Desputing Evolution or the bible

@Jacob_Duhm:

What about the philosophy of evolution? Isn’t the main idea of Natural Selection about things progressing from chaos to order, an upward climb, if you will? Now, if this is so, than it is inconsistant with reality. In reality, things are going from ORder to chaos, an downward motion. For example, the sun is slowly burning out, the earth’s rotation is slowing (hence leap-year), the moon is about 1" farther from the earth ever year, etc. So, it seems to me that the philosophy of Natural Selection is not compatible with the real world.

Now I have a question for the atheist evolutionists: if there is no supernatural, and only the natural order exists, then everything is a product of chance, chaos, and chemical reactions. Indeed, to be an athiest, one must believe that there is no mind due to the fact that science has yet to locate “the mind” or “thoughts” in the brain. So, if all of our actions are the result of envirometal stimuli, then how can there be such a thing as Natural Selection?

Jacob

ps: if everthing is evolving, than how can there be such a thing as Truth? Truth cannot change, yet if evolution is true, it isn’t. If everything changes, then evolution cannot be true, because that would be an absolute, which contradicts the very nature of evolution, which is constant change.

despite being a absolute creationist (i.e. i believe that "in the beginning God created . . . ")
I have to concede that Natural selection has little relation to the chaos-order theory that you are suggesting. By this i mean that it is inappropriate to make one fit the other.
For one - although there is chaos in the universe, this drive to entropy might be well mitigated by the energy produced by various stars, and other energy forms (momentous, etc.).
Another is that natural selection takes advantage of a certain amount of chaos. The chaotic random change in DNA sequences allowed for by viruses as well as mechanistic faults etc.
I am not trying to shoot your argument full of holes, however as a scientist i do need to accept at the least my interpretation of scientific laws etc. The fact is that creation needs no creative logical defense anymore than God does. Jesus does not go back into the grave if logic can not prove creationism immediately and easily.
This is a good way of thinking however.

@Jacob_Duhm:

Isn’t the main idea of Natural Selection about things progressing from chaos to order, an upward climb, if you will?

No.

For example, the sun is slowly burning out, the earth’s rotation is slowing (hence leap-year), the moon is about 1" farther from the earth ever year, etc. So, it seems to me that the philosophy of Natural Selection is not compatible with the real world.

(1) the leap year is not due to the earth’s rotation slowing down, it is because of the mismatch between the yearly rotation of the earth around the sun and the daily rotation of the earth around itself.
(2)Your definition of order and chaos are pretty weird, you mix up physical and general meaning: a burned out sun would have much more order (in the general unphysical sense). The moon drifting away from the earth… disorder? Would that mean that the moon crashing into the earth would be order?
Is “order” that things stay the same all the time (general meaning), or is order a state of higher propability (like in classical statistical dynamics)… this would allow change, it would call for change once you are not in an equilibrium state. (be aware, the above is quite oversimplified physics, but nonetheless correct to a certain degree)

Now I have a question for the atheist evolutionists: if there is no supernatural, and only the natural order exists, then everything is a product of chance, chaos, and chemical reactions. Indeed, to be an athiest, one must believe that there is no mind due to the fact that science has yet to locate “the mind” or “thoughts” in the brain. So, if all of our actions are the result of envirometal stimuli, then how can there be such a thing as Natural Selection?

What has “mind”/“thoughts” to do with natural selection? And, please notice that “thoughts” have been located. We know which parts of the brains make us speak, remember on different time-scales etc.
And just because you don’t understand an extremely complex and maybe unsolvable (in the IT sense) mathematical equation does not mean it does not exist or has no answer.

ps: if everthing is evolving, than how can there be such a thing as Truth? Truth cannot change, yet if evolution is true, it isn’t. If everything changes, then evolution cannot be true, because that would be an absolute, which contradicts the very nature of evolution, which is constant change.

How do you define truth? Any definition you give, i can tear apart your argument.

Don’t assume what all atheists may consider truth or supernatural. An atheist simply does not believe in the existence of any diety. We must leave it at that. As for evolution, we’ve known for some time that Darwin’s and other’s theories are full of holes. Our acceptance and understanding of that theory (or science) must also EVOLVE with better and newer information. As for truth, this can easily be manipulated to fit one’s belief’s. What I believe is true may not agree with your truth. Who’s right? Who knows…

I know.

I AM.

:P
:D

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? 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…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

@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 ;) :) ;)