Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[Mystic_Banana]

Nobody ever claimed those forces were random- for all we know there was a 100% likely hood that they would turn out exactly as they are now.

Unless you have a creator/designer(s), then I don’t think you can define them as anything else. And no, natural selection doesn’t hack it as a way around that, in case you were going to go there, because ultimately the nature which would be ‘selecting’ would be similarly arbitrary. All the pre-life ‘preparatory’ work would be entirely random

Anyway, this is evolution friendly ID, essentially - so technically speaking isn’t entirely evolution-denying really. We should probably go back to the original contention - Non-evolutionary Creationism!

 

[Lynxdk]

Anyway, this is evolution friendly ID, essentially - so technically speaking isn’t entirely evolution-denying really. We should probably go back to the original contention - Non-evolutionary Creationism!

I understood the OP to be asking more along those lines (evolution friendly ID) as opposed to strict “the world was created 6-10000 years ago” sort of evolution denial.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

:banghead: We HAVE observed many instances of speciation. Ok before we continue please define theory in regard to science.

Name one that has been observed and know to come from a separate species, besides you originating from a monkey.

Since going from a specie and mutating to a completely new specie is not science; then the definition would not satisfy and if you look at a few posts prior; I gave the definition that best fits into the “theory” of macro-evolution. The best definition would be non-sense.

I bet you believe in the global warming theory as well? I got news, the sun causes the warming…LOL If things get a little warmer, then the hydrological cycle will kick up and the increase in cloud cover (which contains the greatest amount of “green-house” gases) will increase, there will be more rain, less sun penetration and an overall cooling down, then it repeats itself; just how God planned it. Stupid so-called scientist busted for manipulating data. Just like there getting ready to produce raw data from the past 160 years from various weather stations, many of which are known to have been placed in areas that would reflect higher temperatures, such a s many being to close to building or pavement. With “so-called” science today, one only needs to follow the money trail; especially in academia.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

So you don’t understand the process??

Just so i can be clear are you equating the peers of 1 department to 150 years of peer review???

I found extermely ironic “A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong”.

They are going to publish the full data…

said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

*He added: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.” *

Where is your issue?

I posted on the issue, if the data is analyzed honestly and it won’t, they will discover that much of the data will need to be thrown out, then who decides what will count and what doesn’t because many of the temperature stations were utilized outside of stated guidelines by being too close a building and/ or pavement, which will increase the overall effect of the data. Science is not the same as it use to be; because we have too many evil people involved and a perfect example is the emails on the internet that were hacked into, two colleges had concerns of another person who could be the spoiler and when this person became ill and died; did they mourn, no they celebrated…I wonder why?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

There is no science-based ID. ID has no scientific basis whatsoever, in any of its guises.

If Einstein were here right now he would laugh you at your face and warn you. He know at the end of his life that what was missing was something divine and intelligent.

ID is actually more science in the fact that as we study the universe as a whole and all the mechanics that must be in place for the earth to exist a a living planet; then looking at the biological cellular level we are seeing what amounts to tiny machines, each with a specific purpose; something very intelligent appears to have designed; even down to the simplest cells.

More than a few astrologist and physicist have become Christians based on what they have discovered about the perfection to which the universe is in.

Like God has said “Only a fool says there is no God”; this is not a good thing coming from the One who literally spoke everything into existence, including yourself.

 

[edwest2]

To Wanstronian -

Rationality, it seems, has been defined to mean only what I can detect with my senses and instrumentation. I know, I know, I heard it over 30 years ago, “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.”

So, why do you post here? To get us to not believe in some invisible being? All that stuff about Jesus Christ was all made up? We should just pack up our Churches and call it quits?

What about 2,000 years of Church history? It doesn’t matter? We were all led to believe something false?

Peace,
Ed

 

[tabsie3210]

Do you deny that the origin of all species, including human ones, could have arisen by common descent with either directed, as opposed to “chance” mutation? “Directed” mutation could mean either:

a) a direct manipulation of the genome by God or some other entity with the power to do so (“guided” evolution); or
b) the initial conditions (immediately after the Big Bang for instance) being such that what would otherwise be considered “highly unlikely” being, in fact, highly probable given the initial conditions, whether these initial conditions were willed by God or not. (This position is sometimes called “Front-loaded” evolution.)

Personally, I don’t hold to evolution by “random chance” mutation since I hold the expression as meaningless; “random chance” simply means an expression of our ignorance. If I bet $100 at a blackjack table and draw a blackjack, sure I might say I was “lucky” and that “chance” favored me, but all this really means is that I was ignorant of the arrangement of the cards in the deck being dealt to me.

Now there’s nothing logically impossible about a) or b). If you have an argument, I’d love to hear it. But, if either a) or b) are possible, then all the supposed “difficulties” with evolution completely vanish, such as the Cambrian explosion, or the appearance of fully-formed limbs in the fossil record, etc. You’re only arguing about the philosophical implications of the theory, not the theory itself. Now you may wish to argue that evolution doesn’t imply atheism; and, indeed, it doesn’t. But you don’t need all the fancy, but ultimately silly, “arguments” against evolution to show that.

I love evolution.

Evolution (NOT Neo-Darwinism) is a process by which certain key features that just happen to appear out of nowhere suddenly are implimented into an organism, allow it to best survive, giving our planet a hugely diverse population of animals and plants that co-exist very well togehter.

And to think, animals all have a complex four-letter alphabet inside their bodies that writes out the perfect code for each animal to fuction without having to pay attention to how it functions!

I believe that Evolution is an engine, and engines all have engineers. “Blind luck” is relying too much on absolutely nothing to cause absolutely something.

Not all of us who are into “Intelligent Design” believe evolution is bad. Personally, I think Evolution is an Intelligently Designed engine!

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I’ll take my chances; if he’s the sort of god who punishes people for having questioning minds and rational thought processes, then he’s not up to much in my opinion.

What chance are you taking? If I am right and you are wrong then you will be in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. But if you are right and i am wrong; I have nothing to lose. But you have judged the Word of God without even reading nor studying it to reach your conclusion about the God of the Christian bible.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

You’re right, it turns me off. I’m not interested in what the Bible says, because there’s no evidence that the bible is anything other than a story book. If you want to convince me that God exists and wants me to do X, Y or Z, then produce evidence.

Incidentally, you’re in no better position to tell me ‘what God wants’ than anybody else in this world. You’re basing your opinion on doctrine and dogma, not on any kind of proof! It has no objective value.

How can you conclude that on that which you have never read, much less study. The Bible say the earth turns as the clay to the seal, which means it spins on and axes and hangs on nothing; other religious books say foolish things like the earth rides on the back of elephants or the center is made of butter and cream; the Bible doesn’t say foolish things like that. I believe if you just studied the prophecies and then compare that with probability and statistics you would have a change of attitude. All of them that have been predicted long before they were fulfilled, are fulfilled to the letter. Zero have been prophesied and not come to fulfillment as it has been written. there is still more to come; you think man makes havoc on the planet, wait till Jesus comes back, you’ll wish it was just a case of some global warming…LOL

 

[StAnastasia]

What chance are you taking? If I am right and you are wrong then you will be in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. But if you are right and i am wrong; I have nothing to lose. But you have judged the Word of God without even reading nor studying it to reach your conclusion about the God of the Christian bible.

As a Roman Catholic theologian, I can declare that I would rather spend eternity in hell than five minutes in the presence of your God, who would send people to hell for asking questions!

StAnastasia

 

[Elvenwarrior]

Ooooh! A thread of flaming; how original. I’ve probably only seen that on every other board I’ve ever been too.

 

[rossum]

Name one that has been observed and know to come from a separate species,

Culex pipiens molestus has evolved from Culex pipiens.

besides you originating from a monkey.

Your ignorance of the relevant science is showing. We evolved from apes, not monkeys - monkeys have tails, apes do not. We do not have tails.

Since going from a specie and mutating to a completely new specie is not science;

It is perfectly good science. We have many examples both in the lab and in the wild. We also have ring species as yet another example of observed speciation.

I bet you believe in the global warming theory as well?

Is you case really so weak that you have to drag in irrelevancies? I guess that it is.

rossum

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’d say yes… DNA has been synthesized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_synthesis

Although I don’t understand the relevance… the same argument could be applied to abiogenesis instead of evolution. We could have either direct manipulation of inorganic matter by God into proteins and DNA, etc., or “front-loaded” abiogenesis due to the initial conditions.

DNA synthesis in the lab would have involved intelligent design every single step of the way. Therefore if God manipulated DNA in this fashion in the interests of “evolution”, it would not be “evolution”, but intelligent design, giving as the result a seeming evolutionary model.

We might say planes “evolved” from the primitive gliders of the pre-powered flight days right through to the latest supersonic fighters and bombers. But every single one of them required a lot of intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, and very often significant leaps from one technology to another eg. string and canvas to wood and metal; biplane to monoplane; piston engine to turbine; subsonic to supersonic design; analogue to digital electronics. Not one of these things took place by accident, yet we are loathe to give God the same due for His intelligence.

It’s just part of man’s unwillingness to believe in God.

 

[Thing]

Let’s get something straight:

Evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for it, from fossil record to homology, is overwhelming.

People (especially creationists) refer to “the theory of evolution” without realising that, in fact, they are not referring to evolution as a theory, but to the *process *by which evolution undeniably occurs. This gives rise to the common and erroneous mantra of “it’s only a theory,” implying that evolution might not be true. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution IS true.

The theory of evolution refers to the process by which evolution works. The extant theory, which is held by all scientists in this field whose work is accepted by other scientists in the field, is that this process is natural selection. Natural selection in a nutshell, for the benefit of those who think they understand it but actually don’t, is when a random genetic mutation results in a slight survivability advantage to the host organism, such that the host survives long enough to pass that mutation on to its offspring.

I worry about Natural Selection. Ok… when I say I worry about it I mean as a system.
If a creature changes gradually by random chance mutations, and if only slightly beneficial mutations survive because they live long enough to reproduce,… and so on and so on.

If I think of mutations as essentially damaged DNA, by forces like radiation, nanoparticles etc., then all mutations are detrimental to the creature. The creature is under attack randomly by forces outside its niche environmental limits, most probably.

If a creature has its DNA damaged and its offspring survive the chance of any mutation being beneficial in any meaningful way must be very very tiny. And if one beneficial mutation occurred out of every 1 million detrimental mutations then the fossil record would somehow show 1 million deformed fossil creatures for every 1 slightly different, but workable, variation in a creature.

As far as I know, which is not far at all, there are not yet any reports of millions of deformed fossil creatures. They all seem to me to be perfectly designed for sometimes very specific niche habitats.

 

[Thing]

God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life,… - Genesis.

This is in fact what everyone believes, creeping creatures were brought forth from the waters. But while some Greek philosophers believed creatures eg. worms or maggots are created spontaneously and whole, from the soil, the writer of Genesis would say that the worm or maggot was ‘called forth’ by God, the Creator of things, from the Earth or from the already created creeping creatures He had called forth from the waters.

We still face the same argument, essentially, as that primitive one. Though there are not many people today, I would bet, who would be willing to row in behind that Greek philosophers’ idea and there are probably fewer still who would subscribe to a Creator ‘calling forth’ creatures from the waters and the earth.
Unfortunately, I cannot see a third, or fourth or more, option.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As a Roman Catholic theologian, I can declare that I would rather spend eternity in hell than five minutes in the presence of your God, who would send people to hell for asking questions!

StAnastasia

If you were really a theologian, you would not make such a ridiculous statement. Basic theology 101 says God sends people to hell for the willful rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ. What does Catholic theology teach?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Culex pipiens molestus has evolved from Culex pipiens.

Hello, both are mosquito’s, that is not a mutation to a completely new species. God made each after it “own kind”. Good example of micro, which we all acknowledge. Then, even within that there is a lot of disagreement - not a lot of science here.

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Unless of course you believe the ape is better than a human. I guess it have never occurred to you to look a people and compare to anything else in the animal kingdom; we are astronomically off the charts in intelligence compared to the next intelligent animal, maybe because we were made in the image of the God of the Bible, the creator and sustainer of life.

Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the Curse in Genesis 3.

Your ignorance of the relevant science is showing. We evolved from apes, not monkeys - monkeys have tails, apes do not. We do not have tails.

You may have evolved from an ape, but I did not.

Class:Mammalia (Ape) Mammalia (Monkey)
Orderrimates Primates
Suborder:Haplorrhini Haplorrhini
About: Animal that belongs to the family of Primates (Ape) Animal that belongs to the family of Primates (Monkey)
Kingdom: Animalia Animalia
Phylum: Chordata Chordata

It is perfectly good science. We have many examples both in the lab and in the wild. We also have ring species as yet another example of observed speciation.

You have no legs to stand on perhaps you can swing from your tail bone; a little cosmetic surgery. You are giving micro-evolution; we want evidence of macro-evolution; should be easily observable given the hundreds of millions of years and each “evolving over time” - Mutations are generally defects in the genetic code, not improvements in most cases, which accounts for the Biblical record that we are not getting better, we are getting more defective.

 

[buffalo]

If you were really a theologian, you would not make such a ridiculous statement. Basic theology 101 says God sends people to hell for the willful rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ. What does Catholic theology teach?

StA’s version is the 70’s version that believes God is all loving and merciful. They ditched the perfectly just part. And it’s a good thing theologians (speculators) have no teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

 

[ricmat]

It’s just part of man’s unwillingness to believe in God.

You hit the nail on the head, brother.

 

[ricmat]

As a Roman Catholic theologian, I can declare that I would rather spend eternity in hell than five minutes in the presence of your God, who would send people to hell for asking questions!

StAnastasia

If you were really a theologian, you would not make such a ridiculous statement. Basic theology 101 says God sends people to hell for the willful rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ. What does Catholic theology teach?

Catholic teaching is that a willful rejection of God and his mercy, to the end, will land you in Hell.

Timothy, I didn’t quite see the part where you said that “your God” would send people to hell for asking questions. Did you actually say that someplace?