Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[TomZzyzx]

Florida2 wrote:

True, yet even with that small corner, paleontologists have found literally millions of fossils, with many thousands in transitional series. We've foun literally thousands of times as many fossils as all of those found worldwide in Darwin's day. With evolution being so easy to prove wrong, the repeated confirmation of evolution by the fossil record is stunning. Transitional series are so common that Stephen J. Gould said they were "rife" in the fossil record. Here is what one of the world's experts on the fossil record had to say about it:

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. -Michael Benton, Prominent Palenontologist

Note the last paragraph - there are so many millions of fossils that paleonologists now use mathematical methods to deal with all of them - because no one person could possible fully study even a small fraction of them.

One of the most common creationist canards is to ignore these thousands of fossils in transitional series, and out of their intentional ignorance, try to convince others to stay in their ignorance as well. In opposition to this, and as a Chrisitian, I find my faith strenghtened by learning about God's creation in detail, giving a larger faith and indeed a larger God.

Papias

Are you talking about transitions within a species, or transitions from one species to another? We all believe there is evolution within a species. If you are talking about transition fossils between species please give us some websites that talk about these transitional fossils.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Are you talking about transitions within a species, or transitions from one species to another? We all believe there is evolution within a species. If you are talking about transition fossils between species please give us some websites that talk about these transitional fossils.

Better off watching this:

10-No Apemen: Just Men, Apes and Frauds - YouTube

Russ is just one among many that have shot down the so-called 'ape man' transitional nonsense.

 

[Keachian]

Are you talking about transitions within a species, or transitions from one species to another? We all believe there is evolution within a species. If you are talking about transition fossils between species please give us some websites that talk about these transitional fossils.

everything is transitional, a misunderstanding about the relationship between the theory of evolution and sorites paradox is at the heart of creationistic understaing of the theory of evolution.

The Sorites Paradox
In the same way as the link above each generation could be considered slightly more yellow so we can't actually say where one species truly begins, we also have population divergence, which is where two groups of the same animals are separated in some way, they then change independently say one lot going to blue while the other goes to yellow, at some point the two groups may not be able to mate with each other and once that happens that is an instance of speciation or macro-evolution.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

everything is transitional, a misunderstanding about the relationship between the theory of evolution and sorites paradox is at the heart of creationistic understaing of the theory of evolution.

The Sorites Paradox
In the same way as the link above each generation could be considered slightly more yellow so we can't actually say where one species truly begins, we also have population divergence, which is where two groups of the same animals are separated in some way, they then change independently say one lot going to blue while the other goes to yellow, at some point the two groups may not be able to mate with each other and once that happens that is an instance of speciation or macro-evolution.

No. Nothing is transitional. You are deluding yourself and everyone you influence on this subject.

The only 'transitions' are that which is observable. Like this:

Evolution does not exist and never did and those who believe it does cannot believe scritpure (Genesis in particular) and be honest in thier conclusions.

 

[Keachian]

Kirk, address my last post to you, I brought up a few problems with your interpretation of Scripture that you chose not to address.

On the infographic you just posted, you fail to mention that according to evolution theory a dog giving birth to a horse would disprove the theory, in fact many of the things that creationists put forth as some proof against evolution which is like this if they ever came out would disprove evolution

 

[TomZzyzx]

everything is transitional, a misunderstanding about the relationship between the theory of evolution and sorites paradox is at the heart of creationistic understaing of the theory of evolution.

The Sorites Paradox
In the same way as the link above each generation could be considered slightly more yellow so we can't actually say where one species truly begins, we also have population divergence, which is where two groups of the same animals are separated in some way, they then change independently say one lot going to blue while the other goes to yellow, at some point the two groups may not be able to mate with each other and once that happens that is an instance of speciation or macro-evolution.

Your the one that said, "thousands of fossils in transitional series". Now I'm asking you to provide me with some of the websites that talk about and maybe show some of these thousands of fossils in transitional series. Can you produce these websites or not?

 

[Keachian]

how about (A few) transitional fossils

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Kirk, address my last post to you, I brought up a few problems with your interpretation of Scripture that you chose not to address.

On the infographic you just posted, you fail to mention that according to evolution theory a dog giving birth to a horse would disprove the theory, in fact many of the things that creationists put forth as some proof against evolution which is like this if they ever came out would disprove evolution

That's right. And when I meet with earnest inquirers who haven't been brainwashed by Orwellian-style evolution then I will be glad to answer the same questions...if they wish. I have the answers but like a few others on these threads it is useless to try to tell you anything. I regret having answered you previously.

 

[sfs]

That's right. And when I meet with earnest inquirers who haven't been brainwashed by Orwellian-style evolution then I will be glad to answer the same questions...if they wish. I have the answers but like a few others on these threads it is useless to try to tell you anything. I regret having answered you previously.

Apparently Kirkwhisper will only deign to speak to those who won't challenge him on well, anything. Confronted with conflicting views, and especially confronted with real science, his response is to ignore them.

 

[Ronald]

Mutations are defects. Even geneticists say only 1 in 10,000 mutations maybe beneficial to an organism. But what of the other 9,999 harmful defects that would certainly bring harm or death to the organism before it even had a chance to change? And the idea the nature (dirt, water, air, the sun, electro-magnetic energy, or any chemical reactions within) can choose a beneficial trait -- without having an intelligent mind to do so in any amount of time is absurd. You don't have to try to disprove macro-evolution with scripture, it just doesn't have a rational mechanism by which to work. Besides, there is no evidence of any transitional forms (of which there should be millions and many more than are current species btw).
Chemicals + energy + time does not = life. Something is missing from that equation. Information is missing. Where did the information come from? Even a one-celled supposedly simple lifeform as a paramecium has a flagella that is more complex than the space shuttle. Darwin didn't know this. He thought the cell was a simple jellylike substance. He also expected that scientists would eventually discover the immense amount of transitional forms in the fossil record if his theory was true. He wondered, "Where are they?" DAH ... they don't exist. All species were made finished; a peacock was always a peacock and humans were always human. Now micro-evolution certainly exists, meaning the changes within the specie over time due to climate, food, etc. but these are adaptive mechanisms that are already in the genetic code, the information designed by God. A specie changing into another specie does not happen. Now, if you think God guided these changes then we would see evidence and there isn't any. At the end of six days, he was done, finished along with everything else. DONE ... then he rested on the seventh day. And as the other guy said, those were 24 hour days. God Bless

 

[Keachian]

Apparently Kirkwhisper will only deign to speak to those who won't challenge him on well, anything. Confronted with conflicting views, and especially confronted with real science, his response is to ignore them.

or even sound hermeneutics and scriptural understanding, I've for the most part been refuting him from scripture.

 

[Keachian]

Now, if you think God guided these changes then we would see evidence and there isn't any. At the end of six days, he was done, finished along with everything else. DONE ... then he rested on the seventh day. And as the other guy said, those were 24 hour days. God Bless

"My Father is still working, so I am working too." So, is God working now?

 

[USincognito]

Now micro-evolution certainly exists, meaning the changes within the specie over time due to climate, food, etc. but these are adaptive mechanisms that are already in the genetic code, the information designed by God. A specie changing into another specie does not happen.

Just wanted to post point of information.

Species = singular of species.
Specie = currency, usually struck from bullion.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Intruder Alert!​

Name:
USIncognito
Status:
Unbeliever​

 

[Incariol]

Mutations are defects. Even geneticists say only 1 in 10,000 mutations maybe beneficial to an organism. But what of the other 9,999 harmful defects that would certainly bring harm or death to the organism before it even had a chance to change? And the idea the nature (dirt, water, air, the sun, electro-magnetic energy, or any chemical reactions within) can choose a beneficial trait -- without having an intelligent mind to do so in any amount of time is absurd. You don't have to try to disprove macro-evolution with scripture, it just doesn't have a rational mechanism by which to work. Besides, there is no evidence of any transitional forms (of which there should be millions and many more than are current species btw).
Chemicals + energy + time does not = life. Something is missing from that equation. Information is missing. Where did the information come from? Even a one-celled supposedly simple lifeform as a paramecium has a flagella that is more complex than the space shuttle. Darwin didn't know this. He thought the cell was a simple jellylike substance. He also expected that scientists would eventually discover the immense amount of transitional forms in the fossil record if his theory was true. He wondered, "Where are they?" DAH ... they don't exist. All species were made finished; a peacock was always a peacock and humans were always human. Now micro-evolution certainly exists, meaning the changes within the specie over time due to climate, food, etc. but these are adaptive mechanisms that are already in the genetic code, the information designed by God. A specie changing into another specie does not happen. Now, if you think God guided these changes then we would see evidence and there isn't any. At the end of six days, he was done, finished along with everything else. DONE ... then he rested on the seventh day. And as the other guy said, those were 24 hour days. God Bless

1. Mutations are not "defects"
2. Mutations are not chosen by an organism or any intelligent mind

You criticize evolution as not having as valid mechanism... Which makes sense coming from you since you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Read a high school biology text and try again.

 

[Incariol]

No. Nothing is transitional. You are deluding yourself and everyone you influence on this subject.

The only 'transitions' are that which is observable. Like this:

Evolution does not exist and never did and those who believe it does cannot believe scritpure (Genesis in particular) and be honest in thier conclusions.

In that case, you'll be fine being prescribed penicillin for a chronic infection, right? After all, "evolution does not exist".

 

[Assyrian]

Mutations are defects. Even geneticists say only 1 in 10,000 mutations maybe beneficial to an organism. But what of the other 9,999 harmful defects that would certainly bring harm or death to the organism before it even had a chance to change? And the idea the nature (dirt, water, air, the sun, electro-magnetic energy, or any chemical reactions within) can choose a beneficial trait -- without having an intelligent mind to do so in any amount of time is absurd. You don't have to try to disprove macro-evolution with scripture, it just doesn't have a rational mechanism by which to work.

You have the answer to your question right there. Does nature need an intelligent mind to select the harmful defects and remove them? Or does this happen, well, naturally? The same with a beneficial mutation, if it allowed them to be that little bit better at finding food or avoiding a predator, would nature need an intelligent mind to select them or would they just do better naturally?

Besides, there is no evidence of any transitional forms (of which there should be millions and many more than are current species btw).

Did you look at progmonk's link in post 147?

Chemicals + energy + time does not = life. Something is missing from that equation. Information is missing. Where did the information come from?

The structure of the molecule? But then, every molecule has a structure.

Even a one-celled supposedly simple lifeform as a paramecium has a flagella that is more complex than the space shuttle. Darwin didn't know this. He thought the cell was a simple jellylike substance. He also expected that scientists would eventually discover the immense amount of transitional forms in the fossil record if his theory was true. He wondered, "Where are they?" DAH ... they don't exist.

No, Darwin didn't think there would be immense amounts or wonder where they were, though if you read some out of context quotes from creationist sites, you could get that mistaken impression. Darwin did ask the question why there weren't the vast amounts in the fossil record, but it was to explain a misunderstanding of how evolution works and what the fossil record should show. He expected much fewer transitional fossils with long periods of relative stasis in a region. He was right, and the proportion of transitional fossil we have found since then lines up beautifully with what Darwin predicted.

All species were made finished; a peacock was always a peacock

How do you know this? They share lot of similarities with other members of the subfamily Phasianidae which includes pheasants junglefowl and tragopans, maybe your created kind was Phasianinae and pheasants and peafowl are descended from them like lions and tigers are descended from an earlier cat kind. Or maybe as these family connections just keep going back and back. The Phasianinae certainly have a lot in common with other member of the family Phasianidae, the Perdicinae, which include partridges and old world quail. But if you look at the common characteristics of the Perdicinae which would have been shared by their common ancestor, it has a lot in common with other members of order Galliformes like partridges and new world quail. Maybe the original kind was Galliform. Or maybe it just keeps going back because there is no point where we hit a cut off, no point where we can trace the ancestry back thus far and no further.

and humans were always human.

That is not what the fossil record, comparative anatomy or genetics show us either.

Now micro-evolution certainly exists, meaning the changes within the specie over time due to climate, food, etc. but these are adaptive mechanisms that are already in the genetic code, the information designed by God. A specie changing into another specie does not happen. Now, if you think God guided these changes then we would see evidence and there isn't any. At the end of six days, he was done, finished along with everything else. DONE ... then he rested on the seventh day. And as the other guy said, those were 24 hour days. God Bless

Minor point here, the singular of species is species, like 'sheep'. We have seen species change into other species, but it is by descent, not by jumping across the branches of the evolutionary tree. The phasianidae always remained phasianidae even when some of their descendants became pheasants and some peafowl, Galliformes have always remained Galliformes .

 

[mark kennedy]

You have the answer to your question right there. Does nature need an intelligent mind to select the harmful defects and remove them?

No of course not, the universe comes into existence without the need for an intelligent mind, the earth becomes suitable for life apart from an intelligent mind, life emerges unaided by an intelligent mind, endless waves of adaptive radiation unfold in all it's vast array without an intelligent mind, the human brain develops from that of apes without an intelligent mind, origins theology can be discussed without any reference to anything in creation being the result of a thought from an intelligent mind. Theology itself can be taken for granted because there is nothing to discuss because even redemptive history because a myth because there is no need for an intelligent mind in that either.

Think about what you are arguing against. Trust me, it will make no difference to me but it will make all the difference to you. I would ask you just one question, does God need an intelligent mind and if so what on earth has He been using it for because the Creator, apparently, can do everything in nature without a single thought being manifest in the process.

Or does this happen, well, naturally? The same with a beneficial mutation, if it allowed them to be that little bit better at finding food or avoiding a predator, would nature need an intelligent mind to select them or would they just do better naturally?

That isn't natural, beneficial effects from genetic defects (literally copy errors) are the weakest instruments to facilitate improved fitness. Who cares what the benefits of an expressed trait are if they don't have an effective cause in the first place.

Adaptations occur from genes, fully developed, maintained and highly conserved and these random copy errors are no substitute for an intelligent mind designing them. Your hypothetical begs the question of proof on it's hands and knees. It's not about 'what it', the real question is how.

The structure of the molecule? But then, every molecule has a structure.

Are you serious?

No, Darwin didn't think there would be immense amounts or wonder where they were, though if you read some out of context quotes from creationist sites, you could get that mistaken impression. Darwin did ask the question why there weren't the vast amounts in the fossil record, but it was to explain a misunderstanding of how evolution works and what the fossil record should show. He expected much fewer transitional fossils with long periods of relative stasis in a region. He was right, and the proportion of transitional fossil we have found since then lines up beautifully with what Darwin predicted.

Darwin answered nothing because he asked nothing. Homology arguments never allow the inverse logic, fossil evidence either discovered or absent is explained away without an alternative to naturalistic causation. Oh and by the way, Darwin almost never mentioned evolution in his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species. He never went beyond the level of genus because nature never does.

That is not what the fossil record, comparative anatomy or genetics show us either. Minor point here, the singular of species is species, like 'sheep'. We have seen species change into other species, but it is by descent, not by jumping across the branches of the evolutionary tree. The phasianidae always remained phasianidae even when some of their descendants became pheasants and some peafowl, Galliformes have always remained Galliformes .

That is no minor point, Mendel said that he had noticed a strong tendency of hybrids to return to the grandparent form. That was a great thought, I really hope you don't dismiss it as minor or my remarks as sarcastic. I keep wondering when you guys are going to get it, the problems of how things evolve over time (whether little or a lot) are the same for gradualism as they are for the radical evolutionary adaptive radiation across broad lineal lines.

To be brutally honest I think it's a mistake to even entertain the idea the creationism is opposed to evolution. As usual, we humans have managed to get the whole topic upside down and backwards. That requires a great deal of effort with both sides of the topic working continually and in concert to utterly distort the real issues beyond any reasonable recognition.

I am sure of one thing, getting that done requires an intelligent mind. The feeble minded and simple could never have developed such an elaborate distortion, not even with a million random efforts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

You have the answer to your question right there. Does nature need an intelligent mind to select the harmful defects and remove them?

No of course not, the universe comes into existence without the need for an intelligent mind, the earth becomes suitable for life apart from an intelligent mind, life emerges unaided by an intelligent mind, endless waves of adaptive radiation unfold in all it's vast array without an intelligent mind, the human brain develops from that of apes without an intelligent mind, origins theology can be discussed without any reference to anything in creation being the result of a thought from an intelligent mind. Theology itself can be taken for granted because there is nothing to discuss because even redemptive history because a myth because there is no need for an intelligent mind in that either.

Have you been taking trolling lessons from 9gag or did you just drink a little too much Kent Hovind for breakfast this morning? Assyrian was talking about the fact that organisms with deleterious mutations tend to, y'know, die a little more often than those which do, no intelligent intervention needed. Does Assyrian think therefore that the very existence of the entire universe itself couldn't possibly reflect the mind of God? Hardly.

There are disanalogies, and then there are really disanalogies; I might as well say that you don't believe Jesus, because you don't expect tomorrow to be able to move Mt Rushmore by faith when you wake up. Do you? Bad boy, not taking Jesus at His word!

As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible to theologize evolution in such a way that evolution itself is taken as a possible example and source of good design and therefore indicative of an intelligent mind. See for example my take on that here. It is entirely possible to envisage a designed system that does not require the continuous interference of an external intelligent agency. Our cars are designed but they do not need the continual input of the designer; you yourself surely believe that most life operates without the miraculous intervention of God, and yet you yourself believe that life is designed. Well, why can't I believe that evolution is designed to not need the interference of the designer?

I eagerly await your no doubt trolling reply, but know this: while you compose it, the Earth will rotate about its axis and orbit the Sun without the need for an intelligent mind, the clouds will condense out of vapor and pour life-giving rain on the land without the need for an intelligent mind, lightning will streak between them and thunder forth like the very voice of God without the need for an intelligent mind, myriad nuclei will fuse throughout the cosmos and shower the earth with starlight without the need for an intelligent mind, millions of fetuses will silently develop in their mothers' wombs without the need for an intelligent mind, the mountains will rise as the very scales of the Earth grind into each other without the need for an intelligent mind, and your body will keep itself alive while you sleep - obviously without the need for an intelligent mind. I'm prepared to believe that God oversees and upholds all these things, just as I believe that God also oversees and upholds an evolutionary process which - as Assyrian and ironically you also rightly point out - does not necessarily require the extraordinary input of an intelligent mind; and I believe that God deserves to be praised for them all.

Do you believe that too, mark kennedy? Or are you really going to tell me that a billion blazing mindless suns are undesigned and do not sing praise to God, all so that you can believe that the ichneumon wasp and the typhoid bacterium do?

PS For crying out loud, words actually have meanings; adaptive radiation most often is gradualistic.

 

[sfs]

Mutations are defects.

Meh. Mutations are changes to the genetic material. "Defects" is too value-laden to be a useful term.

Even geneticists say only 1 in 10,000 mutations maybe beneficial to an organism.

Not exactly. Geneticists (of whom I am one) say that only a small fraction of mutations are beneficial; the exact fraction depends on the organism and on the environment it's in. The fraction may be zero: if the organism is optimally suited to its current environment, then no change will be helpful. If it's poorly suited to its environment, then the fraction of beneficial mutations may be much higher than 1 in 10,000.

But what of the other 9,999 harmful defects that would certainly bring harm or death to the organism before it even had a chance to change?

The other 9999 are not all harmful. In bacteria, which are highly suited to their environment and have compact genomes, most mutations are harmful. In humans, in which natural selection has been less effective and which have large, sloppy genomes, only a small fraction (roughly 5%) of mutations are harmful.

As to what happens to the harmful mutations . . . Natural selection takes care of them. Which is to say, if you have a mutation that makes you die young, that mutation will not be passed on to your children.

And the idea the nature (dirt, water, air, the sun, electro-magnetic energy, or any chemical reactions within) can choose a beneficial trait -- without having an intelligent mind to do so in any amount of time is absurd.

Sorry, but that's just silly. Even most creationists have no trouble accepting that natural selection favors beneficial mutations within a species. It's also trivial to observe, both in nature and in the lab. Take a single bacterium, let it reproduce and expose it to low levels of antibiotics. It will develop resistance to the antibiotic as a result of new mutations that have been selected by the culling effect of the antibiotic. You can see exactly the same phenomenon in the wild, whenever environments change.

You don't have to try to disprove macro-evolution with scripture,

You've just been arguing against microevolution, not macroevolution.