Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[S Walch]

I'm sorry, I thought you were making an accusation about evolutionary scientists, not just the general public.

I thought people might've thought that about my statement, but was not my intention

A lot of Satanists probably believe in heliocentrism too, I shouldn't wonder. And germ theory, and capitalism, and that there is a planet called Mars. What has that got to do with anything; or are you saying we shouldn't believe there's a planet called Mars because satanists believe there is too?


Do you actually have a real scientific argument against evolution, or are you so desperate that you have to resort to character assassination?

I was merely answering to Dannager's assercion that I shouldn't identify with Michael Behe, as he believes Astrology to be a science, even though his book, well, I believe so anyway, shows just how very complicated many things in the human body, as well as animals in general, would have needed to have been created exactly at the same time - such as all the things recuired in the blood clotting system - but this goes against the evolution theory that things developed over time.

The Lady Kate said the book had been proven wrong though - hence where this topic started, but I'd like some confirmation of that.

 

[notto]

The Lady Kate said the book had been proven wrong though - hence where this topic started, but I'd like some confirmation of that.

Not proven wrong, just unsupported by any actual research, as Behe admits himself.

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day12_am.pdf

Q. And by contrast, how many peer reviewed articles
are there explaining the blood clotting -- why the blood
clotting cascade cannot evolve because it is irreducibly
complex in the way you describe?
A. Well, I'm going to say that the articles which
elucidate the structure of the blood clotting pathway
are the ones which demonstrate that. I will agree that
there certainly are no arguments or directly to that
point. But as I tried to show in my book, Darwin's
Black Box, that's an implication that can easily be
drawn from those studies.
Q. So these are all those other articles based on
the research of other scientists that you interpret
differently than those scientists do?
A. That's right. I was proposing a newer idea.
Q. Okay. And how many peer reviewed articles are
there in scientific journals discussing the intelligent
design of the blood clotting cascade?
A. Well, again, since we infer design by the
purposeful arrangement of parts, then the peer reviewed
articles in science journals that demonstrate that the
blood clotting system is indeed a purposeful arrangement
of parts of great complexity and sophistication, there
are probably a large number of those.
Q. Again, those are those articles by other
scientists based on experimental research, right?
A. They are certainly by other scientists, not by
myself, and they are certainly based on experiments.
Q. And none of those articles are arguing that the
blood clotting cascade are intelligently designed -- is
intelligently designed?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there are no peer reviewed articles arguing
that the blood clotting cascade is intelligently
designed, right, in scientific journals?
A. I wrote my argument in a book, so, yes, that's
correct.
Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system,
can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which
intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?
A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design
does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one
important factor in the production of systems, and that
is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was
involved.

 

[S Walch]

Not proven wrong, just unsupported by any actual research, as Behe admits himself.

So what he claims in his book haven't been proven wrong then?

 

[notto]

So what he claims in his book haven't been proven wrong then?

It is up to him to support his claims, which he admits he really can't do with peer reviewed research. His argument that there are no possible evolutinary pathways that can lead to IC has also pretty much been debunked.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7819_part_07_dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

[font=Times New Roman,sans-serif] I'm asking you about Hageman factor. I'm not deleting those. My question is straightforward. You said you couldn't delete them, nature's done the experiment, it deleted them, doesn't that disprove the hypothesis?... and you're talking about deleting other ones?

MB:
You're right there are redundant components in the blood clotting system...

KM:
So it's not irreducibly complex?

MB:
In the same sense that a rattrap is not, that's correct. [/font]


Proposed pathways exist for blood clotting and the evolution of irreducibly complex systems has been shown to be a possibility. His argument that IC = intelligent designer is therefor been shown to be premature and without a lot of scientific merit.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

http://www.nmsr.org/coral_ic.htm

That's the problem with works like behe's. He doesn't submit them for review, doesn't correct them when they are shown to be poor, and he just keeps selling his books without correction or without adapting his ideas to current research.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That's the problem with works like behe's. He doesn't submit them for review, doesn't correct them when they are shown to be poor, and he just keeps selling his books without correction or without adapting his ideas to current research.

Very true... I suppose technically I misspoke when I said "refuted," at least in the scientific sense... A scientific article submitted for peer review can be refuted, but Behe doesn't submit to peer review... he knows better than to do that... and his own definition of "science" is completely worthless... unless we want to include astrology as "science."

 

[QuantumFlux]

OH, gluadys... Every single one of those references you gave were examples of microevolution. None of those link anything to becoming another species, such as a reptile become a mammal. All I saw was for example, after 5 years in a lab, they got two different species of fruit flies. they were still fruit flies, just merely different species of fruit flies.... Still not macroevolution.

You won't see me debate microevolution. Its obvious that animals can adapt to their environment. What anyone has yet to observe is the so called evolution from a reptile to a mammal, or bird or fish.

Get back to me when you find something more compelling that minor chromosonal changes.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Here is the bottom line (I don't even know why I stepped back into this futile debate).

Jesus said that since the beginning of creation he made them male and female (who ever said that is a bad translation should take some Greek classes. Nothing is more annoying than a guy with an interlinear new testament who thinks he knows how to translate). The statement is very clear, whether he meant it to or not, shows he believe that man existed from the beginning.

Science contradicts Jesus on multiple levels. No one can scientifically be resurrected the way Jesus is claimed to have. No one can perform the miracle of healing sight the way he did. It is completely against all science, but we believe it.

The evolutionary theory contradicts what Jesus said. It has not changed to a scientific fact and remains a theory. If it has been observed as Gluadys would have us believe, then it would change from theory to fact. But it remains a theory because there is much room for doubt.

So I am left with two choices. Believe that Jesus knew what he was talking about, or believe secular science.

I'll stick with Jesus, you can believe whoever you want.

 

[S Walch]

OH, gluadys... Every single one of those references you gave were examples of microevolution. None of those link anything to becoming another species, such as a reptile become a mammal. All I saw was for example, after 5 years in a lab, they got two different species of fruit flies. they were still fruit flies, just merely different species of fruit flies.... Still not macroevolution.

You won't see me debate microevolution. Its obvious that animals can adapt to their environment. What anyone has yet to observe is the so called evolution from a reptile to a mammal, or bird or fish.

Get back to me when you find something more compelling that minor chromosonal changes.

that seems to be the only example they can actually give us - that of Microevultion.

Micro evolution is what darwin first noticed when he was breeding dogs. He then thought that if it happens within a species, why can't it happen from one species to another.

I think people need to make the distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Intelligent designers believe Microevolution - the development within a species to be fact - because, well, it is fact, you can see it just by counting the several thousand different breeds of Dogs. there's proof of microevultion.

We mainly contend Macroevolution - that which we believe has no proof.

 

[gluadys]

OH, gluadys... Every single one of those references you gave were examples of microevolution. None of those link anything to becoming another species, such as a reptile become a mammal. All I saw was for example, after 5 years in a lab, they got two different species of fruit flies. they were still fruit flies, just merely different species of fruit flies.... Still not macroevolution.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say "None of those link anything to becoming another species". Then you say "they got two different species of fruit flies. they were still fruit flies, just merely different species of fruit flies.... "

So did they get new species or not?

"Reptile" by the way is not a species. It is a very large class of species. Ditto mammal. Evolution does not jump from class to class. It just produces new species. And the production of new species is macro-evolution by any scientific definition. So those new and different species of fruit flies are examples of observed macro-evolution.

Now having established that new species do evolve---what prevents the repetition of speciation many times over many millennia with the end result being species that are quite different from those one began with?

You won't see me debate microevolution. Its obvious that animals can adapt to their environment.

You should. You would probably learn something about micro-evolution you don't know, such as the process by which species (all species, not just animal species) adapt.

I bet you cannot describe that process accurately.

What anyone has yet to observe is the so called evolution from a reptile to a mammal, or bird or fish.

How can anyone observe a process that took over 200 million years? We can, however, observe evidence that only makes sense if the process happened.

Get back to me when you find something more compelling that minor chromosonal changes.

In other words, you want evidence that evolution consists of class-to-class jumps. Since it does not, and would even be falsified by such evidence, you won't get it. Evolution does not work that way.

Let go of your false fantasies about evolution --for which there is no evidence at all--and learn how evolution really works, and you might discover there is more to it than you thought.

 

[gluadys]

If it has been observed as Gluadys would have us believe, then it would change from theory to fact. But it remains a theory because there is much room for doubt.

Classic illustration of ignorance about the meaning of "theory" in scientific work.

Evolution is indeed an observed fact. Species do change over time, and in appropriate circumstances new species emerge. That is the fact of evolution.

The theory of evolution explains how this happens. That is the purpose of theories in science: to explain facts, not to become facts.

 

[notto]

We mainly contend Macroevolution - that which we believe has no proof.

Can you define macroevolution and explain the mechanisms of it as defined by the theory of evolution?

What is the difference between macroevolution and speciation?

I guess what I'm asking is can you accurately describe the theory that you are criticizing? It seems that you may be arguing against a strawman version of the theory of evolution and arguing against something that the theory of evolution never says in the first place.


Evolution never says that individuals of one species will give birth to a new species, class, or family of animals directly. An individual will never give birth to an individual that is of a different species. Populations evolve, not individuals.

We have observed the speciation of populations.

 

[S Walch]

Can you define macroevolution and explain the mechanisms of it as defined by the theory of evolution?

What is the difference between macroevolution and speciation?

I guess what I'm asking is can you accurately describe the theory that you are criticizing? It seems that you may be arguing against a strawman version of the theory of evolution and arguing against something that the theory of evolution never says in the first place.


Evolution never says that individuals of one species will give birth to a new species, class, or family of animals directly. An individual will never give birth to an individual that is of a different species. Populations evolve, not individuals.

We have observed the speciation of populations.

The ones outlined in here

 

[notto]

The ones outlined in here

Then we can safely say that you agree that we have oberved all of the mechanisms that are used to explain macroevolution and we have observed macroevolution (speciation) itself, right?

If that is true, how can you say that macroevolution has no proof? (If indeed what you meant to say was that macroevolution is not supported by evidence - science doesn't do proofs).

 

[QuantumFlux]

How can anyone observe a process that took over 200 million years? We can, however, observe evidence that only makes sense if the process happened.

That's all I needed to hear. We can't observe macroevolution from class to class, we can only assume from certain data that only makes sense IF the process happened. This data being the immensely incomplete fossil record.

It cannot be observed, and can only be assumed. That is faith, not science.

 

[gluadys]

That's all I needed to hear. We can't observe macroevolution from class to class, we can only assume from certain data that only makes sense IF the process happened. This data being the immensely incomplete fossil record.

It cannot be observed, and can only be assumed. That is faith, not science.

That is like saying you cannot be confident that your friend spent his vacation in Paris because you only saw him off at the airport in New York and then welcomed him home again. Never mind that you also saw his plane ticket, saw the announcement board that designated that his flight was to Paris, (and that his return flight was also from Paris) and that he brought back pictures and videos of himself at various locations in Paris.

There is, of course, a small likelihood that he faked all this to fool you. But unless you have reason to prefer this explanation, is it not more probable that he really was in Paris even though you did not observe him there?

There is much more data than the fossil record. Enough to support evolution as the most probable cause of the relationships among species even if we had no fossils at all. But we do have fossils, and they are consistent with the other evidence.

None of this is assumed. The correct terms are “inferred”, “predicted” “tested against observation” and “not falsified”.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That's all I needed to hear. We can't observe macroevolution from class to class, we can only assume from certain data that only makes sense IF the process happened. This data being the immensely incomplete fossil record.

It cannot be observed, and can only be assumed. That is faith, not science.

The same faith that is the basis of germs, electricity, and the structure of the atom.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions which has been proven correct time after time.

Creationism has predicted...???

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Jesus said that since the beginning of creation he made them male and female [] The statement is very clear, whether he meant it to or not, shows he believe that man existed from the beginning.

A literal reading of Mark 10 contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1, humans were created on the sixth day, not the first.

Unless you want to redefine "beginning" as the first 6 days, or the first 7 days or everything that occured before the Fall.

I would suggest that Jesus was far closer to a tradition of being concerned with the Truth conveyed the Bible than modern interpreters who appear much more interested in turning the Bible into a science textbook.

The inspired authors of Genesis wrote a story to get across certain concepts God wished us to understand, Jesus was using a reference to Gen to reassert one part of the message God wanted to get across in that story.

Science contradicts Jesus on multiple levels. No one can scientifically be resurrected the way Jesus is claimed to have. No one can perform the miracle of healing sight the way he did. It is completely against all science, but we believe it.

The evolutionary theory contradicts what Jesus said.

There is no physical evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead, nor any that he did not heal the blind and make the lame walk.

There is loads of physical evidence that the Earth is far older than 10,000 years.*

A global flood that wiped out all land and air species except those carried in an ark should leave physical evidence behind, but there is no evidence for it and a substantial amount of physical evidence against it.**

There is a very substantial amount of physical evidence that humans did not exist for most of Earth's existance, and that this physical shell of ours evolved from previous species.***

*Tree rings in the U.S. and Europe, lake varves in the U.S., Europe, Japan, ice core layers in Greenland and Antarctica, and connected all of the above radiocarbon dating.

**biodiversity, distribution of species, fossil and archeological evidence of continuous occupation, the Grand Canyon, the existance of both ancient, worn down mountain ranges and new sharp mountain ranges.

***twin nested hierarchies, particularly passed on errors in and non-funcitional portions of DNA.

 

[QuantumFlux]

A literal reading of Mark 10 contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1, humans were created on the sixth day, not the first.

Unless you want to redefine "beginning" as the first 6 days, or the first 7 days or everything that occured before the Fall.

I would suggest that Jesus was far closer to a tradition of being concerned with the Truth conveyed the Bible than modern interpreters who appear much more interested in turning the Bible into a science textbook.

The inspired authors of Genesis wrote a story to get across certain concepts God wished us to understand, Jesus was using a reference to Gen to reassert one part of the message God wanted to get across in that story.

You can't be serious... His statement only contradicts in your head. Didn't we already do this? I'll repeat my statement from the last time this was brought up. Day 6 of 2 million can easily be considered the beginning. however year 2.8 billion of 3 billion isn't the beginning of anything.

There is no physical evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead, nor any that he did not heal the blind and make the lame walk.

There is loads of physical evidence that the Earth is far older than 10,000 years.*

and there is an equal amount of evidence against an old universe. As for the Grand Canyon, this is one of those follies of assumption. An earthquake happened in washinton some number of years back. After three years of erosion through this crack that developped because of it, using the same method as dating the Grand Canyon, this crack turned canyon was dated at multiple thousands of years old.

You have alot of assumptions built off of more assumptions. I'll stick with what Jesus said.

The same faith that is the basis of germs, electricity, and the structure of the atom.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions which has been proven correct time after time.

Creationism has predicted...???

That's almost laughable...what has evolution predicted? That a fruit fly can become a different species?

Creationism predicts that this creation will end and knowledge will cease.

That is like saying you cannot be confident that your friend spent his vacation in Paris because you only saw him off at the airport in New York and then welcomed him home again. Never mind that you also saw his plane ticket, saw the announcement board that designated that his flight was to Paris, (and that his return flight was also from Paris) and that he brought back pictures and videos of himself at various locations in Paris.

There is, of course, a small likelihood that he faked all this to fool you. But unless you have reason to prefer this explanation, is it not more probable that he really was in Paris even though you did not observe him there?

If God told me he went to Rome instead of Paris, I'd believe God no matter what pictures he showed me.

Thats not that accurate of a scenario. Change it so that the friend doesn't tell us where he is going and he brings back a ton of artifacts with different origins and culture types. Now it is up to us to figure out where he visited and which he visited first.

We might have alot of educated guesses, but unless he told us we would never know for sure.

 

[notto]

An earthquake happened in washinton some number of years back. After three years of erosion through this crack that developped because of it, using the same method as dating the Grand Canyon, this crack turned canyon was dated at multiple thousands of years old.

This doesn't make any sense and sounds like some weird combination of things. The dating of the grand canyon has nothing to do with erosion, cracks, or earthquakes.

This is the kind of claim from creationists that just makes them lose credibility in discussions of science. Vague claims, no references, jumbled understandings and explanations.

A young earth has been falsified. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you can find that you somehow thinks proves that the earth is young, if there is one that shows it to be old and there is no other explanation, then the idea is falsified. There are several independent lines of evidence that show us that the idea of a young earth if falsified.

-Seasonal varves (and yes, we know they are seasonal)
-Missing short half life isotopes
-The correlation of independent dating methods based on decay

There are many others.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That's almost laughable...what has evolution predicted? That a fruit fly can become a different species?

As a matter of fact, evolutionary theory has predicted just that... and it has happened.

Creationism predicts that this creation will end and knowledge will cease.

I've seen quite a few creationists attempt to fulfill at least part of that prediction.