Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[vrummage]

Oolon Colluphid:

The universe as a whole is gaining entropy; nowhere does the 2LoT say that entropy cannot be reversed locally.

No kidding but please demonstrate how matter managed to do this of its own accord. Please tell me what the mechanism was that caused the upward change in matter. How did the litany of complex biological processes come about? How, for example did photosynthesis come into existence? Henry Morris, in The Troubled Waters of Evolution elaborates:

It is not sufficient to say, as the evolutionist does, that the Sun’s energy is great enough to maintain the process of evolution. The essential and unanswered question is: “How does the Sun’s energy maintain the process of evolution? What is the specific mechanism of ‘evolutionary photosynthesis’ that converts solar energy into the transformation of particles into atoms, then into molecules and stars and galaxies, complex molecules into replicating molecules, simple cells into metazoan life, marine invertebrates into reptiles and birds and men, unthinking chemicals into conscious intelligence and abstract reasoning?”

Oolon Colluphid:

If the 2LoT does apply as you claim, disallowing “upward change”, please explain how you managed to ‘upwardly change’ from a single cell to the trillion-celled, highly organised (sic) and complex critter you are?

There are apparent exceptions which run counter to the process of entropy, but in fact, for every real process the net entropy of the universe (a system plus its surroundings) must always increase. The chemical reactions proceeding in cells do so by way of entropic laws. But by its intrinsic automation, a living entity perfects itself internally. It takes in food and breaks it down into its simplest components, then builds it up to a higher order of being, to make its structural proteins, fats, bones, etc. The decay tendency is suspended for an operation, unique to things containing program machinery or during the operation of intelligence. Yet the net entropy of the organism and its surroundings still increases. All living things die, and then proceed to decay (excepting Jesus, Mary, Elijah, and Enoch). The second law tendency is thus fully expressed because the matter is no longer living.

 When viewed against the general reality of increasing entropy, this suspension for a time of this second law can be seen as a temporary aberration which is unique to living things. So how do living organisms manage to seemingly swim upstream for a time? It must have to do with the program machinery- the information contained within living organisms that allow them to temporarily overcome this decay tendency. Such information is never observed to arrive spontaneously from raw matter, thus, it had to arrive initially from mind, and be imposed on the matter. Living things, of course, subsequent to the original creation, have been able to pass this information to their descendants by the means of the complex preprogrammed means of reproduction.

 

[vrummage]

This brings us to an even more fundamental question: what is the essence of life? What is it that animates the many separate particles within a plant or creature? I’ll give you a hint- you offered to sell me yours.
Oolon Colluphid:
Souls, being an utterly untestable, irrefutable hypothesis, are not scientific. You can have one if you like. You can have mine for fifty quid. I take PayPal.

 Reason tells us that the soul is a spirit, not composed of parts like material things, and unable to disintegrate or gain entropy like material things. All corruption is disintegration of component parts. But the soul has no parts. It is not a composite thing. It is a pure spiritual substance which must of its very nature continue when the body perishes. All humans know that the soul is immortal as they are aware of their own consciousness. They do not have to talk themselves into believing that they have one but that they don’t have one. Man’s intelligence, if not warped, seeks the truth for which it was built. It cannot rest contented with a lie. Left unadulturated, the faculties of man spontaneously judge immortality to be a truth; this is the universal judgment of man throughout the ages. It cannot be doubted without casting suspicion on all our faculties. 

 Furthermore, God has established a moral law written on the conscience of man. He knows and loves the moral order He has established. Yet He is infinitely just. It is certain that proper conduct cannot be ultimately for the worse of a good man and evil conduct cannot be ultimately for the good of an evil man. Things will be balanced somewhere but they are certainly not here in this life. Public laws and human justice cannot cover interior wickedness. Honors are often conferred upon the unworthy. An evil man has less remorse of conscience over a serious crime than a good man over a small fault. Since things are not rectified in this life, they will be in the next, and the responsible element of man will have to be there. That element is not the body, which dies, decomposes, and which will rise only on the last day; it is the soul.  

 From the viewpoint of fact, God has revealed that man’s soul is immortal. Christ raised at least three people to life from the dead, recalling their souls to their bodies, besides rising himself in the resurrection after his death on the cross. Truths about God manifested by divine revelation constitute sacred doctrine or supernatural theology. Sacred doctrine is a True Science. A science is a body of truths established with certitude, and sacred doctrine is a body of truths imparted on God’s own authority, and hence with absolute certitude. If God reveals something to be true, you would do well to believe it and not quibble that it can not be known as true in the way you would like it to be. I will not offer to buy your soul Oolon so you will not have my money but you will have my prayers. I know you don’t want them now but you might down the road.

God Bless

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Heathen Dawn:

No, there is no science that supports Biblical creation. Only a lot of pseudoscience.

That’s for now. For all those who want to educate themselves, go to Talk.Origins and learn.

Thanks for your reply, Heathen.

I hope the Catholics reading these posts notice who you are allied with when you buy into evolution theory.

Recommended reading:

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Darwin’s Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe
Starlight and Time by Dr. Randall Humphries
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Dr. Michael Denton
Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells
The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers by Dr. Klaus Dose
Life Itself: It’s Origin and Nature by Dr. Francis Crick
Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth by Dr. Robert Shapiro
The Creation Hypothesis by Dr. J.P. Moreland
Mere Creation by Dr. William Dembski
The Illustrated Origins Answer Book by Dr. Paul S. Taylor
The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Dr. Charles B. Thaxton,
“EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS SAY NO!” by Dr. Walter Bradley, Dr. Roger Olsen and Dr. Duane Gish
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

StLCard:

I think it’s hard to argue with evolution as a whole. The fossil record shows us that billions of years ago proto-bacteria existed, and over time more and more complex organisms developed…[END QUOTE]

Have you ever investigated the methods of radiometric dating? Don’t be so quick to swallow every piece of scientific data. Remember science changes rapidly because there is so much uncertainty, conjecture and interpretation of data involved. As new data appears old ideas are thrown out. As for radiometric dating the methods are very uncertain. They are not measuring the passage of time directly. They are merely measuring the ratios of certain radio isotopes found in rock samples. There are several fallacies in radiometric dating.

“First we should clarify a few things about radiocarbon dating. Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 at a known rate. All living things have about the same Carbon 14 content. Once something dies the content begins to change as the Carbon 14 begins to decay into Nitrogen 14. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5,730 years. So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only ¼ of the Carbon 14 present in a living thing is found in a sample. So if you find a sample with ¼ of the Carbon 14 normally found in a living thing then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable Carbon 14 left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains Carbon 14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. Also radiocarbon dating can only be used on things that were once living. It does not work on rocks or dirt. There is more to the problem of radiocarbon dating that can be learned through an in depth study, but for now these facts will do to make my point.

Another assumption made by scientists is that the rock sample is a closed system, that is, the elements are locked inside without anything leaking out and nothing leaking in. When put to the test this turns out to be a false assumption. Elements do leak out of the rocks and elements do leak into the rocks thereby throwing off the count.

When put to the test by using samples of known ages from active volcanoes around the planet these methods have been demonstrated to be way off the mark by millions of years. For example, rocks formed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens were sent to an independent testing lab 10 years after the eruption. These rocks tested out to be 3 to 5 million years old. Another example is dating of five historical lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from 270,000 years to 3.5 million years.

Scientists can measure isotope and mineral content of rocks very accurately. But isotope and mineral content are not dates. The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary.”

For more info see: trueorigin.org/dating.asp

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

usherMike:

Ok Oolon, I"ll see if I can do this. I dont know much about bones but the skull looks ape,the sholders and ribs and backbone look human the hips are female.

Well apparently the hips are actually male. But I agree, the facial prognathism is fairly apelike. The dentition though is rather more like ours. And the rest of the body is a lot like ours.

Thank you for your honest answer. But you see, you’ve not really answered the question. Yes, the skull looks too apelike to be human; yes, the rest of the body is very human-like. So, which is it, ape or human?

It has to be one or the other… doesn’t it? I mean, so human a body with an ape-like face (the endocranial volume – brain size – of 880cc, with an estimated adult size of c.909cc, is well above anything an ape has)… isn’t that exactly what we might expect from evolution?

Why isn’t this a transitional? What should a transitional be like, if not a mix of ‘ape’ and ‘human’ features?

Now that I look the fool,

Not at all. You see what I knew you would see: it is a mix of ‘ape’ and ‘human’. What we ‘evolutionists’ call ‘transitional’.

could you ,with your vast amount of knowledge

Heh. Vast number of books…

tell me what ape did humans evolve from?

Sheesh. Well firstly, humans are apes. Secondly, we evolved from an ape that was slightly less human-like, and that from something slightly less human-like, and so on. Something quite human-like, but with ‘ape’ elements still… like WT 1500, perhaps?

So I don’t know quite what you’re getting at. The human line is ape all the way back for quite some million years. I suspect you’re thinking of saltation: a sudden jump from an ape to a human. But that’s not how evolution works.

But okay. As best we can tell, we evolved from something close to (look up cladistics! ) H heidelbergensis. H heidelbergensis seems to have derived from (something close to) H ergaster (eg WT 15000 and KNM-ER 3733). H ergaster*** may be a regional version (ie in fact the same species, depending on whether you’re a ‘lumper’ or a ‘splitter’) of H erectus.

Then we come to a problem: it is unclear whether H habilis (eg OH 24 and KNM-ER 1813) or rudolfensis (eg ER 1470) is ancestral to ergaster / erectus. Both species (if indeed they are separate species, and not a single sexually dimorphic species) have traits that link them with later Homo. For example, 1470 has a larger endocranial volume, while 1813 has more human-like dentition.

And then another contentious area: exactly which Australopithecus (africanus? garhi?) species led to H habilis / rudolfensis. The step before that, however, is a little more straightforward: africanus and garhi (if separate: garhi is pretty new, and fragmentary) seem to be derived from A afarensis.

At which point, though there’s more, we’re safely into ‘ape’ territory as far as creationists are concerned.

You see, the problem is not a lack of transitional fossils. It is working out the exact relationship between a vast array of critters, all of which are part of our family bush.

The things I told you before is knowledge I’ve picked up over a ten year period ,I didnt keep the writings because it really doesnt matter to me.

Okay. Though I’ll note that things are moving pretty fast in palaeoanthropology, with Kenyanthropus platyops, A bahrelghazali, Orrorin tugenensis, A garhi, the Dmanisi D2700 skull and Sahelanthropus tchadensis, just to name some prominent ones, all found in the last ten years. My 1998 second edition of Klein is therefore already out of date .

I realize the information I gave you is just my opinion, just like the information you gave us is some one elses opinion,

Not all opinions are equal though. Come back to us when you’ve waded through a decent chunk of hominid anatomy, say Aiello & Dean…

so I do apologize.

No need to. It is your opinion that WT 15000 has both ‘ape’ and ‘human’ features. Can I take it you accept that it’s a transitional fossil then?

I gota go my kids are trying to start a bush on fire.

If it’s the president, leave them to it .*

 

[marciadietrich]

PhilVaz:

marcia << I am hung up on Adam and Eve being literal parents to all passing on original sin because it seems incompatible with evolution. >>

It is a good theological objection, the two difficult points as I see them are (1) evolution tends to work in “populations” rather than individuals so positing two original people (Adam/Eve) that we trace ourselves back to is a bit unscientific, and (2) the original bodily immortality of Adam/Eve before the Fall would also go against evolution since death would be a “natural” part of life. There was no original bodily immortality of any creature in an evolutionary context. Animal death before the Fall can be explained by stating Romans 5:12 applies to human beings, not to all plant/bug/animal life.

Anyway, those are the two points I need to work on…

Hi Phil,

Well, good to know I’m not the only one who sees these as points to work on in reconciling Catholic faith and evolution.

PhilVaz:

The way these Protestant scholars answer the theological difficulties is to deny the Adam/Eve of Genesis were in any sense literal (with the exception of Mark Noll who is more “evangelical” than the rest).

See this PBS “Evolution” series panel discussion

I’m wondering how the experts like Fr. Stanley Jaki reconciles this. Need to find his books. Or even JPII or Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis.

Now I’ve been reading Theology of the Body, and though JPII isn’t really addressing issues of evolution, it is very much Church view of a literal Adam, who is alone and incomplete. That the creation of Eve and their joining make them complete, completes creation and mankind in the image of God.

Thanks for the link to PBS, Noll seems to be closest to a Catholic view on original sin and does see the conflict as well.

If you find out more on this subject, from Jaki or others, I’d be very interested in reading that.

Marcia

 

[Chris_W]

vrummage - Thank you for your contribution. I am anxious to hear the responses.

My concerns have still not been responded to by the evolutionists on this thread:

How is abiogenesis not part of the theory of evolution? How is abiogenesis not at odds with theism, since it does seek to answer how non-living matter became alive (without the intervention of God)? How does abiogenesis not contradict Pasteur’s Law (disproving the idea of spintaneous generation?

Since these have not been addressed, I have to conclude, thay cannot be addressed by evolutionists. They must be ignored.

Therefore, since I still see people posting who still contend evolution is comatable with Catholic or Christian belief, I pose the following series of conclusions (apology for the fact that some are repeats from my earlier posts).

1. Abiogenesis follows the same outline as evolution as a whole (simple particles becoming more complex without intelligent design). Therefore, abiogenesis is rightly to be considered part of the theory of evolution.

2. Abiogenesis seeks to disprove God. It is a theory that nonliving matter became alive, all on it’s own, by natural means. Since Christians believe God is the source of life, this theory is not compatable with Christianity, or theism in general. Since this theory is part of the theory of evolution, the the theory of evolution is not compatable with Christianity, or theism in general.

*3. ** Abiogenesis is merely an elaborate description of spontaneous generation. Spontaneuous generation was disproven by the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur’s Law). Therefore, since abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution, and abiogenesis contradicts current scientific law, then the theory of evolution contradicts current scientific law (at least Pasteur’s Law…not to mention thermodynamics as presented by Vrummage).
**
4. ** This takes me back to my first post on this thread, in which I said, “evolutionists must make the following statement: * I believe, by faith, that, contrary to current scientific law, evolution somehow occurred.”

**5. ** Scientific evidence only has the ability to show that (some) evolutionary theories are possible. It is not conclusive, and it cannot rule out other possibilities (God). Therefore, since belief in God (or Catholicism as a whole) does not in any way contradict science, it is more worthy of belief than evolution, because at the very least, certain aspects of the theory of evolution do in fact contradict science.

Christians & Theists in general - Religion has not to fear from science. Don’t let evolutists brow bet you into acknowleging what science has* not* show to be true (the Theory of Evolution)

 

[wildlifer]

Chris W:

My concerns have still not been responded to by the evolutionists on this thread:

How is abiogenesis not part of the theory of evolution? How is abiogenesis not at odds with theism, since it does seek to answer how non-living matter became alive (without the intervention of God)? How does abiogenesis not contradict Pasteur’s Law (disproving the idea of spintaneous generation?

Since these have not been addressed, I have to conclude, thay cannot be addressed by evolutionists. They must be ignored.

They have been addressed and apparently already ignored.
First, Pasteur’s “law” does not pertain to abiogenesis.
"There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."
Pasteur proved, mice, maggots, bacteria, et al, did not “spontaneously” form from decomposing organics.
As far as abiogenesis not being part of ToE, just think about it for a second. ToE is not about groups of proteins evolving, it’s about life evolving.

Therefore, since I still see people posting who still contend evolution is comatable with Catholic or Christian belief, I pose the following series of conclusions (apology for the fact that some are repeats from my earlier posts).

1. Abiogenesis follows the same outline as evolution as a whole (simple particles becoming more complex without intelligent design). Therefore, abiogenesis is rightly to be considered part of the theory of evolution.

2. Abiogenesis seeks to disprove God. It is a theory that nonliving matter became alive, all on it’s own, by natural means. Since Christians believe God is the source of life, this theory is not compatable with Christianity, or theism in general. Since this theory is part of the theory of evolution, the the theory of evolution is not compatable with Christianity, or theism in general.

False. Theories of abiogenesis seek natural explanations for the origins of life on this planet. Not the exclusion of gods.
By your thinking, theists should reject the validity of Germ Theory and Atomic Theory, because they are natural explanations of phenomena, sans the intervention of gods.
And again, if you can increase our knowledge of our origins via gods, without resorting to poofs let’s hear it.

** 3. ** Abiogenesis is merely an elaborate description of spontaneous generation. Spontaneuous generation was disproven by the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur’s Law). Therefore, since abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution, and abiogenesis contradicts current scientific law, then the theory of evolution contradicts current scientific law (at least Pasteur’s Law…not to mention thermodynamics as presented by Vrummage).

Addressed above. This statement is simply false.
“The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution doesn’t apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas don’t work without a theory of meteorology.”

*4. ** This takes me back to my first post on this thread, in which I said, “evolutionists must make the following statement: * I believe, by faith, that, contrary to current scientific law, evolution somehow occurred.”

False again.* I believe, contrary to creationist strawmen arguments, evolution is a fact and ToE is the best explanation of that fact.*

**5. ** Scientific evidence only has the ability to show that (some) evolutionary theories are possible. It is not conclusive, and it cannot rule out other possibilities (God). Therefore, since belief in God (or Catholicism as a whole) does not in any way contradict science, it is more worthy of belief than evolution, because at the very least, certain aspects of the theory of evolution do in fact contradict science.

False. While aspects of ToE may indeed contradict creationist “science,” they do not contradict **real **science.

 

[PhilVaz]

Edwin << Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable Carbon 14 left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. >>

Please don’t embarrass yourself. TrueOrigin is a young-earth site. No one has said that carbon dating is used to date the age of the earth. The earth has been dated precisely to 4.5-4.6 billion years old since the early 1950’s, with various methods based on isotopes with large half-lives, from old rocks on the earth, the moon, and meteorites. The geochronologists know what they are doing.

My article here summarizing Dalrymple

Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective is excellent

Goes into carbon-14 calibration, and covers radiometric dating in good detail. Much better than the creationist stuff you will find. Plus he’s a Christian with a Ph.D. in physics, minor in geology.

Edwin << For example, rocks formed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens were sent to an independent testing lab 10 years after the eruption. These rocks tested out to be 3 to 5 million years old. >>

Bad creationist arguments. This has been thoroughly answered by TalkOrigins (and others)

K-Ar Dating of Mount St. Helens

A Visit to the ICR

Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens

Please this creationist stuff is bad. The professional geologists and those involved know how to separate the good from the “bad” dates, they are not the idiots that creationists make them out to be. Please get Dalrymple’s book The Age of the Earth (link below). It explains everything in excruciating detail.

<< Starlight and Time by Dr. Randall Humphries >>
comment: bad book, demolished by Hugh Ross (old earth creationist) and many others. It is a young-earth book.

<< Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Dr. Michael Denton >>
comment: Denton has changed his mind about evolution since then (1985).

<< Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells >>
comment: bad book, demolished by TalkOrigins and NCSE (see many links earlier I provided)

<< The Creation Hypothesis by Dr. J.P. Moreland >>
comment: Moreland is a good Christian philosopher, don’t know about the science content in the book

<< Mere Creation by Dr. William Dembski >>
comment: popular book on intelligent design, I have his Intelligent Design by Intervarsity which is decent

<< The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, et al >>
Heard of it, one of the first books to use the phrase “specified complexity”, good book showing how spontaneous generation of first life is difficult if not impossible

<< EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS SAY NO! by Dr. Walter Bradley, Dr. Roger Olsen and Dr. Duane Gish >>
Bad book, better to get a real book on paleontology like Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll (1988) or his later books, check out the huge Fossil Record 2 edited by Benton (1993)

<< Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson >>
Popular book, Johnson is not a scientist but a lawyer, he argues well against naturalism in science, but most scientists who are Christian would hold to “methodological naturalism” as I’ve pointed out earlier. There is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical/philosophical naturalism, the latter is what Johnson has problems with.

To be fair to the “other side” you’ll want to at least read these:

The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (technical and exhaustive on the subject)

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (against design, the classic by a metaphysical naturalist)
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller (replies to Dawkins, and Johnson/Behe)

Scientists Confront Creationism edited by Laurie Godfrey (old but still good)
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas Futuyma
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma (expensive, check it out at a university library near you)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Edwin << I hope the Catholics reading these posts notice who you are allied with when you buy into evolution theory. >>

<< Darwin’s Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe >>

To repeat: Behe accepts evolutionary theory (see Darwin’s Black Box, page 5, and the quotes I gave before from Kenneth Miller), including the 4.5 billion year old earth, and the common ancestry of the great apes and homo sapiens (us). So he is a poor example of someone who is “against” evolution. He accepts evolution, with some design at the cell level. I’ll go along with that…God caused the universe to come into existence, and designed the first cell, the rest evolved. Your mixing of books by young-earthers (Humphreys) with theistic evolutionists or intelligent design advocates (like Behe) is not very helpful. They contradict each other.

Phil P

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

vrummage - Thank you for your contribution. I am anxious to hear the responses.

My concerns have still not been responded to by the evolutionists on this thread:

How is abiogenesis not part of the theory of evolution?

On the contrary, this assertion has been answered, probably more than once but certainly at least one time prior. Evolutionary biology being a strictly biotic process occurring after the origin of life is therefore not contingent upon the mechanism by which such life appeared. To demonstrate otherwise you must show that the mechanisms of evolution are somehow dependent upon any given model for the origin of life, if they are to account for the diversity of that life.

This takes me back to my first post on this thread, in which I said, "evolutionists must make the following statement: I believe, by faith, that, contrary to current scientific law, evolution somehow occurred."

That which is supported by empirical data cannot by definition be considered faith-based. Moreover, define “scientific law.”

possible

. It is not conclusive, and it cannot rule out other possibilities (God). Therefore, since belief in God (or Catholicism as a whole) does not in any way contradict science, it is more worthy of belief than evolution, because at the very least, certain aspects of the theory of evolution do in fact contradict science.
Which portions of the theory of evolution would those be? Where within the structure of evolutionary biology can be found the goal to invalidate theology, or even the prediction that such is possible? While possibilities can be recognized, what data suggests that abandoment of one paradigm is substantiated by a more parsimonious explanation for the data available?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[buffalo]

Just curious - since the speed of light has been shown not to be constant, how do evolutionists see this as effecting the age of the earth?

 

[Chris_W]

Abiogenesis and Evolution:

I didn’t say that evolution depends on abiogenesis. I said that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution. I say this because it was presented to me here in this thread, regarding evolution, and because it uses the same logic of the theory of evolution (matter becoming more and more complex, forming over time into the complex world we see today, without intelligent design), and I can see no separation in the theories for that reason.

Why would an evolutionist say that evolution can account for the complex world we see today except for the origin of life? Shall I assume evolutionists in general dispute the theory of abiogenesis? If so, why, since it uses the same logic as the theory of evolution?

If abiogensis is not true (which is entirely possible), does this necessarily mean ALL of evolution is untrue? Certainly not. That is not what I am saying. But is it a part of the theory of evolution? I think it is.

Someone on this thread (I’d have to go back and find the post) argued that we shouldn’t make the distinction between icro and macroevolution because microevolution necessarily leads to macroevolution, because there is nothing to prevent micro from becoming macro (there is no stopping point in the theory). Why then should we assume that macroevolution does not continue to the topic of the origin of life? Is there a stopping point where the logic of evolution theory no longer applies?

 

[sohpdica]

usherMike:

I remember from long ago Darwin (in his writings) said, “if the missing link is not found this whole theory is worthless.” And so far there is no missing link. However, science is always proving things in the bible have happened e.g. the flood of Noah, the cities of Sodem and Gomora, and the ruins of many Egyiption chariots at the bottom of the red sea. .

Evidence for the flood? Really?! Please don’t tell me you actually believe Ron Wyatt… he is the only person I know of that actually claims to have found charriots on the bottom of the Red Sea (when in reality it is well accepted that Red Sea is a mistranslation of Sea of Reeds)

 

[Jillian]

Chris W:

Abiogenesis and Evolution:

I didn’t say that evolution depends on abiogenesis. I said that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution. I say this because it was presented to me here in this thread, regarding evolution, and because it uses the same logic of the theory of evolution (matter becoming more and more complex, forming over time into the complex world we see today, without intelligent design), and I can see no separation in the theories for that reason.

Why would an evolutionist say that evolution can account for the complex world we see today except for the origin of life? Shall I assume evolutionists in general dispute the theory of abiogenesis? If so, why, since it uses the same logic as the theory of evolution?

If abiogensis is not true (which is entirely possible), does this necessarily mean ALL of evolution is untrue? Certainly not. That is not what I am saying. But is it a part of the theory of evolution? I think it is.

Someone on this thread (I’d have to go back and find the post) argued that we shouldn’t make the distinction between icro and macroevolution because microevolution necessarily leads to macroevolution, because there is nothing to prevent micro from becoming macro (there is no stopping point in the theory). Why then should we assume that macroevolution does not continue to the topic of the origin of life? Is there a stopping point where the logic of evolution theory no longer applies?

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is what happens to living things. Abiogenesis accounts for the appearance of living things. Saying that abiogenesis is a part of evolution is like saying it’s possible to give virgins advice to improve their sex lives.

And you’re right; you shouldn’t make a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. You’re also right that the logic behind this statement seems to make it likely that evolution could have proceeded in a straightforward, linear process from an abiogenetic event. It seems to me from the tone of your post that you are perhaps worried that this in some way would provide “negative evidence” for God; that if evolutionary theory isn’t enough for science to “disprove” God, abiogenetic theory (of which there isn’t one, AFAIK) would be.

I wouldn’t worry about that too much. The same sort of processes which allow people to grasp both evolution and God at the same time would allow them to grasp both abiogenesis and God at the same time. Most of the ideas I’ve seen floating around about how abiogenesis might work involve processes very similar to those in evolution, so a theist who is comfortable with evolutionary processes wouldn’t even have to adjust anything in their thinking to deal with abiogenesis.

I’m really here more to stick up for science than I am here to either defend theology or to poke holes in it, but I’ll tell you this: whatever problems there may or may not be with the idea of a deity, none of them are either solved or exacerbated by evolution.

 

[reoman]

Creation is my choice; however, evolution is certainly a possibility when one admits our Creator infused a supernatural soul into his creation at some point in the process.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Jillian:

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is what happens to living things. Abiogenesis accounts for the appearance of living things. Saying that abiogenesis is a part of evolution is like saying it’s possible to give virgins advice to improve their sex lives.

Exactly, at best it is a mistaken attempt to conflate two separate issues and at worst a specious strawman. As I stated, in order for abiogenesis to be a part of evolutionary theory, it would have to consitute a nomological deductive statement within the overall historical narrative explanation framework of evolution. This is not, nor has it ever been, the case. To clarify, it may be helpful to elaborate on the concept of nomological-deductive explanations and historical narrative explanations in science (hereinafter N-DE and H-NE, respectively). Admittedly, this is a fairly simple dichotomous treatment of explanations in science, which in reality cover a vast range of theoretical statements that are nonetheless all characterized by the requirement that they are testable against empirical observations (i.e., falsifiable). N-DE take the form of:

From the explanas, constituting a given set of facts and laws, a logical conclusion or explanandum is derived.

An N-DE is syllogistic sensu lato, in that it represents the derivation of the particular from the general, i.e., it is an example of deductive logic (hence the name). An N-DE meets the falsification criterion for scientific explanations elucidated by Popper in that if the explanandum does not always result from the conjunction of facts and laws of which the explanas is made, the N-DE as a whole is not valid (it has been falsified, in other words). N-DE as a whole serve to explain indefinite sets of phenomena and are not dependent on the history of the objects in question. H-NE, in contrast, exist to model the existing attributes of a set of objects at any point in time. H-NE take into account the past history of the objects in question and are composed of strings of N-DE. An H-NE describes, in other words, only the set of those objects or phenomena which have a definite, fixed, spatio-temporal relationship to each other. They are characterized by four salient traits:

1. An H-NE is given on a probability basis of being correct
2. Any H-NE must be based on pertinent N-DE, which in turn must be used in the chain of argumentation testing the H-NE in question.
3. H-NE are not general
4. H-NE must be stated clearly, unambiguously, and coherently due to their complexity. Failure to explicitly enumerate the N-DE which underlie the H-NE and its conclusions, can result in difficulty in testing the H-NE against the Popperian falsification criterion and empirical data.

H-NE are tested by confirmation and falsification against empirical data largley on an inductive basis, i.e., the addition or lack thereof of positive evidentiary support. Tests of H-NE consist of a chain of argumentation based on N-DE and empirical tests, with the role of each empirical test specified prior to the test. It is sometimes possible to falsify an N-DE of which any given H-NE is composed, directly. Selection of any given H-NE for any given set of objects or phenomena is always based on the relative strength and number of the inductive tests of the H-NE in question. Thus, H-NE are never proven sensu stricto as is done in Logic, or Mathematics.

Most of biological science consists of H-NE, including evolutionary biology. Due to the complexity of the phenomena and objects to be described in biological systems, the usage of H-NE is largely unavoidable. N-DE (e.g., the Newtonian “laws” of motion) model what, comparatively, are far simpler phenomena. The argument that Chris has presented, is that abiogenesis is a nomological-deductive explanation within the evolutionary H-NE, but he has not yet been able to substantiate this claim.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Chris_W]

Jillian:

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is what happens to living things.

Here’s an interesting tidbit about abiogenesis. The web-site most frequently referred to by the evolutionists on this thread had the following information about the development of abiogenesis:

“Oparin’s hypothesis was this: gels arose out of colloidal solutions which reacted in a way to cause more gels to be formed of the same chemical constitution. As the material in the surrounding watery medium diminished,“the more strongly and bitterly the struggle for existence was waged”, so that gels either became “cannabilistic” or evolved to become autotrophs (organisms that metabolise non-living material, such as algae)”

It goes on to describe more recent advancements and how much more believable the new theories are.

The thing is, it sounds like the guys who got the ball rolling on the abiogenesis campaign thought it was evolution.

The fact that the evolutionists in this thread are so adamant that abiogenesis is NOT connected in any way to the theory of evolution makes me suspicious.

 

[usherMike]

Hi Oolon. I always thought female hips were more pointed at the top, these hips were rounded, the pelvic area on males are closed, but open on females for child birth? But anyway, much like the famed Lucy missing link, this one I also believe is made up of skeletal parts from different speices. I still dont buy the idea humans evolved from apes. We’re just not as ugly as we used to be, but always human. No the bush was a planed burn I just wanted to enjoy it, my kids are 18 and 20 and them like my wife & I are all voting for Bush. It seemed you were trying to get someone to look at your bones for a long time, I’m glad to have been of service. Another queston, since you believe in evolution, what did the apes evolve from?

 

[Christian5]

Happy Wonderer:

Evolution poses a problem for Christians because it is fairly difficult to reconcile Genisis and evolution. It does not pose a problem for a general belief in God, although it does take away some of the arguments for why a God must be necessary.

It is NOT difficult at all to harmonize evolution and Genesis. There are a NUMBER of Jews and early christians who believed Genesis was not to be taken LITERAL. They believed in “sub-humans” and “pre-Adams,” not because of fossils, but because of the original biblical language.

The problem is that the Bible makes some extraordinary claims. Were it simply The life and philosophy of Jesus, with some historical background then the parts of the Bible that contradict what we now know about science would be no big deal. The Genisis myth is a nice little creation myth that had been around for a long time; it was a reasonable hypothesis when scientific data was lacking. The fact that it is shown to be a myth takes nothing away from the philosophy of Jesus; “love thy neighbor as thyself” is still good (if difficult) advice no matter what other parts of the Bible say.

Again Genesis cannot be “shown” to be a myth. It cannot nor has not been disproven.

Speculations on the nature of the divine are still as interesting and thought provoking even when stories such as the story of Job are recognized to be an allegory and not fact. In fact the story of Job is more interesting as allegory, as history it is just a story of one unfortunate man, an egomainaical God, and a smart-aleck Devil. As allegory it is much deeper. Aesop has no lessons if he is just telling the history of some talking animals.

Unfortunately the Bible goes further and claims that Jesus is God by basis of many miracles that he performed and his resurrection from the dead. If those miracle parts are just allegory then Christianity as it is today has some serious problems. Since the only evidence for the miracles is the Bible itself, and the Bible is known to contain untrue statements, then the evidence that Jesus is God is not very strong.

Many Old Testament prophets performed miracles, amazing ones as well, the miracles are not what proved that Christ was God (although they greatly harmonized it) but the fact that He CLAIMED to be God along with EVERY PROPHECY of the Old Testament coming true in Christ. And not to mention the resurection that was witnessed by many. Oh, bye the way, the bible is not the only archeology evidence for Christ’s miracles, but only a great reliable source. Letters of Jewish people and Roman people claim to have seen what they call “a man Jesus who performed supernatural powers” or “used magic” or “some type of magic” to perform the miracles He did.

All of the Bible has to be true in order to accept the extraordinary claims. If I hand you the “diary of Saddam Hussein” and you find that the entry on July 25 could not have been written by Saddam then all of the rest of the diary is suspect no matter how many pages it has or how old it is.

Again, all of the Bible is true, or I should say has not been disproven.

The story of our origins is one of the most interesting question to mankind. If the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth there, then where can it be true? It doesn’t follow that all of the rest is false – some of the Hussain diary might be genuiune, but with nothing else to validate against it is all suspect.

Yes our story is, and the Bible along with (most likely) science, our orgin has been discovered.

Now as for me, the Bible would have been a lot more credible as a holy book by a creator who cares about his creation if it happened to have contained hints about how to prevent and deal with Bubonic plague and Cholera.
Do you not know why Christ came? Do you not know what the curse of sin is? Has anyone of you atheiests or if-there’s-a-god-we-can’t-now-it-people ever had any Catholic teaching, theology teaching, or studied the Bible WITHOUT a darkened heart? Keep in mind that I was an atheist once, but after much study, and to just look at creation, to believe in God is no santa claus idea. Far from it and that is such a childish remark.

hw