Creation vs. Evolution poll II

[Edwin_Taraba]

PhilVaz:

So evolution is just guesswork? I don’t think you have much respect for modern biology and geology, then? It doesn’t hurt to try to reconcile the Bible and Catholic theology with what we know from science. You young-earth guys need to stay away from the creationist literature and study some real science. Phil P

Evolutionists are guilty of much improper analysis of data. The scientific method is actually rather limited in its scope. It is a discipline that can only deal with activities and observations that are both measureable and repeatable.

Since we were not around to observe creation as it unfolded no one can know for sure exactly how it happened nor can they classify as “scientific” stories about how they think it may have happened.

Unless an evolutionist can personally cause a life form to come into existence out of nothing, or even pre-existent non-living chemicals, and then cause it to evolve into various species through mutation and natural selection he has no scientific basis to support his philosophical story about the origin of life.

 

[larryo]

I agree with Melchior’s statement in #8. I simply see no evidence for macro-evolution. Where’s the evidence for intermediate lifeforms? How does one species suddenly change into another species? Gradual, cumulative changes that develop into a new species seem to defy logic and common sense. Is there any evidence of existing species–in our own time–morphing into another species? I’d be happy to entertain such evidence. The bottom line is that, no matter how the world and its lifeforms came about, there is ample evidence of intelligent design and that means God.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

Evolutionists are guilty of much improper analysis of data.

Unsupported assertion. Please support it or withdraw it.

The scientific method is actually rather limited in its scope.

Unsupported assertion. Please explain.

It is a discipline that can only deal with activities and observations that are both measureable and repeatable.

Which part of KNM-WT 15000 do you think is not measurable? Can we only examine it the once? Can we not look for more fossils?

Since we were not around to observe creation as it unfolded no one can know for sure exactly how it happened nor can they classify as “scientific” stories about how they think it may have happened.

So you have no grounds for assuming costalectomies and animated mud.

Unless an evolutionist can personally cause a life form to come into existence out of nothing, or even pre-existent non-living chemicals,

I could have sworn abiogenesis had been mentioned before…

and then cause it to evolve into various species through mutation and natural selection

Look up ‘A-life’, such as Tierra It’s been done, albeit digitally. And it shows that the principles are sound.

he has no scientific basis to support his philosophical story about the origin of life.

So because we’ve never made a planet, we can know nothing of geology? Ridiculous is too mild a word.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mel << Atheistic Evolution is at least consistent. Theistic Evolution is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture. >>

Atheistic Trigonometry is at least consistent. Theistic Trigonometry is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

Atheistic Physics is at least consistent. Theistic Physics is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

Atheistic Geology is at least consistent. Theistic Geology is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

Atheistic Biology is at least consistent. Theistic Biology is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

Atheistic Chemistry is at least consistent. Theistic Chemistry is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

Atheistic Astronomy is at least consistent. Theistic Astronomy is just caving into atheistic theories that are incompatible with the Bible. Which then forces a reinterpretation of Scripture based on modern scientific theories. Never a good way to read scripture.

That’s all I have to say. Hello, this is 2004 AD not 1600 AD.

Phil Porvaznik, B.S. “Theistic” Computer Science, Univ of South Florida

 

[Ghosty]

Oolon Colluphid: I myself am fortunate enough to be a “scientist” of sorts in that I practice and study medicine. Fortunately, medicine is one of the few sciences that keeps itself humble by refering to itself as a “practice” and not a formula. My understanding of what Edwin is saying is that scientists are limited in that we can not observe the fossil record as it’s taking place, but rather we are stuck with the results and are forced to “reverse engineer” the system. Our task is made even more difficult because of perfectly natural threats to and limitations of the fossil record, for example the fact that only specific environments and incidents cause fossils, and are therefore statistically subject from the word go. Few people appreciate just how rare it is for a fossil to form in the first place, both scientists AND non-scientists.

All this being said, the scientific method has proven to be almost startlelingly effective at demonstrating that some kind of evolution took place, but this is because of a combined effort of biology, geology, genetics, anthropology, ect. Scientists must remain humble at all times, and remember what our own method teaches us, namely that our perceptions are limited and that only time and careful repetition and practice can make our studies more reliable. Furthermore, it teaches us that it is important, for scientific purposes, to rely on what we can manipulate and measure effectively, and not simply shadows out of the corner of our eyes (study how the brain forms our “vision” sometime to really drive home this point). Science is not the way around these limitations, but rather the exploration of these limitations, the means by which we focus our vision. We can’t fall prey to the false belief that we can have perfect vision, however, as science itself assures us that we can’t. Once past our limits of perception we fall into the realm of faith, which I believe is an equally valid human sense, but it is altogether different from science. Many scientists ignore this and instead build a “faith” around the belief that the limits aren’t as restricting as they really are.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

larryo:

I simply see no evidence for macro-evolution.

Depends where you look, I suppose.

Where’s the evidence for intermediate lifeforms?

Here’s some.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Which are the apes and which are the humans?

How does one species suddenly change into another species?

Natura non fecit saltum. Look it up.

Gradual, cumulative changes that develop into a new species seem to defy logic and common sense.

Please don’t confuse ‘defying logic and common sense’ with ‘defying your ability to grasp it’.

Is there any evidence of existing species–in our own time–morphing into another species?

Yes. But you’ll need a better grasp of what a ‘species’ is before you’ll follow it. Never fear, this page explains that too.

Observed instances of speciation

Say, you couldn’t define ‘kind’ for us while we’re on the subject, please? I mean, if they are immutable, we need to know what one is. Is it roughly species, genus, family, order… or something else?

And incidentally, you – in fact, everyone – might like to read through Answers in Genesis’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. It will save some time. Note the bit that says:

‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information.

Which is why I’d like to know what a ‘kind’ is.

I’d be happy to entertain such evidence.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

It’ll be interesting to see whether you actually are willing to entertain the evidence, or will just shift th goalposts.

The bottom line is that, no matter how the world and its lifeforms came about, there is ample evidence of intelligent design and that means God.

Are you really sure you want to accuse your god of designing things? Things like Wuchereria bancrofti and speciesLeishmania? Things like the female hyaena’s reproductive system, lesbian lizards, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and our extensor coccygis muscle… to name but a few?

TTFN, Oolon

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

Are you really sure you want to accuse your god of designing things? Things like Wuchereria bancrofti and Leishmania species? Things like the female hyaena’s reproductive system, lesbian lizards, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and our extensor coccygis muscle… to name but a few?

TTFN, Oolon/QUOTE

Unconvincing. This proves nothing. It only proves degeneration. God permits this. (Post your own picture - you may be surprised at what others think is beautiful and not.)

I am sure glad we who believe have a better place to go.

Based on your links you are postulating that God would design a perfect world. He is the only perfection. Everything else is a subset of this. This world is a trial for us, not paradise. These things do not affect our faith, as we understand this from the beginning.

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Jillian:

My goodness, Edwin. After reading what you have written here, and what His Holiness has written here, I would almost be forced to conclude that you are claiming to be a greater expert in Scriptural exegesis than the Pope himself. Both John Paul II and Pius XII have stated that there is no inherent, necessary conflict between evolutionary theory and Church teaching. I’m unclear as to why it’s such a big issue for you, when it isn’t such a big issue for the Vatican.

I have read the Pope’s writings on the subject a long time ago. He has taken a vague and diplomatic stance on the subject. If I understand correctly the church has no infallible teaching on the subject. Not everything the Pope says or writes is considered infallible. What would you have to say about the Pope that put Galileo under house arrest?

 

[PhilVaz]

Edwin << If I understand correctly the church has no infallible teaching on the subject. Not everything the Pope says or writes is considered infallible. >>

That’s true, the 1996 Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is not a De Fide or infallible statement. But it does state the Pope clearly believes (1) there is good evidence for evolution, and (2) macroevolution and Catholic Christianity are compatible.

Your main objection above is that for someone to believe in evolution, one must believe everything came from nothing, or at least life came from non-life. But as pointed out in this thread and others, those are separate issues (abiogenesis, the origin of first life, and evolution). Evolution deals with the study and development of life once its here, not the origin of first life.

What your statement amounts to saying is that one must be an atheist to do science (especially biology which is where evolutionary theory is most relevant). So to be an evolutionary biologist one must be an atheist according to you. Or can one do biology, study evolutionary science, and be a theist (Catholic, Christian, etc) ? Pius XII and JPII answer Yes as pointed out already.

I would like to see the creationists in here (whether young earth, old earth, progressive, or intelligent design) tell us which of the hominid fossils that Oolon posted above are apes, and which are human? Creationists themselves can’t tell them apart which I think is interesting. They should be clearly distinguishable if humans and the great apes did not have a common ancestor several million years ago.

Phil P

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

What the popes did *not *say, is that Catholics should not question the implications of the theory of evolution, which is what I am doing. Similarly, the evidence suporting the theory of evolution does not prove that evolution is in fact true, but merely suggest that it is possible.

How many times must you be told that historical narrative explanations in science are inductive, and that science as a whole does not deal in formal proofs that establish universal “truths.” This is really, really, simple. The evidence supporting quantum physics doesn’t show that it is in fact true, but that it is the most likely and most parsimonious explanation for the available data. The evidence supporting general relativity does not show that it is in fact true, but that it is the most likely and most parsimonious explanation for the available data. The evidence supporting the germ theory of disease doesn’t prove that it is true, but rather shows that it is the most likely and most parsimonious explanation for the data available. As in all these cases, evolutionary theory is the most likely and most parsimonious explanation for the available data on diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties. Alternative hypotheses must meet the minimum philosophical requirements of science, and be at least as capable of modeling the available data as is evolutionary biology. You really need to stop abusing science, Chris.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

Continuing then, in my pursuit for an answer as to how evolution and christianity might be compatible…

If we say that God created the first living organism and then evolution provides for the diversity of life we have today, then I can only think of two possiblities of how christianity can claim God created man.

1. God, at some point in evolutionary history, insterted a new species that we cal man. I think this would be objected to by evolutionists because the theory of evolution claims to have found the ancestors of man. A new species insterted in time, should not have these ancestors. So I doubt this possibility will work to reconcile christianity and evolution.
2. God, at some point, used a species that came about by evolutionary means, and merely breathed life (created a soul) in one (two actually…Adam and Eve) of those beings. This poses a problem for me because it would seem that there would be several generations in time where mankind, and the souless creatures from which man came, would be physically the same. It would also mean that the split between man and the species from which he was taken, would be the result of this new difference between them (soul, perhaps including intellect?). I would ask the evolutionists for their comments about this possibility.

Your inability to reconcile evolutionary biology and your faith , when most people of faith can do just that, is solely your problem, about which I could care not one bit. It is neither a problem for evolutionary biology nor theology. Furthermore, your inability to reconcile the two scarcely makes evolutionary biology invalid, nor does it invalidate the observation that evolutionary biology does a better job of accommodating the available data and offers a more robust predictive framework than do any hypothesized alternatives. You seem to wish us to discard evolution because you personally have a problem making it mesh with your faith. Fortunately, though, reality just doesn’t work that way.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

larryo:

The bottom line is that, no matter how the world and its lifeforms came about, there is ample evidence of intelligent design and that means God.

Might you be good enough to provide a coherent ID explanation of…say…diastataxy? Vestigial carotids in Bucorvus? The distribution of cellulase metabolizing organisms and cellulose? The wiring of the avian pectoral girdle?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Story:

I have found all this very interesting to say the least.

A number of years ago, after moving from link to link to link, I ran across a site that explained evolution and creation could go hand in hand using (I think) something from Einstein…anyway, the thought went something like this:

The ‘Big Bang’ occurred at an extremely high rate of speed…with 20 seconds passing, most of the universe was approx. 20% of its current size…after 24 hours…it was well beyond that…

It continued at a high rate of expansion till it reached a certain point (almost the size it is now) after 6 days…yet…‘time’ had in fact moved at a faster rate than it does now, making it possible for millions of years (as we know it) to have actually occurred in six days.

The web site I read this off of made some sense to my high school education for the most part…it is known that time is fluid and doesn’t travel at the same speed everywhere (Einsteins Lensing Effect being one example) and that much, if not all is under the influence of gravity…

…thus allowing for both evolution to occur and keeping the story of Genesis intact…with one lousy problem…

I can’t find that web site!!!

If anyone knows this mess, can you post a link to it? I found this absolutely fascinating.

Story

I would recommend the book Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics

icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightandtime.html

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

PhilVaz:

Both Popes Pius XII (more reserved) and John Paul II (more emphatic) have said evolution is compatible with Catholic theology. That should end the debate on that point at least for the Catholic. Phil P

You take the Pope’s words out of context conveniently leaving out some key points. The Pope says evolution might be true but leaves both possibilities open. This is what everyone should do because after all, we were not around to observe how each life form came into existence. Evolution cannot be tested.

The Pope says:

*“A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.” *

Natural philosophy?!!? Isn’t evolution science? Natural philosophy is a nice word for atheism. Then he goes on to say that evolution theory is based on various philosophies and depends solely on interpretation of data. All the data out there on this subject can be interpreted in more than one way, either from a creationist view or evolutionist view. So far none of it can be duplicated in the laboratory to conclusively prove anything.

The Pope says:

“And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.”

“Various philosophies”??!! I thought we were talking science here. There are ***many ***scientists who reject evolution theory. I have a list of hundreds of scientists who have come out against it, many of them are biologists. Check out www.scienceagainstevolution.org for example.

 

[Christian5]

Hehe, LOL, Woo Hoo!!! Your funny Oolong! Ya, I know I spelled Lubenow wrong, I spelled a bundle of things wrong that night I wrote all of that. And about not answering back Vindex, sorry, I was writing all on my posts at the same time. But you are only allowed to write so many words.

Umm, I do believe in evolution guys, I have numerous books on it, as well as creationists books. But none can seem to prove evolution without a dought! I want to see clear proof of it yet no one can give. Not even you Oolong. Evolution (God’s unseen creating in action) is awesome. I want to see the clear proof of it. Any remark I make to a 6 day literalist, he in returns has a response I cannot beat. Alot of them have PH.Ds in colledge education. I mean there not all unscientific. I’de love to see you debate against Mr. Gish or Mr. Ham! I’m still searching for the clear proof of evolution. From biology to geology etc. no one can offer clear-cut proof to put to silent the creationists. Come on guys show it so these guys will go away and just preach theology instead of fantasy creation (6 day literalist). No one disputes Copernicus anymore, so let no one dispute Darwin. Show it, please! On her knees begging Hehe. God Bless!

 

[SwordofLight]

You people need to watch

“Amazing creatures that defy evolution”

It is narrated by a former evolutionary professor who now believes evolution is impossible, and shows you through individual animals.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< You people need to watch: “Amazing creatures that defy evolution” >>

I have it. My opinion: creationist trash. The evolution of most if not all of those incredible creatures has been explained. This is the 21st century after all, 150 years after Darwin. A lot of science has been going on. If memory serves, there is a video part 1 and part 2, I have part 1 which mentions these “incredible creatures” :

Bombardier Beetles

Beetles and Explosions

Evolution of Complex Organs

Vertebrate Evolution and many transitional fossils (including giraffs, elephants, and homo sapiens)

They are indeed incredible, but they’ve been explained quite well by evolutionary science and the fossil record. I link to TalkOrigins since they’ve answered all this stuff online in one convenient place. There are plenty of books available. Don’t rely on videos. I personally have checked out Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988) by Carroll, plenty of evidence there.

A much better video is Unlocking the Mystery of Life featuring intelligent design advocate Mike Behe and others. Great computer graphics on the bacterial flagellum are presented, and this is indeed still a mystery to biochemistry how something that complex and small could have evolved. But once again, Mike Behe accepts the common ancestry of homo sapiens (us), the great apes, and the chimps, our closest cousin – see previous threads where I quote him and Ken Miller on this point. Something the video does not mention.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Christian5 << But none can seem to prove evolution without a dought! I want to see clear proof of it yet no one can give. >>

Don’t know about scientific "proof", but there is plenty of evidence. Take the time to print it all out and read it, as I have. My summary here based on his Nov 2002 version.

Christian5 << I’de love to see you debate against Mr. Gish or Mr. Ham! I’m still searching for the clear proof of evolution. From biology to geology etc. no one can offer clear-cut proof to put to silent the creationists. >>

Been done. Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown Univ demolished both Duane Gish and Henry Morris over 20 years ago in public debates. Highly recommend Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God (1999), replies to P. Johnson, M. Behe, and of course Gish-Morris-ICR-young-earthers.

A 1988 demolition of Gish is here. You can print this out too. Need to search for Ken Ham debates…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Edwin << There are many scientists who reject evolution theory. >>

Perhaps a couple, but only about 2 of them are named "Steve"

Project Steve once again

I deal with the Pope’s statement on evolution here, along with a summary of all the evidence for an old earth and macroevolution.

Phil P

 

[ArisSlatr]

Biology - The study of life.

My spouse is a biologist, and her and I discuss frequently many topics of interest outside that.

Anyway, whenever I ask her from some transitional information, she never ceases to amaze me.

An interesting concept that came up was whales with feet, this topic is frquently discussed so I won’t go into that so much, but it can easily be looked up, here are some resources.

enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/classification/Whalefossils.shtml
Trasitional information can be found in the information too.
"There are approximately 140 genera of extinct cetaceans. There are 40 genera of living cetaceans."

More information to be of interest would be the question of the eye. I beg this question, “The eye is complex?” Yes. But how complex. It totally compatiple with other senses! Yes, if you hook the eye receptors up to say… the ear, you would hear color! This is true.
school-for-champions.com/senses/synesthesia.htm

And if the eye was so unique, why do other animals have it, but the lower down the ‘evolutionary line’ you go, the lesser of the eye animals of have. The reason certain animals such as monkeys remain is that since were from a common decendant only, we dont need the same things, we evolved different needs. Monkeys and humans in turn arent competing for food essentials, Homo-erectus and Homo-Sapiens were. Sapian survived.

Do you know that lesser animals only see in black and white, and that some animals dont have eyes. Evolution is a concept of nessesity, as a species developes over millions of years, they’re bodies adapt. Giraffes with longer necks get more food, and in turn survive, viruses need to grow to survive, such as HIV. People have “evolved” a trait where they and their children can’t use penicillin. It no longer works. Evolution can be benificial or harmful, but if its harmful the creature dies out, obviously!