Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

Do you believe in the seven day week?

Of course.

Without getting into it, that’s really not the issue is it?

I think it is. Too many people insist that God's creation has to conform to their way of reading scripture. This leads to them taking the odd position that the people who study God's creation are "damnedable scientists" and such.

Scripture is a documentation of witness as apposed to speculation and theorizing of evidence.

Not the Genesis creation accounts. If you believe Moses wrote them, you can't say that he was an eye witness to the creation events.

Though there be evidence to support a theory, there is no witness to verify the theory. Therefore it’s still that, a theory, and in most cases the theory changes according to whom has the authority to change it when new evidence is found.

No, you're presenting a common misunderstanding of the word "theory" in science. In that context, a theory is a well-supported framework for explaining data. A scientific theory doesn't achieve a higher status the more it's tested. That's why we still refer to things like the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter as theories, even though we know matter is made up of atoms and germs cause diseases.

 

[DPMartin]

Not the Genesis creation accounts. If you believe Moses wrote them, you can't say that he was an eye witness to the creation events.

God was there, who do you say Moses was talking to up on the mountain and in the Tabernacle? Himself? Not to mention that there is no reason to believe that the Lord God didn’t inform Adam of what transpired before He made Adam.
Also Jesus came from Heaven into the world, and witnessed to us the Kingdom of God and the Will of His Father that is in Heaven.

No, you're presenting a common misunderstanding of the word "theory" in science. In that context, a theory is a well-supported framework for explaining data. A scientific theory doesn't achieve a higher status the more it's tested. That's why we still refer to things like the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter as theories, even though we know matter is made up of atoms and germs cause diseases.

Na, theory is theory, like most who take your position you try to lump what was once theory and then proven fact by what? Could it be a witness, usually first by the scientist who is trying to prove his theory, but not only has witnessed that it is true, also has shown to other witnesses that is it true. That doesn’t apply with something like evolution does it? It’s sill an unproven theory, based on evidence without witness.

 

[River Jordan]

God was there, who do you say Moses was talking to up on the mountain and in the Tabernacle? Himself? Not to mention that there is no reason to believe that the Lord God didn’t inform Adam of what transpired before He made Adam.
Also Jesus came from Heaven into the world, and witnessed to us the Kingdom of God and the Will of His Father that is in Heaven.

Of course God was there. But Genesis is written in the third person.

Na, theory is theory, like most who take your position you try to lump what was once theory and then proven fact by what? Could it be a witness, usually first by the scientist who is trying to prove his theory, but not only has witnessed that it is true, also has shown to other witnesses that is it true. That doesn’t apply with something like evolution does it? It’s sill an unproven theory, based on evidence without witness.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words to suit your needs.

What is a Scientific Theory?

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Definitions from Scientific Organizations

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

 

[DPMartin]

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word.


It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.

Isn’t this what I just said?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Isn’t this what I just said? isn't observation witnessing? Or is it something else to you?

 

[River Jordan]

No, you were arguing from the standpoint that evolution is "just a theory" that still hasn't been proven.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. That evolution happens is an observed fact. How it happens (mechanisms and pathways) is the theory. That's what the definitions I provided mean when they say...

"a valid explanation of a phenomenon"

"a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature"

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"

The phenomenon/aspect of the natural world that evolutionary theory explains is evolution.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

River,

Sorry again. This is of secondary importance to me so I have not been paying as close attention to this thread. You seem to be more stuck in your ways than you claim most of us to be (maybe i am wrong about this). Is there any possibility that science is wrong? Is there any conceivable way they could be lying to you? When did science become this entity that was so pure and holy as to know no motive? Is it even possible in your mind that they could be wrong in any way, at any time? I need an answer to these questions before I can move on. Sorry, as I have stated many places on this site...I am kinda stupid. I find the answers in the simple. Lets see if you do also.

SL

Ps. If this post breaks the rules KingJ was hoping for, please remove. I am going to try with River, so if leeway can not be granted in this thread I will gladly try in another.

 

[River Jordan]

Sorry again. This is of secondary importance to me so I have not been paying as close attention to this thread. You seem to be more stuck in your ways than you claim most of us to be (maybe i am wrong about this). Is there any possibility that science is wrong? Is there any conceivable way they could be lying to you?

Absolutely! In fact, I would love to be the scientist who overturns evolutionary theory! I'd go down as the most famous scientist in all of human history! But here's the thing....don't confuse the fact that evolutionary theory hasn't been proved wrong with the idea that it can't be proved wrong.

When did science become this entity that was so pure and holy as to know no motive? Is it even possible in your mind that they could be wrong in any way, at any time?

I don't believe anyone has referred to science as "pure and holy", so I have no idea where that came from. In fact, not only does science recognize that people are fallible and prone to bias, scientists long ago developed a system for directly addressing it....peer review. In order for your scientific work to be noticed and accepted, you have to submit it to your peers who will look it over and evaluate it, then if it passes muster they'll publish it in a journal where other scientists will read it. And if they see problems or mistakes, they'll tell you, the journal, and other scientists. If your errors are bad enough, the journal retracts your work and it's as if it never existed.

Now, the common creationist response to this is to invoke a grand conspiracy among all scientists across the world for the last 150 years or so, where they know the science behind evolution is a fraud and that "creation scientists" have better products, but they deliberately promote the former while suppressing the latter.

If that's the case, then we're talking about the most comprehensive, longest running conspiracy in the history of mankind. Is it possible? Sure, but such an accusation requires some very substantial evidence.

 

[Mr.Bride]

**For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, does not come from the Father, but from the world. The world and it's desires pass away but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it's the last hour.

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

But you have an unction from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie come from the truth.

Who is the liar?

It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist-denying the Father and Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us-eternal life.

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

As for you, the anointing you recieved from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him.~1 John 2:16-27 NIV

Is his anointing teaching you all things? All things. Is it real to you? Why did they go out from us?

Let what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. Don't be led astray. Mighty Blessings

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Absolutely! In fact, I would love to be the scientist who overturns evolutionary theory! I'd go down as the most famous scientist in all of human history! But here's the thing....don't confuse the fact that evolutionary theory hasn't been proved wrong with the idea that it can't be proved wrong.


I don't believe anyone has referred to science as "pure and holy", so I have no idea where that came from. In fact, not only does science recognize that people are fallible and prone to bias, scientists long ago developed a system for directly addressing it....peer review. In order for your scientific work to be noticed and accepted, you have to submit it to your peers who will look it over and evaluate it, then if it passes muster they'll publish it in a journal where other scientists will read it. And if they see problems or mistakes, they'll tell you, the journal, and other scientists. If your errors are bad enough, the journal retracts your work and it's as if it never existed.

Now, the common creationist response to this is to invoke a grand conspiracy among all scientists across the world for the last 150 years or so, where they know the science behind evolution is a fraud and that "creation scientists" have better products, but they deliberately promote the former while suppressing the latter.

If that's the case, then we're talking about the most comprehensive, longest running conspiracy in the history of mankind. Is it possible? Sure, but such an accusation requires some very substantial evidence.

1. Right, okay, let me be the one who helps you prove it wrong. Bombardier Beetle. Couldn't have happened any other way but created. Or at least the statistical probabilities are too far fetched. You see...all we have to do is find one item that defies the theory. Evolutionists have to make everything work into the theory. You have a big job cut out for you to find a way to make everything fit.

2. So peer review includes creation scientists? And creation scientists have a say over the work? Or does it only include people who start from the same point of view? Does the peer review process say...maybe find people who already basically agree? If the premise is flawed but everyone agrees....it makes it okay to publish?

 

[River Jordan]

1. Right, okay, let me be the one who helps you prove it wrong. Bombardier Beetle. Couldn't have happened any other way but created. Or at least the statistical probabilities are too far fetched. You see...all we have to do is find one item that defies the theory. Evolutionists have to make everything work into the theory. You have a big job cut out for you to find a way to make everything fit.

I'm curious how you came to know so much about beetles, let alone one specific species. What have you studied? And can I please see your statistical calculations?

2. So peer review includes creation scientists? And creation scientists have a say over the work? Or does it only include people who start from the same point of view? Does the peer review process say...maybe find people who already basically agree? If the premise is flawed but everyone agrees....it makes it okay to publish?

Everyone is included in the peer review process. You can go read any journal article right now, and if you see a flaw or problem in it, write up your own paper detailing what you found. Or you can also submit a technical letter doing the same thing.

 

[snr5557]

1. Right, okay, let me be the one who helps you prove it wrong. Bombardier Beetle. Couldn't have happened any other way but created. Or at least the statistical probabilities are too far fetched. You see...all we have to do is find one item that defies the theory. Evolutionists have to make everything work into the theory. You have a big job cut out for you to find a way to make everything fit.

Just a quick question, what did you think of the article I posted about those beetles? You didn't really answer why you did not think the article was accurate. I am not familiar with beetles, so you will have to tell me why you think that article was not right.

http://www.biomedcen...471-2148/10/262

 

[Mr.Bride]

Have you ever noticed how Satan hates two books of the Bible more than all others? Through liberal theologians and pseudo-scientists he is always attacking the Book of Genesis and the Book of Revelation. In both of these books we find Satan's origin, his awful ways and his destruction. That is why he attacks them. He hates to be exposed, and in those books he is exposed for exactly what he is. Jesus said about Satan, "He has no part in Me and I have no part in him." The devil would like to prove that different; but he cannot, so he does all he can to destroy confidence in the Word. But when the church disbelieves Satan and believes the Spirit's revelation of the Word, the gates of hell cannot prevail against her.

An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages (Chapter 1 - The Revelation Of Jesus Christ)
Rev. William Marrion Branham

 

[Secondhand Lion]

I'm curious how you came to know so much about beetles, let alone one specific species. What have you studied? And can I please see your statistical calculations?


Everyone is included in the peer review process. You can go read any journal article right now, and if you see a flaw or problem in it, write up your own paper detailing what you found. Or you can also submit a technical letter doing the same thing.

Okay, this is where you divert with a meaningless question and try to discredit what I am saying by theoretically discrediting my "knowledge". Ask to see my calculations....right....got it....you are the scientist...you need my help? Is this where I am supposed to allow you to divert and start "defending myself" at all costs? I have studied the Bombardier Beetle. You should also. You will find it had to be right the first time, no single\group of process\es could be involved. It had to be right on the first try.

So how many examples can you give of a creation scientist getting a article removed based on the peer process? Certainly the examples are abundant. I can not seem to find one...but I am sure you could. It is gratuitous at best to suggest creation scientists are given equal say in the peer process over evolution articles. Nothing would ever be published. For example, just because I am a literal creationist based on the book of Genesis, you automatically assume I have not a formal science education, or maybe any schooling, and at the very least, assume I have to be wrong. You seem to start with a viewpoint and make everything fit that viewpoint. I start with a healthy dose of common sense and add in a fine mixture of skepticism. You of all people (if you are who you claim as a "scientist") should be skeptical of every theory. In life I have found, the louder they have to scream...the more they are hiding, the less fact they actually have.

SL

 

[snr5557]

Okay, this is where you divert with a meaningless question and try to discredit what I am saying by theoretically discrediting my "knowledge". Ask to see my calculations....right....got it....you are the scientist...you need my help? Is this where I am supposed to allow you to divert and start "defending myself" at all costs? I have studied the Bombardier Beetle. You should also. You will find it had to be right the first time, no single\group of process\es could be involved. It had to be right on the first try.

So how many examples can you give of a creation scientist getting a article removed based on the peer process? Certainly the examples are abundant. I can not seem to find one...but I am sure you could. It is gratuitous at best to suggest creation scientists are given equal say in the peer process over evolution articles. Nothing would ever be published. For example, just because I am a literal creationist based on the book of Genesis, you automatically assume I have not a formal science education, or maybe any schooling, and at the very least, assume I have to be wrong. You seem to start with a viewpoint and make everything fit that viewpoint. I start with a healthy dose of common sense and add in a fine mixture of skepticism. You of all people (if you are who you claim as a "scientist") should be skeptical of every theory. In life I have found, the louder they have to scream...the more they are hiding, the less fact they actually have.

SL

SL,

I honestly don't see how she is attacking you. I'm not saying it doesn't feel that way, I just don't read it as that on my end. Part of being a scientist is questioning where you got your information from, or how you came to your conclusion etc. So, whenever anyone makes a scientific claim we ask where they got that information etc. We accept evolution because of the information that, in River's case she experienced, and me from scientific journals and in school. I'm not high enough yet on the school ladder to get what she gets to do, but I don't think because of that that the information I have received are complete lies to pander to atheists, seeing as most scientists are theists (me included). I'm just trying to say I don't feel like we are attacking anyone, this just feels like we would do with anyone. I'm only saying this because on another thread Uppsala felt like we were attacking him (I think that's how he phrased it) but in reality I just wanted to know about his background in researching both sides of the debate.

Also, I have read on a website creation science papers, but they do not at all adhere to what science papers should look like, so if a creation scientist were to actually adhere to the rules everyone else must follow, and if the information could be retested, observed, etc, then it would be accepted into a scientific journal.

And also, why do you think it had to happen all at once (the beetle thing)? When I skimmed the article (sorry I did not read it fully, but I'm talking on this discussion board in between school stuff, so I don't have a bunch of time to read through a whole bunch of stuff in my off time) it seemed like they had a plausible explanation. What in it makes you think that they are incorrect?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Translation: I didn't read the article I linked to prove you wrong, but they seemed to agree with my presupposition so they must have a plausible explanation.

Praise the River.

 

[snr5557]

Translation: I didn't read the article I linked to prove you wrong, but they seemed to agree with my presupposition so they must have a plausible explanation.

Things get lost in translation from time to time, so don't worry about this CJ , by skimming I mean I didn't check to see who had written it, where it was from etc. I just don't have time. Besides, he did say

"If you can not understand from that perspective then please find a link (that makes any sense) that tells me how the Bombardier Beetle made it through the evolutionary process. Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide had to be put into two different reservoirs to begin with. The odds of that happening on the first try in any random chance process are astronomical. Maybe you could calculate them for us?

I don't find design in any circumstance and assume anything other than design. I have never observed order coming from disorder and I do not believe you have either.
"
So I googled and found a scientific paper, read through it, but did not read fully into it because I don't have time to research scientist's backgrounds. It made sense, so I posted it. Besides, it's not like I can become a beetle expert overnight. It seemed logical when I read it, but I just don't have the background knowledge in beetles to truly say I understood everything in it, but when I read it made sense.

Praise the River.

You should not worship false idols. It's a sin, I promise.

 

[River Jordan]

SL,

You made same definitive statements about beetles, evolutionary biology, and statistical probability. So it's perfectly in bounds to ask you how you came to such a level of expertise and to see your calculations.

As far as creationists not getting their papers published, you're going to have to give more than vague claims lacking in substance. Show where a creationist paper has been arbitrarily rejected (remember scientists get papers rejected all the time).

Finally, as far as your education level, I'm not assuming anything. That's why I've been asking.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

SL,

You made same definitive statements about beetles, evolutionary biology, and statistical probability. So it's perfectly in bounds to ask you how you came to such a level of expertise and to see your calculations.

As far as creationists not getting their papers published, you're going to have to give more than vague claims lacking in substance. Show where a creationist paper has been arbitrarily rejected (remember scientists get papers rejected all the time).

Finally, as far as your education level, I'm not assuming anything. That's why I've been asking.

River

Okay, so, any reasonable thinking person not lacking in any level of common sense would understand by nature the statistical probabilities would be nearly incalculable. So lets just go through some of the idea of the math. First, we need to know how many species there are of everything. (So we need science to decide to land on a definition and stick with it) Begin with the multiple of every known function (not even all the functions we aren't aware of as of yet) of every species, throw in the dependent probabilities of those functions and for good measure the conditional probabilities of each species multiplied by all its functions...do I need to go on? It should have dawned on you how big the statistical probabilities were getting all the way back at functions. It would take no less than 1000 of these web pages to show. (need my calculations on that?) So we can reasonably deduce that your question was disingenuous at best.

If you go back to the post you are responding to, I asked for an example of a evolutionary article that was removed\rejected based on a creation scientist debunking it. To be fair, that section was extremely poorly written if I wanted you to understand what I was asking, so I am sorry. I was not making any claim about creation articles not being present. I understand the confusion after I read what I wrote. So can you please give me an example of a creation scientist getting some evolutionary scientists paper or work removed after debunking it on the basis of creation.

SL

 

[River Jordan]

River

Okay, so, any reasonable thinking person not lacking in any level of common sense would understand by nature the statistical probabilities would be nearly incalculable. So lets just go through some of the idea of the math. First, we need to know how many species there are of everything. (So we need science to decide to land on a definition and stick with it) Begin with the multiple of every known function (not even all the functions we aren't aware of as of yet) of every species, throw in the dependent probabilities of those functions and for good measure the conditional probabilities of each species multiplied by all its functions...do I need to go on? It should have dawned on you how big the statistical probabilities were getting all the way back at functions. It would take no less than 1000 of these web pages to show. (need my calculations on that?) So we can reasonably deduce that your question was disingenuous at best.

Apply that line of reasoning to you and I existing at the same time in history, joining the same internet forum, and posting in the same thread. You can even use young-earth creationist assumptions if you like. Figure how many people have lived before us, how many reproduction events in each our direct lines have happened, what the odds of each of those couples getting together are, the odds of them conceiving, the odds of the offspring that led to us surviving....then you have to factor in the odds of whoever developed this forum coming into being, all of us existing at the same time, and the odds of us coming together here.

If I had to guess, I'd say those probabilities dwarf whatever you could get about the beetles (at least the beetles have natural selection cutting down the odds). Yet here we are! How can that be?

That's why such appeals to probabilities are meaningless. Take any event in history and try and back-calculate the probabilities of it happening, given everything over the course of history that had to have preceded it.

So can you please give me an example of a creation scientist getting some evolutionary scientists paper or work removed after debunking it on the basis of creation.

I'm not aware of any. Is that because creationists are submitting their criticisms to journals and the journals are rejecting them? If so, there should be some evidence of that. Otherwise, the most parsimonious explanation is that the creationists aren't submitting anything.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Apply that line of reasoning to you and I existing at the same time in history, joining the same internet forum, and posting in the same thread. You can even use young-earth creationist assumptions if you like. Figure how many people have lived before us, how many reproduction events in each our direct lines have happened, what the odds of each of those couples getting together are, the odds of them conceiving, the odds of the offspring that led to us surviving....then you have to factor in the odds of whoever developed this forum coming into being, all of us existing at the same time, and the odds of us coming together here.

If I had to guess, I'd say those probabilities dwarf whatever you could get about the beetles (at least the beetles have natural selection cutting down the odds). Yet here we are! How can that be?

That's why such appeals to probabilities are meaningless. Take any event in history and try and back-calculate the probabilities of it happening, given everything over the course of history that had to have preceded it.


I'm not aware of any. Is that because creationists are submitting their criticisms to journals and the journals are rejecting them? If so, there should be some evidence of that. Otherwise, the most parsimonious explanation is that the creationists aren't submitting anything.

This is presupposing again that there is randomness. Again it proves the point that it was all created and there is a design. You are right...the statistical probabilities of all that happening are almost as slim, actually not quite as slim, but no I won't bear that out for you. Again, coming from the viewpoint that evolution is the means by which we all got here makes your point worthwhile to you; however from a creationist standpoint, the same probabilities argue for a creator....because as you said....the odds are too great....and here we are.

I will look into which is the case on the other point. (peer review) If I find anything significant, I will post here. (It may be days)