Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Glark]

The evolutionists have been absolutely clear in answering everything you have wanted to know. And you all know we’re correct.

Sorry, but the figures tell a very different story: At this juncture, this evolution debate has proceeded through about 5.5 threads (if Joe’s initial thread is included), which represents about 11,000 posts. About 6000 of these posts argued in favour of evolution and about 5000 argued against evolution. Of the pro-evolution posts, NONE OF THEM made any rational sense and every one them could be accurately described as unscientific gibberish. Of the anti-evolution posts, ALL 5000 (approx.) made perfect sense; none of them contained any gibberish at all.

Based on these figures, the winner is obvious.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Happy Easter!

Again, I think, we see the difference between Evolutionary and Scientific methodology. Those scientists, among them Darwin, who formulated Evolution, did not “assume the starting point of reality is mankind evolved naturally from microbes.” Nor do any modern scientists. Nor do they assume any scientific laws a priori. Science is construct out of papers and books that have to explain their sources in spectacular detail, beginning with the observations of their forerunners, and then moving on to their own, newer observations, and only then explaining their new addition to the edifice.

Creationism does not begin with observations. It begins with the book of Genesis, which contains no observations at all, only unsupported statements of fact.

Calling those who adopt the first methodology “naive and gullible” is not only rude, untrue, and dishonest, it misses the essential point. I don’t call those who believe in Creationism “native and gullible”. I think they are wrong, but the reason is because of the difference in methodology, theirs being one in which observation and reason are irrelevant to an understanding of truth.

Theistic evolutionists don’t seem to understand what the Bible is - they think it was written by fallible human beings. What they need to do is go back to Sunday school and learn that Almighty God is the inerrant author of all Scripture.

There are several things wrong with this, but essentially it is revealing about why many ‘ordinary people’, rather than theological scholars, have such a weak grasp of the divine authorship of the bible. The expression “back to Sunday school” looks back to the instruction given to little children, which is necessarily very brief and very simplified. If I think you are wrong about Evolution, I do not send you back to Rudyard Kiplings’s “Just so stories”, or Disney’s “Fasntasia”.

I can’t remember if you have said you were a literal six-day creationist or a ‘period of time’ creationist, but whichever one you are, do you agree that the other kind “need to do is go back to Sunday school and learn that Almighty God is the inerrant author of all Scripture”? Both varieties are represented among our readers here. Which one is wrong, do you think?

Pot calling the kettle black. How do “know” what’s in the fossil record? You don’t - you believe what you’re told without questioning.

That’s wholly untrue. I’ve been looking at fossils since climbing about in a disused gravel quarry when I was five or six. I have seen fossils in their stratified sites, for myself, and looked at them in museums and laboratories, and have a small collection of my own. Naturally much of my knowledge of them is from books and papers, but they are books of what they look like and where they are found, not evolutionary explanations of them. They are essential to a scientist precisely because he does not “believe what he is told without questioning”.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I suspect that more often than not, theistic evolution is a stepping stone to unbelief. Once faith in the Scriptures is undermined, total apostasy becomes a real possibility.

Your suspicions are unfounded.

The sphere of science which concerns itself with the origins of life is ruled by an atheist cult that preaches an atheist dogma - evolution. It’s not wise to trust anything they say - one cannot even trust what they report as “observations” and “data” (the fossil record, for example), much less their interpretations of such. The truth is not in them. Besides that, you seem to think it’s important to believe that life on earth evolved from microbes. But the truth is, such a belief is as irrelevance and worthless as a fairy tale. And here is a thought that might help you clear the fog: Darwinism is to science what Scientology is to religion.

Not a word of this is founded on anything other than thoroughly unChristian prejudice. If any of it were true, you would be able to show evidence for it, but of course you can’t.

Please provide the name of a creationist who claims the Genesis “six days of creation” is a fact.

Have you been away? Techno and buffalo have declared it absolutely on this very thread.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

t seems to me that you don’t understand what “empirical evidence” means and have misappropriated the term. Fossils are empirical evidence of certain creatures existing in the past; however, they are not empirical evidence that all on earth evolved from microbes. Can you see the difference? Empirical evidence is evidence that can be verified by observation or experiment.

No, you’ve got lost here. Listen and learn. Arguments of all kinds are built on evidence. Insofar as the evidence supports the argument, the evidence is evidence ‘for’ the argument, even if the argument turns out to be wrong. The fact that the sun can be observed rising in the east and setting in the west is empirical evidence that the sun moves around a static earth, even though more detailed observation of other phenomena shows that the explanation is wrong. Fossils are empirical evidence for an argument in that they are actual objects rather than opinions or literary accounts. They can be, and are, used to support the argument for common descent. They can also be, and are, used to support punctuated creationism. They do not support either a young earth or a literal six-day creation period.

The mind of an evolutionist is a magical thing - it can begin with “unusually scaleless reptiles” and end up with “reptiles grew feathers”. Impressive.

If only you knew! Scientific method is a remarkable thing.

You are so gullible.

Have you noticed that there is a direct correction between strength of belief in Creationism and the use of personal abuse?

Sorry, but the figures tell a very different story: At this juncture, this evolution debate has proceeded through about 5.5 threads (if Joe’s initial thread is included), which represents about 11,000 posts. About 6000 of these posts argued in favour of evolution and about 5000 argued against evolution. Of the pro-evolution posts, NONE OF THEM made any rational sense and every one them could be accurately described as unscientific gibberish. Of the anti-evolution posts, ALL 5000 (approx.) made perfect sense; none of them contained any gibberish at all.

Have you been counting? I’m impressed. However, I disagree with your understanding of “rational”, “sense” and “gibberish”.
Have you noticed that there is a direct correction between strength of belief in Creationism and the use of personal abuse?

 

[benjamin1973]

I’m pretty sure it can. Large breeds are getting larger and larger all the time.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Glark: “There is not a shred of empirical evidence that “tubular scales” or feathers can evolve from reptilian skin.”

Hugh_F: “On the contrary, there is empirical evidence, both from fossil and live studies.”

My question is, what is this “empirical evidence (from) live studies” that supports the claim that “tubular scales or feathers can evolve from reptilian skin”?

The embryos of extant birds and reptiles can be studied under microscopes. The skin structure starts out very similar, and is characterised by spots of small, dense cells we call placodes. In reptiles, these placodes give rise to scales, which grow over them, and in birds, they give rise to feathers, which grow out of them. The genetic code which gives rise to these placodes has been identified. Rare examples of scaly reptiles which have not developed scales can be shown to lack it. The differences to the genetic code which developes into scales, feathers and fur are quite small, and experiments have shown that changing the ‘scale’ code for ‘feather’ code, gives rise to feather-buds rather than scales in reptiles. In normal birds, feather buds give rise to simple tubular ‘feathers’ which split into pennules later on in development.

This is all empirical evidence.

The fossil record shows that there was an extensive scaly reptile fauna before the appearance of feathers, and that the earliest animals with feathers resembled some of them. The earliest identifiable feathers are long thin tubules. Series of later fossil animals can be arranged in chronological order increasingly to resemble modern birds, and series of later fossil feathers can be arranged in chronological order increasingly to resemble modern feathers.

This is empirical evidence.

Together, all this can be explained by supposing that the gene complex which gave rise, and gives rise, to scales, can be slightly modified to give rise to feathers instead. One refinement of this explanation is that the gene complex actually was modified, at some point by God, personally, and another is that the modification was the result of a series of mutations brought about by cosmic rays. Both these explanations suggest that modern birds are descended, father to son, from reptiles.

Another explanation is that the first animals with feathers were created in toto without being born.

If you find any of this gibberish, would you be so good as to point out whereabouts exactly gives rise to your misapprehension?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

My point is, if evolution can produce a 100-ton dinosuar, evolution can produce a 500-pound dog.

It did. We call it a bear.

 

[rossum]

Please provide the name of a creationist who claims the Genesis “six days of creation” is a fact.

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is an obvious one. In fact all AiG staff are literal six day creationists since the AiG Statement of Faith includes:

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.

You can find more literal six day creationists at ICR.

Did you really not know that Glark?

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Can somebody clarify all this?

We have Buffalo and Techno believing unequivocally in a six literal day creation, and fruit-trees being created before the sun and marine life.

And Glark, Richca and Edwest believing that the six ‘days’ mean unspecified periods of time. Now what do they believe about fruit-trees? Genesis clearly says that the earth was thick with them before the sun was created.

Do Glark, Richca and Edwest believe that? If not, what do they believe?

And, please note, “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable answer.

 

[DymphnaOfWashington]

Its actually the other way around. Humans developed to like the smell of roses. Because Roses are in the apple family and after Apple family flowers come out edible fruits form (rose hips, in this instance).

Happy Easter.

 

[buffalo]

Can somebody clarify all this?

We have Buffalo and Techno believing unequivocally in a six literal day creation, and fruit-trees being created before the sun and marine life.

Sure. The fossil record may be post cataclismic.

At creation It makes total sense for “fruit” to be available first as food. The table is set so to speak for animals and man.

 

[Richca]

Actually, re-reading your post, it seems that you do indeed think that all the different ‘species’ were independently created, and even that many of the sub-species were too. This would be an absolute minimum of three million created ‘kinds’ of animal, let alone plants, fungi etc… Is that correct?

Essentially, yes.

Happy Easter everyone! Jesus Christ is risen today!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Sure. The fossil record may be post cataclismic.

At creation It makes total sense for “fruit” to be available first as food. The table is set so to speak for animals and man.

That’s OK. Literal six-day people need have no worries about sun-less fruit trees. Fruit-trees could survive a day or so before the sun arrived, and before there were insects to pollinate them, as they turned up only a few days later. It becomes a much more serious problem for day-age creationists.

There is a serious problem in trying to account for the fossil record as post-cataclysmic, however. Much is known about the distribution of dead plants and animals in flood-debris, and it looks nothing at all like the fossil record. There can be no doubt that whatever actually happened, the sequential deposition of successive organisms is an explanation that fits the observations a great deal better than the remains of a cataclysmic flood.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Essentially, yes.

Happy Easter everyone! Jesus Christ is risen today!

That’s fine. And they all fitted into the ark? (Except the marine ones, of course)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Fascinating discussion! Has anyone factored into this conversation the most recent research on dinosaurs and the space-time continuum?

I’m not familiar with any research on dinosaurs and the space-time continuum. Can you explain it briefly?

 

[Richca]

Can somebody clarify all this?

We have Buffalo and Techno believing unequivocally in a six literal day creation, and fruit-trees being created…

And Glark, Richca and Edwest believing that the six ‘days’ mean unspecified periods of time. Now what do they believe about fruit-trees?..

Thank you for the question. I did mention in a recent post that I thought I had commented on the fruit trees earlier which I actually did but I found that was in the previous thread 4.0.

What do I believe about fruit trees? Firstly, that God created out of the earth all the fruit trees according to their kinds, in fact, all vegetation, i.e., plants and trees according to their kinds as the scripture says:

And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day (Gen. 1: 11-13).

This scripture is very significant. The earth cannot of its own accord bring forth vegetation. The earth brought forth vegetation only when God commanded it to, i.e., through his Word and creative activity by which he created out of the earth all the variety or kinds of plants and trees.

Secondly, I think Buffalo makes a very reasonable point when he says “At creation It makes total sense for “fruit” to be available first as food. The table is set so to speak for animals and man.” Accordingly, on the sixth day after God created man, male and female he created them, and blessed them, God says:

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so (Gen. 1: 29-30).

I believe the mention of the fruit trees in Genesis 1 is also setting the stage for Genesis 2-3 chapters and the garden of Eden or paradise. I also believe the fruit trees in Gen. 1-3 and in the garden of Eden has a spiritual or mystical sense beyond the literal sense, namely, an allegorical and/or anagogical sense (cf. CCC# 115-118, The senses of Scripture). In the final chapter of the Bible in the Book of Revelation where it speaks of the new heaven and the new earth and the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, the scripture reads:

Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations (Rev. 22: 1-2).

(to be continued)

 

[edwest211]

Now, now. I suggest you be a bit less judgmental. After all, this information has been fed to the masses for a long time. As long as one accepts it is all that matters. Damaging the thought processes, along with discernment, has been going on for 40 years, including in Catholic schools. Your thoughts are correct but are rarely spoken. And who to trust has been another problem.

 

[buffalo]

This scripture is very significant. The earth cannot of its own accord bring forth vegetation. The earth brought forth vegetation only when God commanded it to, i.e., through his Word and creative activity by which he created out of the earth all the variety or kinds of plants and trees.

Secondly, I think Buffalo makes a very reasonable point when he says “At creation It makes total sense for “fruit” to be available first as food. The table is set so to speak for animals and man.” Accordingly, on the sixth day after God created man, male and female he created them, and blessed them, God says:

Beautiful and articulate.

 

[Techno2000]

“I don’t know”

I don’t know…

 

[PetraG]

One doesn’t have to be very smart to reject Darwinism - junk science is not that hard to spot.

OK…explain the data competently. We’re listening.