Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[shubi]

I don't know if it pays well. They make millions selling creation science crap. I think it would be funny if you would apply. I will help you with the ap. ;-)

[shubi]

When the facts aren't on the creationist side, which is most of the time, they try to get you angry and think they won. It is typical rhetorical tricks over scientific fact.

[Thatcherite]

Der from post 994:It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.

BDK:Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.

At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.

T:Maybe I am misunderstanding post 994 and derheimwill will correct me; but the latter sentences (requote coming up) in it seemed to indicate a (partial? grudging?) acceptance of the mainstream science position that no evidence exists for a global deluge and that it has been searched for fairly and open-mindedly:

der also from post 994:Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.

T:Am I right here der, or have I misunderstood you?

[derheimwill]

Bdk suggested that no scientists were funded before the "rejection" of flood geology (200 years ago). I chose not to respond. As to your specific question, I am not accepting the "mainstream" position, merely acknowledging it. I agree I need to do more research, if I am to continue defending my position on this thread.

[BJungNan]

God created evolution. How's that?

[shubi]

Evolution is a fact. God created everything.
Therefore, God created evolution.

[bigdakine]

Bdk suggested that no scientists were funded before the "rejection" of flood geology (200 years ago).

Der, there was no such thing as a geology degree 200 years ago. Most of the geologists back then were folks, who, for lack of a better description, had too much time on their hands :-)

You can find sime nuggets in Peter Bowler's book "Evolution, History of an Idea"..

Merry Christmas... Happy researching..

Big.

[BJungNan]

I've got a few seconds to spare. If you've got the proof, I'd like to see it.

Oh my gosh. Is this like a fetish subject or yours?

[BJungNan]

...and you bailed on me in the middle of the last thread. Where did you go?

[PatrickHenry]

...and you bailed on me in the middle of the last thread. Where did you go?

You mean after post 1,083 in the "Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists" thread, I assume. I judged you to be unfit for human discourse. You're on Virtual Ignore, where you will remain. Now you know.

[BJungNan]

Virtual Ingnore sounds really good. Of all the years I have been posting on FR, I have never come across anyone like you. And in the other thread I saw that others have the same impression of you. That should bother you. But perhaps rather than confronting it, it is easier for you to use the virtual ignorance button instead. Whatever works.

[js1138]

:-)

[shubi]

Placemarker

[derheimwill]

bookmark

[Jehu]

If you guys can believe a blind stupid "force" allowed US to come about with our several trillion cells working in complete sychronicity, producing millions of proteins, duplicating themselves with an error rate of 1 gene error in 10 million copies. That "evolution developed the human brain, the five senses.

That evolution dictated we loose our fur (to what evolutionary advantage?). And that we became upright with the loss of land speed due to the loss of two legs for locomotion. That all the specifics of every organ is contained within the genetic code in each and every cell...except the sex cells which only have half the genes of the individual. And that all the specific cells for every organ KNOW where to go to form the human body while still in the womb. That the human brain has more connections than all the telephone systems in the world put together, and those connections pre-wired in the genetic code.

Well I guess I can EASILY believe the pre-flood earth existed in different physical circumstances than today, including an atmosphere that contained no dust or salt crystals so that moisture could precipitate as rain...never before seen until some change in the atmosphere, including the possible introduction of inter-stellar masses of water, earthquakes (look what one did under the Indian Ocean!) Water is still not drained from the land that was flooded!

Also the Bible does not indicate if the flood was local or global, arguments are made for both viewpoints. The best arguments are for a flood, ONLY where man existed, since it was his sin that was being judged.

Now you guys postulate a mechanism for all of speciation that nobody has ever observed, the fossil evidence is in direct contradiction to this theory...and yet you still believe in THIS theory, contrary to all the evidence, modern science, information theory, irreducible complexity, and just plain common sense that no natural processes can produce something as incredible as consciousness, or self-awareness. A quality that is obviously transcendental to sheer matter.

And you base this belief, starting from a mediocre scientist from the 19th century who knew hardly anything about cells, nothing about DNA, who's own words about the fossil record have been falsified, and who believed in Lamarckian inheritance. Hardly a credible source to invest so much time and effort to prop up this rickety and moth-eaten theory. It's days are numbered, so is the hiding place for your unbelief. Agnostics and atheists will have to find a new way to throw rocks at God. Meanwhile many of us will give honor to God for the wonders of HIS creation. And we will marvel at the stupidity that unbelief can generate.

[Thatcherite]

Welcome Back! Did you have a good holiday?

I'm too busy right now to reply to such a long post but I'll get back if no-one else does.

[Jehu]

Yep! Went to NYC. I was contemplating the Island of Manhattan, which took human beings with all their industry and intelligencer and the resources of a great nation about 200 years to build. I had to keep jumping out of the way as new (little buildings) spontaneously erupted out of the sidewalk.

And consider that Manhattan is FAR LESS COMPLEX than a single living cell, cannot self-replicate, nor repair itself. And does not produce products for distant cities it knows nothing about.

[shubi]

"That evolution dictated we loose our fur (to what evolutionary advantage?"

So we could wear Calvin Klein jeans without hurting ourselves.

[shubi]

"And does not produce products for distant cities it knows nothing about."

I think NYC still has some manufacturing left despite the liberals there.

I think NYC knows about most if not all the cities in the world.

[shubi]

"Now you guys postulate a mechanism for all of speciation that nobody has ever observed"

I think we have seen DNA now on an electron microscope.