Why I do not accept evolution part one

Guy Threepwood · Dec 7, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Except that the pattern we see in living things and their ancestors derives from multiple independent lines of evidence all supporting evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor.

]Well when I argue that the fossil record does not favor Darwinism- I hear 'it doesn't matter because we have other things like DNA' if I argue DNA does not favor it, I hear 'it doesn't matter- because the fossil record..'

I agree though, often people's arguments are misconstrued as being intended 'slam dunks' for their position- I don't believe there is such a thing, we need to weigh the preponderance of evidence from all lines to get the least improbable explanation.

The sole reason that evolution by natural selection was suggested is that it fits all the evidence (often with algorithmic precision), and is the best available explanation by rational abductive criteria.

I'd say Darwinian evolution was an extremely logical, elegant, persuasive theory- just like Newtonian physics which is the model of reality it was a natural extension of. A handful of simple 'immutable laws' + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, was all that was required to produce the wonders of the physical world.

Before quantum/subatomic physics- notions of 'mysterious underlying guiding forces' being necessary, was still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

Of course, you can invoke a powerful creative entity as an alternative, but that alternative has no explanatory power (i.e. gives no insight into the observed phenomena), makes no testable predictions,

many things predicted, tested, and verified

raises more questions than it answers

like the Big Bang, quantum mechanics... nothing to be afraid of

an inexplicable that can 'explain' anything at all - is no explanation at all; it's just a label covering a lack of explanation.

The multiverse?

Speedwell · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
I'd say Darwinian evolution was an extremely logical, elegant, persuasive theory- just like Newtonian physics which is the model of reality it was a natural extension of. A handful of simple 'immutable laws' + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, was all that was required to produce the wonders of the physical world.

Newton's theory possessed considerable instrumentality--which is all that is really required of a scientific theory--and was useful until a better theory came along. So far we haven't seen a better theory of evolution.

Job 33:6 · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
For one:

You would look for evidence of volumes of new information arising in DNA, appearing within time frames that are far too short for random mutations to achieve, given known waiting times and possible combinations.

Have you ever read, Neil Shubins most recent book? It is called "some assembly required". It has a few chapters on the "non-randomness" of evolution. How certain individual mutations can influence morphology in many species over time and how certain mutations produce patterns and even expedite late morphology changes in a seemingly non-random way. A lot of evolution, does follow patterns and I think most recognize that it isn't purely random in that sense.

But anyway, I would highly recommend the read if you haven't checked it out already.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
a less improbable explanation

The modifications in DNA leading to new/functional information are in most cases not random

That's surely more improbable, as it requires some unspecified non-random directing influence for which there is no evidence or explanation - whereas a very large number of random trial-and-error events of which only a few provide an advantage predicts exactly what we observe in the genetic record, what we see in the fossil record and the relationship patterns of existing life, and are consistent with the genetic mechanisms we have discovered that underlie reproduction and inheritance; no mysterious inexplicable influences required ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

pitabread · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
The modifications in DNA leading to new/functional information are in most cases not random

[citation needed]

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
I'll address this as a Christian, primarily directed to Christians.
The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to what the Bible has to say about where life came from. I've heard different arguments from those who accept evolution as true. I understand this to be the official position of the Roman Catholic organisation.
From a Christian perspective, I am perplexed. How is it possible for a believer to reject God's word when it is so clear?

There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that life evolved. The opposite. I'll not quote scripture - most readers know where to find the account. Suffice to say that the Bible states that God created everything.

The Christian who rejects the Genesis account does not call God a liar. He/she makes it out to be a myth, a parable or a metaphor. Lord Jesus did not think so. In Matthew 19:4, He declares that God created man male and female. Since Lord Jesus is the Creator, it makes sense to accept His declaration.

Another problem I have is that of sin. If God dropped a blob of protoplasm into the primordial soup, which was already alive, then it is going to develop according to whatever genetic coding was introduced at the time.

How does that work? Did God just drop the blob and wander off to listen to the angel choirs and ignore the blob? Then, "Oh look. A man has evolved. Look at that! There is a female version!" How did this being gain a soul? How did he get a spirit? How did both male and female gain these attributes? Why did other animals not get them?

At what point did a man sin? How can he even be accused of sin? Since he has no knowledge of God (that's a problem with a bunch of cells that somehow form a highly complex life form), how does he know what the rules are?

Some say that God took this one being aside and inserted a soul and a spirit. Did God do this for every human being? It still does not answer the issue of sin. If one of these evolved beings sins, why should that effect every other human being who has ever lived? If this being evolved, how can the Bible say that man was created in God's image?

No, I do not buy theistic evolution. I do not claim to understand everything in God's word. I will say that if the world argues against the Bible, I stand by God's word every time.

Yeah I don’t see why so many Christians reject the biblical explanation of creation. I’ve been in discussions about this topic with Christians who reject the notion that creation took place in 6 days because science has proven that it is impossible and this really shocked me that some Christians can’t accept that God is able to do the impossible. I asked them well if you can’t believe in a 6 day creation because science says it’s impossible then how can you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected 3 days later? They said they do believe in Christ’s resurrection just not a 6 day creation which didn’t make much sense to me since science obviously rejects the possibility of a dead body being brought back to life after being dead for 3 days. I mean if biblical accounts of God’s miracles have to conform to the laws of science as we know it then you can’t believe half of what the Bible actually teaches about God and His miracles. I mean they’re called miracles for a reason. If it can be explained by science then it’s not a miracle.

Speedwell · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Yeah I don’t see why so many Christians reject the biblical explanation of creation. I’ve been in discussions about this topic with Christians who reject the notion that creation took place in 6 days because science has proven that it is impossible and this really shocked me that some Christians can’t accept that God is able to do the impossible. I asked them well if you can’t believe in a 6 day creation because science says it’s impossible then how can you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected 3 days later? They said they do believe in Christ’s resurrection just not a 6 day creation which didn’t make much sense to me since science obviously rejects the possibility of a dead body being brought back to life after being dead for 3 days. I mean if biblical accounts of God’s miracles have to conform to the laws of science as we know it then you can’t believe half of what the Bible actually teaches about God and His miracles. I mean they’re called miracles for a reason. If it can be explained by science then it’s not a miracle.

Ah, the "dead guy" argument. Haven't heard that in a while. I guess because it only seems cogent to those Christians who believe Christ was just a man, not both man and God.

But what about Christians who reject a literal Genesis not because "science says it's impossible" but because it's basically a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation regardless of what science says?

pitabread · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
I’ve been in discussions about this topic with Christians who reject the notion that creation took place in 6 days because science has proven that it is impossible and this really shocked me that some Christians can’t accept that God is able to do the impossible.

I don't think anyone rejects 6 day creation for the reason that God couldn't do it.

People reject it because that isn't what creation actually looks like. Creationists are effectively arguing for a deceptive universe.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Yeah I don’t see why so many Christians reject the biblical explanation of creation. I’ve been in discussions about this topic with Christians who reject the notion that creation took place in 6 days because science has proven that it is impossible and this really shocked me that some Christians can’t accept that God is able to do the impossible. I asked them well if you can’t believe in a 6 day creation because science says it’s impossible then how can you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected 3 days later? They said they do believe in Christ’s resurrection just not a 6 day creation which didn’t make much sense to me since science obviously rejects the possibility of a dead body being brought back to life after being dead for 3 days. I mean if biblical accounts of God’s miracles have to conform to the laws of science as we know it then you can’t believe half of what the Bible actually teaches about God and His miracles. I mean they’re called miracles for a reason. If it can be explained by science then it’s not a miracle.

Ah, the 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' argument - as the White Queen said, with practice you can believe, "...as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Ah, the 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' argument - as the White Queen said, with practice you can believe, "...as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I don’t know what this means. Never saw Alice in Wonderland all the way thru just bits & pieces.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
I don’t know what this means. Never saw Alice in Wonderland all the way thru just bits & pieces.

This was 'Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There' It's another dream-like book by Lewis Carroll (aka Charles Dodgeson); see Chapter 5: 'Wool and Water'. It's often called a nonsense novel, but Dodgeson was a mathematician and logician included a lot of lightweight mathematical and logical conundrums, puzzles, and paradoxes in the narrative (also veiled criticisms of work by other mathematicians).

The White Queen says she can remember future events, and that believing the impossible is just a matter of practice (this was thought to possibly be a dig at some of the mathematical & physical theories of the time).

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

pitabread said:
I don't think anyone rejects 6 day creation for the reason that God couldn't do it.

People reject it because that isn't what creation actually looks like. Creationists are effectively arguing for a deceptive universe.

It’s not deceptive if the Bible specifically said how it was accomplished and you have to consider that all the theories on creation are based on science according to what we know now. I think it’s safe to say that in the past science has been proven to be wrong more times than it has been right based on incomplete or incorrect data.

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
This was 'Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There' It's another dream-like book by Lewis Carroll (aka Charles Dodgeson); see Chapter 5: 'Wool and Water'. It's often called a nonsense novel, but Dodgeson was a mathematician and logician included a lot of lightweight mathematical and logical conundrums, puzzles, and paradoxes in the narrative (also veiled criticisms of work by other mathematicians).

The White Queen says she can remember future events, and that believing the impossible is just a matter of practice (this was thought to possibly be a dig at some of the mathematical & physical theories of the time).

I don’t recall practicing my belief in God’s miracles. I simply believed in God’s existence thru observation of intelligent design then believed the words He gave to us. Once I believed He existed I had no problem believing His words.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
]Well when I argue that the fossil record does not favor Darwinism- I hear 'it doesn't matter because we have other things like DNA' if I argue DNA does not favor it, I hear 'it doesn't matter- because the fossil record..'

That's probably because they both support it, in different but complementary ways.

Before quantum/subatomic physics- notions of 'mysterious underlying guiding forces' being necessary, was still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

Not really - Newton himself noted that he would have to leave it to future generations of scientists to explain how gravity could act at a distance.

The multiverse?

Multiverses are predictions of current physical theories, given plausible assumptions. They're not leaps of imagination. Currently, they're only falsifiable by falsifying the underlying theory, but that's the case for a great many such predictions.

Guy Threepwood · Dec 7, 2020

Speedwell said:
And what have you found? Though it seems to me that since a random string contains the most information your search would not tell you much.

sguhsiuhgsg,regijgxoe ergreqpoeg egrewge!!

or to put it another way- the characters in the string have to be in the right order to be functional,
just like DNA

If you take the number of nanoseconds the universe has existed and multiply it by the number of individual organisms that ever existed, you still fall far short of the number of random tries it would take to accidentally form some of the simplest protein strings in the simplest organisms.

Speedwell · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
It’s not deceptive if the Bible specifically said how it was accomplished and you have to consider that all the theories on creation are based on science according to what we know now. I think it’s safe to say that in the past science has been proven to be wrong more times than it has been right based on incomplete or incorrect data.

Which is why don't base my interpretation of Genesis on mere science.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 7, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
I don’t recall practicing my belief in God’s miracles. I simply believed in God’s existence thru observation of intelligent design then believed the words He gave to us. Once I believed He existed I had no problem believing His words.

Yeah - it was just meant to emphasis the absurdity of suggesting that if you can believe one impossible thing, then why not believe a raft of others... Clearly belief doesn't work like that.

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Yeah - it was just meant to emphasis the absurdity of suggesting that if you can believe one impossible thing, then why not believe a raft of others... Clearly belief doesn't work like that.

I don’t think that applies to believing in God and believing in His word. I think it stands to reason that if I can believe in God that believing in the Bible that He gave us would come naturally.

Speedwell · Dec 7, 2020

Guy Threepwood said:
sguhsiuhgsg,regijgxoe ergreqpoeg egrewge!!

Good example of a string with lots of information.

or to put it another way- the characters in the string have to be in the right order to be functional,
just like DNA

No, that's just putting it, not putting it another way.

If you take the number of nanoseconds the universe has existed and multiply it by the number of individual organisms that ever existed, you still fall far short of the number of random tries it would take to accidentally form some of the simplest protein strings in the simplest organisms.

I suppose it must be some large number like that. Fortunately, that's not how evolution works.

But, you're just avoiding the issue. Trying to debunk evolution does not demonstrate design.

BNR32FAN · Dec 7, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Yeah - it was just meant to emphasis the absurdity of suggesting that if you can believe one impossible thing, then why not believe a raft of others... Clearly belief doesn't work like that.

If I can’t believe everything the Bible says then I’m not believing what God has told us. Do you believe in Christ’s resurrection?

Why I do not accept evolution part one

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency