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.

[Safrguns]

Over 90% of your comments in this thread have been insults shubi...
I seriously doubt at this point that you give a rats ass about who accepts any of your precious TOE arguments, and who does not... because you seem to be more interested in eliciting an emotional response.

I would encourage anyone reading this thread to cease feeding this troll... or at least give him the traditional and more proper troll treatment.

[conservative_crusader]

"Lighten up a little. He is only a kid."

"I finally figured that out."

Oh... I see how it is, just because I'm 18 makes my arguments flawed. Thats what? Argumentum Ad Antiquiteum? Just because you see yourselves as older and more experienced than me, does not mean that you are.

[balrog666]

Prove I am illogical. ARGUE ONE POINT.

[Sigh] Okay, pick one.

Okay I'll play your game. The possibility that I cannot prove anything contradicts itself. If nothing can be proved, then it cannot be proved that nothing can be proved. If thats not semantic nothing is.

[Big Sigh] You seem to overlook the fact (again) that nobody is saying that but you.

Just because you didn't say it, does not mean that is not your position, contradicting every point that creationists make, is a pretty good sign you don't believe there is a god. If you believe there is a god, then quit arguing with me.

As I stated earlier today, I do not care what you believe, only what you can establish by evidence and logical inference. Picking holes in poor arguments is the easy way to clue you in that you need to back up what you assert.

Even if I am reacting like a child, my arguments are not fallacies, whereas yours are. Oh and that's great, more Ad Hominem. You're labeling me a liberal now. What makes me a liberal? The fact that I believe a god exists? Think again Mr. Strawman.

That was the truth disguised as a joke, son. Laugh if you don't get it.

[Safrguns]

You don't need to defend yourself crusader...
Your conduct here verses theirs is proof that maturity does not necessarily come with age. They are feeding upon defensive remarks such as yours, because their arguments have no basis in well known facts.

[balrog666]

Over-the-hill, semi-literate, fundmentalist, Bible-thumpers usually need to have a point pounded into their skull with a jackhammer. Repeatedly.

Such techniques are not necessarily appropriate for the occasional wet-behind-the-ears youngster who wanders in here with a skull full of mush.

[conservative_crusader]

"Okay, pick one."

God must exist. To disprove this you must refute post #126

"You seem to overlook the fact (again) that nobody is saying that but you."

Alright, we agree, God must exist.

" As I stated earlier today, I do not care what you believe, only what you can establish by evidence and logical inference. Picking holes in poor arguments is the easy way to clue you in that you need to back up what you assert."

We "established," that there is a god. I did that on post #126

" That was the truth disguised as a joke, son. Laugh if you don't get it."

So you do not refute that your arguments are fallacies, and the fact that God must exist. Therefore I win this argument.

[conservative_crusader]

"Such techniques are not necessarily appropriate for the occasional wet-behind-the-ears youngster who wanders in here with a skull full of mush."

HA. Skull full of mush? Hardly, I'm gonna get off and go finish my Trig.

[Jehu]

I know what alleles are...I just don't care! They are another in the endless and plastic explanations put forth by evolutionists. It is always the same; they focus on some biological process all excited as if it proves their miserable theory. Alleles just describe gene mixing...so what? It is the dreary joy of technicians impressed by their own grasp of trivia.

I can go back to the 50's when Miller's experiments with urea made the preposterous claims that "science," had created life in the lab. O, how Time magazine exulted in that phony little non-discovery. Some text books still mention this experiment. All B.S. of course. He just produced a few amino acids in a controlled environment with precursor chemicals. Big whoop! Try a protein! How about DNA! And DNA has to exist inside the nucleus of a cell, it is a very delicate compound.

Yet DNA specifies the construction of proteins, of which the walls of the cell are made. And yet DNA does not suffice, it needs RNA and transcription, and little machines to assemble the proteins, and never a mistake in millions of copies, and thousands of those little machines in ONE cell.

The complexity of a single cell surpasses the complexity of any human city. And this little factory is self replicating, self repairing, and does its work for the benefit of other cells it has know way of knowing about.

And millions of like cells gather into organs that perform specific functions in complete symphony with groups of other cells gathered into organs, ultimately expressed as human beings that can contemplate all this orchestrated complexity rivaling any city, and network, any organized work of man, and he can then pretend it (him) arose without outside intelligence's? You might as well believe New York City self assembled. (Took millions of years of course!)

All evolutionary arguments fail when a person realizes the implication of all evolutionary theory is that life suddenly arose from the inorganic. To do away with that impossible chasm, some, even on this thread, pretend that a God...(in whom they do not believe) created the first life and then TOE took over.

This stupid theory produces such idiocy as pansperia and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Yet not one evolutionist EVER gives a mathematical description of the driving force behind evolution.

I hardly need a belief in a creator to reject this child's toy of 19th century biological illiteracy. I worked on a farm once and I can recognize the smell of B.S.

[Jehu]

Where's the math? O, I get it, there is none for this "scientific," theory. Give me the equations for the rate of change of species. Have none? Where are the transitional forms? Names please, ought to be millions according to your high Priest Darwin.

[Jehu]

A far better Christian than you are a scientist.

And I'm awaiting your or 666's explanation according to TOE how any symbiotic relationship came about in nature. Only physical processes can be used to explain. Good Luck, (Que jeopardy music)

[VadeRetro]

The killer question: "If this was the creation of the universe what is it expanding into?"

The one that sent me into therapy for six months was: "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

[shubi]

I'm older than you. ;-)

[shubi]

What do you see as the impediment to symbiotic relationships?

[shubi]

Every animal and plant is a transitional form.

[shubi]

I don't know the math. I am a biologist.

[shubi]

Population genetics is full of mathematical calculations. I just am not familiar with them.

[balrog666]

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.

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

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

Let us assume B. If the universe has always existed, then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity.

"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".

So your entire statement so far is an unsupported assertion.

Therefore not only are there no resources presently existing, there are negative infinity resources. We know this is false. Therefore Case B is false.

This is not a formal conclusion but another assertion as your initial premise was flawed. And clearly so. The primary star we know about is the Sun - it's a young star and it has not existed since the beginning of the Universe. Do you know how old our Sun is? Does the evidence of higher atomic number elements (lead, gold, etc) on our planet indicate anything to you?

Let us assume B again, only this time, we will go with the idea that resources will regenerate within stars via some reaction.

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.

So we know that stars have been shining in the direction of earth 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.

therefore all stars in the universe, not concealed by phenomena such as nebulae, are visible from the Earth.

Even if we are in a steady-state, existing-forever universe with stars that "shine forever", we are still subject to the inverse-square law and atmospheric distortion, so no, they are not all visible from the Earth.

However we know also that a new stars light will occasionally reach earth,

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

so Case B is again false.

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

No need to proceed further.

Grade: F

I would hate to think that this represents the level your thought processes or your work in general.

[balrog666]

And I'm awaiting your or 666's explanation according to TOE how any symbiotic relationship came about in nature.

I have yet to hear why you think it's a problem.

If you look at the natural history of wasps and orchids you will see a parallel developmental path.

So, now clue us in, what's the big problem with symbiosis??

[PatrickHenry]

No need to re-invent the wheel: Olber's Paradox.

[balrog666]

I stand corrected. Or rather, sit.