Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
A property – DNA or carbon molecule – that is common to different beings does not imply a common ancestor for those beings, e.g., the gasoline in my lawn mower and I do not have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...
Genetic material is transferred, in most cases, by descent, unlike petrol. The oil from which petrol derives, being of organic origin, does have a common ancestor.
 
Thanks for your insight.

I admit, I’m still conflicted about it.

I’m as reasonably sure there’s no god as I am there’s no Tooth Fairy.

But I still use the Tooth Fairy in my house.

Is the joy created by the lie a better or worse thing than not teaching them the happy lie in the first place?

I have no answer, there.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Joining the strawmen club? Unload your question if you want a reply.
Click to expand...
I asked a very straightforward question. If you don’t want to reply just say so. I can ask it again - are there any other scientific theories you reject based on Scripture, if so, which ones? If not, why not?
 
o_mlly said:
Lookup “loaded question”.
Click to expand...
A loaded question is one that presupposes some kind of unwarranted predicate assumption. What is the unwarranted assumption here, that you deny evolution because of Scripture?

My question is sincere, if admittedly a bit snarky. I don’t understand why anti-evolutionists use religion to deny this one particular scientific theory, but readily accept all kinds of other things that are not consistent with a historical literalist interpretation of Scripture. Its clear you are refusing to explain why, no one ever does, but I really am curious.
 
TMC said:
A loaded question is one that presupposes some kind of unwarranted predicate assumption. What is the unwarranted assumption here, that you deny evolution because of Scripture?

My question is sincere, if admittedly a bit snarky. I don’t understand why anti-evolutionists use religion to deny this one particular scientific theory
Click to expand...
Using the quote utility, cite in this thread where I used Scripture or religion as an argument.
 
Kei said:
But, for instance (from a pro- perspective with a short discussion of attempted solutions), The waiting time problem in a model hominin population | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling | Full Text
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reference. I disagree. The paper claims that the waiting time for a mutation to appear can be prohibitive. To elaborate. The average human being has about 75 mutations – DNA that is not from either parent. With a population of 7 billion, that is 75 x 7e9 = 5.25e11 mutations in the human population. Given that the human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs, that is 5.25e11 / 3.2e9 = 164 mutations per base pair. Given that there are only six possible mutations possible per base pair (each member of the pair has three alternative possibilities) then every possible point mutation occurs 164 / 6 = 27 times somewhere in the human population. There is no waiting time because every possible point mutation is already present somewhere in the human population in over 20 places.

Secondly, Haldane’s dilemma actually isn’t a dilemma at all. The vast majority of variation in a population is neutral, neither beneficial nor deleterious. An estimate of the number of beneficial (as opposed to neutral) variations between ourselves and chimpanzees is about 250 mutations. That is well within Haldane’s limit, since that limit does not apply to neutral mutations, which have no effect on the fitness of individuals with that mutation. See Haldane’s non-dilemma for a longer and more technical discussion.

I am also surprised that such a pro-ID paper (look at the references) quotes Behe and Snoke (2004). At the Kitzmiller trial, Professor Behe agreed that his own paper showed that a small population of bacteria could evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years.
 
rossum said:
You do not see macroevolution so you deny macroevolution. You do not see electrons yet you do not deny electrons.

I do not see a strawman, I see an inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I deny the science evidencing a macroevoluition hypothesis is sufficient. I do not deny the science underpinning the existence of an electron is insufficient.
 
o_mlly said:
Using the quote utility, cite in this thread where I used Scripture or religion as an argument.
Click to expand...
I have never met anyone who denied evolution that did not have a religious basis for doing so. If you are saying that you have a scientific basis, then 1) why make it on a religious forum and 2) this conversation is suddenly much less interesting.
 
Wii, Dictatorczar, I’m a devout traditionalist minded Catholic and an vocational paleontologist. In my scientific pursuits I view Darwinisn evolution as a good working hypothothese, nothing more. As to faith, I subscribe to the “Gap theory” of creation; the idea being that there is a gap of undetermined length between Genisis 1:1 and 1:2.

Here, briefly, is the theory; God created the earth, evolution proceeded for billions of years. The OT says Satan was cast down to earth, science tells us th ef agree of th ef dinosaurs was ended by a asteroid strike! Verse one of Genisis tells us th ef earth was a disaster, “without form and void” should actually b ed translated a junk heap! Result of a massive asteroid strike perhaps? Then the creation, rather restoration, begins in verse two. This theory reconciles Special creation an the fossil record! Give it some thought!
 
Last edited:
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
40.png
Freddy:
If we are the result of happenstance then the odds of us appearing are 1. The same as any other result (like a random deal of the deck). But if we are the intended result (all suits in order for example) then the odds are indeed amazing. Then you’d be right in saying ‘hang on - someone’s rigged the deck!’
Click to expand...
You are assuming that human beings are the result of happenstance and not the intended result. Your whole argument rests on that assumption.
Click to expand...
I haven’t made an argument. I’m simply pointing out that you are assuming in the first instance that which you are trying to prove.
 
Kei said:
If you graph a model of our understanding of evolutionary processes and then add in the time ascribed from the first life on Earth, with rather fair variables, then you get nowhere near what we have now. So, something is missing in understanding, whatever it might be.
Click to expand...
But only if you are looking for a specific result. Quick story to illustrate:

I was playing poker in a local pub tournament a few years ago. My son was also playing. He was the dealer at one point on his table. And he flopped three aces. Wow. Everyone impressed. Then the turn was the fourth ace. And the river a king. Everyone was taking pictures of the cards. What were the odds!

Well, the odds were exactly the same as the next hand dealt, which were random cards. The aces and kings looked impressive because a decision had been made in advance that 4 aces are one of the best hands you can get. If in advance we had decided that the two of clubs, the six of hearts, the nine of diamonds and the jack of spades was the best hand then dealing that hand would look impressive as well.

To look impressive, you need to decide in advance what you are looking for. If it’s the four aces or if it’s the two of clubs etc then dealing those out does look as if it’s against the odds. But the odds for dealing the aces and the two of clubs etc are exactly the same.

So to say that the odds of reaching a point where man has evolved are fantastic is only valid if that’s the result you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top