God. If he didn't obey God --- death would be the result.

Ask yourself: Did God design the world in such a way, that certain organisms are better equiped to survive in some environments than in others?

God designed the universe with a continuity plan (backup) in place. Should it's intended design fail (due to disobedience) a secondary plan would kick in that would merely prolong physical life to a point.

God created natural selection.

In a sense, yes.

[bible]Isaiah 45:7[/bible]

And like I said, even though that verse is primarily talking about war, it can be applied to natural selection, in my opinion.

Then I strongly urge you to limit yout arguments to the following: "I disagree with the theory of evolution because it is against my faith."

My faith can waiver, and even change. Therefore, I refrain from saying things like that, and prefer instead to say "...it is against the Bible".

I don't want to hear about the second law of thermodynamics from you from now on. I dont want to hear about natural selection and mutations from you from now on. I dont want to heat about information being added, deleted, ANYTHING.

I'm sure you don't --- but until this country starts endorsing censorship, I'll say what's on my mind, as long as I abide by the rules.

You may claim it is against your faith, where we will go "Oh, ok."

Wait until I claim it's against my faith, first.

I have already demostrated that God created natural selection. Why would God create something that is 'against his principles' ?

For our benefit.

[bible]2 Peter 3:9[/bible]

As I said before --- it's a necessary evil.

So it DOES exist? Why then argue that it does not?

I said it exists on a microevolutionary level. It does not exist on a macroevolutionary level.

And by the way, there is not difference between micro and macro evolution.

Then why the distinction? Why not just call it evolution, like they used to?

Tell me, whats the difference between waling 100m, and 50km ? The one is further. Thats the only difference.

That's right. And after the walk, a kilometer is still a kilometer, and I'm still a walker. I can even walk back, if I want; and if others walk faster than I do, I won't be victimized by 'natural selection'.

Micro evolution is when you evolved until you reach a certain point. (100m). You then micro evolve further, until you are macro evolved. (50km)

Not if God set up boundaries. You'll eventually reach a dead-end before you macroevolve.

Who are you to decide where God draws ANY lines? The only one who can decide is God himself.

He has decided, and put His decision in writing. Now the decision-making process is over, and it's time to abide by His decisions.

Since speciation has been OBSERVED, macro evolution DOES happen.

I see what you're saying, but don't agree with it.

All I am saying is that this world doesnt seem to be designed to be NICE.

Au contraire --- Genesis 1 is the blueprint.