Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[sayfer bullets]

Hang in there.

evos turn democrat when their god, Kaos, is threatened.

[PatrickHenry]

[conservative_crusader]

First I'd like to thank you. You have been the absolute first to try to directly rebut my post. The reason I posted this was to refine my argument, and this will serve quite well I think. You must understand, because I am biased that there is a god, and my arguments would be ineffective against my own arguments. So for that thank you.

"You got no replies to #126 because the "logic" is non-existent. Let's see it in some detail.

To start with, your "givens" are completely irrelevant to the point. They add nothing, they show nothing, nor do you reference them in any meaningful way."

Okay this is the equivalent of me telling you that your arguments are stupid, and leaving it like that. But you go on to explain yourself some, so I may be a little off base. I mention every one of my given in the proof.

" You neglect case "A" in spite of it's philosophical implications. But I'll let this one slide."

I neglect case "A" because if it is true, then regardless of any argument we could make against it, everything is meaningless anyway. Not even this argument means anything.


" You assume that cases "A,B, &C" are exhaustive. They aren't (that means you have not considered all possibilities)."

Good argument, but still wrong, either the universe has or has not always been, or it does not exist. there are no other possibilities.

" "If the universe has always existed" DOES NOT imply "then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity"."

Yes it does, If the universe has existed forever, even if stars die, and others are regenerated, then all of those stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Why assume any such thing at all? We know about the life cycle of stars and I've never heard of anyone who suggests that they have been around forever, so you are arguing against a strawman."

Essentially a proof must have a strawman in it. It is inevitable, and must be allowed. But I never asserted that the stars have always been, merely that stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Again, this does not follow from the premise. If the universe has existed forever, or has gone through an endless cycle of Big Bang-Big Crunches, it does not mean that that any particular stars have existed forever."

Thats kinda cool. The Idea of a race attempting to stop a big crunch would be a good plot for a sci-fi novel. (sorry for the non-sequiter). But anyway,

Okay sure I'll give you the second half of the Universe cannot have always been argument(that is single stars exist forever), but I still have the first(stars always consuming resources), so you're still not proved correct.


"True but irrelevant. Stars fluctuate in brightness due to a variety of causes, including age, mutual interference, and violent explosive deaths."

I know I've already given you this half of the argument, but I still want to argue this. Just because the star's magnitude fluctuates, does not impair the speed of light. The light would still reach Earth, and would be visible with instruments, satellites, or even the naked eye.

" So, we have bad premises, bad logic/leaps, and wrong (or, at least, totally unsupported) conclusions.

No need to proceed further."

Good try, but I still have half the Universe cannot have always existed argument, and all of the Universe was created at some point argument. I have at least an A-.

I would like to introduce a new argument. I hope you don't mind. What can be gained by atheism? I mean, sure, if there is no god, then we're all just worm food, but what if there is? I mean If there is a god, I still have what? a 1:1million chance of going to heaven. But believeing in no god, you believe you're just worm food, but If there is a god you have a 0:1million chance of going to heaven. Where is the logic in that? I picture a T-shirt that says: "I'm an atheist, and I'm right, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."

I really do appreciate your debating with me, I like deep discussion, and even if you don't agree with the *entire* Bible, it still must be true, that "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

[shubi]

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662}

Your last post contains Pascal's Wager. Here is an interesting discussion of it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

You seem to be assuming that anyone who understands biological evolution and finds it convincing (any scientist)is an atheist. This is simply not true. You can hold the tenets of modern science, including the TOE and remain faithful to God; for if God created evolution, denying God's work is the same as denying God. The systems God put in place at the Creation of the universe indirectly created evolution. Thus, God created biological evolution.

There is no need to refute evolution to save your faith, unless your faith has been corrupted by silly science and the cult of creationism. The literalist Bible view requires departure from reality, a somewhat psychotic view of life.

[stremba]

Alleles just describe gene mixing

Umm...genes do not mix. Again you'd better check your basic biology and genetics.

[stremba]

I would like to point out that in your argument you take as a given that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." You then attempt to apply that given to the big bang. What you fail to see is that this entails an unstated assumption, namely that "the laws of physics are applicable at all times in the history of the universe." This is generally accepted by scientists to NOT be the case. When or where are the laws of physics not applicable? Why at the very point in time at which you attemept to apply them, namely at the earliest moments of the big bang. (Technically during the duration of time from the big bang equal to the Planck time, I forget the value, but it's approximately 10^-34 seconds.)

[stremba]

Furthermore, if one finds Pascal's wager to be convincing, one must by the same logic also believe in Zeus, Thor, Ra, Huitzilopochtli, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc. After all, if one wrongly fails to believe in any of these, the consequences may be dire, whereas if one wrongly believes in any of them, there is no consequence.

[conservative_crusader]

"You seem to be assuming that anyone who understands biological evolution and finds it convincing (any scientist)is an atheist. This is simply not true. You can hold the tenets of modern science, including the TOE and remain faithful to God; for if God created evolution, denying God's work is the same as denying God. The systems God put in place at the Creation of the universe indirectly created evolution. Thus, God created biological evolution."

Negative. I am saying atheists have nothing to gain from a god if one exists. Not that people who believe in evolution. Personally I accept that however the universe was created, is secondary to the need of salvation. It does not matter if the creation was literal or figurative, it happened and must have happened.

[conservative_crusader]

"Furthermore, if one finds Pascal's wager to be convincing, one must by the same logic also believe in Zeus, Thor, Ra, Huitzilopochtli, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc. After all, if one wrongly fails to believe in any of these, the consequences may be dire, whereas if one wrongly believes in any of them, there is no consequence."

I don't "have" to believe anything. You seem to be forgetting the concept of free will. The bible says "Thou shalt have no other god before me." God of course is the one speaking.If I believe in God in this since not only do I not believe in Zeus, Thor, Ra, Huitzilpochtli, and the Great Green Arkleseizure, I refuse them as a matter of my faith.

[conservative_crusader]

"I would like to point out that in your argument you take as a given that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." You then attempt to apply that given to the big bang. What you fail to see is that this entails an unstated assumption, namely that "the laws of physics are applicable at all times in the history of the universe." This is generally accepted by scientists to NOT be the case. When or where are the laws of physics not applicable? Why at the very point in time at which you attempt to apply them, namely at the earliest moments of the big bang. (Technically during the duration of time from the big bang equal to the Planck time, I forget the value, but it's approximately 10^-34 seconds.)"

I also like this argument, but allow me to disagree. You say that it is accepted by most scientists, Is this something you expect me to accept on faith? And even if most scientists accept it, Scientists a thousand years ago generally accepted that the earth was flat. The very idea that at one point the rules of physics do not apply: time, motion, gravity, et cetera, is ridiculous, in order for the big bang to take place there must have been some reaction to result in what is now the universe.

[js1138]

I refuse them as a matter of my faith.

But your soul remains in peril. There are far more gods and religions that you disbelieve than ones that you believe in. Your odds are pretty low that you happened to be born in exactly the right time and place to be taught the right one.

[stremba]

But you accept your premise that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" for the very same reason, namely that it is an accepted scientific principle. Before Newton, this principle was NOT generally believed. And all the laws of physics have limitations on their scope, so why should it be so difficult to believe that our current laws are limited to times that are more than 10^-34 seconds after the big bang? I am not saying that there are no laws at work then, just that the ones we currently understand do not hold there.

[Jehu]

balrog66 and shubi

I will use just one example of a symbiotic relationship and there are thousands of these in nature, sometimes involving 3 species. Now a basic understanding of a symbiotic relationship between species is in order.

We are not talking about complimentary life, but about two species that are so interdependent that one dies without the other. Here is the example:

Yucca Moth and the Yucca Plant.

The moth is the only insect that has the body shape that can access the Yucca flower, and thus pollinate this plant. The moth can only feed on the nectar of this plant. It deposits its eggs on the plant and its larvae can only eat the flesh of the Yucca plant. Now the shape of the Yucca flower is such that only the specific shape of the Yucca moth enables it to access that flower. Much like a key and lock system.

The problem is that this is not a single species, but two, and they are not even in the same kingdom. I have never heard an explanation about how such a relationship can arise in nature without the concept of teleology.

What could possibly be the mechanism whereby the plant and moth colluded together over time to anticipate the eventual complete interdependence? What drove the design? And it IS a designed system. The odds of such a thing arising by chance must be greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe! And this repeated thousands of times in nature.

And this is just one objection to TOE. Evolutionists want to focus on singular processes, on this chemical reaction, or this process (like alleles). The history of this theory is exactly this fad driven focus on the latest and greatest scientific discovery of some physical, or biological process.

They have a viewpoint about life and nature like worms. The only see what is immediately before them. Yet they ought to have an eagle's viewpoint. The first and great scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton (Who are the founders of modern science) were men of great vision, they contemplated great themes and gazed into the heavens. They were not afraid of God or thoughts of God. They did not hamstring their intellect, like evolutionists, who seem to have a germ-washing fetish to even express the idea of the Divine.

Even if they solve all the physical riddles of life (fat chance!). They must then move on to explain all the interlocking systems in nature. The preprogrammed complex behaviors of most species. How do you explain hive behavior? How do you explain the instinct of spiders? The engineering knowledge built into those tiny brains to construct webs? The Angler fish in Mangrove swamps which can shoot a stream of water from under the water and knock an insect off a branch so they can feed.

If instinct is preprogrammed behavior far beyond the capability of these tiny brains? Who was the programmer? Why is He not mentioned? How did the Angler fish figure out the air/water interface and the bending of light so that the insect does not appear under water in its actual location? These problems multiply over and over again. Evolutionists simply ignore all these other aspects while they pretend to know how species came about through physical processes, and they focus ONLY on these physical processes.

Like reading one page of a book in the middle of the book, then proclaiming to all, they know what the book is about. Very arrogant IMO. They remind me of the scientific viewpoint just before Einstein and Max Planck...where scientist's, unaware of quantum mechanics and the subatomic world were convinced science had it just about figured. At that time the man in charge of the U.S. Patent office quit, saying, "Everything worthwhile, all the great inventions have already been invented."