• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

cognitive dissonance is not directly related to intellect.

I understand why you reject all the evidence. I once did myself. I am just amazed at how powerful that faith can be; even among extremely intelligent individuals. Because it is not just belief without evidence, but belief despite evidence to the contrary.

It was not meant to be an insult. Though I understand why you would see it that way.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,822
7,840
65
Massachusetts
✟391,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I noted it but decided to ignore that bit, both because it was absurd and because it wasn't part of his original challenge.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God or Aliens could have planted a simple replicator on Earth,

Yeah, that's scientific. BUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The theory of evolution would be unchanged if abiogenesis on Earth is false.
That kind of leaves you struggling on the isue of origination, doesn't it? Hard to climb a ladder when you don't have a first rung. God made man in His image. We can't return the favor. If He exists His word is truth. If not, none of it really matters anyway. However, beyond abiogenesis, evolution has its own problems. For one thing, the driving force behind evolution; adaptation; is a conservative process. It results in a net loss of genetic information, not a gain. Therefore, while the theory holds that evolution advances a species, there is no provable mechanism to support that claim.
You continued equivocation of abiogenesis and evolution is one example.
Again, you can't climb a ladder that doesn't have a first rung. You deny the existence of God, but without Him life cannot originate. You say there is no design behind evolution, and yet the universe is repleat with evidence of design.
So are the DNA differences between humans and chimps harmful to humans and chimps? Or are they beneficial and neutral for the most part
I guess that would depend on whether you intended co-existence or mating humans with chimps. Each has DNA that is suitable for themselves.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

There is strong evidence that entire genomes have been duplicated. If that is not considered a gain in information, then your definition of information is ridiculous.

And if you agree that that would be added information, then you must also agree that duplication of smaller parts is also gain of information. And we have a ton of evidence that this smaller duplication has occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
That kind of leaves you struggling on the isue of origination, doesn't it? Hard to climb a ladder when you don't have a first rung.

The first rung is life. As long as there is life you have evolution. It doesn't matter how that life got there.

God made man in His image.

Evidence please.

If He exists His word is truth.

The real question is why you insist on an interpretation of Genesis that makes it false?

However, beyond abiogenesis, evolution has its own problems. For one thing, the driving force behind evolution; adaptation; is a conservative process. It results in a net loss of genetic information, not a gain.

You have yet to show that you need a net gain in genetic information (as you define it) in order for evolution to occur. Mutations do result in new phenotypes. Natural selection causes beneficial phenotypes to reproduce at higher rates causing the mutation behind the beneficial phenotype to become more common within the population over several generations. If this does not constitute a net gain in information then evolution does not need a net gain in information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.

What you are doing is defining information out of the argument. You are defining "new information" so that evolution can not produce it, but as a consequence evolution does not need to produce "new information" in order to evolve new species.

Therefore, while the theory holds that evolution advances a species, there is no provable mechanism to support that claim.

Yes, there are. You just ignore them.

Again, you can't climb a ladder that doesn't have a first rung.

The first rung is life, which did exist. How that first replicator got here is inconsequential to how life diversified from there.

You deny the existence of God, but without Him life cannot originate.

Nowhere have you evidenced this claim.

You say there is no design behind evolution, and yet the universe is repleat with evidence of design.


Another claim made without evidence.

I guess that would depend on whether you intended co-existence or mating humans with chimps. Each has DNA that is suitable for themselves.

Let's start from an even simpler question. Would you agree that the differences between humans and chimps is due to a difference in the DNA sequence of our genomes?
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Unlike most of his ilk, KWCrazy helpfully undermines his position by directly describing his "logic" and presuppositions without our having to read between the lines. He openly illustrates what most traditionalist Young Earth Creationists depend upon to protect their minds from information which might lead to painful reconsiderations of position:

1) When the scientific evidence is incontrovertible, not only DENY that evidence but tell everyone with a straight face that science has conclusively demonstrated the OPPOSITE.

2) Even though centuries of Bible-believing Christians have come to OTHER conclusions about various Genesis texts---equally LITERAL interpretations, in fact---pretend that (a) "God speaks only to me/us" and therefore (b) my favorite traditional interpretation and that of my sect is what the text must mean.

3) Always depend upon one's favorite ENGLISH Bible translation (especially one that is over 400 years old if that helps one's sect) so that one can pretend that the complexities and ambiguities of the original Hebrew text [which each Bible translation tries to resolve in particular conclusive way so that the English reader doesn't have to notice the various possible translation alternatives] don't exist. Thus, one need not worry about YOM having a wide range of possible translations because one's favorite Bible version renders it with the word "day" and generations of pastors have convinced their followers that "24-hour day" is the only possibility----even though "the evening and the morning were the Nth YOM" describes the span of one NIGHT, not a 24 hour day. Always conveniently ignore centuries of debate on such annoying problems. "My view is the only one that matters. And it is true because I say so---and I say so because God says so."

4) When one's atrocious logic gaffes are pointed out, pretend they don't exist and reply with the decisive, "No, YOU are the illogical one and have no evidence!" Other creationists will be impressed by your appearance of confidence in "standing up against the atheists" (even though the opponents include countless Bible-affirming Christ-followers, and theists and agnostics of every stripe with only a few percent of the population being the atheists one obsesses about.)

5) Convince yourself that because "eternal stakes" are in play, honesty about evidence and the positions of scientists is unimportant.

6) Convince yourself that faith in one's favorite TRADITIONS are the same as faith in God and the Bible. "I speak for God!" will always tend to impress those who know nothing about the scriptural evidence and the scientific evidence but who believe that whoever happens to mention God the most is likely on the "right side" of any debate.

So keep in mind that KWCrazy's posts will never make any sense to those who are focused on evidence, science, what the Bible actually says (and doesn't say), and who wish to learn from these discussions. He only has to encourage "the choir" and, most of all, himself. His posts are the equivalent of the loud "la-la-la" while one's ears are covered: the verbiage doesn't have to make any sense; it only has to drown out any other words which might threaten the cherished traditions which must be preserved at all costs.

When I was still teaching undergrads who were getting their divisional requirements and electives (so they weren't science majors or religious studies/theology majors), I heard first-hand from the many young people raised in die-hard Young Earth Creationist environments and then had to deal with unfiltered FACTUAL evidence (from both science and scripture) without anyone demanding that they personally adopt ANY particular position. One student said to me, "My pastor frenetically warned all of us in the church youth group that our university professors would all be engaged in a devious plot to turn us into atheists. Instead, I feel like I've arrived at the front lines only to find that there's no war going on except in the minds of a lot of church leaders who've never experienced life on a major university campus." But more striking was this: "After I read Francis Collins on DNA as the language of God and how evolution poses no threat to the Bible, I realized that I was still in a crisis of faith but it had nothing to do with atheist-professors attacking me or lists of scientific facts which supposedly deny the Bible. No, I shaken by the fact that my Christian heroes had lied to me---not only about the evidence for deep time and evolutionary processes which we can clearly observe in creation all around us, but they lied and confused me about what the Bible does and doesn't say." And one such student well reflected my own fork in the road when faced by the "Lying for Jesus" crisis in my own life: How do we go about "starting over again" in reading the Bible and trying to put aside the TRADITIONS which we are so accustomed to INSERTING in the Biblical text?

As several described it in the http://www.christianforums.com/t7706077/ thread, the DISHONESTY of a great many creationist mega-ministries and their leaders has no doubt spawned and encouraged far more atheism than Richard Dawkins could ever hope to promote. And the ethical failures in terms of dishonest quote-mines, lying about the scientific and scriptural evidence, and the misrepresentation of even basic scientific terminology when I was part of the Young Earth Creationist speaker's circuit in the 1960's and 1970's was a mere whisp and footnote in comparison to the wholesale deception and "Lying for Jesus" propaganda machine that we observe in the YEC mega-ministry world today. KWcrazy is hardly atypical. Yes, his openness makes the tactics all the easier to spot but his brash openness in his in-your-face, evidence-doesn't-matter, make-it-up-as-you-go-along pseudo-science and pseudo-hermeneutics firehose is not at all atypical in strategy.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Split Rock
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Well, of course, they don't create new information from nothing "ex nihilo." And I don't bethink even he really believes evolution ever claimed that. But in the news this week is the discovery that the reason vertabrates are so much smarter than most invertebrates ("Most" because there are some invertebrates descended from the worm, that benefit from the mutation as well.) is that a mutation in the DNA of a certain sea worm underwent a mutation that duplicated a section, repeating a sequence. There was now more "information" in that chromosome than there was before, so in that sense the information was created from nothing.

Of course, the new "information" was meaningless until it manifested a a physical change on the "macro-" level. In this case, it manifested as a bigger brain and faster synapses. Further mutations, most not nearly as dramatic in their outcome, continued the process, until we have the elephant's brain, the human brain, and the dolphin brain as three completely different directions the brain could take while growing larger and faster under the influence of the original mutation.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That kind of leaves you struggling on the isue of origination, doesn't it? Hard to climb a ladder when you don't have a first rung.
Tell us how the theory of evolution would change if your god created the first life.


God made man in His image. We can't return the favor. If He exists His word is truth. If not, none of it really matters anyway.
Or perhaps, he exists, but your understanding of him/her/it is deeply flawed.


Please define "information" in this context and provide an example of what a "net increase in information" would look like. For example, tell us which DNA sequence contains more "information:"
1. ATTAGGTAGTG
2. ATTAGGTAGC


You say there is no design behind evolution, and yet the universe is repleat with evidence of design. [/COLOR]
In a sense, there is design.. evolution designed species on earth. It is just an unintelligent design.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm curious: Have any of you with years of experience on these forums EVER read any posts from a Young Earth Creationist who presented the scientific evidence honestly and refrained from deceptive quote-mining?

In my own experience (which included years within the YEC movement as a speaker/debater during the 1970's), the ONLY leading Young Earth Creationism proponent which I can honestly say carefully avoided such ethical lapses within the articles and public presentations I personally observed has been Dr. Todd Wood of Bryan College (and the origins institute which he directs there.)

As a Bible-affirming Christian myself, it saddens me deeply to not have more laudable examples to cite. (And I'm NOT saying that Dr. Wood is the world's only honest YEC. Not at all. I'm simply making an observation about prominent YEC LEADERS with whom I'm directly familiar. Also, I'm NOT saying that I've never observed Dr. Wood repeating a false statement from "creation science". I'm saying that in my opinion any false statements he's repeated have been sincere statements on his part because he THINKS the statements are factually true. I've never observed anything on his part which would lead me to believe that he KNOWINGLY promulgates false information. I wish I could say that for all of my YEC colleagues from the 1960's and 1970's----but I WILL say that for the most part YEC leaders in those days were FAR LESS PRONE to deliberate dishonesty in comparison to today's veritable propaganda machines which at least APPEAR to have little regard for ethics. Yes, regardless of one's personal conclusions about the Theory of Evolution, statements such as "There is zero evidence for the theory of evolution" is a lie, pure and simple.)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I'm curious: Have any of you with years of experience on these forums EVER read any posts from a Young Earth Creationist who presented the scientific evidence honestly and refrained from deceptive quote-mining?

Depends on how you interpret the question. I have run into YEC's who present scientific claims that they honestly think are true, but are in fact lies being fed to them by other people they trust (e.g. Kent Hovind, AiG). I assume that YEC posters are sincere until they demonstrate otherwise.

So how do we describe these types of posters? In many cases they have been lied to, and are at least approaching the discussion in a honest manner. Really, that is all we can ask for is an honest discussion. The problems arise when the real evidence is ignored.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

I personally don't think Hovind really believes the crap he spouts. I think he is a snake oil salesman. I have seen literal lies in arguments that he got from previous apologists which have been pointed out to him, and he fails to admit to his mistake. Such as pointing out that a paper he claims says a particular mammoth dates to multiple years does not even contain anything about that mammoth (indeed, the paper predates the discovery of said mammoth). I have seen the correspondence with him in which he fails to accept this point.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,791
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,626.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There's something about him that seems to fascinate you though, isn't there?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,791
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,626.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, his willingness to blatantly lie to advance his religious ideas.
What would you think if your sister (hypothetical here) divorced her husband, then complained constantly about where he went, and what he said, and what he ordered at restaurants, and what kind of car he drives, etc.?

Wouldn't you ask your sister, "You still love him, don't you?"

You guys and your fascinations with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, et.al. -- in a science forum no less -- intrigues me.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Depends on how you interpret the question.

Definitely. With some people, they appear very sincere despite the bogus "factoids" they've picked up from various "spiritual heroes" and authorities in their lives. But I've wondered where is the "ethical dividing line" where one's CASUAL DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH becomes so detached as to represent a personal resolve to lie.

Example: "There is zero evidence for the Theory of Evolution. It is simply a conspiracy among scientists to promote atheism." I have no doubt that some Young Earth Creationists sincerely believe both statements. But after being rebutted repeatedly and being told the following, do the ethical responsibilities change:

1) A Bible-believing Christian tells them, "I'm an evolutionary biologists who is a born-again Christian and I worship God with my life's work. Very few of my "evolutionist" colleagues are atheists!"

2) They've read forum posts and even some webpages which describe the evidence for evolution. They don't have to be CONVINCED by the evidence for them to acknowledge that evidence for evolution exists.

So at what point does the repeating of a false statement become a deliberate lie? Is ignorance ALWAYS sufficient justification for promoting a lie? And does the deliberate decision to REMAIN ignorant eventually become a disregard for HONESTY? And does one who claims allegiance to Jesus Christ have important obligations in these regards?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Not if he was running a website with the sole purpose of spreading lies about her.

You guys and your fascinations with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, et.al. -- in a science forum no less -- intrigues me.

We will certainly stop it as soon as they stop lying and misrepresenting science.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic

So deep down, Republicans actually really love Obama?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic

All good points. I guess my main approach is to give YEC's the chance to be presented the evidence. If they continue to ignore the evidence and keep presenting false claims after being shown that they are false then we have moved into a whole new area of dishonesty.

But as you point out, lying and not caring if you speak the truth are very close to the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,791
52,555
Guam
✟5,135,626.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not if he was running a website with the sole purpose of spreading lies about her.
I would say especially if he was running a website with the sole purpose of spreading lies about her.

Think about it.

Your sister and her husband get divorced, he goes off and creates a website to spread lies about her, and all she does is complain where he eats, what he eats, when he eats, what kind of a car he drives, and so forth.

I'd say she still loves him.
 
Upvote 0