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.

[Thatcherite]

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."

Which is Pascal's wager. Amply discussed elsewhere.

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.

Metaphors of hatred, pain, and killing are a constant in your posts. Using one once is is "an old saying". Using them all the time is indicative of your state of mind.

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.

That article isn't what I'd call nasty racism, its just fruitcake racism. Quite funny really. Have you got the cite for that Darwin quote yet?

[Jehu]

By definition Darwinism CANNOT be falsified. Evolution cannot be produced in the lab, it cannot be observed. It is the perfect theory for LIARS. No matter what the evidence you can bend it to fit into this theory. It is total B.S.

Creationists can be, and are many times mistaken, especially the flood geologists, and young earth creationists IMO. But they are just mistaken or ignorant.

Evolutionists, especially on the PhD level are ALL committed liars. The know the problems with this "theory," and hide those problems from the layman.

Propose to me a mechanism without using any concept of teleology, for species that live in symbiotic relationships. I will not hold my breath.

[Thatcherite]

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.

No problem with the delay, this is interesting.

How about some kind of fallen angel. Many Gods are possible, who knows what beings they might create.

[Jehu]

HAHAHAHAHAH

Let's see...you are a proponent of the worst "scientific" theory since a flat earth, and now you are a practicing member of the failed "science," of Psychiatry?

Another destructive "science," introduced by an atheist imbecile with sexual problems and a hatred of his mommy.

Half of the time of the Kingdom of God will be to clean up the physical garbage on the earth. The other half will be to cleanse the earth of false knowledge and science. Lots of work to do.

[Thatcherite]

Propose to me a mechanism without using any concept of teleology, for species that live in symbiotic relationships. I will not hold my breath.

Can you state precisely what difficulty you see with natural selection giving rise to symbiosis?

[js1138]

Darwin died despairing of proof of his theory.

This is a lie.

[Thatcherite]

Let's see...you are a proponent of the worst "scientific" theory since a flat earth, and now you are a practicing member of the failed "science," of Psychiatry? Another destructive "science," introduced by an atheist imbecile with sexual problems and a hatred of his mommy. Half of the time of the Kingdom of God will be to clean up the physical garbage on the earth. The other half will be to cleanse the earth of false knowledge and science. Lots of work to do.

An awful lot of hatred in that post again. If it was an attempt at humour it fell flat.

BTW do you have that Darwin despair cite yet?

[Jehu]

A tautology cannot be falsified. Name something else besides a Creator that could produce such things as living cells? Try to even imagine something. Either everything sprang into existence by naturalistic causes, and life is the product of an unbelievably (most say mathematically impossible) synchronization of physical law, particles, and later...chemical reactions.

Or it was created by someone and by processes outside of our ability to understand, measure, theorize.

Evolution is a tautology. Life is here...so it MUST have arisen as evolutionist's claim....the alternative, an all powerful creator is anathema to them.

[js1138]

Darwin died despairing of proof of his theory.

This is a lie.

[Jehu]

Don't cry Thatchy, I LOVE you. But your theory sucks. I am committed to its obliteration. Just like I am committed to the obliteration of any lie. This is just one of the biggest so it gets some attention.

[Thatcherite]

Well, you can start on the obliteration of the lie by supplying that Darwin despair cite, and by explaining what is wrong with the evidence for evolution. Since you have said ToE cannot be falsified explain why the numerous potential falsifications in that document would not falsify ToE.

[conservative_crusader]

"How about some kind of fallen angel. Many Gods are possible, who knows what beings they might create."

But if a god creates beings, that god is going to care about those beings. In traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, Satan himself is a fallen angel. If the God cares enough to create a punisher, would he not care enough to create a set of rules? If he created a set of rules, then he would want people to follow them. We can conclude from this, that if the creator does not care, then there will be no antagonist. This Anti-god/fallen angel/ whatever, cannot exist.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

Micro vs. Macro

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

[Jehu]

I read the Darwin quote in Custance over ten years ago...go find it if it tickles you. I have work to do and the Custance site is not indexed. MichaelAngelo has a link to dispute your 29 points.

And remember if Custance's works were 30 years ago, and so are not credible because of that time span. Why do you believe anything Darwin wrote?

[Jehu]

Once again you cannot propose any other theory except Creationism, or Evolution to explain life, even just one single cell, let alone the (after the fact) nonsense of evolution of species...neither can be falsified. So neither are a scientific theory...they are "faiths," Beliefs! I never argue that Creationism is a scientific theory. I will argue that the evidence and "facts," and observations for special creation are far better than they are for evolution. And since I do not have a predisposition to deny a God, I have no problem believing both in Creation, and that the evidence supports MY belief.

It is evolutionists that have to build a ever more creaky scaffolding around the obvious elephant (Intelligence and information in the biological systems they LOVE to study) in the room. It is almost as entertaining as watching one of those old circus acts where the clown tries to keep 20 plates spinning on separate poles.

[Thatcherite]

As you cannot back up your assertion about Darwin's despair I will assume that you were mistaken in it (rather than lying) and move on.

The refutation of MichaelAngelos link to Camp's article is here. Both Camp's article and Theobalds subsequent refutation were referenced on page 1 of the original article that I gave you so presumably you've already read them.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

From the link:

In his response to my critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald accused me of devious tactics, widespread ignorance, and a host of intellectual sins. I have explained why these self-serving accusations are unfounded. It seems Dr. Theobald was more interested in fitting me with a stereotype, in portraying me as an unworthy critic, than in dealing fairly with what I was saying. His response includes personal attacks on me that do nothing to advance the discussion. They serve only as a cover for weak arguments.

[Thatcherite]

It seems to me that you are assuming omnipotence and/or omniscience on the part of your hypothetical God. Neither are necessary conditions of being Aquinus's uncaused cause. A lesser but still functional God who created the universe and the people on planet earth might create the malevolent being in error, or as an experiment.

Also to say that the God that creates beings cares about them is to presume your conclusion. You cannot be certain of this. Do we care about the bacteria in a petri dish? Yet God would be far further above us than we are above the bacteria. The Christian God of Love does care, but that God is only one possibility (though the truth as you see it?)

At the end of the day I think we are going to disagree on this one too. I think that Pascal's wager as stated with its 4 possible outcomes is so much simpler than the true set of possibilities with their varying possible outcomes that it is not a useful argument, unfortunately.

[Thatcherite]

In his response to my critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald accused me of devious tactics, widespread ignorance, and a host of intellectual sins. I have explained why these self-serving accusations are unfounded. It seems Dr. Theobald was more interested in fitting me with a stereotype, in portraying me as an unworthy critic, than in dealing fairly with what I was saying. His response includes personal attacks on me that do nothing to advance the discussion. They serve only as a cover for weak arguments.

I guess what you have to do is read the arguments and decide for yourself whether Theobald's accusations are unfounded or not. Personally I found Theobald's reply convincing and restrained but you may not. If Ashby has indeed "stated why these self-serving accusations are unfounded" I guess he has replied to Theobald's response but I missed his reply.