PROVIDE AWAY.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
Yeah, it was a Gish Gallop. Many of the questions you posed are currently unanswerable in specific. But therefore the Christian deity is not an appropriate answer.For the record, classifying my response as a "Gish Gallop" is actually inaccurate. For one, I do not ascribe to normal creationist theories, as they choose ignorance and dismissing of evidence in favor of personal bias. And second, all the questions I posed are not small or weak in effect. They aim at the heart of the theories.
The issue with scientific theory is when one makes theological and supernatural conclusions based on nonsupernatual and nontheological evidence. Science by definition is limited to proving natural and physical phenomena; not supernatural or theological.
One can develop theologies based on scientific evidence, however, such conclusions are apart from the science and ethically should not be included therein.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
The scientific evidence supports a 13+ billion year old universe that came from a very tiny place (although since I think as best we can tell that very tiny place was at a spot and time when our understanding of basic physics gets a bit vague and funky). The earth formed 4.5 +/- years ago and life appeared 3.5+/- years ago. Life then continued to evolve and here we are. Evolution has no particular purpose other than to keep life going and to move into different environmental niches as conditions change.
No science that I am aware of is useful in developing any theology. Here on TOL in particular, science is scoffed at and dependence on a literal view of the bible, especially Genesis, is paramount.
I've always found this viewpoint an intriguing one from Atheists. Every cognitive sentient human being knows that a house has a maker. And yet the Atheist would have us believe a 'house' in fact doesnt have a maker. Its somehow capable of producing itself out of nothing, a bit like fiat currency if you will.....How can nothing produce something? The Atheist scoffs and has no problem 'believing' this.
The religious conversely believe a God or at least an intelligient designer did it. In view of the house illustration which seems the more logical position? That's a rhetorical position btw. I get your position on the matter. But i fail to believe how you can consider that Scientific when A) It cant be demonstrated, B) It defys all known laws of physics, C) There is ZERO empircal evidence proving the existence of some random singularity that's apparently responsible for the Universe and life. Basically using any of the scientific conventions that can be used to prove this theory of the Big Bang its decidely UNscientific by sciences OWN criteria. And yet Atheists and believers in the Big Bang believe it?!!? Sounds like religion and science are more similar than science is willing to acknowledge. Science/Church hiearchy and laity included.
Got any universities nearby? Go talk to a local scientist. They should be able to give you the appropriate information. But it might cause you to become uncomfortable with your theology. Scary thought
SonOfCaleb
Active member
Got any universities nearby? Go talk to a local scientist. They should be able to give you the appropriate information. But it might cause you to become uncomfortable with your theology. Scary thought
I doubt that very much. I work in the Sciences as an e-Architect. I don't have any problem with Science as my day to day job is dependant on many laws of physics. But i do have a problem with 'unscientific' theory thats posited as fact. As thats obviously NOT scientific.
Regardless why not contribute to the discussion and either refute with evidence what i said instead of these tangential debate tactics.....
jsanford108
New member
PROVIDE AWAY.
I did not expect an answer to all those questions. Many were meant to demonstrate the lack of scientific logic in explanations.
For example, the question of "where and why did life begin" in the Evolution set will lead to Abiogenesis. The question of life there leads to Big Bang. And Big Bang just throws up its hands and says "we don't know, but it did."
I never deny evolutionary concepts, for they are obvious fact. Such as adaptation, germ theory, etc. These are concepts however. Evolutionary theory includes these concepts, but as a whole produces a hypothesis for many questions. You said (and scientists agree) that life began in the early oceans. Why? Chemistry and physics. But that doesn't answer the question. How did life begin in the early oceans? Chemistry, no doubt referring to organic and biochemistry, with biophysics, would not produce life. "Life" is not a byproduct of any chemical rxn. Nor the result of any cycle in biophysics. The answer, which scientists have to provide, is that a "miracle" of impossible circumstance occurred once. Which itself goes against logic. Why would any event occur once naturally? Nature itself is a recurring set of phenomena. The mathematics, physics, and chemistry do not produce such a phenomena. The probability has more zeros than the age of the universe.
How long does it take to evolve? You say, "less than one billion years (obviously)." But you have to answer that, because you are limited to a timetable, set by the age of the earth. Which leads to the next question/answer: How does trial-error result in complex/simple systems like metabolism or thrombosis? (I am not saying metabolism is simple, however, it is a daily and constant necessary function)You reply with suggestions that courses would explain it. When in fact, they won't. Thrombosis is a very delicate function. The same with metabolism. If any species is altered in the slightest degree, the whole system collapses, back to zero. Such failure would result in death of the organism. A complex reaction and function, could not mathematically (or logically) have resulted from trial-error, in the timetable of the earth, let alone the cosmos.
This leads into the next two questions, which you claimed "makes no sense." How would a dying organism (such as the one who just failed a successful thrombosis attempt) communicate to nearby organisms about the evolution it was trying to undergo? Of course the question "makes no sense," because the answer is detrimental to the theory of evolution. Organisms could not, in early states, communicate complex actions to one another. Therefore, the idea that each organism successfully and eventually evolved complex systems and cycles, via trial-error which could not be communicated with fellow organisms, breaks the rules put forth by the theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis time. This will be quick and easy, although for you, I cannot say painless. You once again relied on "chemistry and physics" as means of answering, which is fine. I know the answers put forth by chemistry and physics, as do you. So no need to go in depth there, as most TOL users are not on our level (at times in even basic logic and intellect). The question of the scenario which produced life being a "miracle" of improbability, you answer with "Apparently not. We are here." This is a dismissing of mathematics. And you know it is. The reason that you reply this way is that truth and logic point to the theory of abiogenesis being beyond impossible. One can be dismissive and say "well, we're here aren't we," but that doesn't explain anything. Neil Armstrong didn't just appear on the moon; there was an extensive amount of preparation and statistics that got him there. Science got him there. (I know this doesn't really work well as an analogy itself, but the explanation is key). You know, as do I, that probability is one of the largest flaws with abiogenesis. Probability renders the theory null, due to the staggering odds of so many elements and scenarios being perfect for the briefest of moments. It is more probable to throw out millions of scrabble letters and them form the phrase "To Be or Not To Be," in the same amount of time (4.5 million years), as for life to "appear" on the earth.
Now, what data points to abiogeneis? You answered "don't know what you mean...yada yada." This is either because you didn't understand the question, which I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, or you know that there is no evidence (which all theories in science call for) to support abiogenesis. There is no reproducing the creation of life. There is no evidence, physically or naturally, that demonstrates abiogenesis occurring. Sure, "we exist," but that is not data or proof of the theory of abiogenesis. Alternate theories could use the very same reason, and you would reject them as being insufficient.
Lastly, the Big Bang. Once again, we will not discuss the in-depth answers of chemistry and physics. But what holds the sun in place? You say it moves. I agree. But we are not spinning into other galaxies and colliding with other bodies, on a constant basis. Which goes against physics. The sun is pretty much stationary (in astronomical senses). Add on to this, proof that the universe is not expanding, rather contracting. Look up the redshift data measurements for the universe. Now, I am no astrophysicist or astronomer, but the data shows that expansion is not occurring, rather the opposite.
Life does have a purpose. Any scientist or religious agrees on this. Fitness is the scientific answer. Religious produce all kinds of answers, so no need to go into those. I will post all the contradictory statements of scientists, as well as those who disagree and assert, as I do, that theories of evolution, abiogenesis, have been disproven; as well as how the Big Bang doesn't really answer anything. I will also give a few statistics and evidence as well, which I have found on my own, through research.
jsanford108
New member
Yeah, it was a Gish Gallop. Many of the questions you posed are currently unanswerable in specific. But therefore the Christian deity is not an appropriate answer.
No science that I am aware of is useful in developing any theology.
If God is not an appropriate answer, then neither is dismissing the notion of a God. And science is not intended to develop theology, however, atheists love to use it as "evidence" against religions.
Science is "the systematic observation of the physical and natural world." By the rules of science, if a scenario cannot be successfully reproduced, it is not fact or law. (abiogenesis and the big bang go against this) Logically, all events must have a cause or reason. So why would the Big Bang occur? What reason or cause was behind it? What cause or reason was there to create a human genome? No such reasons or causes can be explained by science.
Carl Sagan said. "We should follow the truth, wherever it leads. But to find it we need imagination and skepticism both." This is a statement that I have adopted as my own. I love this statement.
Sir John Huxley said, "Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact."
Sagan again, "Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record. Natural selection is a successful theory."
These are pretty bold statements, are they not? But are they supported by logic and science?
Darwin’s Rules and Exemptions:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation, and every stratum full of such intermediates and links? Geological assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
“If you don’t have an imperfect geological record, you can reject my whole theory.”
All of these are evidenced, so by Darwin's own fundamentals, evolution as a theory should be rejected and disproved.
The Contradicting Statements:
Richard Dawkins and Crick said “despite looking designed, it isn’t. It evolved.” (when discussing DNA)
Crick also stated, “It would have to be a miracle for conditions to start life.” He then proposed the Theory of Directed Panspermia: 1st living cell must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system.
Charles Darwin said “The thought of the eye made me cold all over….the sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick.” (from a letter to Asa Gray, dated 4-3-1860) “Small matters of particulars of a structure make me uncomfortable.”
George Wald said “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing….a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”
George Wald again, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation is impossible. Yet, here we are as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”
*Note all the hypocritical and illogical acceptance of theories and ideas, despite “following the truth, wherever it leads.” If the truth leads, as it inevitable does, to God, then ignorance is preferred and logic/reason are rejected.
Scientists Who Reject (and are disliked by atheists):
Dr. Berlinski of the Discovery Institute says, “Many mathematicians, physicists, and myself see the holes in evolution and consider it a disproven theory.”
William Paley wrote the Watchmaker Analogy, as well as, Natural Theology. (this is often rejected by atheists and proponents of evolution/abiogenesis due to basic logical implications)
Dr. Kenyan, who wrote Theory of Chemical Evolution, threw it out when he saw the activity within the cell (organelles and functions).
Let us examine the honest evidence. The evolutionary trees and webs that adorn textbooks have data only at tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is all “inference.” This is not evidence found in or of the fossils. (Stephen Jay Gould supports this statement, as one of his own quotes makes the same declaration)
The finch beaks so often depicting evolution are also inaccurate. Dr. Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology, U of California, Berkley) says that the “beak size oscillates with cycles and seasons.” It is not a product of evolution, rather a temporary adaptation per generation, dependent on seasons. Dr. David Raup says “we now have ¼ of a million fossil species. The record of evolution is jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary examples than in Darwin’s propositions.”
Simple computations for the number of genetic alterations that must occur for the transition of a water species to an aerobic land species is well over 150,000. This is just genetic alterations, not even physical alterations. Such alterations, not even considering trial-error methods, would take longer than the existence of the earth to produce. This is for a simple transition. Dr. Berlinski would add, “a modest number of changes equal 50,000. That is morphological changes, to go from land back to sea.” He goes on to say, “There is no answer for these changes ever occurring. Why are these intermediates not found?” Notice Berlinski is talking about morphological changes, not even genealogical.
Conclusion: Scientists who accept evolution and abiogenesis are forced to contradict science and logic, in order to accept these theories. Darwin's outlines are grounds for rejecting his own theories. Basic mathematics demonstrate that abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. Physics and chemistry also demonstrate an overwhelming complication for abiogenesis and evolution, due to complex systems requiring near perfect variables; the altering of which causes entire systems to fail back to zero, thus negating trial-error methods producing modern day taxonomies. Science itself, by its own definition and logic, should reject evolution and abiogenesis.
I personally think we should still teach evolution, due to the fact that out of arrogance, our taxonomy system is entirely based upon the conclusions put forth by the theory. This is why we should never assume any theory to be instantly true (like geocentric theory, look what a mess that caused). We should follow the truth, where ever it leads.
jsanford108
New member
jsanford180: I see you have learned how to quote mine. Congratulations.
This does not make grammatical sense. What are you referring to?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
It is a standard creationist tactic. Taking a quote out of context and using it to suggest the author does not accept evolution. It is intellectually dishonest but that never stopped a creationist.
jsanford108
New member
It is a standard creationist tactic. Taking a quote out of context and using it to suggest the author does not accept evolution. It is intellectually dishonest but that never stopped a creationist.
May I ask which quote(s) is taken out of context?
All the quotes by evolution proponents are listed as such. Those scientists who oppose it are labeled appropriately, as well.
You seem to keep throwing out accusations of varying degree to damage the authenticity of my argument. Labeling a "Gish Gallop" when questions are posed that have been unanswered, unexplained, or dismissed by your favored theories. A sarcastic appraisal of "quote mining." (I figured out what you meant approximately an hour after my reply to that statement; apologies there) And now an accusation of "dishonest" quoting. None of these labels or accusations have any foundation. Simply making a claim doesn't make it true. Neither does refuting it, but I am not the aggressor throwing out accusations and labels, without evidence being provided as to why.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
May I ask which quote(s) is taken out of context?
All the quotes by evolution proponents are listed as such. Those scientists who oppose it are labeled appropriately, as well.
You seem to keep throwing out accusations of varying degree to damage the authenticity of my argument. Labeling a "Gish Gallop" when questions are posed that have been unanswered, unexplained, or dismissed by your favored theories. A sarcastic appraisal of "quote mining." (I figured out what you meant approximately an hour after my reply to that statement; apologies there) And now an accusation of "dishonest" quoting. None of these labels or accusations have any foundation. Simply making a claim doesn't make it true. Neither does refuting it, but I am not the aggressor throwing out accusations and labels, without evidence being provided as to why.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
You posted the following in post #66 "I will post all the contradictory statements of scientists, as well as those who disagree and assert, as I do, that theories of evolution, abiogenesis, have been disproven..." And then later you post something from Darwin, from Wald and from Crick. Is that to disprove evolution? Are you suggesting that neither Darwin, Wald or Crick accepted evolution? Those men have written volumes yet you, and other creationists, cherry pick in an attempt to lend legitimacy to your position.
That is simply dishonest. Even us fallen away Catholics know that.
P.S. I looked back through some of your posts and you cited Gould as well. Gould is a particular favorite of quote mining knobs. Too bad he is not around to laugh.
George Wald said “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing….a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”
George Wald again, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation is impossible. Yet, here we are as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”
What are you trying to say with these Wald quotes?
Yes. They're completely incompatible. Like water and oil.
Evolution posits that Man came from Apes and presumably a slew of other species prior to the Ape which all trace their roots back to 'nothing' with chance as the driving force behind life on Earth and indeed the Universe and everything in it.
Creation posits that God ergo an intelligient designer 'created' everything including life which is not attributable to a random process that also happened to produce conciousness as well. Therefore they are polar opposites.
Yep, polar opposites. But where did the intelligent designer come from?
Yep, polar opposites. But where did the intelligent designer come from?
And what is the driving force behind life on earth? How do you know?
SonOfCaleb
Active member
Yep, polar opposites. But where did the intelligent designer come from?
God had no beginning. He also has no end. He is eternal because Psalms 90:2 tells us so "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.
This tends to be a hard concept for humans to grasp as we think linearly and chronologically. This also demonstrates the limitations of human thinking in that we apply the same literal constraints that we as humans are subject to to everything else. God is a spirit. He has no limits. Equally its not possible to apply simple causative human logic to God when he is not subject to the constraints that we are as corporeal beings.
Personally i tend to think of God like time. When did time begin......
SonOfCaleb
Active member
And what is the driving force behind life on earth? How do you know?
God. Because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:1.
God. Because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:1.
Does your deity continue to be the driving force behind life on earth? Or once life started did your deity get out of the way?
time began when the universe started. to those of us who accept science as opposed to some religious text with no basis other than circular reasoning (its true because the Bible says so and the Bible is always true because God wrote it because that is what is says in the Bible) time began about 13.8 billion years ago. Note that the 13.8 is based on our current understanding and subject to change given further research and information. I for one am comfortable with not being 100% certain on this and a # of topics other than the fact I would be greatly surprised if the information from scientists who study the cosmos is way way off.God had no beginning. He also has no end. He is eternal because Psalms 90:2 tells us so "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.
This tends to be a hard concept for humans to grasp as we think linearly and chronologically. This also demonstrates the limitations of human thinking in that we apply the same literal constraints that we as humans are subject to to everything else. God is a spirit. He has no limits. Equally its not possible to apply simple causative human logic to God when he is not subject to the constraints that we are as corporeal beings.
Personally i tend to think of God like time. When did time begin......
SonOfCaleb
Active member
time began when the universe started.
And you know this HOW exactly? What scientific empiricism was used or could even be used to derive this? In fact how could you know this with any measure of certainty? Time is a concept. Its not something that can be measured and weighed and observed physically. Its a concept that governs the existence of sentient beings where time and chronology matters. EG a sequence of events. So are you suggesting no period of time passed prior to the existence of the Universe according to Science? If so how is it possible for you to know that....Either way this isn't important to me. I don't try and reconcile Science and theory with the Bible and vice versa. Thats a futile excercise in my opinion as the Bible is not a book of science. You're interested in the HOW. Im interested in the WHO, WHAT and WHY.
And you know this HOW exactly? What scientific empiricism was used or could even be used to derive this? In fact how could you know this with any measure of certainty? Time is a concept. Its not something that can be measured and weighed and observed physically. Its a concept that governs the existence of sentient beings where time and chronology matters. EG a sequence of events. So are you suggesting no period of time passed prior to the existence of the Universe according to Science? If so how is it possible for you to know that....Either way this isn't important to me. I don't try and reconcile Science and theory with the Bible and vice versa. Thats a futile excercise in my opinion as the Bible is not a book of science. You're interested in the HOW. Im interested in the WHO, WHAT and WHY.
Well, you have the WHAT confused with reality.
I am not an astronomer or cosmologist or physicist. But those who are come up with 13.8+/- billion years. Before that--no clue.