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.

[Jehu]

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

[bigdakine]

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

B: Well your claim regarding Feduccia's view of Archeaopteryx was falsified. Your credibility has taken a huge nose dive.

B: After you apologize for misrepresnting Feduccia, present your claims regarding the Ark and the Noachian deluge, and we can then discuss those.

[Jehu]

I understood you perfectly. You have no clue of the doctrine of original sin. It is not some optional piece of equipment for the believer.

You dilute that doctrine and it will pervade everything you think about redemption and the real work of Christ, even if it is an unconscious rot of spirit it works away. Little foxes spoil the vine.

The redemptive work of Christ is not some religious exercise it is a pure scientific function of spiritual laws. Or why do you think God started the education of humanity via law? It is our tutor to Christ where the actual thing...is real, the law is a template of the real. And law is exact not vague.

What Christ did is only real and effective for each one of us if we inherited sin from Adam. Not some mishmash of descent through lines of species. If it were not an issue then God would not have spent most of human history to winnow out the line of descent to Mary who birthed Christ. The whole Old Testament is the story of God narrowing down the search for the line that produces Christ.

If God had not set this up by laws and definite (equation like principles) then He could just wave his hand and all would be forgiven. You are in error, and worse you are a minister and are leading others into error.

[Jehu]

None of you could polish Behe or Dembski's shoes...but you knew that. I don't really envy you your belief in this worthless theory since it does seem to feed your shriveled up little souls that are incapable of wonder. You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.

[Jehu]

What you cannot get into your wooden head is you are trying to disprove I.D. by a computer program that was designed by someone intelligent...unless it was written by you, which would then make me believe that random meaningless noise could produce something worthwhile.

Far as math goes, you give me something like Maxwell's equations which describe the electromagnetic force with sheer elegance...that describe the force? field? particles? great sucking sound? great pumpkin? of evolution, kay?

None of this population statistics and the other nonsense that explains NOTHING, that evolutionary biologists trot out as meaning anything. Some equations that can be worked with specific inputs and produce SPECIES! Or what? Maybe it is all too complex for that? What would that be called?...a process that is too complex to be described mathematically, what could we call that? Something Special? Hmmmm ( cue tone of SNL Church Lady)

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

[Jehu]

Here is the link: Evolution Sucks When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.

[Jehu]

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

[bigdakine]

I understood you perfectly. You have no clue of the doctrine of original sin. It is not some optional piece of equipment for the believer.

You dilute that doctrine and it will pervade everything you think about redemption and the real work of Christ, even if it is an unconscious rot of spirit it works away. Little foxes spoil the vine.

B: Ah yes, the battle cry of the god botherer. "Only I know the truth"..

B: ROFL. The world is getting tired of people like you.

[bigdakine]

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

B: Be my guest Jehu. That would help clean up the gene pool.

[Right Wing Professor]

You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.

...and...

When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.

One of my nephews used to used obscene language when he was caught in a lie. He grew out of it at age 8 or so.

Do you learn this sort of language in Church?

[bigdakine]

What you cannot get into your wooden head is you are trying to disprove I.D. by a computer program that was designed by someone intelligent...unless it was written by you, which would then make me believe that random meaningless noise could produce something worthwhile.

B: Hilarious. The algorithm is what nature uses. Its the same design, same basic process, different context. If you understood anything at all about mathematics, and a competent engineer would (that leaves you out), mathematics is independent of context.


Far as math goes, you give me something like Maxwell's equations which describe the electromagnetic force with sheer elegance...that describe the force? field? particles? great sucking sound? great pumpkin? of evolution, kay?

B: ROFL. *Real* engineers use the algorithm. THere is no closed form solution for such stochastic methods. Again, if you had actual training in advanced mathematics, you'd know that. The algorithm works, and produces designs not understandable by humans. Hence when we see complex designs not fathomable to us in nature, we shouldn't be to surprised, given that at the heart of the *natural design* process, lurks stochastic algorithms.

None of this population statistics and the other nonsense that explains NOTHING, that evolutionary biologists trot out as meaning anything.


B: LOL.

Some equations that can be worked with specific inputs and produce SPECIES!

B: Interesting point. If we can't write an equation for it, it can't happen?

B: Creationism gets more nutty every day.



Or what? Maybe it is all too complex for that? What would that be called?...a process that is too complex to be described mathematically, what could we call that? Something Special? Hmmmm ( cue tone of SNL Church Lady)

B: THe process can be described mathematically, population geneticists have been doing for decades, and now mathematicians and engineers. We can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance, but this creatobabbler demands we should calculate "species".

B: Its clear that there are defects in the ways some engineers are educated.

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

B: Yeah. OK. Perhaps you should retire from Matell's.

[conservative_crusader]

"The statements that it can easily be discerned and that the supreme being would bother to remedy it if it did discern it are a pair of presumed conclusions. Even if there is a creator it is entirely likely that in the universe as a whole human beings are a totally insignificant and irrelevant accident as far as the creator is concerned."

And yet you presume that the Creator would not care. Once again, we will have to agree to differ, I see that even if it is an accident, that the Creator would treat us with care, and you presume that he would not.

"In this case your extension of my analogy works against you. The experiment (life on earth/the petri dish) may be already completed and the interesting results are noted. The scientist/God turns away and doesn't care as the cleaner/devil holds the dish of believers up to the flames. Perhaps the dish containing believers makes a pretty colour in the bunsen whereas the non-believers aren't so interesting and just get tossed in the trash. The point I am making here is that the motivation of supernatural beings might well be completely inscrutable to us (I would expect them to be inscrutable, you don't). The burning bacteria screaming in what seems like eternal pain wouldn't understand the cleaner's motivation, or why their creator was no longer interested."

Your entire argument lies in metaphor whereas mine lies in logic (i.e. post #126). By this analogy, you admit the existence of a god, and therefore are doomed with the rest of us anyway (if your analogy is true).

Let's extend the analogy some more: If the creator is omnipotent, as you are now indicating, why would he need a cleaner? He would not need one. He could merely create another for his next in a series of never ending experiments.

Sorry for waiting so long to repost. I've been playing a new computer game, and have otherwise been working the rest of the time.

[derheimwill]

bookmark

[shubi]

Nice rant.

[Thatcherite]

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

I am not impressed by bits of paper at all but I predicted your response. I never said that to be a smalltown doctor was to be a bad doctor. However it is evident from his writings that Simmons knows little of science and little of the ToE.

[Thatcherite]

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

LOL. As it happens I am a Civil Engineer. Does that frighten you? I hope so.

[Thatcherite]

And yet you presume that the Creator would not care. Once again, we will have to agree to differ, I see that even if it is an accident, that the Creator would treat us with care, and you presume that he would not.

I don't presume that he wouldn't and I don't presume that he would. I don't presume anything about Him. You project your own niceness onto a being whose motives I maintain are likely to be entirely inscrutable to us were He to exist.

Your entire argument lies in metaphor whereas mine lies in logic (i.e. post #126). By this analogy, you admit the existence of a god, and therefore are doomed with the rest of us anyway (if your analogy is true). Let's extend the analogy some more: If the creator is omnipotent, as you are now indicating, why would he need a cleaner? He would not need one. He could merely create another for his next in a series of never ending experiments. Sorry for waiting so long to repost. I've been playing a new computer game, and have otherwise been working the rest of the time.

The purpose of my metaphor was to explain a hypothetical case in which belief in a divine creator could be punished.

I would have thought it clear that I only admit the existence of a God for the purposes of that analogy, not in general. I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility. For the avoidance of confusion please attach the words "might" and "possibly" and "hypothetically" to all statements I make in analogical arguments about the creator; I would have thought that obvious seeing as I am an atheist.

[Thatcherite]

None of you could polish Behe or Dembski's shoes...but you knew that. I don't really envy you your belief in this worthless theory since it does seem to feed your shriveled up little souls that are incapable of wonder. You want to turn the wonders of life and creation into a circle-jerk of process that is your right and wish. Enjoy.

It is quite funny and predictable that you go into rant mode every time you are caught in a lie or a contradiction.

[Thatcherite]

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

Presumably that means that you are Simmons, since your arguments are identical to his which I think we can take to be statistically unlikely unless you are one and the same person. No wonder you got upset when I dismissed the book that you wrote.

I would be delighted for you to explain how Noah's Ark could be a true story. I'm all agog. Perhaps you should put it in your next book, Simmons.

[Thatcherite]

Here is the link: Evolution Sucks When you're done reading it you can kiss my created ass.

You mistakenly posted a link to a creationist report of a Feduccia lecture. Perhaps you can redirect us to the place where Feduccia himself says that Archx is not a TF.