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.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

"Paleobabble" hehehe

There are a few here at FR that are quite fluent in that dialect.

[Right Wing Professor]

Archaeopteryx is the premier (and just about the only species) put forth as a "transitional" form. And yet one of the leading experts on birds who IS an evolutionist himself is honest enough to admit "it is a BIRD!" And this labeling game just goes on anyway.

So Feduccia (who is not mainstream, BTW, on the subject of bird evolution) says it's a bird. What has that got to do with it being transitional? It's a bird with several features that all modern birds lack, but which reptiles have. It is therefore transitional.

Creationists are so fond of these idiotic semantic games.

[Right Wing Professor]

Would that Ray Bohlin by any chance be married to this fruitloop

Probability seems high. Are angels transitional forms, I wonder?

[Right Wing Professor]

Utterly bizarre stuff. I particularly loved the racist tract on the characteristics of the three sons of Noah.

[shubi]

Mike, a theory can't be bankrupt in science. Until it is falsified it is basically a fact, as far as laymen are concerned.

[shubi]

"Dauermodifications are the kind of modifications which are observed in living things in response to environmental pressures and which, when they occur in one generation, appear to be inherited by the next."

The above is a quote from the site. It only looks like there are allele changes over time, it is really Lamarckian. LOL

[Thatcherite]

I went to your website and read the usual junk science put out by devoted evolutionists. Still no mathematical treatment, no clear explanation of the "forces," that supposedly produced the millions of species that have existed on this earth. And the cheap labeling game to try and pull camels out of donkeys, or visa versa. Read my lips, "There are NO transitional species in the fossil record."

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "Lies, all Lies!" doesn't count as reading something. Once again your example shows your incomprehension: A camel giving birth to a donkey would falsify ToE, not confirm it.

Here is to you and shubi about abiogenesis and why I WILL hold your feet to the fire in that TOE assumes the following, even if it does not explicitly state, what this evolutionist made clear on YOUR website:

Interesting how easily you once again fall into the language of hate, pain, and torture.

I love how they have to make disclaimer after disclaimer that TOE does not address abiogenesis. To bad they did not make this too clear in Time/Life depictions of evolution, nor make this REAL CLEAR in secondary education in the 60's, 70's, 80's.

Don't blame me for the poverty of your education.

I made fun of Stevie's name because I WAS aware of the origin of the Steve list...it is called irony.

You should stay away from humour as you don't appear to understand it. Your "irony" only works if you see (as the rest of your post implied) Gould as an opponent of ToE who wouldn't be on the list if he were alive.

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

Can you cite the reference more exactly please, so I can see what his source was.

"BTW you have not yet explained whether you hate Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, Osiris, Zeus, Athene etc etc or believe in them. I'd love to know which it is."

I believe in real people and real events, which one of the above do you consider REAL? You already believe in the utter fantasy of life popping up everywhere without any discernible cause...

A ludicrous travesty of the ToE and abiogenesis that shows that you still don't understand ToE

... , I suppose you sup up on Olympus in your spare time.

Down through history numerous people have believed in all of the characters I listed. I don't believe in any of them, or your God either. According to you that means I hate them which I think is some kind of projection of your own feelings about things that you don't believe in. It is you that insists that disbelief is the same thing as hate so I have to conclude that you do hate those things. The question isn't which do I consider REAL, because I am not the one going round equating disbelief and hate.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Probability seems high. Are angels transitional forms, I wonder?

Who knows? Why don't you ask them? :)

[Thatcherite]

Utterly bizarre stuff. I particularly loved the racist tract on the characteristics of the three sons of Noah.

It is wonderful isn't it. You learn something every day. I'd spotted that in my search for the Darwin despair citation but not bothered to read it until now.

What fantastic tosh! Noah's sons must have enforced sibling incest amongst their descendents (I missed mention of this interesting fact in Genesis) or intermarriage of the cousins would have merged the racial characteristics. I guess it is lucky that they didn't have any recessive defects. That would sure have hampered all their founding of one-man civilisations and cities.

[Jehu]

You must be a liberal. They are the only ones that yell "racist," whenever anyone notes that humans come with different shades of skin.

Hey, it's worked pretty well to keep some on YOUR plantation.

[Jehu]

"So Feduccia (who is not mainstream, BTW, on the subject of bird evolution) says it's a bird. What has that got to do with it being transitional? It's a bird with several features that all modern birds lack, but which reptiles have. It is therefore transitional."

Heck Gould was not considered mainstream with his "Hopeful Monster Theory," but you guys consider him an authority.

"Creationists are so fond of these idiotic semantic games."

You evolutionists have based your entire theory on tautologies, circular logic, and labeling games. You can spank any creationist with obfuscations and meaningless wrangling over biological processes. Nobody loves process as much as those without imagination. Where's the MATH?!!!

[Jehu]

To bad (according to Popper) Darwinism CANNOT be falsified. Therefor it is NOT a scientific theory.

[conservative_crusader]

"My hypothetical Anti-God is a malevolent being who enjoys punishing those who have faith in God (who hypothetically doesn't care). To reveal itself would be counter-productive to its aims because it wants there to be as many believers as possible. It doesn't have the power of God but it has some kind of supernatural ability to harvest souls and punish them. You argument really amounts to the fact that you don't want such a being to exist and being a nice person you cannot understand the motives of such a creature (and no-one else does either), but our desire that such a creature not exist and our inability to comprehend its motives is not proof."

Sorry for taking to long to reply. It took me a while to come up with a good answer. My answer is this: your malevolent Anti-God cannot exist. You yourself admitted that the initial creator doesn't care. Therefore, while human life could have easily evolved, this anti-god- who is not cared about- would not have been created to begin with.

"I think we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one. I don't buy any of your physical analogies of doors, or choosing to eat I'm afraid. The reason why I analogised with choosing what was for dinner was to point up that choosing physical acts is completely unlike what happens with beliefs.

You accept that beliefs can be chosen. I don't. Further discussion of that issue is unlikely to be fruitful."

okay then, we'll scratch this point.

[Jehu]

Here is first class scientific minds on display! Come on teach us.

[js1138]

Darwin's despair: www.custance.org, one of his books.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to cite something specific. "one of his books" covers over 10,000 pages of writing done over thirty years.

I can save you some trouble, however. I have researched a dozen claims made on FR that Darwin doubted his own theory. All such claims are rather easily proven to be lies. Not just incorrect interpretations, but deliberate and knowing lies, made by people with no scruples or conscience.

The standard method of writing by Darwin is to present the best case for his opposition and then repute it in detail. People who are entirely lacking in honesty will often pull a snippet from Darwin in which he is presenting his opponent's case -- then falsely impute the sentiment to Darwin.

All this demonstrates is that people who quote out of context are worshipping the Lord of Lies.

[Jehu]

All I can say, is you're sort of dumb. You don't even understand irony.

And I confirm, your atheism, is an expression of hatred to an obvious CREATOR God. I don't really have a problem with it, the problem is yours. If God does not exist, you have no problem (neither do I by the way), but if He does exist...Like Ricky Ricardo would say..."You got some splaining to do."

And that someone could take an old saying like "Holding your feet to the fire," as indicative of personal hatred, is well...almost as ridiculous as believing in evolution.

Or as ridiculous as Right Wing Professors belief that somebody investigating the descent of the races of man through Noah's sons as racist. You guys are nothing, if not predictable.

[Thatcherite]

Yet again you demonstrate that you didn't read the URL that I sent you of evidences for evolution. It contains numerous potential falsifications. You have things exactly backwards. It is ID and creationism that can never be falsified.

[js1138]

To bad (according to Popper) Darwinism CANNOT be falsified. Therefor it is NOT a scientific theory.

You are calling your fellow creationists and IDers on this thread liars. They claim it has been falsified. Which is it?

[Jehu]

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You have a reprobate mind. I am here to polish my writing skills and annoy liberals and liars. Do your own research.

Darwin died despairing of proof of his theory. He was especially concerned about the lack of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record. Something you liars talk around but NEVER address.

Course Darwin never said, "When I contemplate the human eye...I tremble."

[js1138]

Darwin died despairing of proof of his theory.

This is a lie.