Why is there so much assault on what it doesn't say?

Papias · Jul 9, 2010

rcorlew wrote:

Th

eistic Evolution is neither scientific nor logical; would God start something then walk away for billions of years just to return when everything is falling apart?

Ouch. Someone doesn't understand a core part of TE, and is instead arguing against 17th century Deism. If you want to argue against Deism, pull a Nickel out of your pocket and argue with Thomas Jefferson.

TE often states the opposite - that God was indeed here all that time, being very active, in creating BY USING THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. God's hand was here in the Devonian, the Triassic, the Pliocene, today, and so on. The Pope has even stated that God may be the source of all the beneficial mutations that make us what we are today.

It's like the "Footprints in the sand" story - God is here the whole time, carrying the process forward.

The Theory of Evolution has been falsified many times and thus must adapt to new data,

Someone doesn't understand how science works. Refinements make the theory stronger, not weaker. This is a strength of science, a sign that it is working correctly, not a weakness. The same has happened with the theories of Gravity, Atoms, Germs, and so on. The newest and most current data support evolution wonderfully.

You cannot ask an evolutionary scientist any tough real questions without understanding that .....the person will be operating on an old model with old evidences.

You are saying that you (or I) know evolutionary biology better than the experts, who study the most current evidence for their whole careers? Wow, talk about hubris.

News flash - experts are experts for reason, and there is a reason why practically all scientists support evolution - because they have looked at it, especially the most current evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence from even one field is overwhelming, and in addition we have overwhelming evidence from field after field, method after method, not just all confirming evolution, but all confirming the same family tree and history, independently. Sounds like you've made the mistake of thinking that Behe or other charlatans are reliable sources.

Probably all 'til monday, and have a nice weekend-

Papias

crawfish · Jul 9, 2010

rcorlew said:
1) People who have doubts about the Theory of Evolution are usually referred to as ignorant or that their ignorance shows, this then conditions people to be offensive first, not that being offensive is right but it is predictable.

TE's are referred to as heretical or ignorant of the bible, or outright atheists. The disrespect goes both ways.

2) Theistic Evolution is contrary to science as it defines evolution to be started off by and controlled by God, God is not a natural cause and thus Theistic Evolution is neither scientific nor logical; would God start something then walk away for billions of years just to return when everything is falling apart?

We still believe in God and the supernatural. We believe in God as the first cause. We also believe in a timeless, eternal God, to whom 4 billion years is relatively no different than a day or an hour or a second. If God is timeless, then the amount of time is irrelevant to God (a day a thousand years, a thousand years a day).

3) The Theory of Evolution has been falsified many times and thus must adapt to new data, this adaptation then leads one to believe that what we know now is irrelevant because it will merely change in a short period of time.

The entire theory has never been falsified, although elements of it have been proven to be wrong. This is the same with any number of natural sciences. ToE has stood for 200 years, facing attack after attack, and is today stronger than it ever has been.

4) The Theory of Evolution is contradictory in many instances and confounds rational thought, evolution occurs in large populations over many generations but also occurs in very short bursts of change in very small populations and it can also occur in single generations. All that leaves a person with many questions, if evolution can happen in 2-3 generations, why then is evolution used to measure lapses of time.

I don't even know where to start here, there is so much wrong.

5) Nature is random, both in its forces like weather and disasters like earthquakes which drastically change habitats in very short order in unpredictable ways, yet science has put itself under the banner of required predictability and repeatability. If nature produces random results many times based on multiple undetermined factors, how then can we say we must be able to reproduce an event in order to validate it, by the same measure, if an event is unrepeatable are we not then just compounding multiple hypotheses that are all based on prior assumptions.

You might want to think about the consequences of this view. You are effectively taking nature out of God's control. Either God is omnipotent or He is not; you seem to be claiming the latter.

6) (Finally for now) You cannot ask an evolutionary scientist any tough real questions without understanding that either you will be thought of as ignorant or that the person will be operating on an old model with old evidences. Either way, you are unlikely to get the current correct answer.

If you respectfully ask questions of any evolutionary scientist, you'll get 100 times more information than you want. If you ask them condescendingly or pretend to have more knowledge of their specialty than they do, you'll probably be ignored.

The truth here is you are denying God's power. If there is something beyond God's power to do - such as create mankind through evolution - then you are making a pretty significant claim. I suggest you rethink your arguments.

crawfish · Jul 9, 2010

mark kennedy said:
Because the subject goes back to first cause, that is why we call it 'first cause'. You should know this by now but you pretend you don't. Just curious, how do you answer skepticism about the resurrection because it was as supernatural as creation if not more so?

Have a nice day
Mark

Part one, we all believe in God as first cause. You should know this by now but you pretend you don't.

Part 2, we answer skepticism about the resurrection with one word: faith. We don't act like we can come up with scientific proof of something supernatural.

AnswersInHovind · Jul 9, 2010

metherion said:
The thread title is about the 'typical' (yes, note the quotes) arguments against evolution.

Why are so many of them saying evolution says things it doesn't?

Evolution never predicts crocoducks. Neither evolution nor abiogenesis predicts life in peanut butter. Evolution does not predict a dog giving birth to a cat, nor a bird changing into a mammal, etc etc etc.

So why do so many attacks claim evolution says things it doesn't? I mean, as an example, mark kennedy has at least found something regarding genomes and brain expansion he doesn't consider well enough explained. All pedantic sayings of 'well, nothing will ever convince him given all we've shown/tried to show him' or other similar sayings aside, that at least is something in the realm of science that is plausible evolution does/does not cover. So it is obviously POSSIBLE to find something at least remotely within the bounds of evolution to say as a point 'no, I don't think this can happen.'

So why all the bluster and rhetoric and false associations and whatnot?

Metherion

did you make this thread cause of my crocoduck and peanut butter comment in the other thread? That was supposed to be a joke. Sorry. I was just trying to keep the thread on topic.

metherion · Jul 10, 2010

Actually, no, it wasn't. It was a bit more of my lurking down in Physical Sciences etc in the open to all members area. I saw the smiley face and knew it was a joke in your post, it's just that the crocoduck is one of the more well-known things I'm talking about, so it was both in your joke and a well known example I'm using, that's all

Metherion

Smidlee · Jul 10, 2010

metherion said:
And this is exactly what I am talking about.

"Evolution is wrong because (something completely unrelated to evolution."

Why is this done?

Metherion

evolutionist does the same thing by comparing ToE with gravity.
abiogenesis is about some unknown unseen "Frankcell" that is nothing like physical life as we know it today. Today life has a chain of complicated molecular machines which had to either evolved or created. So while evolution loves to try to dismissed abiogenesis (FrankenCell) they can't dismiss the origins of today's life since this is directly connected to ToE.

Smidlee · Jul 10, 2010

Papias said:
rcorlew wrote:

Th

Ouch. Someone doesn't understand a core part of TE, and is instead arguing against 17th century Deism. If you want to argue against Deism, pull a Nickel out of your pocket and argue with Thomas Jefferson.

TE often states the opposite - that God was indeed here all that time, being very active, in creating BY USING THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.

This is interesting since even scientists are in disagreement exactly what the "process of Evolution" is.

philadiddle · Jul 10, 2010

Smidlee said:
evolutionist does the same thing by comparing ToE with gravity.

This is done to explain what a theory in science is, not what evolution is.

Smidlee said:
abiogenesis is about some unknown unseen "Frankcell" that is nothing like physical life as we know it today.

Actually we have a lot of research that supports abiogenesis, but it's still relatively new so more data is needed.

Smidlee said:
Today life has a chain of complicated molecular machines which had to either evolved or created.

They were created through the process of evolution.

Smidlee said:
So while evolution loves to try to dismissed abiogenesis (FrankenCell) they can't dismiss the origins of today's life since this is directly connected to ToE.

Even if God made the first cell and it evolved after that (as Behe believes) then evolution is still true. It is separate from abiogenesis.

philadiddle · Jul 10, 2010

Smidlee said:
This is interesting since even scientists are in disagreement exactly what the "process of Evolution" is.

Apparently you are very unlearned in the processes of science that use an evolutionary model.

Smidlee · Jul 10, 2010

philadiddle said:
This is done to explain what a theory in science is, not what evolution is.

If gravity is true does not make ToE valid.

[quote

They were created through the process of evolution.

This is exactly what has to be proven.

Smidlee · Jul 10, 2010

philadiddle said:
Apparently you are very unlearned in the processes of science that use an evolutionary model.

scientist don't know either yet they all have an opinion. This is why evolution is constantly changing , it based more on opinion than hard facts.

philadiddle · Jul 10, 2010

Smidlee said:
If gravity is true does not make ToE valid.
This is exactly what has to be proven.

Sigh...Nobody said that since gravity is "true" then evolution is as well. You don't understand simple rational thought processes to understand the world around you. I won't bother responding to you then if such a simple concept is lost on you.

Smidlee said:
scientist don't know either yet they all have an opinion. This is why evolution is constantly changing , it based more on opinion than hard facts.

Like I said, you are obviously very unlearned as to what scientists who work in the field know.

Siyha · Jul 10, 2010

Smidlee said:
scientist don't know either yet they all have an opinion. This is why evolution is constantly changing , it based more on opinion than hard facts.

all fields of science are constantly changing... thats what makes it science. And yet with the hundreds of thousands of hours of lab work and experiements done concerning evolution, everyone still agrees it happens, the disagreements end up in various mechanics here and there, and are fine tuned as more experiments are done. There is no question in the scientific community that people evolved. This is not opinion. This is fact. You make it sound as though a theory in the scientific world is simply guess work.

Evolutionary models have also made predictions which were later fulfilled, and its used in things like medicine. What has creationism gotten mankind (I refuse to put science after creationism)?

Additionally, Old Testament studies and approaches that show the opening chapters to Genesis to be non-literal historic accounts have made great contributions to our understanding of the ancient world, the old testament, and deeper understanding of the narratives throughout. Because of these systems we understand Baalism much better, and major significance about the miracles of Elijah and Elisha that we never imagined before suddenly appear in their battle against Baalism.

What has creationism contributed to theology? It doesn't even draw from traditional Christianity. Its a post-enlightenment idea stemming from the new doctrine of innerrancy because for some reason infallibility wasn't enough for the Bible.

rcorlew · Jul 10, 2010

philadiddle said:
This is done to explain what a theory in science is, not what evolution is.

Actually we have a lot of research that supports abiogenesis, but it's still relatively new so more data is needed.

They were created through the process of evolution.

Even if God made the first cell and it evolved after that (as Behe believes) then evolution is still true. It is separate from abiogenesis.

Just so we are clear here

Dictionary.com said:
natural
adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic ( def. 11 ) .
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.

9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.

10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.

11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.

12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.

13. consonant with the nature or character of.

14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.

15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.

16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.

17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.

18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.

19. related by blood rather than by adoption.

20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.

21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.

22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.

23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.

24.Music . a. neither sharp nor flat.

b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.

25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.

26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.

27. not tinted or colored; undyed.

28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.

29.Cards . a.being a card other than a wild card or joker.

b.(of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.

30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.

31. Afro ( def. 1 ) .

noun 32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.

33.Music . a. a white key on a piano, organ, or the like.

b. the sign ♮, placed before a note, canceling the effect of a previous sharp or flat.

c. a note affected by a ♮, or a tone thus represented.

34. an idiot.

35. Cards . blackjack ( def. 2b ) .
36. Afro ( def. 2 ) .
37. (in craps) a winning combination of seven or eleven made on the first cast.

38. a natural substance or a product made with such a substance: an ointment containing mink oil and other naturals.

Natural | Define Natural at Dictionary.com

dictionary.com said:
noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.

7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.

8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.

10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com

Just so we are clear here, you said "They were created through the process of evolution." which contradicts meaning(s) 1 & 2 of natural and meaning 3 of evolution. Now that is a contradiction unless your contention is that evolution does not have to be completely natural.

Just so you understand, if God created what we see today through evolution, that is creation. This is very similar to saying a car was built welders, welders is the process and the object is "built".

philadiddle · Jul 11, 2010

rcorlew said:
Just so we are clear here, you said "They were created through the process of evolution." which contradicts meaning(s) 1 & 2 of natural and meaning 3 of evolution. Now that is a contradiction unless your contention is that evolution does not have to be completely natural.

I'm not following. You'll have to explain how it is a contradiction.

rcorlew said:
Just so you understand, if God created what we see today through evolution, that is creation. This is very similar to saying a car was built welders, welders is the process and the object is "built".

The structure of your last sentence made it a bit confusing, sorry, maybe I'm just slow in the head tonight.

To clarify what I was saying; God made nature, and the laws of nature, which were created by God, made us. God knew that this would happen at the moment of the big bang because He is omniscient.

gluadys · Jul 11, 2010

rcorlew said:
Just so we are clear here

Just so we are clear here, you said "They were created through the process of evolution." which contradicts meaning(s) 1 & 2 of natural and meaning 3 of evolution. Now that is a contradiction unless your contention is that evolution does not have to be completely natural.

Not as far as I can see. Can you explain what you see as the contradiction?

metherion · Jul 11, 2010

evolutionist does the same thing by comparing ToE with gravity.

Not quite the same. Now, I may not have heard of all the cases, but every time I have heard of the ToE being compared to gravity it was because the ‘only a theory’ argument had been tossed out there. In that case, it is simple analogy and explanation of what theories are in science: if gravity’s truth value is not impacted by being merely the Theory of Gravity, then evolution’s truth value is likewise not impacted by being the Theory of Evolution.

While you are correct that gravity’s truthiness is not related to evolution’s truthiness, gravity’s status as a theory of science is identical to that of the ToE and thus it is fair to compare them to explain that point.

abiogenesis is about some unknown unseen "Frankcell" that is nothing like physical life as we know it today.

1. No it is not.

2. Evolution and abiogenesis are not dependent on each other. Life does not have to be arrived at abiogenetically for evolution to occur.

3. This is, again, what my point is. Evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis, so why is it even being brought up?

Today life has a chain of complicated molecular machines which had to either evolved or created.

False dichotomy. They could have been arrived at by an unknown process that is completely different from (but to our current technology, looks identical to) evolution.

So while evolution loves to try to dismissed abiogenesis (FrankenCell) they can't dismiss the origins of today's life since this is directly connected to ToE.

1. No, it isn’t directly connected.
2. Attempting to make fun of abiogenesis by calling it FrankenCell is a variety of poisoning the well.
3. I don’t know how evolution can ‘dismiss’ anything about a field it doesn’t cover. Evolution deals with the origin of SPECIES, not of life.
3a. Again, this relates to my point. Abiogenesis is neither a subset of nor an integral part of nor even necessarily related to evolution, so... why bring it up as a point against the ToE?

Metherion

Smidlee · Jul 11, 2010

metherion said:
3. This is, again, what my point is. Evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis, so why is it even being brought up?

Yet it has everything to do with origins of today's life which is the only physical life known to man. abiogenesis itself is trying to find unknown unseen form of physical life that doesn't require these complex machines found in every living cell known to man.
Thus I call FrankenCell since it has yet to leave the field of science fiction.

I would have never guess evolution had anything to do with quantum mechanics yet here is an article that tries to connect the two:
Bridge to the quantum world: Darwinian concept of natural selection figures into theory about core of physical reality

Evolutionists badly wants to distance themselves from abiogenesis yet try so hard to connect evolution to pretty everything else in science. Evolution has a lot more connections with abiogenesis than with gravity or quantum mechanics.

False dichotomy. They could have been arrived at by an unknown process that is completely different from (but to our current technology, looks identical to) evolution.

this unknown process is called evolution in science. No one has yet to find these "baby steps" Darwin referred to in his "Little Eyeball That Could" story. Everything in biology that is unknown is used as evidence of evolution.

philadiddle · Jul 11, 2010

Smidlee said:
Yet it has everything to do with origins of today's life which is the only physical life known to man. abiogenesis itself is trying to find unknown unseen form of physical life that doesn't require these complex machines found in every living cell known to man.
Thus I call FrankenCell since it has yet to leave the field of science fiction.

I would have never guess evolution had anything to do with quantum mechanics yet here is an article that tries to connect the two:
Bridge to the quantum world: Darwinian concept of natural selection figures into theory about core of physical reality

Evolutionists badly wants to distance themselves from abiogenesis yet try so hard to connect evolution to pretty everything else in science. Evolution has a lot more connections with abiogenesis than with gravity or quantum mechanics.
this unknown process is called evolution in science. No one has yet to find these "baby steps" Darwin referred to in his "Little Eyeball That Could" story. Everything in biology that is unknown is used as evidence of evolution.

You didn't understand the article you linked to or what it was trying to say. Based on your willful ignorance on the issue of evolution being separate from abiogenesis, despite it being repeatedly explained to you, I don't think it's worth trying to explain that article to you because you are only interested in believing what you want to believe without the possibility of viewing things objectively.

crawfish · Jul 11, 2010

Smidlee said:
Yet it has everything to do with origins of today's life which is the only physical life known to man.

Why do you think the topic of abiogenesis is relevant when discussing ToE with TE's, when you must know that they believe in a creator God and thus the supernatural component is not off the table?

Why is there so much assault on what it doesn't say?

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Veteran

AnswersInHovind

Guest

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Drumming circles around you

Veteran

Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Puppy Surprise

Serving His Flock

Drumming circles around you

Legend

Veteran

Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency