Desputing Evolution or the bible

@NthDegree:

Imagine this hypothetical: A 15 year old boy decides to sit in front of a mirror for the rest of his life to “watch” himself grow old.He NEVER looks away from his reflection…75 years later,he concludes that aging is a theory because he didnt “see” it happen,even though he is old and gray…Fortunately,his mom took a picture of him at each of his birthdays…Some pictures are lost (missing links),but the old man sees this “fossil record” of himself and comes to the conclusion that he did indeed age. .Evolution is too slow to be perceptible.and without it,biology makes no sense…Why would a Creator make parasites? Or let animals go extinct?

these are good questions and need to be addressed, particularly by those of us claiming to be scientists and Christians. As i’ve stated many times, i have no problem with God taking time to create the world, using an evolutionary/genetic mutation mechanism to form the creation. Still biology may make much sense without it, and evolution is hard pressed to describe mechanisms for sight, clotting, the vasculature, and many other basic physiological systems that would make no sense without an all-or-nothing event. This is where God may determine the direction of his evolutionary process. Still you raise some good points. Why do we have this fossil record of apparent intermediates? (i have a 400Billion+ year old fossil of a mesosaur on my bookshelf). Parasites - an evolutionary or a creational “oops?”. Good question - not enough for us Christians to shrug our shoulders and refer to Genesis (God cursing man and the land for sinning).

Creation science is an oxymoron.Its proponents try to overwhelm a person into thinking they know what they are talking about by mixing scientific and philosophical jargon into a mush that makes zero sense.

i’ll take this as your personal bias and not be offended by it.

.BTW the 2 LOT is not violated by evolution…More offspring of ANY animal die in far greater numbers than those that survive,so entropy is not violated

entropy is a red herring in the whole debate as far as i’m concerned. And this statement is only true under certain circumstances. If you are talking about after age of reproduction, well obviously this is a nobrainer, but not related to entropy, i don’t believe. And if this happened prior to reproduction, it would still be irrelevant.

@F_alk:

What i mean is that a sudden change in the environment leads either to extinction of a species or adaption to it in very few generations. Adaption usually happens through re-arrangement of genetic material.

If sudden, wouldn’t it have to be in the species or it’s immediate progeny?
@Wild_:

Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds – interpretation of data through a dogma.

I like that!

Isn’t it easier for a Creationist to believe say, “God made it that way.” when things in the record change due to discovery? Whereas, an Evolutionist must constantly try to explain inconsistencies?

Yeah why are creationists interested in anything scientific? If God made everything,why these disputes involoving scientific data? It seems that creationists find evolution compelling,yet they dont like the implications.I have seen creation-“scientists” say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed! We know that is 100% wrong.But from this guys speech,he sounded like he knew what he was talking about and I could see how someone who isnt familiar with this topic would conclude that he was correct.It seems that for a creationtist,anything can be explained away by saying “Well God made it that way” and arguing about scientific minutia is just an attempt to confuse people…Evolution is a fact.If God is real,than this is his way of "building " life…

@NthDegree:

Yeah why are creationists interested in anything scientific?

why is anyone interested in anything scientific? Are we stupid? Illogical? What is it about our basic belief system that makes science and religion irreconcilable? Consider that it may be nice for us too to understand the physical world around us insofar as we can.

If God made everything,why these disputes involoving scientific data? It seems that creationists find evolution compelling,yet they dont like the implications.

Why? Because far too often non-Christian scientists refuse to dispute the “scientific data”. Very often scientists receive substantial rewards for disproving long-held theories. Are we the children to sit back and shut up while the adults talk? As for the implications - true, some people believe that some of the evidence may lead to the apparent irrelevance of God. I do not think that these people’s faith is very solid in this event.

I have seen creation-“scientists” say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed! We know that is 100% wrong.

interesting. How/when was that proven?

But from this guys speech,he sounded like he knew what he was talking about and I could see how someone who isnt familiar with this topic would conclude that he was correct.It seems that for a creationtist,anything can be explained away by saying “Well God made it that way” and arguing about scientific minutia is just an attempt to confuse people.

You mean that evolutionists do not argue about scientific minutia? Weird.
As for the “Well God made it that way” - i agree that more could be done to determine how or why “God made it that way”, however this does little to shake our beliefs in the fact that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”

Evolution is a fact.If God is real,than this is his way of "building " life…

ahhhh
And who says that Christians are dogmatic :)

@El:

@F_alk:

What i mean is that a sudden change in the environment leads either to extinction of a species or adaption to it in very few generations. Adaption usually happens through re-arrangement of genetic material.

If sudden, wouldn’t it have to be in the species or it’s immediate progeny?

I don’t understand that i fear.
I guess the point is the word “sudden”, which has quite a “spongy” meaning. It can be sudden like from second to the other, or sudden in earth’s terms (which would be a few years). The first puts a lot more pressure on the species (and probably leads to more extinction).
But for both you can say: it is no that they suddenly die, it is just suddenly much more difficult to find food/warmth etc., so they have some time (for them or the next generation(s)) to “survive”.

Your karma ran over my dogma…“There is nothing but atoms and the Void”…cest le vie!!

There are contradictions with evolution theory,but what about the contradictions of god and the biblical perspective?Imagine: A woman,not a Christian,has a small child…One day,at the park,a man kidnaps,rapes and kills the child…This man has done this before and gotten away with it…This time however he gets caught and gets a life sentence…In jail,he becomes a Christian and is “forgiven” of his sins…The woman,who has a different religion,say Buddhism,suffers the rest of her life in misery and dies an old lady…She never becomes a Christian,so accordingly she goes to Hell…Meanwhile,the pedophiliac-child murderer dies and gets eternal paradise just for saying"Jesus is lord". I cannot understand why people who seem intelligent dont get this contradiction….Most creation-scientist arguments start like this: “What are the odds…?” and then the person picks some fantastic number to describe the chances of life starting and concludes “According to these numbers,life is impossible without god”…Says who? There is no way to disprove evolution and it is here to stay…As far as philosophy-tinged arguments I say this:Truth,Morality,Civility and all that blather dies when humanity dies…Arguing about “falsifiable” this and that is just semantics and word hockey…

@Anonymous:

There is no way to disprove evolution and it is here to stay.

Well, I would have to say that you proved the point of the creationist. If you cannot disprove evolution, how is it science? That is the whole point of the discussion. Creation and evolution stand on the same ground in terms of being a dogma.

Wonderful …
If i quoted that then Anonymous would quote Anonymous in there…
Hard to see what comes from where and why…

Anyway, i just guess (IIRC) that the first Anonymous wanted to make exactly that point…

The difference being however that there is evidence supporting evolution

@Janus1:

The difference being however that there is evidence supporting evolution

no,
there is evidence that does not refute evolution.

semantics

CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution.

Evidence not refuting it, well, i have a glass standing in front of my computer screen. That is evidence that does not refute a lot of things :)

@F_alk:

CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution.

Evidence not refuting it, well, i have a glass standing in front of my computer screen. That is evidence that does not refute a lot of things :)

and when i stand in front of the sun i go from pink to brown-y pink.
simple biochemistry. This does not prove genetics as it leaves an even harder question - that of irreducibible systems which i have brought up before. This one is simpler than many others (clotting, vasculature, sight, etc.) but evolution does not account for an irreducible system which without which there would be no mammals.
I am not denying evolution - goodness knows i support God’s use of an evolutionary schema to create the world (and my dad thinks i’m an idiot in this regard . . . ). Still, we can’t let these “scientists” get carried away with unscientific thinking and reasoning.

@cystic:

@F_alk:

CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution….

and when i stand in front of the sun i go from pink to brown-y pink.
simple biochemistry.

Yes, but the story of the moths is different, and not only simple biochemistry. Look up anything about the Peppered Moth,
e.g.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm (a creationist site) or
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html (an evolutionist site)

This does not prove genetics as it leaves an even harder question - that of irreducibible systems which i have brought up before. This one is simpler than many others (clotting, vasculature, sight, etc.) but evolution does not account for an irreducible system which without which there would be no mammals.

Well, i found something on that,
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

It is about the Flagellum example, heavily biased towards evolutionism of course, but the flaws shown in the creationists arguments are to be taken seriously (for example: the flagellum is not irreducible, the TTSS (type III secretory system) uses about a third of the proteins of those proteins needed for the flagellum, but is a (though totally different) fully working system. It then goes on with the flawed logic used etc.

A much better paper is:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

Here he shows that the irreducibility often is viewing things from one position only. He there gives a lot examples how so-called irreducible biochemical machines are in fact reducible (at least hypothetically, which is enough against that agrument IMHO, as it works with a very strong statement of “removal of any parts end the functionality”).
A very important flaw in this logic is:
taking only parts of the irreducible construct can have functionalities, even though they may be different.
There is a nice counter-example for the “irriducible moustrap” example.
See:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/Image6.gif
from the same page as above.

I am not denying evolution - goodness knows i support God’s use of an evolutionary schema to create the world (and my dad thinks i’m an idiot in this regard . . . ).

Is he an evolutionist or “hard-core” creationist? Probably the second, right?

Still, we can’t let these “scientists” get carried away with unscientific thinking and reasoning.

No worries, that’s why i am here and watch you :) …. medics often fall to these ways of thinking and reasoning ;) :) ;)

ok, im too lazy to read anybody’s postings of websites, so here goes……

CREATIONISM IS TOTALLY WRONG!!! EVOLUTION IS WHAT HAPPENED, DEAL WITH IT!!!

lol, thats probably a major grenade right there. o well

@Janus1:

ok, im too lazy to read anybody’s postings of websites, so here goes……

CREATIONISM IS TOTALLY WRONG!!! EVOLUTION IS WHAT HAPPENED, DEAL WITH IT!!!

lol, thats probably a major grenade right there. o well

ahhhh yes,
the “dud” grenade.

@F_alk:

Yes, but the story of the moths is different, and not only simple biochemistry. Look up anything about the Peppered Moth,
e.g.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm (a creationist site) or
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html (an evolutionist site)

Well, I took the time to read the above links and noticed something - neither of them support the claim of evoution.

The creationist site referenced only states that natural selection is observed to happen at a species level only. Moths are still moths. The evolutionist site provides the same.

The peppered moth story fits in perfectly with the idea of creationism. This is the same for all of the other “proofs” of evolution like Darwin’s finches. How does a moth changing into a different type of moth demonstrate evolution?

The only proof we have for evolution is the re-arrangement or degeneration of genetic information within a species.

@Six_Days:

Well, I took the time to read the above links and noticed something - neither of them support the claim of evoution.

Well, then their support for creationism is even weaker.

The creationist site referenced only states that natural selection is observed to happen at a species level only. Moths are still moths. The evolutionist site provides the same.

The creationist site puts emphasis on this, yes. The evolutionist site links natural selection and evolution, with natural selection being one of the “tools” that makes evolution work.

The peppered moth story fits in perfectly with the idea of creationism. This is the same for all of the other “proofs” of evolution like Darwin’s finches. How does a moth changing into a different type of moth demonstrate evolution?

So, god createrd all the species, or one being with a all-including gene pool, so that the other sub-species could “devolute” from there?

We can see that species change. We can see that they do it “on their own”, means without human influence. Also, the definition of species is something we should discuss.
If you look at the latin names of animals, where do you draw the “species defining” line?
After the first word (Genus)? Such as “Homo” in “Homo sapiens”?
Or after the second (species) or even later (sub-species)??
(btw, the 14 finches are all different species, but same Genus)

Are wolves and dogs in the same species? No they are not, they are both in the same Genus “Canis”, but different species. And, man created dog…
thus it was not god to create all species.

Or, did you not pay attention to your words and mean Genus when talking of species?
If so, when did Homo arrive, and were did Australopithecus go? Was Homo created, or did it evolve?

So, the moths changed on sub-species level, agreed. But they are an example for “how nature changes”. Then we look further and see different species, who all of course are similar (if in the same Genus). We see species go extinct. We find material of species extinct for a long time, and of different species that (as we come closer to our time) look more and more alike the ones we know today.

Then we find possible mechanisms in nature, that allow for change. We see it happen on “small levels”, like in sub-species range (see above).

The only proof we have for evolution is the re-arrangement or degeneration of genetic information within a species.

We also see new information be created. We find microbes not degenerate, but gaining information (like more resistances to more and more antibiotics).

How can we not come to the conclusion, with the tools we have, with the timeline we have, that Geni and species evolve?

Notice: re-arrangement can create information.

Read this

acccee fiiiiiimnnnor sssttu

Information in there? Not much…

though, simple re-arragning makes it:

creationism is unscientific

Information in there: a lot!

Thus re-arranging information is the way how new information is created, this works for letters and for genetics (which has an even smaller set of letters).

Or would you say: “I have seen all letters and numbers, i don’t need any books, there will be nothing new? They are all only re-arrangements of the letters i know…. how boring. I want something new.”
You must, if you follow a consistent logic.

i dont kno if anyone said this cuz i didnt bother reading all of it(cuz i’m lazy)…so i think that God created the first species…and then used evolution as a tool to create the rest…so i guess i’m in the middle…hooray for happy medium :D :D :D