Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[Troy Rambo]

The daughters of Adam and Eve are similarly not mentioned. Do you mean to say that Adam and Eve had all sons? With whom did these sons procreate? Or do you think that dinosaurs are hard to miss, but hot nubile women are easily missable?

On only one point do I agree with you. The Bible does clearly say that there before Adam partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there was no death.

I couldnt tell you, I wasnt there and Im not God. Perhaps its just not that important to know with whom they procreated. If God created Adam and Eve, couldnt he create other humans too?

 

[Loudmouth]

C'mon guys you KNOW what we are talking about.

Yes, we do know what you are talking about, and it is wrong. If you are able to use the same name to describe two species that does not refute macroevolution. Let me show you why.

Humans are primates. Chimps are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. We are primates that evolved from primates. It is still macroevolution.

Humans are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. We are mammals that evolved from mammals. We are still mammals. It is still macroevolution.

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. We are vertebrates that evolved from vertebrates. We are still vertebrates. It is still macroevolution.

Starting to see a pattern?

I could use all the really scientific language and so on but I'm using common language of the common man.

That would be the first mistake. We are talking about a scientific theory, so the correct terms would be the scientific ones.

The point remains that there is no proof.

The proof is found right here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

And there can't be cause we can't observe it or create it within science.

The scientific method does not require you to observe the hypothesis. What the method requires is that you test the hypothesis with observations that are repeatable. In the thread above, I use the observations of retroviruses to test the hypothesis of shared ancestry. It is completely scientific.

No one observed monkeys changing into men or Fish.

You don't observe the hypothesis.

Evolving into somthing else which is exactly what we are talking about here and you know it.

You evolve into a modified version of your ancestors.

Even you admit that it took millions of years. How do you know? Was it observed? Was it catalogued?

It was catalogued, in both the fossil record and in our genomes. Our genomes are a direct record of our ancestry, and it holds mountains of evidence that we share common ancestors with other species.

 

[The Cadet]

yes, i agree, it sure does SEEM like it must've happened.
what other possible explanation is there?
OTOH, the hard evidence is missing

Well, we have a robust overarching theory that makes various predictions about reality and which seems to explain this quite well. So I guess I'm not sure what the problem is.

there is no mention of this in the paper i cited.

One of them was limited explicitly to a problem within fruit flies, the other was, as previously stated, above my reading comprehension level. Indeed, when it comes to gene trees, I might just straight-up be in over my head. :/

you are missing the point here.
it isn't the number of changes, but the effect of those changes.
the overwhelming majority of genetic change is meaningless in the big picture of evolution.
it's the relatively few genetic changes of large effect that does most of the "diversifying".
phylogenic changes for example, this probably comes about by just a few mutations in important genes, HOX genes for example.
the MA experiment seems to support that hypothesis.

Right, I'm with you there. The problem is that very, very few such important changes came about through HGT.

Since I never said that the definition was wrong, the only thing you have demonstrated is an abject lack of reading comprehension skills. I said the definition was bad.

Well then you're on to value judgments, which are also synthetic, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Yes, I agree, your definition of insect is bad. It's not useful to modern taxonomy and has some rather obvious problems with it when applied to the real world. I agree completely. What's your point?

Scientists claim that the dinosaurs existed and died 70 million years ago while The Bible indicates that the world was created around 4000 BC, about 6000 years ago.

One specific interpretation of the Bible which is not representative of Christianity as a whole. Let's not get it twisted - Usher's chronology is not some huge interpretation of exactly what the bible means. It's counting dates back.

Notice that I mentioned that the dinosaurs “died.” According to Genesis, death didn’t enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. So if the dinosaurs died 70 million years ago, then death would have been in the world long before man existed. Do you see the contradiction?

Yeah, I do. So how do we resolve this? Do we accept the story about the talking snake in the magical garden, or do we accept the evidence we have before us?

Another fact is that the Bible doesn’t mention the dinosaurs. Do you think that’s because they never existed? I mean a dinosaur would be hard to miss.

So therefore I think the dinosaurs are a deception. Im thinking that one possible explanation is that the dinosaurs on display at museums were simply made up out of plaster or something. Its up to you what you want to believe about them.

This has got to be one of the more bizarre statements I've heard on this forum. Dude, you can go to Hells Creek and watch the paleontologists dig these bones out of the ground. You can probably do it yourself, if you can get the right gear. The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because the Bible was written by people who did not know dinosaurs existed!

An analogy would be something like going to a bar. The bar exists and it is “legal” to drink alcohol, yet you are commanded by God not to get drunk. So the choice is yours on what you want to believe and choose to do. You can choose God’s way or the world’s way.

This is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Moral pronouncements are not the same thing as laws. Pronouncements of fact are the same, regardless of whether they come from science or the bible. If the bible were to say "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius is exactly 3", then the bible would be wrong, no matter how divine you believe it to be.

Another similar deception is that scientists say that oil we use to power our cars comes from organisms that died millions of years ago and gradually turned into sludge. That’s why they call it fossil fuel. Could it be that God just placed the oil in the earth during creation so that we could some day use it to power our cars? I mean if He can create the world and the universe in seven days, then surely He can quite easily place some oil in the ground for us to use in the future.

I'm sure he could. But why would he make them in such a way that the stratigraphic and radiometric evidence points to it being far, far older than 6,000 years ago? That seems like an incredibly deceptive and cruel thing to do. And of course, God could have created the entire universe, with a rich fake backstory and fake memories for every human, in the last 5 seconds. We have no way of telling that this is not the case. However, we have absolutely no reason to believe that it is the case.

So you see, all this evidence proves that evolution and the old age of the earth are false.

I don't think you know what "evidence" means. Or "proof".

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, you have done a wonderful job of disagreeing with me by agreeing.

I disagreed with your definition that excluded heritable traits.

 

[Zosimus]

I couldnt tell you, I wasnt there and Im not God. Perhaps its just not that important to know with whom they procreated. If God created Adam and Eve, couldnt he create other humans too?

So your argument is that although it was important enough to mention that God had created Adam and Eve, it wasn't important enough to mention that God had created other humans?

 

[Zosimus]

Well then you're on to value judgments, which are also synthetic, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Yes, I agree, your definition of insect is bad. It's not useful to modern taxonomy and has some rather obvious problems with it when applied to the real world. I agree completely. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
My point is the very same point that I made at the beginning of this pointless argument. Loudmouth claimed

"Facts are demonstrable."

I replied to him at http://www.christianforums.com/thre...cts-creationism.7902318/page-13#post-68478759 saying:

"If facts are demonstrable, and if the above statement is a fact, then you should be able to demonstrate it. Please do so."
---------------
So what's the point of this request? I do not believe that "facts are demonstrable" is a fact and will not believe so until someone demonstrates it. Now this conversation had absolutely zero to do with you, but you decided to butt in by saying that I couldn't say that the above statement was false because doing so would be committing an analytic/synthetic fallacy.

You have erred seriously by getting involved in this. First of all, I never said that the statement was false. I never even said that the statement was not a fact. I challenged Loudmouth to demonstrate it. Since he has not done so, it's pretty clear that I've won that argument. The statement is not demonstrable. Were it so, Loudmouth would have demonstrated it by now.

Second, the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is, like most dichotomies, a false one. If you want to discuss why the statement "facts are demonstrable" is arguably not analytic at all, I would be delighted to take up that subject with you. I find these types of discussions invigorating.

Finally, as became abundantly clear once you started talking about analytic/synthetic, you don't really know which is which. You've read a short article or post on it, never delved into the matter deeply, and thought you'd bring it here to use as a club to beat me into submission. However, you quickly confused all the relevant details and had to admit that you didn't really get the concept.

Cut your losses. You're done.

 

[The Cadet]

So what's the point of this request? I do not believe that "facts are demonstrable" is a fact

Neither do I. Neither does anyone else. Because it's not. It's a definition.

Finally, as became abundantly clear once you started talking about analytic/synthetic, you don't really know which is which. You've read a short article or post on it, never delved into the matter deeply, and thought you'd bring it here to use as a club to beat me into submission. However, you quickly confused all the relevant details and had to admit that you didn't really get the concept.

There's a difference between not understanding a (phenomenally simple) concept and simply mixing up which of two terms applies to which idea. The distinction between analytic and synthetic is trivial. One has to do with self-contained logical statements; the other has to do with reality. It's not a difficult thing to grasp. I merely swapped the words. This is by no means an indication that I don't get it, any more than mixing up entomology and etymology would mean that I don't know the difference between a duck and a word.

 

[Zosimus]

There's a difference between not understanding a (phenomenally simple) concept and simply mixing up which of two terms applies to which idea. The distinction between analytic and synthetic is trivial. One has to do with self-contained logical statements; the other has to do with reality. It's not a difficult thing to grasp. I merely swapped the words. This is by no means an indication that I don't get it, any more than mixing up entomology and etymology would mean that I don't know the difference between a duck and a word.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You claim that "facts are demonstrable" is an analytic statement and thus true by definition. However, if this statement were really an analytic statement, no amount of substitution would affect it.

Here's a real analytic statement: Demonstrable facts are demonstrable. No amount of substitution will affect the truth of this statement. I can change demonstrable to interesting without affecting the truth of the statement. It becomes Interesting facts are interesting. I can change demonstrable to Democrats without affecting the truth of it. It becomes Interesting Democrats are interesting. I can further change interesting to retarded. It then becomes Retarded Democrats are retarded.

However, if I take the statement (Facts are demonstrable) and make the same substitutions it becomes:
Facts are interesting.
Democrats are interesting.
Democrats are retarded.

Therefore, if "Facts are demonstrable" is true by definition, then "Democrats are retarded" is also true by definition.

Go read some Gottlob Frege. Once you've done that, you might be able to discuss analytic philosophy more competently.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is the very same point that I made at the beginning of this pointless argument. Loudmouth claimed

"Facts are demonstrable."

I replied to him at http://www.christianforums.com/thre...cts-creationism.7902318/page-13#post-68478759 saying:

"If facts are demonstrable, and if the above statement is a fact, then you should be able to demonstrate it. Please do so."

All you are proving is that you still don't understand how epistemologies work.

So what's the point of this request? I do not believe that "facts are demonstrable" is a fact and will not believe so until someone demonstrates it.

Great. Have fun with that epistemology where making stuff up on the spot has the same truth value as a well demonstrated fact.

The rest of us are using an epistemology where facts are demonstrable and hold more weight than something made up on the spot.

 

[Zosimus]

All you are proving is that you still don't understand how epistemologies work.

Epistemology comes from the Latin words epistēmē, which means "knowledge" or "understanding" and logos, which means "the study of." Thus, epistemologies would mean "the studies of knowledge and/or understanding."

How exactly do you think that the study of knowledge "works"? What does that even mean?

 

[Loudmouth]

Epistemology comes from the Latin words epistēmē, which means "knowledge" or "understanding" and logos, which means "the study of." Thus, epistemologies would mean "the studies of knowledge and/or understanding."

How exactly do you think that the study of knowledge "works"? What does that even mean?

Axioms form the foundation of epistemologies. One of the axioms of scientific empiricism is that facts need to be demonstrable.

Axiom: "a self-evident truth that requires no proof."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom

 

[rjs330]

Yes, we do know what you are talking about, and it is wrong. If you are able to use the same name to describe two species that does not refute macroevolution. Let me show you why.

Humans are primates. Chimps are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. We are primates that evolved from primates. It is still macroevolution.

Humans are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. We are mammals that evolved from mammals. We are still mammals. It is still macroevolution.

Humans are vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. We are vertebrates that evolved from vertebrates. We are still vertebrates. It is still macroevolution.

Starting to see a pattern?



The scientific method does not require you to observe the hypothesis. What the method requires is that you test the hypothesis with observations that are repeatable. In the thread above, I use the observations of retroviruses to test the hypothesis of shared ancestry. It is completely scientific.



You don't observe the hypothesis.



You evolve into a modified version of your ancestors.



It was catalogued, in both the fossil record and in our genomes. Our genomes are a direct record of our ancestry, and it holds mountains of evidence that we share common ancestors with other species.

None of what you gave me PROVES macro evolution. We have been unable to test the hypothesis of the type of evolution we are talking about of fish turning into birds or whatever. We have not observed any of it. Thus it is still a hypothesis. A theory. The ancestors hypothesis is based upon similarities. All animal life have similiarities of some form or another. None of that proves macro evolution. All it does is point out that there are similarities in life. Why couldn't have God created these things from the beginning to be as they are now? Why couldn't have God created fish and birds and animals and humans all to be distinctive from each other similarities such as spines or eyes or a sense of smell? Why not? The answer is VERY simple my friend. The answer is that if you believe that the Bible is correct in its assertion that God created then you must believe in the God of the Bible. That lends itself to having to then begin to look into what God says about himself and what he says about you. Whether you like it or not this debate is not really based upon was there evolution or not, but whether or not you choose to believe the bible or not. Because there have been NO observed forms of life evolving into another form of life and since science has not been able to recreate it or observe it when it comes to the origin of life and how fish and birds and animals became such, it MUST be based upon theory and belief. Another word for belief is faith. I choose to believe the Bibles version of creation, because I believe in God. I have a personal relationship with Him. In order for me to do so, I had to believe in Him. I had to acknowledge my need of Him and my need of a savior. All the rest of this is just debate. Bottom line is this is a spiritual battle. Do you believe in the God of the Bible or don't you.

 

[rjs330]

I do not believe in God because I have yet to encounter sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. I do not believe that Jesus Christ was reincarnated because I have yet to encounter sufficient evidence to justify such a belief.

However, if I was, I would still accept evolution (just like quite a few theists on this forum), because the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is absolutely overwhelming, and the idea of a God that plants such false evidence runs completely contrary to the idea of a God who loves us and wants us to believe that His book is the truth. As Charles Kingsley so elegantly put it:

"It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." --Charles Kingsley

Let me quote a couple of things that you may have heard before.
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalms 14:1
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." Psalms 10:4

Job 12:7-12
7“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
9 Who among all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every living thing
and the breath of all mankind.
11 Does not the ear test words
as the palate tastes food?
12 Wisdom is with the aged,
and understanding in length of days.

Romans 1:18-22
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Ephesians 4:17-18
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longerlive as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.

My friend I just ask you to step into the light and out of darkness. Put your faith in an unchanging God who has laid out for you an amazing world full of the complexities and mysteries of life. You have so much more to offer this world. You are much more than the animals around you. You are a living breathing soul given the ability to actually know your creator. What an amazing opportunity that should not be wasted.

 

[Loudmouth]

None of what you gave me PROVES macro evolution.

Did you go to this thread?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

The proof is in that thread.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/

We have been unable to test the hypothesis of the type of evolution we are talking about of fish turning into birds or whatever.

No, we haven't. I show how that hypothesis is tested in the thread referenced above.

We have not observed any of it. Thus it is still a hypothesis. A theory.

You don't observe the hypothesis.

The ancestors hypothesis is based upon similarities.

False. The hypothesis is based on phylogenies. It isn't similarities that evidence macroevolution. It is the PATTERN of similarities that evidence evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Why couldn't have God created these things from the beginning to be as they are now?

Would you find someone not guilty because God could have planted the DNA and fingerprints at the crime scene?

Why would God meticulously change DNA sequences and distribute physical characteristics in such a specific way that it looks exactly like evolution happened? God could have created a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features, right? If we found such a species that would disprove evolution because it would violate the predicted nested hierarchy, yet we don't see these violations. Out of the billions and trillions of features that God could have mixed together in a way that falsified evolution, we find none of them. Why?

Why couldn't have God created fish and birds and animals and humans all to be distinctive from each other similarities such as spines or eyes or a sense of smell?

Why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy of shared and derived features?

Whether you like it or not this debate is not really based upon was there evolution or not, but whether or not you choose to believe the bible or not.

If the debate is not about what is true and real, then what is it about? How gullible you are? How many false ideas you can be made to believe in?

If you aren't interested in how species really came about, why are you here?

Because there have been NO observed forms of life evolving into another form of life . . .

Good, because if evolution is true then this should have never happened. We are still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. We are still the same form of life that our ancestors were.

and since science has not been able to recreate it or observe it when it comes to the origin of life and how fish and birds and animals became such, it MUST be based upon theory and belief.

It is based on evidence. You don't observe the hypothesis, by the way.

Another word for belief is faith.

Why would we need faith when we have mountains of evidence?

 

[Astrophile]

You see, Jesus endorsed at least two events that I know of in the book of Genesis:

Matthew 24:37. “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood , people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered into the Ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”

Luke 17:32. “Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”

This seems to me to be one of the most fatuous arguments of creationists. If I refer to the stories of King Arthur, or Hamlet, or Titania falling in love with Bottom the weaver, do you think that it means that I believe these stories, or that the stories themselves are true?

The stories of Adam and Eve, of Noah, and of the destruction of Sodom were the familiar literature of Jesus's time; people knew what these stories meant, even if they didn't regard them as literal history. By the way, Jesus 'endorsed' the story of Jonah and the whale, in Matthew 12:39-40; do you think that he believed that story, or that the story is true? For that matter, do you really think that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, or even that Jesus believed that she was turned into a pillar of salt?

 

[AV1611VET]

The stories of Adam and Eve, of Noah, and of the destruction of Sodom were the familiar literature of Jesus's time; people knew what these stories meant, even if they didn't regard them as literal history. By the way, Jesus 'endorsed' the story of Jonah and the whale, in Matthew 12:39-40; do you think that he believed that story, or that the story is true? For that matter, do you really think that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, or even that Jesus believed that she was turned into a pillar of salt?

Do you believe our martyrs died believing they were true?

Or did they die knowing they were false, as Mark Twain and his followers affirm?

 

[Astrophile]

Do you believe our martyrs died believing they were true?

Or did they die knowing they were false, as Mark Twain and his followers affirm?

I don't know. Why do you think that it is important? Did anybody ask the martyrs whether they believed the stories of Lot's wife or Jonah and the whale?

Isn't this a false dichotomy? One can doubt or question whether a statement is true, or simply admit that one doesn't know whether it is true, without pretending to know that it is false.

 

[The Cadet]

Why couldn't have God created these things from the beginning to be as they are now? Why couldn't have God created fish and birds and animals and humans all to be distinctive from each other similarities such as spines or eyes or a sense of smell? Why not?

Why couldn't God have created the universe literally 6 seconds ago, and given us all false memories? Look, when we allow for supernatural flights of fancy, literally any number of possible but unprovable explanations are available. Sure, God could have created all of life in such a way that it coincidentally falls into a clean nested hierarchy - one that normally would be highly indicative of descent with modification and common ancestry. It would be a real jerk move on his part, as it would completely mislead the people who seek the truth in nature, but it could happen.

Another word for belief is faith.

Only if you want to mangle the definitions. Your faith in god is in no way equivalent to my belief in and acceptance of evolution.

Bottom line is this is a spiritual battle.

Nonsense. This is not a spiritual battle. This is a battle of the facts. An attempt to determine what is and is not true, and what we can demonstrate reality to be.

 

[whois]

Well, we have a robust overarching theory that makes various predictions about reality and which seems to explain this quite well. So I guess I'm not sure what the problem is.

i guess darwin could have done the same thing when he came up with "origins".
he made a few observations then tested them of sorts by making some type of prediction.
we find later that darwin wasn't entirely correct so we formulated the modern synthesis.
we now find the modern synthesis isn't correct either, and furthermore we are getting indications that a large part of the scientific community is rethinking darwinism entirely, it isn't merely a matter of extension, but of a replacement.
i think koonin and noble are correct, we must rethink our concept of evolution as being an adaptive, gradualistic paradigm.

One of them was limited explicitly to a problem within fruit flies, the other was, as previously stated, above my reading comprehension level. Indeed, when it comes to gene trees, I might just straight-up be in over my head. :/

the paper i referred to was "the new biology beyond the modern synthesis".
if you can't find it, i will upload it.

Right, I'm with you there. The problem is that very, very few such important changes came about through HGT.

i think you are STILL missing the point.
it's the RATE of major changes of HGT, compared to the RATE of VGT major changes.
in my opinion, it's VGT that creates speciation events, it's HGT that creates phylogenic events.
HGT is generally regarded as the cause of prokaroytes becoming eukaroytes.

in other words, speciation happens in the darwinian sense, but phylogenic changes happen by some other mechanism.

 

[The Cadet]

You claim that "facts are demonstrable" is an analytic statement and thus true by definition. However, if this statement were really an analytic statement, no amount of substitution would affect it.

I can grant this, because...

However, if I take the statement (Facts are demonstrable) and make the same substitutions it becomes:
Facts are interesting.
Democrats are interesting.
Democrats are retarded.

Therefore, if "Facts are demonstrable" is true by definition, then "Democrats are retarded" is also true by definition.

...Of course, by this definition, I am not a democrat. You're making the same stupid mistake you made with "Calvinist", and I'd rather not rehash it again. You are trying to force a definition onto something by committing a massive equivocation fallacy. You have defined a term "Democrats" as being at least in part retarded. That is, if something is not retarded, it is not a Democrat. By that definition, I'm not a Democrat. I don't identify as a democrat, and I think you'll find very few who would. By some coincidence, other people use the term "Democrat" to mean a bunch of different things, with no relation to yours. However, to conflate the two would be hugely dishonest.