RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:06 am

Stu wrote:That's all in your head my man :ewink:
I merely pointed out an interesting video which suggests that random mutation/natural selection is not sufficient to account for all that we see in the past and present, along with a few other problems for neo-Darwinism.
Not a video, an audiofile, but yes, indeed, and quite an interesting discussion it was. However, its five 'serious problems with evolution' are no such thing, and its appeal to the Royal Society for support is disingenuous. Doug Axe admits that the Royal Society meeting was largely an irrelevance to the five 'problems' discussed in the audio. Where it did have some connection, such as in consideration of epigenetic influences, every one of Doug Axe's assertions that this or that cannot occur, was specifically refuted by one or other other of the scientists at the conference.

Mazzy wrote:I think one of the most convincing supports for a creationist view of any kind is that despite all that earth has going for it, address, in the right part of the galaxy, tectonics, iron core, magnetosphere, water, etc etc etc, the countless happenstances that had to come together for intelligent life to arise and thrive, life arose only once.
A worthwhile point, and one that has been considered in depth. Firstly, even evolutionists agree that the emergence of coherent, self-sustaining chemistry from an essentially chaotic mixture of raw materials is uncommon. Various people enjoy inventing numbers, multiplying them together and cheerfully announcing that this or that occurrence is impossible, which is silly, but the occurrence of life is certainly improbable to a degree, possibly to the extent that the likelihood of life emerging is only once per protoplanet. Life may, of course, exist on other planets, and the abundance of organic material discovered in space suggests that that may not be as improbable as we used to think. But there are other possible reasons for the unity of life as we know it. For example it may be that life of different kinds did indeed emerge, but that, following the model of survival of the fittest, all the other kinds failed in competition with the one we know of.
Even if I were to take an evolutionary point of view I would suggest that life on this planet 'must' be made of a similar blueprint to 'live'. IOW, even if life arose more than on one occasion 'genes' are the only mechanism by which life can reproduce. TOE would be more believable if this occurred on more than one occasion on earth. For all the years earth has been around, for life to have arisen only once is seriously getting close to what would appear to be a 'miracle'.
Certainly the pattern of life as we know it is a good 'blueprint', and one which may have outcompeted other, earlier forms, but it would be rash to suggest that it is either the only possible blueprint, or even that it is the best possible blueprint.

To me, of course, everything that occurs is a 'miracle', in that it was not inevitable that it occurred, but that it all expresses an ineffable power I call God, so I am not at all surprised that the laws of physics have resulted in... er... you and me.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:21 am

Philip wrote:Hugh, you KNOW that's not what I'm asking you.
No. I don't. Firstly because your syntax is often so eccentric as to make your comments literally unintelligible, and secondly because by your own admission you don't read enough of my comments to be able to respond coherently.
I parts of Scripture are untrue, not inspired by God to have been included as they are, if they are merely made up by the imaginations of men (creative writing and fiction, if you will), then why no warnings or cautions EVER, not by one Prophet, Apostle or Jesus?
This is a perfect example of what I just said. Let me try to make some sense of it. "If parts of the bible are untrue, then why are we not warned about them in the bible?" Is that it? The answer, of course, is that the people who selected the particular writings to be included in the bible only chose bits they thought were true. There are no "untrue" bits of the bible, so there are no warnings against them.
Why is exactly the opposite claimed and EMPHASIZED, across Scripture? This is a glaring issue for those who don't believe the Bible we have (Protestant canon) isn't directly inspired by God, because it makes no sense they wouldn't have. Purity and truth are things God constantly stresses throughout Scripture.
Again, this 'stream of consciousness' way of writing, which changes direction in mid sentence, does not coherently invite a response. But again, I'll do my best. The compilers of the bible (as opposed to the authors of the original passages) selected works they thought were truly inspired by God, and therefore inerrant. Some of these pieces, and others that referred to them, include statements of the fact that they were inspired by God, but such self-recommendation is not, in itself, a guarantee of truth. Several passages of writing claiming to be inspired by God are not included in the bible, as the compilers did not believe that they, or the statements within them claiming divine inspiration, were in fact true.

But none of this, I suspect, although it answers your questions as best it may, actually addresses your real gripe, which is why I don't accept that your interpretation of the truth of scripture is correct rather than my interpretation. We both agree that the bible is "true" and "inerrant", but we both agree that there are passages which cannot be taken as literal fact. Our disagreement lies in how we distinguish 'truth' from 'fact'. I think we should do so by every intellectual means available to us, especially, but not entirely, by scientific inquiry. How do you think we should go about it?

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8850
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:20 am

hughfarey wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
hughfarey wrote:I believe it is impossible to distinguish between an atheistic and a theistic universe. The distinction between these two philosophies is at a more basic level.

I don't even know what an atheistic universe would look like, except complete nothingness.
I like that! And agree with it. Perhaps I should have said the difference between an atheistic study of the science of the universe and a theistic study of the same. When it comes to the processes of evolution, for example, I don't think one can distinguish a difference, and, bit by bit, I think even the more scientific creationists (supporters of ID) are beginning to realise the same.

There is an interesting article I came across, by a blogger called Tyler Journeux. It contains rather complex thinking, but draws upon many ideas from Plantinga, Nagel, and others, touching upon the likes of Kant and Aquinas. I think it takes the next wave of "design thought" to higher levels.

The sentence in your words that I underlined and made bold above, I think there is much that could be said. Which would also lend more credence to your reason for Theistic belief over Atheistic when considering Evolution. You do not need to go so far back as problems with abiogenesis, or even a cosmological argument, in order to say "design" (and therefore support your Theism) -- but would have an argument for apprehending design in evolutionary processes themselves. These thoughts are quite sophisticated and forceful I think, when properly understood.

Ironically, many assume science works by assuming Methodological Naturalism, and yet, as it turns out, the picture may not be nearly so neat. I'll quote some interesting thoughts towards the end of that article (but you'd have to read the article more fully to have the full sense of how he gets there):
.... in effect, Kant is arguing that while we cannot justify any claim of intelligent design about the world we must nevertheless axiomatically presuppose intelligent design, otherwise we will be ultimately unable to comprehend the natural world. We might call this methodological intelligent design, as opposed to metaphysical intelligent design. In Kant’s view, intelligent design is not a perception so much as a presupposition which serves as a necessary precondition for our teleological judgments.

This critique of the teleological power of judgment may have as much going for it as Thomas Aquinas’ fifth way. In fact, rereading the last of the Quinque viæ through this lens also lends it enormous credibility. Although it is also readily dismissed by modern thinkers, St. Thomas’ teleological argument may be no worse for ware given the assumption that design is perceived. Aquinas’ fundamental point is that nothing which lacks intelligence can move itself, with any considerable consistency or regularity, toward a beneficial end.

The argument can be briefly outlined as follows:

  1. Anything which acts “always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result”17is either intelligent or being directed by a being “endowed with knowledge and intelligence”18
  2. Natural bodies act always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
  3. Natural bodies are not intelligent.
  4. Therefore, natural bodies are directed to their ends by a being endowed with knowledge and intelligence
Et hoc omnes intelligent Deum ["and all understand this to be God"]. The crucial assumption here is that “whatever lacks intelligence cannot move [itself] towards an end.”19 Thus, if the fundamental ingredients of the world are unintelligent, they will not be able to conspire to combine themselves or work together towards an intelligent end of any kind, including the development of intelligent creatures, or even creatures whose parts are intelligently ordered so as to take aim towards the ends beneficial to the organism as a whole.

There is a lot of build up to this, so the fuller article ought to be read in its entirely before responding. Intelligent Design is built upon the premise that we ought to "infer" design based upon certain criteria. Yet, as the author writes:
instead of being an inference to design, Plantinga suggests that our apprehension of design in nature is rather more like a perception.
    “In many cases, so the thought goes, the belief that something or other is a product of design is not formed by way of inference, but in the basic way; what goes on here is to be understood as more like perception than like inference.”14
On his view, a person whose cognitive faculties are operating correctly while being appropriately connected to the external world can perceive design.

It seems apparent that you're not taken by Intelligent Design thinking, of inferring design. Yet, nonetheless is seems equally apparent that you see much beauty and "design-significance" if you will in the evolutionary process that are directed towards an end goal as wondrous as what unfolded (i.e., all the diverse species and ultimately humanity).

If I now turn to your thoughts on the process of evolution, specifically not be able to distinguish the difference between Atheistic and Theistic study of such science, I think you are right. However, I do not believe you are right in the direction that you might think such goes (i.e., God or "Design" isn't needed). Rather, I think as above, the direction points more to what the author calls a methodological intelligent design. It seems such is what we work with, we're trying to figure out something that has been designed, something that has been arranged in a meaningful manner in according to certain defined laws. It is just that, some naively dismiss such as nothing, because they do not (indeed perhaps cannot) perceive the design behind such as you and I would.

I'll finish here by quoting the author's own reflections upon the processes in evolution:
Ever since seeing the beauty and elegance in the theory of evolution, I have had a difficult time understanding how anyone who believed in it could avoid what seemed to me to be the obvious conclusion; namely, that the process of evolution seemed an intelligent orchestration. I am, on this point, in strong agreement with the heretic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who could not help but read (perhaps too much) religious significance into evolution. Those who do not see this have, in my opinion, not sufficiently reflected upon the apparent design of the evolutionary process itself. How odd would it be if a universe fundamentally comprised of unintelligent elements and forces with no intelligently designed fundamental structure (laws, etc.) just happened to give rise to the overwhelming appearance of design? It seems nearly unconscionable to me. Some unscrupulous thinkers dismiss this intuition as naïve, suggesting that the mechanisms responsible for the appearance of design are comprehensible without any appeal to intelligence. In one sense, they are quite right. In a deeper sense, I think they are the ones being naïve. Judgments about design (i.e., teleological judgments) are similar to judgments of the good, and the beautiful in that they are profoundly subjective (more so than, say, mathematical judgments, or judgments relying on logical intuitions). How, then, can I expect to convey this sense of ‘perceived design’ to those who do not apprehend it as readily as I do? Perhaps an illustration will be helpful here.

People often chuckle irreverently when first learning of the philosophical views of several pre-Socratics, including, for instance, Diogenes Apolloniates who argued that air is intelligent. I often chuckle just as irreverently when I compare those views to the currently fashionable materialism adopted unthinkingly by so many people today. The pre-Socratics were attempting to explain why the world appears to be intelligently structured, and the answers they came up with almost invariably posited some underlying intelligence (usually in an element, or some other alleged fundamental ingredient of reality). By contrast, the materialist strangles intelligence out of the picture entirely, insisting instead that the fundamental elements of the world are unintelligent, and the complex underlying structure of the natural order (with all its laws and constants) is an inexplicable accident. Sure, they express hope that one day it will become an explicable accident (unconsciously committing a sort of materialism-of-the-gaps fallacy), but in this they have already missed the point. What makes their view so odious is that it suggests that ‘unintelligence’ is the best explanation for order (and, ultimately, even order enough to instantiate intelligence itself). In other words, their view is that unintelligent matter guided by no intelligence at all just happens to organize itself into highly complex structures (from sub-atomic particles all the way up to galaxies), including (eventually) the human brain (the paradigmatic locus of intelligence). This seems incredible, to put it mildly. I, for one, can more easily see the sense in thinking that if matter arranges itself into complex end-directed structures it must be intelligent than I can in thinking that matter arranges itself into complex structures with the appearance of being designed for a purpose under no intelligent impulse or direction at all. To put it somewhat poetically: the view that matter is intelligent is much less crazy than the view that intelligence is matter.

Highly recommend reading the article in full.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:18 pm

I've now read it and find it very interesting. It reflects my own way of thinking very well, and calls for a deeper understanding of a definition of intelligence, such that the universe and its progress can be seen as an expression of an intelligence. Perhaps rationality and intelligence are so closely connected that the very fact that the universe is rational is in itself evidence for an intelligent rationale. Thank you for drawing it to our attention.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Audacity » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:22 pm

Mazzy wrote:I agree that evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism still believe in molecules to man. There really aren't many choices. Either life as we see it arose somehow by a natural mechanism or by the hand of a higher power.

Who might these "evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism" be? I've never heard of such an evolutionist. Unless, that is, you're talking about various evolutionists not agreeing on all the particular points of evolutionary theory, which is not at all an uncommon position throughout all of science.

I think one of the most convincing supports for a creationist view of any kind is that despite all that earth has going for it, address, in the right part of the galaxy, tectonics, iron core, magnetosphere, water, etc etc etc, the countless happenstances that had to come together for intelligent life to arise and thrive, life arose only once.

Are you claiming that our place in our solar system is unique to our galaxy? And that life could not arise elsewhere?

Even if I were to take an evolutionary point of view I would suggest that life on this planet 'must' be made of a similar blueprint to 'live'. IOW, even if life arose more than on one occasion 'genes' are the only mechanism by which life can reproduce.

If true, so what?

TOE would be more believable if this occurred on more than one occasion on earth. For all the years earth has been around, for life to have arisen only once is seriously getting close to what would appear to be a 'miracle'. :)

But that would entail having the same set of environmental circumstances as before, and as we know that never happened again. Just consider how long it took simple multicellular organisms to develop: 2,800 million years! When would you like to shoe-horn in another 2,800 million years?

Image


.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5594
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Philip » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:34 pm

Audacity: And that life could not arise elsewhere?


From what source - what ultimately FIRST source?

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Audacity » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:40 pm

Philip wrote:
Audacity: And that life could not arise elsewhere?


From what source - what ultimately FIRST source?

There are several ideas. One of them---an old one---goes like this:

"In the 1920s, Russian scientist Aleksandr Oparin and English scientist J. B. S. Haldane both separately proposed what's now called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis: that life on Earth could have arisen step-by-step from non-living matter through a process of “gradual chemical evolution.”

Oparin and Haldane thought that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere, meaning an oxygen-poor atmosphere in which molecules tend to donate electrons. Under these conditions, they suggested that:

Simple inorganic molecules could have reacted (with energy from lightning or the sun) to form building blocks like amino acids and nucleotides, which could have accumulated in the oceans, making a "primordial soup.
"
The building blocks could have combined in further reactions, forming larger, more complex molecules (polymers) like proteins and nucleic acids, perhaps in pools at the water's edge.

The polymers could have assembled into units or structures that were capable of sustaining and replicating themselves. Oparin thought these might have been “colonies” of proteins clustered together to carry out metabolism, while Haldane suggested that macromolecules became enclosed in membranes to make cell-like structures.

The details of this model are probably not quite correct. For instance, geologists now think the early atmosphere was not reducing, and it's unclear whether pools at the edge of the ocean are a likely site for life's first appearance. But the basic idea – a stepwise, spontaneous formation of simple, then more complex, then self-sustaining biological molecules or assemblies – is still at the core of most origins-of-life hypotheses today."

source

For a far better and much more detailed look click HERE.

.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Mazzy » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:46 am

hughfarey wrote:
Stu wrote:That's all in your head my man :ewink:
I merely pointed out an interesting video which suggests that random mutation/natural selection is not sufficient to account for all that we see in the past and present, along with a few other problems for neo-Darwinism.
Not a video, an audiofile, but yes, indeed, and quite an interesting discussion it was. However, its five 'serious problems with evolution' are no such thing, and its appeal to the Royal Society for support is disingenuous. Doug Axe admits that the Royal Society meeting was largely an irrelevance to the five 'problems' discussed in the audio. Where it did have some connection, such as in consideration of epigenetic influences, every one of Doug Axe's assertions that this or that cannot occur, was specifically refuted by one or other other of the scientists at the conference.

Mazzy wrote:I think one of the most convincing supports for a creationist view of any kind is that despite all that earth has going for it, address, in the right part of the galaxy, tectonics, iron core, magnetosphere, water, etc etc etc, the countless happenstances that had to come together for intelligent life to arise and thrive, life arose only once.
A worthwhile point, and one that has been considered in depth. Firstly, even evolutionists agree that the emergence of coherent, self-sustaining chemistry from an essentially chaotic mixture of raw materials is uncommon. Various people enjoy inventing numbers, multiplying them together and cheerfully announcing that this or that occurrence is impossible, which is silly, but the occurrence of life is certainly improbable to a degree, possibly to the extent that the likelihood of life emerging is only once per protoplanet. Life may, of course, exist on other planets, and the abundance of organic material discovered in space suggests that that may not be as improbable as we used to think. But there are other possible reasons for the unity of life as we know it. For example it may be that life of different kinds did indeed emerge, but that, following the model of survival of the fittest, all the other kinds failed in competition with the one we know of.
Even if I were to take an evolutionary point of view I would suggest that life on this planet 'must' be made of a similar blueprint to 'live'. IOW, even if life arose more than on one occasion 'genes' are the only mechanism by which life can reproduce. TOE would be more believable if this occurred on more than one occasion on earth. For all the years earth has been around, for life to have arisen only once is seriously getting close to what would appear to be a 'miracle'.
Certainly the pattern of life as we know it is a good 'blueprint', and one which may have outcompeted other, earlier forms, but it would be rash to suggest that it is either the only possible blueprint, or even that it is the best possible blueprint.

To me, of course, everything that occurs is a 'miracle', in that it was not inevitable that it occurred, but that it all expresses an ineffable power I call God, so I am not at all surprised that the laws of physics have resulted in... er... you and me.


It would have been fantastic if God left irrefutable evidence for one of the creation scenarios or one of the evolutionary scenarios. Perhaps biologists will one day learn how the living cell came into being and reproduce it in a lab.

The second best support for creation over evolution is regardless of the popular theory of the moment, be it DNA first, RNA first and more recently proteins first, none of these are able to survive for long periods of time without being in a host. The truth appears to lend itself to host first, not any part there of.

This may sound simplistic. However there is irrefutable evidence that a large amount of energy can produce matter immediately. God has an abundance of energy. Even naturalists theorize that a huge amount of energy was contained in an atom sized singularity, that contained all the matter we see in the universe.

In relation to how God created life as we see it today...... Whether that matter was the first living cell or fully formed living organisms is irrelevant to me. The point being it is proven that energy can turn into matter instantly. So far there is no irrefutable evidence that non living matter can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:07 am

Mazzy wrote:It would have been fantastic if God left irrefutable evidence for one of the creation scenarios or one of the evolutionary scenarios. Perhaps biologists will one day learn how the living cell came into being and reproduce it in a lab.
Yes, I think that's possible. We'll have to wait and see!
The second best support for creation over evolution is regardless of the popular theory of the moment, be it DNA first, RNA first and more recently proteins first, none of these are able to survive for long periods of time without being in a host. The truth appears to lend itself to host first, not any part there of.
Indeed it does, although I might use the word environment instead of host, and it does seem that once we can concoct the correct environment, other processes may be either more probable, or even perhaps inevitable.
This may sound simplistic. However there is irrefutable evidence that a large amount of energy can produce matter immediately. God has an abundance of energy. Even naturalists theorize that a huge amount of energy was contained in an atom sized singularity, that contained all the matter we see in the universe.
True. That's how the 'stuff' in the universe got there.
In relation to how God created life as we see it today...... Whether that matter was the first living cell or fully formed living organisms is irrelevant to me. The point being it is proven that energy can turn into matter instantly.
That's not really the same as saying that energy can turn into matter as organised as a cell, or even a protein, or even an atom (!) instantly, but I take your point.
So far there is no irrefutable evidence that non living matter can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction.
Not yet, I agree, but I live in hope!

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Mazzy » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:37 am

hughfarey wrote
That's not really the same as saying that energy can turn into matter as organised as a cell, or even a protein, or even an atom (!) instantly, but I take your point.



The building blocks of matter, called atoms, lie at the base of life's organizational structure. My expectation is that a supreme intelligence/being would have no problem in arranging matter instantly in the correct patterns, right down to engrams, "biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain (and other neural tissue) in response to external stimuli".(Wiki) :)

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:41 am

Dead right. A supreme intelligence, coupled to omnipotence and the ability to create matter from nothing, would have no problem whatever in assembling whatever he wanted. The question is rarely "could he?" but "did he?"

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:45 pm

The thing that keeps getting overlooked is that despite all of the evidence behind evolution we still do not even know if life evolves. This rules out evolution. How can one claim God used evolution to produce the life we have today if we still don't even know if life evolves? Based on the different kinds of life evolution scientists have examined and tested they have only proven what is common knowledge that has been known about and understood by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years and that is normal variation amongst a population. This is not evidence life evolves at all and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,yet it is. Therefore,we still do not know if life evolves.

This is a serious problem because of so much evidence behind evolution. It is all based on an unproven and non-demonstrated belief that life evolves. This means definitions like evolution,adaptation,natural selection,micro-evolution,macro-evolution,mutations,and all other definitions in evolution science,as well as the evolution tree of life are just made up based on pure belief life evolves,but without evidence.This rules out evolution until it is demonstrated life evolves and normal variation amongst a population is not used for evidence. This might be shocking,but true,nonetheless.This is why no evolutionist can refute me.

I'm not trying to brag or be a know it all. I'm telling the truth and noone has or can refute me because I'm telling the truth and so now they just ignore me and keep drinking the evolution kool-aid. Please show how the evidence in evolution science which is used for evidence life evolves is not just normal variation amongst a population being demonstrated in every example of evidence used in evolution science. Instead of just believing and declaring life evolves or implying I don't know enough about evolution,etc show how the evidence is not just normal variation amongst a population if you doubt me,because you're going to realize I'm right if you do.

It is OK for you to admit this as there are other more believable creation theories out there you could change over to.And even if you don't believe in God and are atheistic in your thinking? You don't have to allow yourself to be played a fool just because you reject God. The truth should be important to you whether you believe in God or not.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Mazzy » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:28 am

Audacity wrote:
Mazzy wrote:I agree that evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism still believe in molecules to man. There really aren't many choices. Either life as we see it arose somehow by a natural mechanism or by the hand of a higher power.

Who might these "evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism" be? I've never heard of such an evolutionist. Unless, that is, you're talking about various evolutionists not agreeing on all the particular points of evolutionary theory, which is not at all an uncommon position throughout all of science.



I just spotted this comment... Yes, I am referring to evolutionists that disagree with particular points. However these so called 'points' are related to a larger overarching theory, TOE, that is built on lots of 'points'. Although abiogenesis has rather conveniently been excised from evolutionary theory per se, to me that is akin to building a tower on non existent foundations. So here we have DNA first proponents disagreeing with theorists that propose RNA first, who disagree with proteins first supporters. The bottom line being, none of them know, they are all evolutionary theorists that disagree with each others theory and the mechanism that lead to the first living cell. The first living cell must have come from somewhere, somehow.

Here is an example of evolutionary scientists disagreeing with the status quo.

"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 183335.htm

So evolutionary theorists believe that all birds came from something that was not a bird, it doesn't matter if it was a glider, a dinosaur, a deer or a flying fish etc.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Audacity » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:14 pm

Mazzy wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Mazzy wrote:I agree that evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism still believe in molecules to man. There really aren't many choices. Either life as we see it arose somehow by a natural mechanism or by the hand of a higher power.

Who might these "evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism" be? I've never heard of such an evolutionist. Unless, that is, you're talking about various evolutionists not agreeing on all the particular points of evolutionary theory, which is not at all an uncommon position throughout all of science.



I just spotted this comment... Yes, I am referring to evolutionists that disagree with particular points. However these so called 'points' are related to a larger overarching theory, TOE, that is built on lots of 'points'. Although abiogenesis has rather conveniently been excised from evolutionary theory per se, to me that is akin to building a tower on non existent foundations.

It's not a matter of convenience, but a matter of the scope of evolution: evolution simply doesn't cover origins. PERIOD---no matter how much creationists would absolutely love it to be true. That creationists find it a great talking point with which to attack evolution isn't at all surprising; they have little else with which to buttress their creationist claims. Once they've asserted that the Bible tells them so, what else can they say? Pretty much nothing at all, so presuming that if they can show that evolution is false they win by default, which, of course, they never establish but simply take for granted, they attack evolution. And this is where it becomes sad. Lacking the education to mount a thoughtful, intelligent attack they resort to fabricating facts, purposely misreading facts, cherry picking in the worst way, and outright lying. Not saying that you're guilty of any of this, but it's not uncommon among creationism's self-appointed spokesmen.

So here we have DNA first proponents disagreeing with theorists that propose RNA first, who disagree with proteins first supporters. The bottom line being, none of them know, they are all evolutionary theorists that disagree with each others theory and the mechanism that lead to the first living cell. The first living cell must have come from somewhere, somehow.

Don't deceive yourself with your own hyperbole. "none of them know, they are all evolutionary theorists that disagree with each others theory and the mechanism that lead to the first living cell"


Here is an example of evolutionary scientists disagreeing with the status quo.

"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 183335.htm

Obviously you're not familiar with how science operates. Scientists disagreeing with the status quo is how science often progresses. Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.

Mallz
Senior Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Mallz » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:14 pm

Audacity wrote:It's not a matter of convenience, but a matter of the scope of evolution: evolution simply doesn't cover origins. PERIOD---no matter how much creationists would absolutely love it to be true. That creationists find it a great talking point with which to attack evolution isn't at all surprising; they have little else with which to buttress their creationist claims. Once they've asserted that the Bible tells them so, what else can they say? Pretty much nothing at all, so presuming that if they can show that evolution is false they win by default, which, of course, they never establish but simply take for granted, they attack evolution. And this is where it becomes sad. Lacking the education to mount a thoughtful, intelligent attack they resort to fabricating facts, purposely misreading facts, cherry picking in the worst way, and outright lying. Not saying that you're guilty of any of this, but it's not uncommon among creationism's self-appointed spokesmen.

This is has always been an annoyance to me. Creation vs evolution is a category mistake. It's so very annoying. You could replace creationist in that paragraph you wrote with atheist and have a true representation as well. I'm sure it was the birth of industry and scientific advancements (obviously including Darwin) that started the evolution vs. creation debate publicly. Most know the debate doesn't exist in specialty fields (multiple fields in science, philosophy, theology..). Evolution to many points is apparent. What never is, is it explaining the existence of life and physical matter. That's where all the energy needs to be directed for debate because that's what ultimately people are using evolution for (and either way it's wrong to do).


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests