Why I don't believe in evolution...

[tas8831]

I think David Berlinski would agree with me on this.

Who cares who Berlinski would or would not agree with?

Well, he did say that ID and creationism are nonsense (in so many words), so there is that.

But he also claimed to have done "calculations" showing that there are at least "50,000 trait changes" between a whale and a cow, thus whales did not evolve.
Not only did he misrepresent the hypotheses re: the evolution of whales (nobody says they evolved from cows), but he has NEVER divulged a single one of these 'trait changes' he claims to have done 'calculations' on, and has never divulged his actual calculations.
He is just another charlatan, grifting the rubes.

 

[tas8831]

Except the article is a mix of half truths and dishonest misrepresentations... ironically to support a fringe evolutionary theory, rather than any Creationist variation.

And why is it that so many creationists hang their hats on these one-off fringe types as having THE answer?

 

[tas8831]

This is footnote 1 from the Wikipedia bible. They base that age on uranium-series disequilibrium dating. Check it out here Dating - Uranium-series disequilibrium dating

It's a matter of which bible do we choose to believe, God's bible or man's bible.

1. A. W. G. Pike et al., "U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain", Science 336, 1409 (2012), doi:10.1126/science.1219957. "We present uranium-series disequilibrium dates of calcite deposits overlying or underlying art found in 11 caves, including the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites of Altamira, El Castillo, and Tito Bustillo, Spain. The results demonstrate that the tradition of decorating caves extends back at least to the Early Aurignacian period, with minimum ages of 40.8 thousand years for a red disk, 37.3 thousand years for a hand stencil, and 35.6 thousand years for a claviform-like symbol. These minimum ages reveal either that cave art was a part of the cultural repertoire of the first anatomically modern humans in Europe or that perhaps Neandertals also engaged in painting caves." Table 1: Ages are corrected for detritus by using an assumed 232Th/238U activity of 1.250±0.625 and 230Th/238U and 234U/238U at equilibrium.

How about the one with a track record of success and actual evidence in its support?

 

[tas8831]

Oh, I didn't know all Christians were informed, actively participating non-sinners.

You're just disagreeing because it says 'atheist' under my name. Such a meanie!

 

[Kylie]

Do tell us about your extensive scientific background such that anyone should take your word - your mere assertion - over that of creationist biochemist Todd Wood, PhD., any bolding mine:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

I eagerly await your reply.

I find this very curious. He's a man of science and he freely admits that there is a great deal of well-supported evidence for evolution in the real world. How then can he reject that evidence in favour of his faith? Surely he sees that doing so is rejecting the real world?

When faith and the real world disagree, one of them must be wrong. And I've never yet seen any case where reality was wrong.

 

[pitabread]

I find this very curious. He's a man of science and he freely admits that there is a great deal of well-supported evidence for evolution in the real world. How then can he reject that evidence in favour of his faith? Surely he sees that doing so is rejecting the real world?

When faith and the real world disagree, one of them must be wrong. And I've never yet seen any case where reality was wrong.

The human mind is remarkably capable of both compartmentalization and rationalization.

I do give Todd Wood a lot of credit for this, since he at least has the self-awareness to acknowledge this. Which is unlike a lot of creationists in my experience.

 

[loveofourlord]

I find this very curious. He's a man of science and he freely admits that there is a great deal of well-supported evidence for evolution in the real world. How then can he reject that evidence in favour of his faith? Surely he sees that doing so is rejecting the real world?

When faith and the real world disagree, one of them must be wrong. And I've never yet seen any case where reality was wrong.

wasn't there the geologist that pretty much had the same idea. forget the name but it's been mentioned often years ago. He knew the science knew how geology seemed to support old earth, but rejected it.

 

[Kylie]

wasn't there the geologist that pretty much had the same idea. forget the name but it's been mentioned often years ago. He knew the science knew how geology seemed to support old earth, but rejected it.

Quite possibly.

 

[ruthiesea]

Evolution is a valid scientific theory with all of the attributes of a valid theory. Even if you don’t accept it it remains such.

Personally I see no conflict between science and belief in G-d.

 

[SkyWriting]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

That happened with Adam and Eve. They were "re-made" into God's image.
Assuming you want to believe they were just two people.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

There's no way to draw the line of when a newborn baby (or, for that matter, a fertilised ovum) becomes a fully mature, morally conscious and spiritual being... Does that mean you don't believe in child development?

 

[tas8831]

That happened with Adam and Eve. They were "re-made" into God's image.

This presumes that the bible story is accurate. There is, alas, no evidence for this.

 

[SkyWriting]

This presumes that the bible story is accurate. There is, alas, no evidence for this.

History is not a scientifically repeatable event.
So there is never any assurance of accuracy.