Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Robert the Pilegrim]

It is only contradictory if you are looking at any organism as a complete and error free copy of its progenitor

So you are saying that errors in transcription of the genetic code over the last few thousand years have produced all the genetic variation within species?

And why do you think that such changes can not produce new species/genuses...?

 

[shernren]

The ingeniousness of the Living God, that's how...but let's stick with science....Francis Ayala (a geneticist) has calculated that just from the known alleles in one human couple can produce over 10 to the 2000th power of different offspring before all the versions of all the genes we come with would be exhausted. Why would it be any less for dogs, or any other organism for that matter (with the same sized genome, of course!)?

Ayala's calculation is a different kind of calculation over all the traits in all offspring. It means that with just four alleles for each trait (if you don't understand why, do ask) - two from each parent - since there are so many traits you can get a huge number of unique children. But there would only be 4 alleles per trait in that huge number of children. You wouldn't find a 5th or 6th allele.

You lost me here...if the 10 variant alleles where originally created within the genome from the very beginning, how are you now (in your example) attributing them to degenerate mutation (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Please clarify.

What I mean is that the presently observed population might have far more than 10 variants, but that this wide variety can be whittled down to 10 variants that appear to be original.

several genes are known to exist in several copies, on purpose we assume, and some traits are known to depend upon the cumulative affect of genes at two or more loci. So, genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in form allelic forms, meaning that the potential for diversity is indeed very high, higher than evolutionists want to admit too. And when you begin to examine the fact that some of these alleles could have other possible combinations due to cross-overs and the like, you can very quickly multiply the amount of available diversity from the very beginning...again, another point that evolutionary biologists do not like to concede too.

But for each genetic locus, given two parents, there can only be four variant alleles. Taking a locus-by-locus comparison, if the present population has more than four variant alleles in a particular locus, how was that diversity of information contained in two parent organisms? (I admit this re-explanation isn't exactly analogous to the earlier one. My apologies.)

 

[Edmond]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.

Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

All of the above claims are disputed by YEC's. Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world. So, this is my question to Young Earth Creationists:

Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?
or
Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?

If you follow the latter then I would also ask whether or not you have ever read a theological view of evolution such as John Haught's God After Darwin or Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Also, have you ever looked at a good guideline for a historical/critical Biblical exegesis?

Lot's of questions I know but I am a curious chap

How do you rationalize the statement made by Jesus in Matt 19:4 that validates that ...'He who created them from the beginning, made them male amd female.."....? In view of this statement what also happens to the claims found in points 2-4 ? ....


------------------------------------

 

[gluadys]

How do you rationalize the statement made by Jesus in Matt 19:4 that validates that ...'He who created them from the beginning, made them male amd female.."....? In view of this statement what also happens to the claims found in points 2-4 ? ....


------------------------------------

I don't understand your question, Edmond. Under an evolutionary scenario, humans would also be male and female from the beginning.

 

[shernren]

How do you rationalize the statement made by Jesus in Matt 19:4 that validates that ...'He who created them from the beginning, made them male amd female.."....? In view of this statement what also happens to the claims found in points 2-4 ? ....


------------------------------------

Same question I'm asking you elsewhere: how does that quote "disprove" evolution?

 

[FunkyBrother]

Same question I'm asking you elsewhere: how does that quote "disprove" evolution?

Jesus said beginning.

Now as far as a 6-day Creation is concerned Adam and Eve were created in the beginning.

But if you start with secular religious ideas, going with the mocules to man idea of evolution, then man was not created in the beginning, but very late on. If you condensed the billions of years of evolutionary time span in to a 24-hour clock, with 0 hrs being the start of time and 24hrs where we are now, then man came into existence only a fraction of a second before midnight. According to the evolutionary time scale, man was not made from the beginning but almost at the end (where we are today).

Basically the big deal is that the billions of years suggestion is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

 

[FunkyBrother]

Goddidit, which is the closest thing to a scientific explanation creationism can (and should be able to, by principle) muster.

Here's a clean-cut debunking of the concept of "kinds":

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm

Here's an interesting question for creationists:

We have some kinds that are completely extinct, like the dinosaurs, but we have some kinds for which there are many surviving extant members, like the "dog kind". Is it possible, by DNA analysis, to determine the genome of the ancestral pair of the dog kind? I have a hunch (though not much more) that there would be too much information and too many traits to fit onto a single viable genome, since apparently mutations only delete information, meaning that the "primordial dog genome" must contain more information than the sum of all the genetic information in all dogs, wolves and foxes (or maybe just dogs and wolves, if you take the tribe Canini instead of the family Canidae) today.

I'm not sure what you find interesting in that quote (although a lot of people tend to take anything at face value that makes God out to be a liar) but: "I have a hunch (though not much more)" is not a 'clean-cut debunk'.

The article is not a 'clean-cut debunk' it is a totally unscientific "hunch" of a religious blind leap of faith ((much more faith than I am prepared to have) by someone who started off with the blind bias (everyone is bias, it's a question of what is the best bias to be bias with) assumption that God did not create the world, and ignores anything that points to that.


Most Creationists and evolutionists believe the dog descended from something akin to a wolf.

They can mate and have fertile offspring! But the writer of the article ignores this and claims he has a 'hunch' that there would be too much information, but provides no facts that this can't be done, to back his religious 'hunch' up, just paleo-babble.

When you think of the incredibly complex D.N.A information to build incredibly complex and well designed creatures can fit on a tiny dot on one sperm and one egg. We are talking incredible technology here.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus said beginning.

And ever since the beginning of humanity, they have been male and female. That is just as true from an evolutionary perspective as from a creationist perspective.

 

[RenHoek]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.



There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp


2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.



I do buy micro-evolution, not macro. Humans get taller, new breeds of dogs are breed, and so forth. I did not come from a monkey.


3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.



I am in if we are talking of Adam and Eve.


4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.



There is no proof, hence the theory status. Mutations are not positive occurrences. They are natural disadvantages that would preclude them from being the “fittest” to survive.


5.) Life originated via natural processes.



No proof of this.



The problem with evolution is that it presupposes that evolution DID happen and attempts to fit the evidence to it. When the same is done for Creation, it is far more plausible. Evolution contridicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.

 

[ebia]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.



There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Not that can stand up to scientific scruteny. Unless you can point us to some in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.



I do buy micro-evolution, not macro. Humans get taller, new breeds of dogs are breed, and so forth. I did not come from a monkey.

"Evolution is not true because I don't want it to be."

3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.

I am in if we are talking of Adam and Eve.

We can be pretty certain that my Banksia tree didn't evolve from Adam & Eve, so that wouldn't be universal, would it?

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.

There is no proof, hence the theory status.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. You might want to learn what a scientific theory actually is.

Mutations are not positive occurrences. They are natural disadvantages that would preclude them from being the “fittest” to survive.

Wrong. And evolution is not about "survival of the fittest", but "survival of those with most reproductive success". You might want to move beyond a soundbite understanding.

5.) Life originated via natural processes.



No proof of this.

Has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

The problem with evolution is that it presupposes that evolution DID happen and attempts to fit the evidence to it.

No it doesn't. In fact Darwin started from the presupposition of special creation. What you are describing is creationism. In fact, AiG admits to doing this.

Evolution contridicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't. Someone lied to you.

 

[gluadys]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.



There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Answers in Genesis is not a good source of scientific information. None of these reasons stands up to actual science. You might like to check out the science on each of these here.

2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.[/color]



I do buy micro-evolution, not macro. Humans get taller, new breeds of dogs are breed, and so forth. I did not come from a monkey.

Micro adds up to macro. Of course, if you are using a straw-man creationist cartoon version of macro-evolution, that does not exist in science anyway.

In science, macro-evolution does not normally imply an organism giving birth to a different species than itself.

3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.[/color]

I am in if we are talking of Adam and Eve.

I don't think we are. Unless my cats are some of their descendants. All life means all life.

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life

There is no proof, hence the theory status. Mutations are not positive occurrences. They are natural disadvantages that would preclude them from being the “fittest” to survive.

Lack of proof is not the reason for the theory status. Theories are the end point of science. Theories are an explanatory framework for facts and laws. They make sense of observations and experimental results. Theories never change to something other than a theory even when the evidence they are true is overwhelming. As it is for evolution, mutation and selection.

All of these are observed facts.

Most mutations are neither positive nor negative occurrences. There are a small percentage that are either positive or negative.

One also needs to remember that a mutation that is negative in some circumstances can be positive or neutral in other circumstances.

5.) Life originated via natural processes.

No proof of this.

Science does not attempt to prove its theses. It attempts to falsify them by showing that available evidence shows it is impossible.

In any case, how life originated is irrelevant to how species evolved.

The problem with evolution is that it presupposes that evolution DID happen and attempts to fit the evidence to it.

Looks like you need to work on your history of science. It was creationists who discovered evolution. They did not pre-suppose it. They found the evidence which showed that special creation was not how most species originated.

When the same is done for Creation, it is far more plausible.

Only to those who don't understand science. Or who are uncomfortable with the conclusions of science.

Evolution contridicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.[/font][/color]

Even Answers in Genesis recommends not using this false claim any more.

 

[shernren]

Jesus said beginning.

Now as far as a 6-day Creation is concerned Adam and Eve were created in the beginning.

But if you start with secular religious ideas, going with the mocules to man idea of evolution, then man was not created in the beginning, but very late on. If you condensed the billions of years of evolutionary time span in to a 24-hour clock, with 0 hrs being the start of time and 24hrs where we are now, then man came into existence only a fraction of a second before midnight. According to the evolutionary time scale, man was not made from the beginning but almost at the end (where we are today).

Basically the big deal is that the billions of years suggestion is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

Sorry I just noticed this.

When the Bible translates "beginning of creation", the "beginning" actually refers more to the act of beginning than an actual moment right at the start. (In grammatical terms, beginning is a gerund of begin in this phrase.) In other words, from the time that God had been preparing creation for mankind, mankind had been created male and female.

Now in creationist or evolutionist worldviews, whether you believe that man evolved from apes or was specially created, this is true. Furthermore, looking at the context of the statement, Jesus was saying that the natural, created social order of the family dictated that marriages shouldn't be broken up at will, but should be stuck to in fidelity and love. Evolutionism does nothing to challenge or change this.

 

[RenHoek]

Not that can stand up to scientific scruteny. Unless you can point us to some in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

No evidence can be proven that far back. That is the point. It is how you INTERPRET the data that lends itself to one or the other.

"Evolution is not true because I don't want it to be."

I do not believe evolution is true bases on the holes in the story. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth.

We can be pretty certain that my Banksia tree didn't evolve from Adam & Eve, so that wouldn't be universal, would it?

My bad Captian Semantics, I thought we were talking humans.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. You might want to learn what a scientific theory actually is.

WRONG! Ever hear of a LAW of science, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that evolution goes against?

Wrong. And evolution is not about "survival of the fittest", but "survival of those with most reproductive success". You might want to move beyond a soundbite understanding.

I am not sure why you are so angery when somebody disagrees with you. I took classes on the subject, and I do not recall you being referenced as a scientific source. Point was, since there seems to be confusion one again, is that the one-time mutation would be breed out with the non mutant offspring. Where is 1 legit missing link?

Has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Just answering the point one by one.

No it doesn't. In fact Darwin started from the presupposition of special creation. What you are describing is creationism. In fact, AiG admits to doing this.

Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.

No it doesn't. Someone lied to you.

How then does a system of disorder come to more compex order? Things break down over time. Scientific law.

Man I really need to quit responding to you.

 

[ebia]

No evidence can be proven that far back. That is the point. It is how you INTERPRET the data that lends itself to one or the other.

Yes. You can either interpret it scientifically and end up with the ToR or you can say, as AiG openly do, "This is the conclusion I going to reach, and I am going to declare the evidence to point to that conclusion regardless.

I do not believe evolution is true bases on the holes in the story. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth.

I fail to see any alternative interpretation for what you said. "I did not come from a monkey" isn't much of an argument. Apart from also being technically clearly incorrect since you, your parents, your grandparents, etc, ARE monkeys.

My bad Captian Semantics, I thought we were talking humans.

Common descent, in evolutionary terms, refers to All Life.

WRONG! Ever hear of a LAW of science, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that evolution goes against?

Which is part of a theory. Theory - big concept. Law - small universal truth.
Not Theory - uncertain. Law - certain.
And evolution does to go against the 2LoT, whoever told you that lied.

Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.

Science doesn't prove things. It looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion that best explains it. AiG looks at the evidence and declares that it proves their preconcieved conclusion. One starts with the evidence, the other starts with the conclusion. Big difference.

I am not sure why you are so angery when somebody disagrees with you.

I'm not angry.

I took classes on the subject,

So ask for your money back.

Point was, since there seems to be confusion one again, is that the one-time mutation would be breed out with the non mutant offspring. Where is 1 legit missing link?

Mutations do not always get breed out of the offspring.

Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.

Science isn't about proof, it's about deducing the best explanation for the evidence. AiG isn't about proof, it's about declaring the evidence to fit an explanation, predetermined before the evidence was examined.

How then does a system of disorder come to more compex order?

That can and does happen when there is a net input of energy into the system. Now, if you walk outside between the hours of approximately 8am and 8pm depending where you are, and look up, you might just catch a glimpse of where that energy is coming from.

 

[RenHoek]

I’ve not the energy to debate you on 2 threads. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Yes. You can either interpret it scientifically and end up with the ToR or you can say, as AiG openly do, "This is the conclusion I going to reach, and I am going to declare the evidence to point to that conclusion regardless.

But that is not what you do. You take the data and create fairy tales based on past fairy tales. And if the new fairy tale doesn't coincide with the old ones, you modify the old fairy tales to fit it.

Evolution is much like Star Wars. You start with a basic story and plot and then you create hundreds of stories around it and act like it's science because it has some facts involved.

I fail to see any alternative interpretation for what you said. "I did not come from a monkey" isn't much of an argument. Apart from also being technically clearly incorrect since you, your parents, your grandparents, etc, ARE monkeys.

You haven't proven that we have come from monkeys. So I say, you prove it, then I'll disprove it.

You cant you genetic structure because houses with the similar structure doesn't mean that one was birthed from the other. We may merely have the same genetic structure because we have similar traits. The fossil record is severely lacking when it comes to macroevolution.

Which is part of a theory. Theory - big concept. Law - small universal truth.
Not Theory - uncertain. Law - certain.
And evolution does to go against the 2LoT, whoever told you that lied.

I dont need anyone to tell me, its just fact. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: "the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value"

Or that a closed system will even out over time to balance, Or that you cannot get more energy out of a closed system that you put into it.

The Earth is a closed sytem, yet somehow live is getting better and better? Oxygen formed itself and then all of the energy started erupting out of no where?

Some might tell you that the Sun makes the Earth an open system, receiving energy from the it. However, the only thing on the earth that can use the energy from the sun productively are plants. Leave anything in the sun for long enough and it will be destroyed, including humans and animals. The energy given by the sun does not provide positive energy accept in plants, which didnt exist for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. So where did all of this energy come from the create?

Thus the evolutionary theory violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Science doesn't prove things. It looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion that best explains it. AiG looks at the evidence and declares that it proves their preconcieved conclusion. One starts with the evidence, the other starts with the conclusion. Big difference.

I don't think that statement could be anymore wrong. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be performed on the evolutionary theory. Despite trying and the wasting of billions of dollars, macroevolution has still yet to be observed.

Besides, the evolutionists do the same thing as AiG. They form conclusions based on preconceived answers.

Mutations do not always get breed out of the offspring.

I like how you ignored his question on where is 1 legit missing link?

That can and does happen when there is a net input of energy into the system. Now, if you walk outside between the hours of approximately 8am and 8pm depending where you are, and look up, you might just catch a glimpse of where that energy is coming from.

Yeah, the sun is a destructive source of energy as explained earlier. It destroys houses, and skin and anything that is stuck under it accept for plants. Photosynthesis is so complex that one cell of a plant is more complex than the city of New York. In order for the Sun to be a constructive and not destructive force, photosynthesis would have had to been there in the beginning, but it wasnt, infact it didn't show up for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the earth should have been slowly destroyed, with no chance of creating anything.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The Earth is a closed sytem, yet somehow live is getting better and better? Oxygen formed itself and then all of the energy started erupting out of no where?

The Earth is an open system. You're about to say so yourself...
Here comes the Sun...

Some might tell you that the Sun makes the Earth an open system, receiving energy from the it. However, the only thing on the earth that can use the energy from the sun productively are plants.

And animals, and people, and anything that reacts to ultraviolet radiation.

Leave anything in the sun for long enough and it will be destroyed, including humans and animals.

Leave anything in water for long enough and it will drown. Take water away from anything for long enough and it will shrivel up and die.

Is water beneficial or harmful, or does it depend on the circumstances?

The energy given by the sun does not provide positive energy accept in plants, which didnt exist for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. So where did all of this energy come from the create?

And people, and other animals, and chemical reactions.

Thus the evolutionary theory violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Already proven false... due to false premises.

I don't think that statement could be anymore wrong. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be performed on the evolutionary theory. Despite trying and the wasting of billions of dollars, macroevolution has still yet to be observed.

Also wrong. Speciation has been observed.

Besides, the evolutionists do the same thing as AiG. They form conclusions based on preconceived answers.

Prove it. Show us the evolutionist "statement of faith."

Yeah, the sun is a destructive source of energy as explained earlier. It destroys houses, and skin and anything that is stuck under it accept for plants.

And people and animals and chemical reactions...

Photosynthesis is so complex that one cell of a plant is more complex than the city of New York.

How did you figure this?

In order for the Sun to be a constructive and not destructive force, photosynthesis would have had to been there in the beginning, but it wasnt,

but some simplified or less efficient form of it was present...

infact it didn't show up for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the earth should have been slowly destroyed, with no chance of creating anything.

Help us... another 2LOT argument gone horribly wrong.

 

[gluadys]

But that is not what you do. You take the data and create fairy tales based on past fairy tales. And if the new fairy tale doesn't coincide with the old ones, you modify the old fairy tales to fit it.

Clearly you haven't looked at how scientific conclusions were actually reached.

You cant you genetic structure because houses with the similar structure doesn't mean that one was birthed from the other. We may merely have the same genetic structure because we have similar traits. The fossil record is severely lacking when it comes to macroevolution.

Houses do not replicate themselves. Show me a species that replicates and whose offspring are not similar to their parents. Then you may be able to make a case.

The Earth is a closed sytem,

No, it is not.

Oxygen formed itself and then all of the energy started erupting out of no where?

Some oxygen formed through physical-chemical processes, but most oxygen in earth's atmosphere (over 95%) is formed by photosynthesis.

Some might tell you that the Sun makes the Earth an open system, receiving energy from the it. However, the only thing on the earth that can use the energy from the sun productively are plants.

Not true. There are many photosynthetic species besides plants. Do a search on Cyanobacteria. And one on photosynthetic plankton. Plankton probably photosynthesize more oxygen than all terrestrial plants put together.

I don't think that statement could be anymore wrong. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be performed on the evolutionary theory. Despite trying and the wasting of billions of dollars, macroevolution has still yet to be observed.

Scientific method is "performed" on evolutionary theory in hundreds of experiments and field studies every day. To see only a minute fraction of those studies go to PubMed and type "evolution" into the search engine. See how many results you get.

Macroevolution (aka speciation) has been directly observed in nature and in experiments. I can give you a list of 50 such observations, and this is just scratching the surface.

In order for the Sun to be a constructive and not destructive force, photosynthesis would have had to been there in the beginning, but it wasnt,

The oldest known fossils (3.5 billion years) are photosynthetic bacteria.

 

[QuantumFlux]

And animals, and people, and anything that reacts to ultraviolet radiation.

How narrow sited the evolutionists have become. Animals and people came from somewhere, correct? How did they form in the beginning if photosynthesis did not exist? You say there was always some form of photosynthesis, but that violates the evolutionary theory as well because according to it, it had to evolve over thousands of years. The first single celled organism did not have any form of photosynthesis. nor did its predecessors for many thousands of years.

And before that single celled organism? Nothing. You can say chemical reactions but the ones you speak of that would actually violate the 2nd law would be an astronomical coincidence. Even then, it wouldn't be just one, it would be thousands of these astonomical coincidences. You have more faith than I do.

Also wrong. Speciation has been observed.

Show me.

Prove it. Show us the evolutionist "statement of faith."

I thought Charles Darwin wrote a book on your statement of faith. That is what a theory is.

but some simplified or less efficient form of it was present...

prove it.

Quote

The Earth is a closed sytem,

No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

Some oxygen formed through physical-chemical processes, but most oxygen in earth's atmosphere (over 95%) is formed by photosynthesis.

so how did photosynthesis evolve? It would have had to have existed before anything else in order to create something out of nothing, but that is contrary to the evolutionary theory.

Scientific method is "performed" on evolutionary theory in hundreds of experiments and field studies every day. To see only a minute fraction of those studies go to PubMed and type "evolution" into the search engine. See how many results you get.

They are evolutionary propaganda disguised as science. Science needs concrete answers, much like gravity, that can be tried and observed. Macroevolution has not been observed or proven. Therefore it is not a proven scientific theory.

Macroevolution (aka speciation) has been directly observed in nature and in experiments. I can give you a list of 50 such observations, and this is just scratching the surface.

Oh this should be good. Lets see them.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.

There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

The following two give answers to a large number of such claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

The following two deal with the decaying magnetic field claim
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof11