Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think that it is important?

Well ... um ... because this is what God thinks of them?

Hebrews 11:38a ( Of whom the world was not worthy: )

 

[bhsmte]

I don't invent smoke alarms, if that's what you mean. There are dozens throughout the building.

Weren't you the one that suggested that I build a bonfire in my apartment to determine whether they actually worked? That would be quite dangerous, don't you think?

Bonfire?

Your memory is about as good as your logic.

 

[bhsmte]

That is ok, there are lots of fish in the ocean. I am sure you can find the answers your looking for. God has the solution for every problem and the answer for every question. Of course man has neither answers nor solutions. Your often doing good if they do not make your problems worse. We do not always get what we want but with God we get what we need.

More evasion.

 

[Zosimus]

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

You know, Loudmouth, I have very bad news for you. Logical positivism is dead and has been since 1967. I guess you didn't get the memo. Your epistemology is paradoxical and self refuting.

 

[Zosimus]

...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.

Once again, you fail to grasp the point of the conversation. No one is saying that Democrats are retarded (although we may be thinking it). Let's try again.

Analytic statements are those that are inherently true. If I say, for example, that all doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors, then that is a true statement and it cannot be argued against. Substitution does not change the statement. I can substitute endlessly. I can change the statement thus:

All doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors.
All cats that specialize on eyes are cats.
All cats that specialize on mice are cats.
All cats that chase mice are cats.

We can see that no amount of substitution can change the truth value of the statement.

However, if I take the statement "All ophthalmologists are doctors" and start substituting then things can immediately go wrong.

All ophthalmologists are doctors.
All mice are doctors.
All mice are cats.

So immediately we can see that simple substitution with the second sentence causes the truth value to go awry right away. Thus, the second sentence is not an analytic statement.

Now, in case you think that this is me inventing things, I'd like to point out that the above example is cut verbatim from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ where you can read how Frege tried to salvage the concept by arguing that the substitution required synonyms.

Quine, however, neatly demolishes this argument. You can read all about it in the link I sent you. So please, stop talking nonsense. Read and educate yourself. Search for this text:

"These last passages express a tremendously influential view of Quine's that led several generations of philosophers to despair not only of the analytic-synthetic distinction, but of the category of a priori knowledge entirely."

Yes, that's right Cadet. I guess you didn't get the memo, but whole generations of philosophers have decided that the analytic-synthetic distinction is a bunch of hooey. Maybe you should have read that before you came on this forum and tried to knock me for making a supposed analytic-synthetic fallacy.

 

[rjs330]

Sorry loudmouth all those thoughts on similarities leading to proof of evolution don't cut it. Let's just consider the monkey. There are around 260 types of monkeys. There are about 4 kinds of greater apes. Considering we are supposed to have come from monkeys and all of us came from a common ancestor which monkey did we come from? A monkey slowly evolved into a different kind of monkey And how many different kinds of monkeys evolved before one evolved into a man? Why would the,monkey evolve in the first place? How long would that take? What are are the odds that one particularly kind of monkey would evolve into a human. What are the odds that all the right evolutions would take place in one particular type of monkey that would lead to a man. Now I am just talking about a monkey here. An extremely complex creature who's evolution actually came from something else entirely. What came first birds or monkeys? What came first insects or birds? What on earth happened that caused insects to evolve into monkeys? How long did that take? Why would it need to occur in the first place? The odds of everything falling into place for that to occur are probably so astronmical as to be impossible. Good grief when you really sit to consider it it's kind blowing. If we can believe that all life including spiders and birds and monkeys and us all came from a common ancestor then surely it is not a stretch to believe that a creator made it all with each creature after its own kind. Since we have no proof that spiders came before monkeys or birds or birds came before spiders or spiders came before,birds or why birds lay eggs,and other animals bare live young (all which happened by evolutionary chance) we have to go on faith that it happened. So why not just have faith that God created everything after its own kind? Oh yeah I forgot, it's because we don't want to believe. Cause if we do then we have to recognize that we need a savior. We HAVE to believe that we a smart and we are wise in our own conceit. Where the Bible says the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.

To continue to believe in these impossible evolutions makes you a man of faith. You have to make unbelievable assumptions to think something crawled out of the water and slowly over eons of time grew into spiders, monkeys and birds simply because of changes in chromosomes or whatever for really no understandable reason. You are a strong man of faith. Me I find it much easier to believe that God just made it all. And quite frankly it doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

[The Cadet]

Analytic statements are those that are inherently true. If I say, for example, that all doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors, then that is a true statement and it cannot be argued against. Substitution does not change the statement. I can substitute endlessly. I can change the statement thus:

All doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors.
All cats that specialize on eyes are cats.
All cats that specialize on mice are cats.
All cats that chase mice are cats.

We can see that no amount of substitution can change the truth value of the statement.

These are less "definitions" and more "tautologies". A different kind of statement altogether.

However, if I take the statement "All ophthalmologists are doctors" and start substituting then things can immediately go wrong.

All ophthalmologists are doctors.
All mice are doctors.
All mice are cats.

So immediately we can see that simple substitution with the second sentence causes the truth value to go awry right away. Thus, the second sentence is not an analytic statement.

...But we're defining here. "All ophthalmologists are doctors" is either a definition (in which a quality of the term is defined) or a synthetic statement (in which we must determine what we mean in the real world by those terms and whether they apply). If we're defining, then it doesn't matter that you can replace the terms with whatever, because by our definitions, mice actually are all cats. If we're applying, then substitution trivially does not work. I realize this is seen as a philosophical issue that is "solved" according to your source (and I recognize your source as reputable), but Quine's critique seems rather pointless, and there have been numerous responses to it in any case.

 

[Zosimus]

These are less "definitions" and more "tautologies". A different kind of statement altogether.

Since analytic statements are those that are logically a priori true, the definition/tautology that I have posted is clearly and indisputably in the analytic statement camp. The other statement, however, seems to be a mix between analytic and synthetic. Where is the boundary to be drawn? How can I logically and consistently differentiate between these two arguments:

* Ophthalmologists are people who specialize in the medical treatment of eyes. Since people who specialize in the medical treatment of body parts are doctors and since eyes are a body part, all ophthalmologists are doctors.

* God is a perfect being. A perfect being is one that has no flaws. Since not existing is a flaw, God must exist otherwise he would not be perfect.

...But we're defining here. "All ophthalmologists are doctors" is either a definition (in which a quality of the term is defined) or a synthetic statement (in which we must determine what we mean in the real world by those terms and whether they apply). If we're defining, then it doesn't matter that you can replace the terms with whatever, because by our definitions, mice actually are all cats. If we're applying, then substitution trivially does not work. I realize this is seen as a philosophical issue that is "solved" according to your source (and I recognize your source as reputable), but Quine's critique seems rather pointless, and there have been numerous responses to it in any case.

Well, I'm glad you realize that this problem is considered "solved" and that the source I have quoted is authoritative. Now, just because this is the received wisdom of the past century doesn't mean that it's true. If you have a new argument, then I'm all ears.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

A replacement with what?

i think koonin and noble are correct, we must rethink our concept of evolution as being an adaptive, gradualistic paradigm.

False.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Evolution by the accumulation of mutations is still applicable in many lineages, just as Koonin states. It isn't a matter of throwing out the Modern Synthesis. Rather, it is a matter of determining in which lineages it still applies. For the vast majority of evolution for derived eukaryotes, the Modern Synthesis still very much applies. However, the story gets more complicated with prokaryotes which Darwin never knew about anyway.

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.

For lineages such as vertebrates or animals, HGT is very rare compared to VGT.

in my opinion, it's VGT that creates speciation events, it's HGT that creates phylogenic events.

Same thing.

HGT is generally regarded as the cause of prokaroytes becoming eukaroytes.

Since then, HGT has been rare in eukaryotes with VGT being the dominant mechanism.

 

[Phenotype]

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?

Indeed one sees the contradiction. It looks like you just might have to abandon your presupposition that the Bible is Revealed Knowledge.

Don't worry, the world won't come to an end.

You will have to apply yourself to study however, to address the ignorance. Learning becomes more absorbing and enjoyable and indeed fulfilling the longer you persist with it.

 

[Zosimus]

Indeed one sees the contradiction. It looks like you just might have to abandon your presupposition that the Bible is Revealed Knowledge.

Or you might have to abandon the idea that dinosaurs died 70 million years ago.

Don't worry, the world won't come to an end.

Exactly.

You will have to apply yourself to study however, to address the ignorance. Learning becomes more absorbing and enjoyable and indeed fulfilling the longer you persist with it.

It is written:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?... first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[As I was saying]

Same for Nebraska Man.

Thanks for that AV. Such wisdom from the atheists that is ahem, wisdomless.

 

[As I was saying]

While this may be true, the accumulation isn't additive. In other words, change does not add information so that the resulting organism is more complex than its ancestor. Gills do not eventually become lungs because of this "accumulation of changes".

I was waiting for this gem. I agree that dogs only give birth to dogs. The question is, what was the organism that gave birth to the first dog? I'm not talking abiogenesis here, but simply the continuation (albeit backwards in time) of macro evolution. Dogs didn't always exist, so what was the organism called that begat the first dog?

The organism that begat the first dog according to atheism is evolution.

 

[As I was saying]

It was 41 years (1912 to 1953), and it was proved (by scientists) to be a hoax nearly 62 years ago. Since you apparently don't accept what scientists say, what reason have you to think that it was a hoax? By the way, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

I don't have reason to think it was a hoax. I know it was because I read the headlines in the newspaper that stated it was a hoax.

At the same meeting, Woodward announced that a reconstruction of the fragments indicated that the skull was in many ways similar to that of a modern human, except for the occiput (the part of the skull that sits on the spinal column) and for brain size, which was about two-thirds that of a modern human. He went on to indicate that save for the presence of two human-like molar teeth, the jaw bone found would be indistinguishable from that of a modern, young chimpanzee. From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing linkbetween apes and humans, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution began with the brain.

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clarkand Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan andchimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution andchromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

I don't think of the shroud of turin.

 

[Phenotype]

I don't have reason to think it was a hoax. I know it was because I read the headlines in the newspaper that stated it was a hoax.

At the same meeting, Woodward announced that a reconstruction of the fragments indicated that the skull was in many ways similar to that of a modern human, except for the occiput (the part of the skull that sits on the spinal column) and for brain size, which was about two-thirds that of a modern human. He went on to indicate that save for the presence of two human-like molar teeth, the jaw bone found would be indistinguishable from that of a modern, young chimpanzee. From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing linkbetween apes and humans, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution began with the brain.

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clarkand Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan andchimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution andchromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

I don't think of the shroud of turin.

It is standard practice to cite one's sources. In this case Wikepedia. This is done not simply to avoid the charge of plagiarism. It is the done thing in science and scholarship.

 

[Phenotype]

The organism that begat the first dog according to atheism is evolution.

Try to see that what you wrote makes sense before clicking the 'Post Reply' button so that we can all be edified. It's called intellectual honesty. Critical thinking is always a great help.

 

[Phenotype]

Or you might have to abandon the idea that dinosaurs died 70 million years ago.


Exactly.


It is written:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?... first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

That quote attributed to Jesus (most likely a mythical character; certainly there was no Christ), is a comment on hypocrisy. It is borrowed from the Greeks as is a great deal of the New Testament, Platonism.

Zosimus, education, reading science and scholarly books and interwebz articles is transformational. I can attest to it. Neural pathways are created in the brain with the acquisition of understandings, paradigms like evolution, geology, genetics, ethics. As the intellect is developed, one simply becomes more of oneself, opened up, realising intellectual potential. It is the great preventive against bigotry and narrow mindedness. It is rather important for mental health.

 

[Larniavc]

with God we get what we need.

Like cancer?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Like cancer?

Cancer and all sickness, illness, disease, pain, suffering and death is a product of NOT following the Law and Commandments of God. He is a God of justice and He would not allow people to suffer unjustly. Even when people do suffer He will cause good to come out of it. So that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are following His plan and purpose for them and their life. That is what in everything we can give thanks.

 

[The Cadet]

Cancer and all sickness, illness, disease, pain, suffering and death is a product of NOT following the Law and Commandments of God

This is patently untrue. Cancer is a natural side-effect of, essentially, multicellular life. It is present in virtually all complex eukaryotes. The idea that it is the result of not following the law and commandments of god is doubly ludicrous when you consider that there have been babies born with cancer. It's just something that happens, unfortunately, and while certain factors can increase your risk of cancer, the longer you live, the higher your odds. If nothing else gets you, sooner or later you will get cancer.