Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

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.

And there's the fundamental problem....you are taking the position that "evolution = no creator". As I keep pointing out, that's no more justified than arguing that "volcanoes = no creator".

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)

No problem, but remember....scientists get papers and such rejected every day. So simply showing examples of creationists having papers rejected doesn't make the point. What we need to see are creationists submitting scientifically valid material and being arbitrarily rejected.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

So again. For perhaps the tenth time, what did God do in the "formation" of man?

You give an uncertain sound.

Make your trumpet sound clear.

Did He create or not?

 

[River Jordan]

Just as scripture isn't clear on how God creates mountains, it's not clear on exactly how he created H. sapiens.

Exactly how do you think God created humans?

 

[Secondhand Lion]

And there's the fundamental problem....you are taking the position that "evolution = no creator". As I keep pointing out, that's no more justified than arguing that "volcanoes = no creator".


No problem, but remember....scientists get papers and such rejected every day. So simply showing examples of creationists having papers rejected doesn't make the point. What we need to see are creationists submitting scientifically valid material and being arbitrarily rejected.

No, I am taking the position that evolution=too great a statistical probability that it all came together, not that evolution=no creator. Further I am taking the position that it is a much greater statistical probability that design and purpose=creator. Design and purpose never=random

I think you are still confused. I am going to try to find an evolution paper that got removed/debunked by a creation paper. Would you agree that creation papers get debunked everyday by evolution papers? I want to know if the opposite is true? In a true peer process...both would happen because there would be no bias. i think we both know both never happen...it only goes one way. I may be wrong but its worth looking into

 

[River Jordan]

No, I am taking the position that evolution=too great a statistical probability that it all came together, not that evolution=no creator. Further I am taking the position that it is a much greater statistical probability that design and purpose=creator. Design and purpose never=random

But as we discussed, that argument can also be used to conclude that the entire history of the universe has been designed specifically so that you and I can interact on this forum at this point in time.

That's why arguments from "it's too improbable to have happened without divine guidance" aren't compelling.

I think you are still confused. I am going to try to find an evolution paper that got removed/debunked by a creation paper.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

Would you agree that creation papers get debunked everyday by evolution papers?

I'm not aware of any actual creationism papers. I don't believe they actually submit papers to the scientific journals.

I want to know if the opposite is true? In a true peer process...both would happen because there would be no bias. i think we both know both never happen...it only goes one way. I may be wrong but its worth looking into

It wouldn't happen if 1) creationists are a small minority, and 2) they don't participate in the process. AFAIK, both are generally true.

 

[Quantrill]

Just as scripture isn't clear on how God creates mountains, it's not clear on exactly how he created H. sapiens.

Exactly how do you think God created humans?

God created Adam and Eve as He said in Genesis 1 and 2.

And God who created Adam and Eve was also Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth"

Quantrill

 

[River Jordan]

God created Adam and Eve as He said in Genesis 1 and 2.

How?

 

[Quantrill]

River Jordon

I already told you. Just as He said, He being Jesus Christ, in Genesis 1 and 2.

Quantrill

 

[Secondhand Lion]

But as we discussed, that argument can also be used to conclude that the entire history of the universe has been designed specifically so that you and I can interact on this forum at this point in time.

That's why arguments from "it's too improbable to have happened without divine guidance" aren't compelling.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.


I'm not aware of any actual creationism papers. I don't believe they actually submit papers to the scientific journals.


It wouldn't happen if 1) creationists are a small minority, and 2) they don't participate in the process. AFAIK, both are generally true.

So, for the record, the laws of probability is science we can ignore and the theories of evolution is science we can take to the bank?

 

[River Jordan]

I already told you. Just as He said, He being Jesus Christ, in Genesis 1 and 2.

That doesn't tell us how God created. Scripture also teaches that God creates mountains and wind, but it doesn't say how.

So, for the record, the laws of probability is science we can ignore and the theories of evolution is science we can take to the bank?

You're going to have to clarify a bit. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of probability". Are you talking about the law of total probability? If so, please explain how that relates to what we're talking about here.

Also, you're not using the terms "law" and "theory" properly (in a scientific context). CLICK HERE

 

[Secondhand Lion]

You're going to have to clarify a bit. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of probability". Are you talking about the law of total probability? If so, please explain how that relates to what we're talking about here.

Also, you're not using the terms "law" and "theory" properly (in a scientific context). CLICK HERE

Laws of probability. Big, big subject. Basically what I am referring to (in a very general way) is the fact that given a set of known quantities (whatever they are) you can (that is also a very big can) figure with absolute certainty (no matter how many sheets of paper it takes) any given chance that something will happen. It works the same way every time with absolute results. You may take the results to the bank, assuming someone at MIT does it for you and not me , I am prone to mistakes.

Contrast this thought with that of the "theory" of evolution (your post on the definition is duly noted). Very few things are absolute (meaning without question\authoritative), so much is still unknown. While this can be exciting to find out new things...It can not be compared to the kind of science we know of math. I understand new math theory is worked on everyday also, but it does not become a law until it works without fail and is demonstrable.

We can get into the subject of probabilities in much greater detail, but it could completely take over this thread. I hope you don't think I am trying to dodge, I just don't know how to address that question without considerable space, so I hope the general suffices.

Side question: Do you know a source for a reputable science dictionary? I find links to them online...but no idea what a scientist finds reputable and what they say to stay away from.

 

[Quantrill]

That doesn't tell us how God created. Scripture also teaches that God creates mountains and wind, but it doesn't say how.


You're going to have to clarify a bit. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws of probability". Are you talking about the law of total probability? If so, please explain how that relates to what we're talking about here.

Also, you're not using the terms "law" and "theory" properly (in a scientific context). CLICK HERE

Sure it tells you how God created man. From the dust of the ground. And from Adams rib. Pretty clear. Gen. 2:7, 2:21-23.

Quantrill

 

[KingJ]

River, please stop bringing up that timeously debunked notion that evolution is a theory on par with others. For crying out aloud. Grab at straws much?

For the last time....There is NO 'beyond doubt' observational evidence... which is needed... for classification and grouping with other scientific theories....

Evolution only introduces arguments and evidence that support the currently accepted theories. Omitting / glossing over any evidence to the contrary.

 

[River Jordan]

Laws of probability. Big, big subject. Basically what I am referring to (in a very general way) is the fact that given a set of known quantities (whatever they are) you can (that is also a very big can) figure with absolute certainty (no matter how many sheets of paper it takes) any given chance that something will happen. It works the same way every time with absolute results. You may take the results to the bank, assuming someone at MIT does it for you and not me , I am prone to mistakes.

Contrast this thought with that of the "theory" of evolution (your post on the definition is duly noted). Very few things are absolute (meaning without question\authoritative), so much is still unknown. While this can be exciting to find out new things...It can not be compared to the kind of science we know of math. I understand new math theory is worked on everyday also, but it does not become a law until it works without fail and is demonstrable.

Well yeah, but that's because math is axiomatic and entirely self-contained. Thus, it's "absoluteness" is an outcome of those two things. OTOH, biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, etc. don't deal in absolutes because they are not axiomatic or self-contained. But that doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions in those fields.

We can get into the subject of probabilities in much greater detail, but it could completely take over this thread. I hope you don't think I am trying to dodge, I just don't know how to address that question without considerable space, so I hope the general suffices.

No, I appreciate how you're discussing this. :)

Side question: Do you know a source for a reputable science dictionary? I find links to them online...but no idea what a scientist finds reputable and what they say to stay away from.

I believe most fields of study have their own dictionaries. I have an Oxford Dictionary of Biology on my desk that I find helpful from time to time.

Sure it tells you how God created man. From the dust of the ground.

Some versions use the word "clay". So you believe we are just clay/dust figurines with souls?

And from Adams rib.

Wouldn't that make Eve a clone of Adam? Does that mean she had a Y chromosome?

please stop bringing up that timeously debunked notion that evolution is a theory on par with others. For crying out aloud. Grab at straws much?

For the last time....There is NO 'beyond doubt' observational evidence... which is needed... for classification and grouping with other scientific theories...

Since when did you become such an expert in evolutionary biology that you are able to make such a proclamation? Are you expecting me, or anyone else here, to just blindly accept your declarations about science as true?

Evolution only introduces arguments and evidence that support the currently accepted theories. Omitting / glossing over any evidence to the contrary.

Oh, so there's an active conspiracy going on? Who specifically is involved, how long has it been going on, and do you have any actual evidence of it?

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Well yeah, but that's because math is axiomatic and entirely self-contained. Thus, it's "absoluteness" is an outcome of those two things. OTOH, biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, etc. don't deal in absolutes because they are not axiomatic or self-contained. But that doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions in those fields.

This is what I am talking about and the exact point I am trying to make. Math is absolute, the other sciences, although very interesting and unquestionably able to draw certain answers, are not absolute. The conclusions they come to have to always be questioned because we do not rightfully know what it is we do not know...yet. Back to the example of the Bombardier Beetle (what actually got this started between you and I), math can tell us with absolute certainty (if we could ever know the numbers to deal with) the odds of that particular beetle evolving that way by random events coming together. Math has told us (in general principle) that the odds are extremely unfavorable to evolution being the catalysis of that beetle.

So we have two absolute or immutable things, the Bible (Hebrews 6:18) and math telling us the same thing, or both pointing to the idea of a Creator being the answer. Contrast that with the constantly evolving idea of evolution. Evolution, by the nature of it, is constantly learning, is waiting for the next discovery to fill in "gaps" or "plug holes". While this can be exciting to some, and it is understandable, if you were putting money on the table for that "river card" to fall....you would want to stick with the math. Math is science just the same as any other science just with an absolute nature involved, which trumps not absolute. Math is the very definition of repeatable and demonstrable.

 

[KingJ]

Since when did you become such an expert in evolutionary biology that you are able to make such a proclamation? Are you expecting me, or anyone else here, to just blindly accept your declarations about science as true?

Lol. You trust everything you are told? I am expecting everyone to test and examine the truth.

Oh, so there's an active conspiracy going on? Who specifically is involved, how long has it been going on, and do you have any actual evidence of it?

There are no god bashing atheists? I wish I could wake up and trust everyone out there was honest. Sadly when some claim that I am an ape and its science, I realize I am surrounded by idiots.

 

[River Jordan]

This is what I am talking about and the exact point I am trying to make. Math is absolute, the other sciences, although very interesting and unquestionably able to draw certain answers, are not absolute. The conclusions they come to have to always be questioned because we do not rightfully know what it is we do not know...yet. Back to the example of the Bombardier Beetle (what actually got this started between you and I), math can tell us with absolute certainty (if we could ever know the numbers to deal with) the odds of that particular beetle evolving that way by random events coming together. Math has told us (in general principle) that the odds are extremely unfavorable to evolution being the catalysis of that beetle.

And that brings us back to the original question: Why are you thinking that "statistically improbable = didn't happen"?

As I pointed out, every event in our daily lives is ridiculously improbable if we analyze it statistically, even if we only go back a few decades for all the events that led to it. So do we conclude that the entire course of the history of the universe was specifically directed so that I could go to the pet store today and buy fish food with that exact UPC code on it? I mean.....what are the odds?

So we have two absolute or immutable things, the Bible (Hebrews 6:18) and math telling us the same thing, or both pointing to the idea of a Creator being the answer.

Again, no one here is arguing against God being the Creator.

Contrast that with the constantly evolving idea of evolution. Evolution, by the nature of it, is constantly learning, is waiting for the next discovery to fill in "gaps" or "plug holes". While this can be exciting to some, and it is understandable, if you were putting money on the table for that "river card" to fall....you would want to stick with the math. Math is science just the same as any other science just with an absolute nature involved, which trumps not absolute. Math is the very definition of repeatable and demonstrable.

Except as noted above, the premise behind your citing "the math" is fundamentally flawed.

Lol. You trust everything you are told? I am expecting everyone to test and examine the truth.

You didn't answer the question. How did you become such an expert in evolutionary biology that you are able to make such a proclamation?

There are no god bashing atheists? I wish I could wake up and trust everyone out there was honest. Sadly when some claim that I am an ape and its science, I realize I am surrounded by idiots.

You didn't answer the question. Is there an active conspiracy going on? Who specifically is involved, how long has it been going on, and do you have any actual evidence of it?

 

[KingJ]

You didn't answer the question. 1. How did you become such an expert in evolutionary biology that you are able to make such a proclamation?


You didn't answer the question. 2. Is there an active conspiracy going on? Who specifically is involved, how long has it been going on, and do you have any actual evidence of it?

1. If I claimed to be a mathmetician and said 2+2 = 5... Would you need a degree in maths to question it? Idiots are idiots. Madness is madness. God gave us a brain...some just don't use it...they allow themselves to be brain washed from reality...or they are just really deceitful. I am guessing the prior with you.

2. Yes. If you read the bible you will find it started in the garden of Eden.

 

[[email protected]]

It's not about creation. It's all about destruction in the name of militant atheism.

The debate on creation appears at surface to be scientific in nature. It isn't. The rhetoric is a smoke screen for deeper issues and both sides know this. Just below the thin pretense and sham of modern science lay terrible truths.

- Two men of the nineteenth century formed the faux-scientific and philosophical theories which are the foundation of twenty-first century atheism. They are Charles Darwin and Frederick Neitzsche.

- Darwin was a murderous racist. The complete title of Darwin's most famous work, often abbreviated to The Origin of Species, was The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated."
- Charles Darwin

- Neitzsche died insane. Despite the seeming flawless logic of his arguments against the Christian religion the man lost his most treasured possession before death took him. His mind imploded and in his last days on earth his Christian mother sat by his bedside constantly uttering prayers on his behalf.

Neitzsche himself seemed to realize the impact his philosophy might have in the next (twentieth) century. He predicted murder and violence and destruction on a scale unheard of in human history. So he did and so it was.

The Hitler administration used the faux-science and philosophy of both these men to justify the brutal extermination of the Jews (as well as the handicapped, homosexuals and political dissidents - 12 million total). They used it to justify war and they used it to justify slavery. This is the fruit of atheism - death and murder and destruction in a godless world.

It isn't about creation of anything except murderous hate and rebellion against the Most High.

It isn't about evidence to support the existence of God either. The atheist will scream and holler and press for his own agenda regardless of truth or logic.

"It isn't evidence that's the issue, it's the suppression of it."
- Ravi Zacharius

For those who wish to explore the REAL scientific basis for creationism I submit references at the end of this post.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....

Sources for intelligent design theory.

Michael J. Behe Ph.D. in BioChemistry
Professor of Biloical Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania
Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

William A. Dembski Ph.D. in Mathematics & Philosophy
2 NSF fellowships and post Doctoral work at
M.I.T., Chicago University, and Princeton

Phillip E. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law at
University of California at Berkeley

Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at
San Francisco State University

Jed Macosko Ph.D. in Chemistry from University of California at Berkley
awarded the Admiral Rickover medal of honor at the
Research and Science Institute in Washington, DC and the Merck Award
for highest academic performance in Chemistry during his undergraduate
work at M.I.T.

Internet Sources
Access Research Network
www.arn.org
Discovery Institute
www.discovery.org
A critique of PBS's Evolution
www.reviewevolution.com
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
www.iscid.org
Origins
www.origins.org

 

[Mr.Bride]

"The debate on creation appears at surface to be scientific in nature. It isn't. The rhetoric is a smoke screen for deeper issues and both sides know this. Just below the thin pretense and sham of modern science lay terrible truths."

Amen, amen, and amen!! I pray that we always discern these foul things the enemy tries to slide in on us under different guise and ploys. That we would always be aware and on guard. The devil is looking for who he can devour so he must think he can devour someone. Let us put on the while armor of God. Test the spirits and see if they be of God. I've determined that I won't be deceived. And let us know that the ploys will be more and more in number and deceiving power but God has made us always a step or two in front of the enemy. And this is only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Blessings