Why I do not accept evolution part one

[pitabread]

Wasn't it meyer who left the ID movement?

No, that was Dembski.

Meyer continues to publish books on it. He seems to have cribbed some of his terminology from Dembski (like "specified complexity"), but uses such concepts in far less defined ways.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, that was Dembski.

Meyer continues to publish books on it. He seems to have cribbed some of his terminology from Dembski (like "specified complexity"), but uses such concepts in far less defined ways.

I had to smile at the thought of what would be left if you used "specified complexity" in an even less defined way than Dembski.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not really; you can claim intelligent design for any evidence at all, but it gives you no way to test it, e.g. to predict what you should expect to see if it was the case.

OTOH the ToE, based on a very limited subset of the data we now have, has made fruitful predictions for how the world should look that have been borne out in fields that didn't even exist when it was first formulated. We now know the mechanism by which it works, and have a some understanding of how it plays out in practice. There's no comparison.

I not sure I follow you here. What relevance are predictions if they’re still not substantiated? How do unconfirmed predictions provide evidence of anything other than someone made an educated guess?

 

[Job 33:6]

No, that was Dembski.

Meyer continues to publish books on it. He seems to have cribbed some of his terminology from Dembski (like "specified complexity"), but uses such concepts in far less defined ways.

I love my God, I love my church, my church family, I love our salvation in the Lord and the works we do for God. But one thing that I do not love, is the ID movements "half truths for Jesus" campaign. Because that's all these guys are making money on. They publish books on out-dated science mixed in with a few biases and misinformation, half truths without the fine print and the church pays all sorts of money and just gobbles it up. The money then influences the authors to keep doing what they're doing, right or wrong.

Then the mess is left over for the scientists to cleanup.

I attend what is commonly known as a mega church, have for years. But of my church, there are very few, I could probably count them on a single hand, scientifically educated figures (at least that I am aware of). Heck, to be honest I almost never meet other geologists (though biologists seem slightly more common), even in just day-to-day life.

These authors are filling a void in America's larger void of scientific illiteracy.

 

[pitabread]

These authors are filling a void in America's larger void of scientific illiteracy.

I can't really blame them though. If I could make bank writing pseudoscientific nonsense, I'd be tempted to do so as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

I can't really blame them though. If I could make bank writing pseudoscientific nonsense, I'd be tempted to do so as well.

Absolutely, especially if it's in the name of the Lord. If a guy can talk in tongues and heal people over a tv screen, I'm pretty sure others can find a way to write a book.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I not sure I follow you here. What relevance are predictions if they’re still not substantiated? How do unconfirmed predictions provide evidence of anything other than someone made an educated guess?

Note that I said "fruitful predictions... that have been borne out". That means the predictions were found to be correct. And 150-odd years of data from numerous independent fields of study now support the theory. It doesn't get any better than that in science.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

Nice to have some agreement. The education systems in Australia and the US have been hijacked by antiChrist forces. Non-Christian schools in Australia are not permitted to teach creation. I was blessed to complete my education before the illiberal lefties took over. I was presented with both evolution and creation as equally valid and I could make up my own mind. Even before I was a Christian, evolution made no sense to me.

 

[pitabread]

I never really understood this argument. Creationists who make these probability arguments are saying that 'X happening via method Y is too improbable, therefore it must have happened via some other method'. So this objection really doesn't make sense.

If someone told a gambler in a casino who had won hundreds of times in a row that his results were too improbable and he must have been cheating, and then he said 'Actually, since it already happened, it had a 100% probability of happening', would that suddenly make it not suspicious?

I mean the probability arguments are wrong for other reasons, but not this one.

There are a couple points here:

You're right that one can use probability in the context of inferring whether something could be happening by random distribution. For example, if a person continually shuffled a deck and then dealt a perfect sequence of cards every single time, I would assume that the shuffling wasn't actually random.

However, in the context of using improbability to claim impossibility is why I bring up the issue of applying probability in a post hoc fashion. As Tinker Grey mentions, the probability of any given order of cards might be vanishingly small (I'll trust him on the math). But once you deal a set of cards, that probability of that particular order having been dealt is now 1. Because that is the event that has already occurred.

 

[pitabread]

I was blessed to complete my education before the illiberal lefties took over. I was presented with both evolution and creation as equally valid and I could make up my own mind. Even before I was a Christian, evolution made no sense to me.

You were clearly given a poor education.

That evolution made no sense to you appears to be a reflection of that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nice to have some agreement. The education systems in Australia and the US have been hijacked by antiChrist forces. Non-Christian schools in Australia are not permitted to teach creation.

That's not actually true, is it? Creationism can be taught in Australian schools, but teachers choose not to teach it. They prefer to teach evolution. If you cannot be honest about Australian education why should we believe any of your other claims?

 

[Speedwell]

Lol that’s funny, so what your saying is intelligent design advocates haven’t figured out how to spot intelligent design despite their obvious observations of intelligent design? I’m trying to understand how that works.

It doesn't work; that's the point. In order to make a convincing scientific theory of it, they are going to have to come up with a workable test for the presence of design which can be independently verified by others. So far, nothing.

 

[Strathos]

There are a couple points here:

You're right that one can use probability in the context of inferring whether something could be happening by random distribution. For example, if a person continually shuffled a deck and then dealt a perfect sequence of cards every single time, I would assume that the shuffling wasn't actually random.

However, in the context of using improbability to claim impossibility is why I bring up the issue of applying probability in a post hoc fashion. As Tinker Grey mentions, the probability of any given order of cards might be vanishingly small (I'll trust him on the math). But once you deal a set of cards, that probability of that particular order having been dealt is now 1. Because that is the event that has already occurred.

But you could also deal a set of cards 1000 times and get the same order each time, and the probability that all of those orders were the same would also be one.

 

[pitabread]

But you could also deal a set of cards 1000 times and get the same order each time, and the probability that all of those orders were the same would also be one.

In the context of an after-the-fact probability, yes. The event has already happened.

It's certainly improbable from a pre-hoc probability perspective (assuming a random shuffle), but it is a potential outcome of dealing cards 1000 times in a row. If it did happen as such, we can't claim it didn't on the basis of probability alone.

 

[Strathos]

In the context of an after-the-fact probability, yes. The event has already happened.

It's certainly improbable from a pre-hoc probability perspective (assuming a random shuffle), but it is a potential outcome of dealing cards 1000 times in a row. If it did happen as such, we can't claim it didn't on the basis of probability alone.

No, but you could claim that there were other factors involved (i.e. deck stacking), which is what the creationists are trying to claim when they use this argument.

 

[pitabread]

No, but you could claim that there were other factors involved (i.e. deck stacking), which is what the creationists are trying to claim when they use this argument.

I find creationists usually try to make two arguments re: probabilities and the origin of life:

1) That the odds of life arising naturally is so improbable that life couldn't have formed that way.

2) That life arising naturally is so improbable that such a process is impossible to begin with.​

The former I address in the context of calculating a meaningful probability and whether we have enough information to even do that.

The latter is addressed in the context of the certainty of an event that has already occurred being 1. Even if the process of abiogenesis were highly improbable, one cannot discount it as impossible on the basis of probability alone.

 

[Sheila Davis]

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.

I don't reject God created all

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.

I do not reject that God created everything in existence. But I do see evolution and creation coincide with each other. Biblical accounts: 1)God created the heavens and the universe. God said let there be light and there was light _ 1st day.
2)God made the firmaments and divided the waters and he called the firmaments heavens _ the 2nd day. 3)God said let the waters under Heaven be gathered together in one place and let dry land appear and he called the dry land Earth, and said let the Earth bring forth grass and trees and such 3rd day.
4)And God said let there be lights in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from the night, he made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night _ 4th day.
5) God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures and fowls that fly. Bless them and told them to feel the waters in the seas _5th day. 6)And God said let the Earth bring forth living creatures, cattle, and creeping things, and beast of the earth and last but not least God said let us Make man in our image _ 6th day.
Evolution's science account:
1) Big Bang Theory (light)
2) matter in the universe (heaven)
3) the Earth
4) plants
5) sea life
6) land animal life and man.
Except the creation of man God called the Earth and the waters to bring forth plants and sea life and land animals. And according to Evolution's science, the Earth brought forth the plants, the sea life, and the animal life. All life is made of the minerals and such of this planet.
This is my beliefs millions of years past between God's calling light into existence, putting the firmanents of Heaven together, the firmaments of Earth together, calling for the Earth to bring forth life, and his forming and making man.
He changed the chromosome count and created man.
Everything that grows on Earth comes from seeds. Seeds that was placed upon the Earth to sprout and give life by God.
Science:: Abiogenesis and panspermia - the most widely accepted theory of science along with the primordial soup mix, is how life started on Earth - where living organisms came from space down to earth - and they still don't know where or how RNA, which is the key factor to life, came about. .Because body designs, chromosomes, bone structure, some genetic traits, and such are similar they believe evolution.
It's all a ploy of the devil to mislead and take as many with him as he possibly can. Keep it close to the truth but change it just enough.
Made in God's image simply means having the ability to know right from wrong. A primate and humans have basically the same bodies, so one could say they are made in God's image - the difference is they don't know what's right and wrong and we do.
Issue of sin, when Adam disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of knowledge, knowledge was given to man to know that he is a sinner and the wages of sin as God promised is death. And through Adam's Disobedience sin, death, and final judgement fell upon all mankind.

 

[pitabread]

the difference is they don't know what's right and wrong and we do.

What if they do? There has been research into animal morality that suggests it may not be entirely unique to humans.

 

[d taylor]

I don't reject God created all
I do not reject that God created everything in existence. But I do see evolution and creation coincide with each other. Biblical accounts: 1)God created the heavens and the universe. God said let there be light and there was light _ 1st day.
2)God made the firmaments and divided the waters and he called the firmaments heavens _ the 2nd day. 3)God said let the waters under Heaven be gathered together in one place and let dry land appear and he called the dry land Earth, and said let the Earth bring forth grass and trees and such 3rd day.
4)And God said let there be lights in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from the night, he made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night _ 4th day.
5) God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures and fowls that fly. Bless them and told them to feel the waters in the seas _5th day. 6)And God said let the Earth bring forth living creatures, cattle, and creeping things, and beast of the earth and last but not least God said let us Make man in our image _ 6th day.
Evolution's science account:
1) Big Bang Theory (light)
2) matter in the universe (heaven)
3) the Earth
4) plants
5) sea life
6) land animal life and man.
Except the creation of man God called the Earth and the waters to bring forth plants and sea life and land animals. And according to Evolution's science, the Earth brought forth the plants, the sea life, and the animal life. All life is made of the minerals and such of this planet.
This is my beliefs millions of years past between God's calling light into existence, putting the firmanents of Heaven together, the firmaments of Earth together, calling for the Earth to bring forth life, and his forming and making man.
He changed the chromosome count and created man.
Everything that grows on Earth comes from seeds. Seeds that was placed upon the Earth to sprout and give life by God.
Science:: Abiogenesis and panspermia - the most widely accepted theory of science along with the primordial soup mix, is how life started on Earth - where living organisms came from space down to earth - and they still don't know where or how RNA, which is the key factor to life, came about. .Because body designs, chromosomes, bone structure, some genetic traits, and such are similar they believe evolution.
It's all a ploy of the devil to mislead and take as many with him as he possibly can. Keep it close to the truth but change it just enough.
Made in God's image simply means having the ability to know right from wrong. A primate and humans have basically the same bodies, so one could say they are made in God's image - the difference is they don't know what's right and wrong and we do.
Issue of sin, when Adam disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of knowledge, knowledge was given to man to know that he is a sinner and the wages of sin as God promised is death. And through Adam's Disobedience sin, death, and final judgement fell upon all mankind.

I see where you. like many other christians who add the idea of a universe to the Genesis creation account.

When there is no mention anywhere in the Bible where it is stated that God created a universe. It is always stated in the Bible when speaking of Gods creation, that God created heaven and earth.

So there is no universe where this evolution lie could have taken place.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.

‘Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

The Lord who made heaven and earth Bless you from Zion!

 

[pitabread]

So there is no universe where this evolution lie could have taken place.

Wut?