[_ Old Earth _] "Theistic Evolutionist" is an oxymoron

[Charlie Hatchett]

Imho, ToE doesn't hold water on many dimensions:

Cause and Effect, 1rst and 2nd laws, Observations and more broadly the

Scientific Method, the Geologic Record, Statistical Probability, Occam's

Razor, Information Theory, etc...

But my point is, these are "my" observations. I'm glad that their are others

with opposing views. This sharpens my critical analysis, and holds my

thoughts accountable.

I'm fully convinced when theistic evolutionists and young earthers stand

before God, in his grace, both will both be corrected. Yet will both be under

his grace. Us humans aren't anything compared to the "Mastermind".

We're kinda like spectators on the sidelines of a huge game, second

guessing the coaches' thoughts.

One reconciliation between ToE types and young earthers I've been

pondering is the Big Bang Theory and it's implications upon time-space.

If in fact The Big Bang Theory is correct, is it not plausible, in the early

phases of the universe's creation, that the time-space continuum was

drastically compressed relative to our current vantage point?

If in fact the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, would not the rigid

time-space continuum be expanding at an increasing rate. Think about the

first second of the Big Bang Theory, and the corresponding changes in

time-space...

Makes my head spin.... 8-)

 

[jwu]

That's a good example of why appeal-to-authority is a logical fallacy.

Quite the opposite - it's a straw man on your part. If you want to redefine what evolution is and then argue against that, then that has little bearing on what actually is considered evolution by the scientific community.

But, you agree with me that Evolution doens't include God.

Just like any scientific theory it is agnostic about God, it makes no statement either way.

How do you measure success?

By surviving lots of potential falsifications. E.g. the discovery of DNA could have been a huge problem to the theory of evolution, yet the genetic data conclusively supports common descent.

Are you familiar with ERVs?

How many individual fossils do you think have been identified? What percentage of them do you think are considered candidates to be transitional forms between decisively different species?

How many individual fossils? Millions. How many are transitionals? All. How many are "spectacular" transitionals? Much less of course.
But again, please give me a description of what you would accept as a transitional.

I asked how do you know it's not a transitional between mammals and birds. Your answer apparently is because its odd features are reptilian rather than avian. Suppose all you had was an old fossil chiseled out of a rock, how would you know these features are reptilian rather than avian?

...by comparing them. Reptiles and Birds are different after all, and can be distinguished.

Genetic loads and loss of diversity accumulate over time.

What law is that? Do you have sources for it?
What do you mean by "genetic loads"? And how about observed increase of diversity, i.e. speciation?

What makes you think God is doing anything at the quantum level?

It's the perfect place for God to operate without leaving traces.

I didn't say humans evolved from chimps. I want a documented example of humans evolving from chimps. And before you reply, I already address your concerns about providing this example.

But a human evolving from chimps wouldn't be evolution. That'd actually falsify evolution and support saltationism.
I can give you a lot of evidence for shared ancestry of humans and chimps though, such as the aforementioned ERVs.

But, how about any documented example of 100 mutations constructively contributing to any one function. How about just 10 mutations? Five? How about just two clear mutations that clearly constructively contribute to the same function? I don't believe Evolution, but I think you ought to be able to find a few such examples.

Sure:


1. Adaptation of Spirogyra insignis (Chlorophyta) to an extreme natural environment (sulphureous waters) through preselective mutations
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 05.01325.x

2. Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... rtid=14717


3. Experimental Adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to Mice
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/168/3/1119


4. Glyphosate Resistance in Another Plant
http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/qtr99 ... stance.htm

5. Identification of mutations conferring insecticide-insensitive AChE in the cotton-melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover
http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/c ... ssypii.pdf

6. A Gain-of-Function Mutation in an Arabidopsis Toll Interleukin1 Receptor–Nucleotide Binding Site–Leucine-Rich Repeat Type R Gene Triggers Defense Responses and Results in Enhanced Disease Resistance
http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/full/14/12/3149

And finally one even in us humans: 7. Recent mutations that provide resistance to arthritis. Even the individual who ffirst had them could be identified.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

Darwin's idea of evolution is not at all outdated. It's not his fault that the evidence is so non-existent that modern Evolutionists have turned Evolution into a straw-man of what it really is.

Theories change, read up on what a straw man is. However, there is tons if evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
On this page alone there are 29 different lines of evidence which each alone conclusively support macroevolution.

Darwin explicitly was talking about new forms, not anything so totally irrelevant as what modern Evolutionists call speciation.

Please quote the relevant passage. And how come the title is "Origin of Species" then?
However, again, what constitutes a new form in your books? Family? Genus? Phylum?

Imho, ToE doesn't hold water on many dimensions:
Cause and Effect, 1rst and 2nd laws, Observations and more broadly the
Scientific Method, the Geologic Record, Statistical Probability, Occam's
Razor, Information Theory, etc...

I'm curious about how you think the first law (of thermodynamics) poses a problem to the theory of evolution, as about the geological record. If i recall correctly we haven't discussed the 1stLoT at all yet, and the geological record rather in a way that falsifies the noachian flood (that threads seems to have been abandoned...). Occams razor interests me as well, and of course statistics...Please make threads about this as soon as you're ready to discuss it.

In terms of 2ndLoT and Information theory, i think there is still a thread lying around and it's your turn to reply...just like that recent geological record vs global flood thread.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Sounds good Bro.

Let me see out this 335,000 B.P. Mastodon kill site debate (Out of Africa...

post) first.

Too many irons in the fire at once burns me out...getting old.

I thought the Info Theory debate was interesting.

Maybe we could pick that up again in a few weeks?

 

[bladed-truth]

Not true, by looking in the fossil record it shows numerous species that bear a striking resemblance to each other, that are apparently changing over large periods of time. Science then seeks to find an explanation for this, the explanation is that species change over large amounts of time, that seems perfectly in line with nature.

I think you have that backwards. Darwin said in his book, "He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in successive stages of the same great formation?" Emphasis mine. Darwin was explaining that the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, and he blamed the imperfection of the fossil record for this. Darwin also apparently didn't know anything about statistics.

Evolutionists didn't develop their hypothesis by looking at the fossil record. The have been combing through the fossil record desperately looking for something to support their hypothesis (which they named a theory and call a fact, what a bunch clowns).

Evolution has nothing to do with the beggining of life, it just says: 'Life is here, life apears to change over large amounts of time...' then proceeds to attempt to explain why this might be the case.

I'm looking at a bigger picture than you're looking at, apparently.

[quote:57c32]Personally I believe that if God is a perfect designer then he made a universe that would work, everything works by mechanisms, things fall because of gravity etc, if you were to design an engine would you desgin it so that you had to keep reaching inside and screwing with it to keep it running?

If I made a machine, it would do from the start what I intended it to do. It wouldn't need to evolved the point I wanted it to be at.

So many religious people seem to think Science is a big conspiracy to debunk religion,

So many Evolutionists want to conflate Evolution with science. Evolution is an open effort to make God redundant.[/quote:57c32]

''Darwin was explaining that the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, and he blamed the imperfection of the fossil record for this. Darwin also apparently didn't know anything about statistics.''

Darwin also lived over 150 years ago (Interesting fact), modern science has come a small way since then. Modern evolution is very different from Darwins theory.

'I'm looking at a bigger picture than you're looking at, apparently. '

As to what picture we are looking at, the current social issue is the teaching of evolution in school, therefore I took the not unreasonable assumption that we should talk about the scientific theory of evolution.

''If I made a machine, it would do from the start what I intended it to do. It wouldn't need to evolved the point I wanted it to be at. ''

Except that the universe apears to be billions of years old, and life (and indeed the universe) apears to have changed over time (I've come to this conclusion from looking at what are known as 'facts'). So going on this assumption, I'm going assume that the universe is billions of years old and has changed over time (Along with life), and thus as it obviously hasn't been the same from the start there will probably be a mechanism for change.

''So many Evolutionists want to conflate Evolution with science. Evolution is an open effort to make God redundant.''

Science is basically looking at something and trying to figure out why it does what it does. It is the search for truth, if you can find evidence that your theory (And it is a theory lol) that God created the universe is true, then submit it and it will be considered in the same way all other theories are.

Science simply looks at the evidence, simply because it comes up with answers you don't like is no reason to attack it. If you disagree with it as a theory for a factual reason then by all means submit your counter theory.

Science is not a conspiracy, many scientists are religious too, they've just come to terms with the fact that the old 'fingers in the ears humming loudly' faith, just isn't the right way to go about it.

 

[LittleNipper]

I do feel that there is Creationist research being carried out. Some of it seems to be coming up with interesting re-evaluations of various data. The problem is that one, it is contrary to what is presently the accepted norm and two, it moves scientific research into areas of sectarian support that is not considered popular by secular (politially correct) elitists...

 

[bladed-truth]

I do feel that there is Creationist research being carried out. Some of it seems to be coming up with interesting re-evaluations of various data. The problem is that one, it is contrary to what is presently the accepted norm and two, it moves scientific research into areas of sectarian support that is not considered popular by secular (politially correct) elitists...

All research is welcome to be submitted into the independant peer review system, the problem is that creationist research is never published. Period.

The closest thing to actual scientific research they do is attempt to pick apart theories that don't agree with their stance (Like evolution), and even then they do not do it through the peer review system, they write a misleading and ill-informed book and then try to confuse what the arguement is actually about.

 

[Biblereader]

Evolution grew from a hatred of certain races, and their traits. Evolution got it's name after the perpetrators of evil-lution wanted to foist their bigotry onto the unsuspecting general public.
Every time I see a person supporting evolution, I wonder if that person has actually read the entire history of evolution, how it began, who kept it going, and why,.

Basically, Darwin, Galton, et al, were racists, interested in creating a master race, and in institutionalizing or killing off all others who had "inferior" traits.
This is also how the I.Q. test began!
The I.Q. test was deliberately slanted towards upper class, well-educated society families, and thus, supported the claims of these men, when the tests were given to lower class children and their families.
Kind of like a physicist asking a super model to explain how to controllably make nanoscale 20-sided shapes (icosahedra) and other polyhedra.
It aint' gonna happen.
This doesn't mean the super model is inferior, what it DOES mean, is, the super model has not been trained and educated in that particular field.

See what I mean? Darwin, and evolution is another word, a code word, if you will, for Nazisism, for racism, for a terrible evil, where man elevates himself above God, and decides who is worthy.
Evolution is a terrible sin.
Please read a few books about Darwin and his associates. Read about Galton:
Galton, Sir Francis (1822-1911), English polymath and scientist interested in antropometry, experimental psychology, statistics and heredity. He was born near Birmingham and graduated from Cambridge in 1844 before taking a position in the British Civil Service. Here he studied meteorology and published his Meteorographica (1863), the basis of modern weather maps. Galton is perhaps best known best for his work in anthropology and heredity, and is often credited with having founded the science of eugenics. His Hereditary Genius Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (1907 [1883]) referred to in Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), etc. Notably, Galton was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin and cousin to Charles Darwin. He is remembered also for Galton's law of regression: average parents tend to produce average children, minus parents. . . produce minus children, plus parents. . . produce plus children, but extremes are inherited in a less marked degree.

 

[Biblereader]

In short, evolution is another word for eugenics, which is
the desire to create a master race, and a desire to wipe out
all others who don't fit the criteria.

Please read a few books about Eugenics. Go to amazon.com, or ebay, half.com, wherever, but, please, know what you're supporting, and then decide if you want to be in the same class as KKK'ers, and NAACP'ers.

 

[jwu]

Yaddayaddayadda....while it is correct that Darwin was racist (well...most people were, back then), this has no bearing whatsoever on the validiy of the theory of evolution as a tool to explain the diversity of life.

In short, evolution is another word for eugenics, which is
the desire to create a master race, and a desire to wipe out
all others who don't fit the criteria.

Evolution is "the change of frequency of allele in a population". Could you elaborate how you get eugenics from that?

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive - this alone already is fatal for your line of reasoning, it does not give any instructions on "what to do".

 

[Biblereader]

Oh, you're so kind. Yadayada....wasn't that new in the late 80's?

Anyways, we didn't evolve from slime, or cavemen.


We are not evolving now. We are the same now as we were then.

To believe that your momma was closer to being an ape than you are,
is quite an insult to your family line, don't you think?

A funny question: since you believe in Darwinism, which is survival of the fittest, then, why haven't we grown extra hands, or stronger hearts, why are we still battling the same diseases that Adam and Eve's children battled?
We are still afflicted because of sin, and to elevate man above God, is pompous and self-serving. Evolution degrades humans down to the level of
animals, thus, getting rid of any need for controlling oneself, or for believing that an unborn human is a HUMAN.
evolution damns mankind.

You really have lacerated yourself.

 

[jwu]

I note that you completely failed to address any of my points.

We are not evolving now. We are the same now as we were then.

Not even in your own scenario! How are you going to explain the different features of humans in different regions if they all are still the same as Adam and Eve?

To believe that your momma was closer to being an ape than you are,
is quite an insult to your family line, don't you think?

Actually i am just as much an ape as my mother is, just like i am just as much a vertebrate or a mammal as she is.
And i wouldn't consider it an insult either way.

A funny question: since you believe in Darwinism, which is survival of the fittest, then, why haven't we grown extra hands, or stronger hearts, why are we still battling the same diseases that Adam and Eve's children battled?

Do you think extra hands (saltationism by the way, evolution doesn't work that way) would have beneficial effect on the success of reproduction of that individual? I kind of disagree.

However, human evolution is going on, if you like it or not:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

It's notable that the third example on that page is exactly about what you asked for - stronger hearts.

Another one about a recent evolutionary development which offers resistence to arthritis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

We are still afflicted because of sin, and to elevate man above God, is pompous and self-serving. Evolution degrades humans down to the level of
animals, thus, getting rid of any need for controlling oneself, or for believing that an unborn human is a HUMAN.
evolution damns mankind.

Evolution makes no statement about the existence of a deity or a soul. Biologically, we are nothing but animals. And isn't there a verse in the Bible saying that humans are beasts?

You really have lacerated yourself.

Not quite.

 

[Biblereader]

You have just proven my point about the beliefs of Evolutionists.

You truly believe we are not human.
You believe we are on the same level as animals.


Thus, using that argument to support your most likely liberal viewpoints,
you dismiss the need for morals in general.

You most likely support homosexuality, blame it on genetics, you do not
like Christianity, the Bible, nor do you believe the Truth of the Bible.
You dismiss the idea of heaven and hell, and you most likely support abortion on demand, euthanasia, and the view that America deserved to be hit on 9-11.
Am I wrong on any of my assumptions about you?

If you believe humans are biological animals, then why do we have a conscience? Why does a small child learn to lie?
Why do people get angry when you steal their money from them?
Animals are not supposed to be able to build, to be scientists, architects,
artists, musicians, animals are not creative, nor do they see nature as anything more than some place to use as a bathroom or a place to find food.
Is that how you view the beauty of nature?
Aren't you creative? Do you desire a loving relationship with another human being?
Or another animal?
Do you feel joy, happiness, grief, pity, compassion, guilt, kind heartedness?
If you do, then you're human.
We are not descended from animals. We are above the animals. We will live eternally, our souls will live SOMEwhere, forever.

You have a choice to make about that, and you will be responsible for your choice. God or Satan?
Heaven or Hell?
You are a human, through and through, and you have a soul.

 

[jwu]

You didn't address a single one of my points.

You truly believe we are not human.
You believe we are on the same level as animals.

Of course we are human. And biologically humans are animals. Spiritually however i we are somewhat ahead of a beetle, that's an entirely different matter.

I found the verse that i mentioned earlier:

Ecclesiates 3:18

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Thus, using that argument to support your most likely liberal viewpoints,
you dismiss the need for morals in general.

Oh, i am a liberal, but morals are fine.

You most likely support homosexuality, blame it on genetics, you do not
like Christianity, the Bible, nor do you believe the Truth of the Bible.

I am a Christian, and i think that homosexuals should simply be left alone. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

You dismiss the idea of heaven and hell, and you most likely support abortion on demand, euthanasia, and the view that America deserved to be hit on 9-11.

I'm unsure about the details of hell, and while i don't advocate a general ban of abortion, i think it should be severely restricted.
In terms of 9-11...well...i think they asked for it. It's a tragedy that 3000 innocent people died, but i cannot say that i was surprised when it happened. Were you?

If you believe humans are biological animals, then why do we have a conscience? Why does a small child learn to lie?

Being an animal biologically does not mean that one does not have a soul, spiritually.

Why do people get angry when you steal their money from them?

Why does my dog get angry when i try to steal his toy?

Animals are not supposed to be able to build, to be scientists, architects,
artists, musicians, animals are not creative, nor do they see nature as anything more than some place to use as a bathroom or a place to find food.

Yet they play and fool around.

Aren't you creative? Do you desire a loving relationship with another human being?
Or another animal?
Do you feel joy, happiness, grief, pity, compassion, guilt, kind heartedness?
If you do, then you're human.

All these things have been observed in cats, dogs, apes, dolphins and elephants too.

You have a choice to make about that, and you will be responsible for your choice. God or Satan?
Heaven or Hell?
You are a human, through and through, and you have a soul.

God. I am a theistic evolutionist, as the majority of Christians worldwide. Evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[bladed-truth]

Oh, you're so kind. Yadayada....wasn't that new in the late 80's?

Anyways, we didn't evolve from slime, or cavemen.


We are not evolving now. We are the same now as we were then.

To believe that your momma was closer to being an ape than you are,
is quite an insult to your family line, don't you think?

A funny question: since you believe in Darwinism, which is survival of the fittest, then, why haven't we grown extra hands, or stronger hearts, why are we still battling the same diseases that Adam and Eve's children battled?
We are still afflicted because of sin, and to elevate man above God, is pompous and self-serving. Evolution degrades humans down to the level of
animals, thus, getting rid of any need for controlling oneself, or for believing that an unborn human is a HUMAN.
evolution damns mankind.

You really have lacerated yourself.

I pity you in the willful ignorance you have inflicted upon yourself.

Why have we not grown extra hands? Because they get in the way and are thus a hinderance to our survival. Yes, my parents were closer to early hominids than I am, just as I will be closer to early hominids than my children. I see no problem with this, life exists, it changes under pressure, becoming better adapted to it's environment, the environment changes so does life.

Sin by your own definition is not a genetic disorder and so cannot be evolved out of. As it seems like you are the type to believe the world is 6000 years old I will try to fit into your world, 6000 years isn't enough for any but the smallest changes in alleles. That is why there has been such small amounts of change, evolution takes millions upon millions of years.

You say that evolution is a racist philosophy, this is foolish as it directly goes against what evolution states. An organism evolves towards maximum compatibility with it's environment. If you are white (As I assume you are), if you go to Africa you will find yourself less evolved compared to the Black people around you, as they have evolved to cope with the stronger sunlight by producing more mellanin in their skin.

There is no attempt to elevate man above God, your rant has lost touch with reality. Evolution simply states that life changes under environmental pressure, then attempts to figure out how.

Your passion is admirable, but you walk to battle not knowing not only who your enemy is but who your allies are. I hope that you make the effort to learn about what it is you are arguing about, then maybe you will be able to make a meaningful contribution.