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

[metherion]

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

 

[crawfish]

It's important to keep in mind that YEC/ID/non-evolutionary creationism are ultimately NOT about science. They are about faith - or more to the point, they are about protecting faith. Your ordinary Christian who is somewhat worried about this subject really only wants to feel better about their belief, and it makes them feel better to think the other side is ignorant or lying or conspiring against God or something like that.

Most of the anti-evolutionist movement is about pushing the emotions of people who don't understand the issue. It's much easier to do that than to introduce them to the reality of the issue, which is muddy and messy and not as easily tied up as they'd want it to be.

 

[Skaloop]

Sorry, wrong forum.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

The post title is about the 'typical' (yes, note the quotes) arguments against creation.

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

Biblical creationism does not teach that we must interpret every single verse in the bible as "literally" as so many mockingly call on creationists to chop off their hands because Jesus said to. It doesn't teach that we must believe in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, or that no form of evolution occurs. Creationism does not predict that all scientific truth can be found in the Bible or that nothing ever changes.

So why do so many attacks claim creation says things it doesn't? I mean, as an example, mallon attempts to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism and is riddled with factual and historical errors. At least someone like Mark can point to significant biological evolution (since the Ark) but doesn't require every assumption of naturalistic evolution. All pedantic sayings of "well nothing we say will ever make a difference as they don't believe science" or some such, there are many things in science the Bible does not speak about or address which do not contradict.

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

Voice in the Desert

 

[philadiddle]

So why do so many attacks claim creation says things it doesn't? I mean, as an example, mallon attempts to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism and is riddled with factual and historical errors. At least someone like Mark can point to significant biological evolution (since the Ark) but doesn't require every assumption of naturalistic evolution. All pedantic sayings of "well nothing we say will ever make a difference as they don't believe science" or some such, there are many things in science the Bible does not speak about or address which do not contradict.

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

Voice in the Desert

Aside from the fact that you've sidestepped the OP, you fail to understand why Mallon points out the things he does. Creationism does not teach a flat earth but it does teach a particular style of biblical interpretation. Mallon and others (including myself) usually point out how creationists hold a double standard, because if they took their "creationist" way of interpreting the creation account and used it to interpret other parts of the bible we would get things like flat earth and geocentrism. And this perspective of ours isn't something we made up, we get it from history:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." - Martin Luther 1539A.D.

 

[Papias]

Similarly:

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament..... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night..... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis

 

[crawfish]

The post title is about the 'typical' (yes, note the quotes) arguments against creation.

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

Biblical creationism does not teach that we must interpret every single verse in the bible as "literally" as so many mockingly call on creationists to chop off their hands because Jesus said to. It doesn't teach that we must believe in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, or that no form of evolution occurs. Creationism does not predict that all scientific truth can be found in the Bible or that nothing ever changes.

So why do so many attacks claim creation says things it doesn't? I mean, as an example, mallon attempts to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism and is riddled with factual and historical errors. At least someone like Mark can point to significant biological evolution (since the Ark) but doesn't require every assumption of naturalistic evolution. All pedantic sayings of "well nothing we say will ever make a difference as they don't believe science" or some such, there are many things in science the Bible does not speak about or address which do not contradict.

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

Voice in the Desert

As mentioned before, we're simply challenging the hermeneutic. We see that non-evolutionary creationists have multiple standards for interpreting scripture; the methods and standards that they hold for Genesis cannot be (and are not) applied elsewhere in scripture.

In other words, we're not assuming that you hold every word literally. We're evaluating the implications of what you believe about Genesis and wondering why you ignore them.

 

[Cabal]

The post title is about the 'typical' (yes, note the quotes) arguments against creation.

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

Biblical creationism does not teach that we must interpret every single verse in the bible as "literally" as so many mockingly call on creationists to chop off their hands because Jesus said to. It doesn't teach that we must believe in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, or that no form of evolution occurs. Creationism does not predict that all scientific truth can be found in the Bible or that nothing ever changes.

So why do so many attacks claim creation says things it doesn't? I mean, as an example, mallon attempts to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism and is riddled with factual and historical errors. At least someone like Mark can point to significant biological evolution (since the Ark) but doesn't require every assumption of naturalistic evolution. All pedantic sayings of "well nothing we say will ever make a difference as they don't believe science" or some such, there are many things in science the Bible does not speak about or address which do not contradict.

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

Voice in the Desert

Ah yes, when called on your error, saying "but that guy does it too" is such a valid Christian response (especially when you get the counterpoint completely wrong as several have pointed out).

 

[Mallon]

I mean, as an example, mallon attempts to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism and is riddled with factual and historical errors.

It does... if you apply the neocreationist hermeneutic of scientific concordism. Here's another quote from another scientific concordist:

"The eyes are witness that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."

-Philipp Melanchthon (Elements of Physics)

The Bible is only in error if we attempt to read it for a purpose other than for what it was written. Like, say, a science textbook. Ignoring the reality of the world around us for the sake of being "true" to the Bible causes us to misunderstand the world around us and, more importantly, to misunderstand the significance of Scripture. Poor Melanchthon was so busy trying to learn astronomy from the Bible that I can't help but wonder if he appreciated the real significance of Bible's description of the universe -- usually as a display of God's power and majesty.

 

[metherion]

But on the other hand, no matter what is said about the various forms of creationism, it doesn't give either excuse or reason for the blatant misrepresentations of evolution made in the attacks upon it.

So, again, derailing aside, why is it done?

Metherion

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Incidentally biological evolution is wrong because abiogenesis is a bankrupt scientific theory that cannot be proven in the laboratory.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Incidentally biological evolution is wrong because abiogenesis is a bankrupt scientific theory that cannot be proven in the laboratory.

Abiogenesis is completely separate from evolution. But, as usual, we have complete denial of evidence. For a such a young theory, abiogenesis has quite a bit of evidence: the Miller-Urey experiments (and the observations on them 50 years later), and scientists have managed to create RNA building blocks from non-living compounds in the laboratory.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Abiogenesis is completely separate from evolution. But, as usual, we have complete denial of evidence. For a such a young theory, abiogenesis has quite a bit of evidence: the Miller-Urey experiments (and the observations on them 50 years later), and scientists have managed to create RNA building blocks from non-living compounds in the laboratory.

For those who have no sense of sarcasm or humor whatsoever, all of my posts have simply been turning the posts here around.

This is not the thread for a debate over abiogenesis.

 

[metherion]

And this is exactly what I am talking about.

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

Why is this done?

Metherion

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Well first of all because this is an internet forum and egregious lapses of logic exist on both sides, your own included.

The second reason is that much of the discussion here occurs on a philosophical/theological level. On that level the scientific assumptions are less important, and while scientifically abiogenesis and biological evolution may be studied separately, in a forum discussing the philosophy and theology concerning Christianity and naturalism, anyone can see that without abiogenesis a purely naturalistic philosophy is impossible.

Thirdly some people didn't even know there was a difference in terms, not everyone knows much biology.

 

[philadiddle]

Well first of all because this is an internet forum and egregious lapses of logic exist on both sides, your own included.

Where is the lapse in logic on the TE side?

The second reason is that much of the discussion here occurs on a philosophical/theological level.

Yes that's true, but this thread started with a look at science. There are other threads that try to stick to science but the fundies always hijack them with philosophy.

On that level the scientific assumptions are less important, and while scientifically abiogenesis and biological evolution may be studied separately, in a forum discussing the philosophy and theology concerning Christianity and naturalism, anyone can see that without abiogenesis a purely naturalistic philosophy is impossible.

But defending evolution is not an attempt to defend naturalistic philosophy, so what does that have to do with this thread?

Thirdly some people didn't even know there was a difference in terms, not everyone knows much biology.

You're still new here, you'll soon find out how much we know (and don't know).

 

[rcorlew]

And this is exactly what I am talking about.

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

Why is this done?

Metherion

I will try to answer this the best I can being purely objective.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

We all possess limited knowledge, yet we believe that what we know is the truth, funny how that works, in all actuality we don't know all that much compared to all the potential knowledge available, we cannot even describe how much we know collectively in comparison to vast amounts of knowledge because we do not know how much we do not know. This all sounds like a cycle because it is, why do we presume that what we know today is the actuality of what is I mean after all what we learned today changed what we knew yesterday right?

 

[metherion]

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.

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution itself.

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?

A) The ways of God are as far above the ways of men as the heavens are above the earth. Why would He NOT? And who says he just walked away?

B) Theistic evolution is NOT a scientific position. It is a faith based position. This does not mean it is wrong, this does not mean it is illogical, and this does not mean evolution itself is wrong.

C) Again, this does not have anything to do with the validity of evolution according to what the ToE itself says.

]
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.

When? How? Source? Back up your statement?

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.

Evolution is not used to measure lapses of time. It is also not contradictory to rational thought, and one species does not give birth to another species with the possible exceptions of plant hybrids. So, again, you have not shown the ToE wrong nor have you addressed a claim it makes.

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.

A) This point does not even mention evolution nor a claim it makes.

B) Even if the event is not repeatable (we can’t cause earthquakes), if the effects of the event are constant we can figure out the effect the event has without being able to cause it. This is not a problem. Nor is randomness in nature.

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.

A) This does not deal with evolution nor its claims, nor show it to be wrong.

B)What ‘tough questions’? Do these ‘tough questions’ deal with what evolution actually claims? Furthermore, examples?

We all possess limited knowledge, yet we believe that what we know is the truth, funny how that works,

Yes, but you can change how limited your knowledge is by learning.

in all actuality we don't know all that much compared to all the potential knowledge available, we cannot even describe how much we know collectively in comparison to vast amounts of knowledge because we do not know how much we do not know.

But this does not mean what we know now is wrong. And an individual person can become MUCH less ignorant by studying things for years.

This all sounds like a cycle because it is, why do we presume that what we know today is the actuality of what is I mean after all what we learned today changed what we knew yesterday right?

Ys, but you forget there are multiple types of changes. Something can be torn down, yes, that is a change. Alchemy was torn down, phlogiston was torn down, etc.

Or something can be changed by being shored up. Like germ theory, like atomic theory... like evolution.

Furthermore, if you truly think everything can change tomorrow so nothing is trustworthy, why do you use your computer? How do you know tomorrow someone won’t find out computers kill you?

And again, only one of your points mentioned evolution and the predictions/statements thereof, and it was completely unsourced. Statements made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence.

So, again, since you’ve just done it 5 times, why are arguments against evolution done without mention or with statements directly opposing what evolution actually says?

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

And this is exactly what I am talking about.

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

Why is this done?

Metherion

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

 

[metherion]

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

But then again, the ‘typical’ (again, note the quotes) arguments against evolution don’t refer to any first cause either.

Crocoducks... does not go back to the first cause.
Radiometric dating being faulty... neither refers to evolution, nor the first cause, but is used as an attack against evolution. Falsely or not, is not the point of the thread, the point is, the ToE says nothing about radiometric dating.
Evolution itself... does not address the first cause, nor even the origin of life, much less the origin of everything.
Any attempt at relating morality or social darwinism to evolution... has no bearing on the validity of the ToE, even if it were true (I am not admitting this, the truth of that argument is not the point of this thread). Nor does the ToE speak on morality itself.
The personal beliefs of the scientists does not affect the validity of the ToE nor does it address anything stated in the ToE.
The geologic column or lack thereof... does not affect the validity of the ToE.
The amount of salt or sediment or whatnot in any particular body of water... does not affect nor is addressed in/by the ToE.
Darwin recanting on his deathbed... would not nullify any evidence for the ToE.
ToE requiring pure naturalism... is both untrue and not addressing any of the evidence or the theory of evolution itself.

I could go on for quite a while, but I’ll leave it at those. None of those address evolution, none of those affect any of the evidence for evolution, none of those would show evolution wrong if they were correct. Neither do any of them deal with a first cause of any sort.


As to your question... yes, they were supernatural events, both of them.
But I believe the Resurrection because A) it’s instrumental to my faith, and B) a one time event that didn’t change anything this side of the afterlife has no real way of being ruled out assuming you believe in a God capable of doing such things. On the other hand, a truthful God that leaves behind all sorts of agreeing evidences that the world is older than it is if you preform some complicated math on something that is not mentioned as being absolutely necessary to the faith by any of the books in the Bible or any of the creeds or anything is just a tad bit less defensible.

And if they don’t believe in a god capable of doing a resurrection, they probably wouldn’t believe in a god who could speak the universe into existence at ANY point of its 14.5 billion year old life cycle, now, would they?

Metherion