Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Why should I believe you? Why should CJ trust anything River says?

I have no idea if you study science at all. Most knowledge is readily available online.

How do you know what the goats beard will look like?

Who made you keeper of the sacred knowledge?

I trust the scripture. The fixed point. You trust man. I pity you. Really I do.

 

[River Jordan]

You didn't answer the questions...

On what basis do you say things like, "believe me the goats beard is going nowhere. Really nowhere. In fact, in a million years, it will still be a goats beard."?

Why should I believe you, as you claimed?

Why do people like you and Fred make such authoritative statements about science, if you've never really studied it?

 

[Fred Lamm]

It's still a bacteria. A kind is a type of animal like a horse, a dog or a cat, Darwinists feel that if adaptations can occur within types, then think what natural selection can do over a long period of time. Unfortunatley for them, genetic limits seem to be present within every type. Horses may range in size from Shetland ponies to Clydesdales but no matter what intelligent breeders try they always remain horses. Despite the best efforts of intelligent scientists to manipulate fruit flies, the experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies. There are no examples of one kind of organism becoming another type of organism, and there are no examples of transitional fossils or I suspect you would have trotted them out.
Evolution is the theory of the darwinists, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Also, why do you assume that I am uneducated in science. I attended college on a scholarship, majored in nuclear engineering and made the deans list every semester I was there.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[River Jordan]

It's still a bacteria.

So? Are you saying evolution doesn't happen unless changes produce entirely new domains?

A kind is a type of animal like a horse, a dog or a cat,

That's not a useful definition. Again, what exactly is a "kind"?

there are no examples of transitional fossils or I suspect you would have trotted them out.

You didn't answer the question. Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

Evolution is the theory of the darwinists, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Also, why do you assume that I am uneducated in science. I attended college on a scholarship, majored in nuclear engineering and made the deans list every semester I was there.

I haven't assumed anything. That's why I'm asking.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Evolution is the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor, the first one celled creature. In order for this to have occurred, one type ( kind, I don't know how to make this any clearer to you or maybe you just want to play with semantics) of organism has to evolve into another type of organism (macroevolution). Darwinists think that observable mutations of a bacteria can be extrapolated to prove unobservable macroevolution. No matter what those scientists do to that bacteria, it will always be a bacteria and will never evolve into a higher form of organism.
You can't dump a theory on the world and say that we have to believe it unless we can prove it wrong, you have to prove it right. Believe me if the darwinists had a smoking gun they would shove it on the evening news so fast it would make your head spin. there is no observable evidence for evolution because it did not happen. The internet with the libraries of the world are at your finger tips.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

It's still a bacteria. A kind is a type of animal like a horse, a dog or a cat, Darwinists feel that if adaptations can occur within types, then think what natural selection can do over a long period of time. Unfortunatley for them, genetic limits seem to be present within every type. Horses may range in size from Shetland ponies to Clydesdales but no matter what intelligent breeders try they always remain horses. Despite the best efforts of intelligent scientists to manipulate fruit flies, the experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies. There are no examples of one kind of organism becoming another type of organism, and there are no examples of transitional fossils or I suspect you would have trotted them out.
Evolution is the theory of the darwinists, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Also, why do you assume that I am uneducated in science. I attended college on a scholarship, majored in nuclear engineering and made the deans list every semester I was there.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

I like this post. I recently used the example of mating a female horse with a male donkey to produce a mule, but that's just one example of how genetic manipulation produces an inferior freak. We do the same thing to fruits and vegetables, making seedless grapes, watermelons etc and we produce a product that can't reproduce itself much like the mule can't. Even the breeding of dogs to produce smaller, more house friendly pets is a good example. The common thread in all three examples, the mule, the yappy dog, the seedless grape, is that we make something that serves us better, but doesn't serve the perpetuation of their species. A Pug or a Westhighland White terrier wouldn't last an hour in the wild because in the natural world they are freaks, far inferior to their prototype. Such is the consistent result of our manipulation of genetics. There's broader implications from this that apply to the debate over evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

Fred,

You're ignoring all my questions and just repeating yourself over and over. Again....

Are you saying evolution doesn't happen unless changes produce entirely new domains?

What exactly is a "kind"?

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

TVoT,

Not all hybrid events are like what you describe. For example: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/12/04/hybrid-speciation-strikes-agai/

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Fred,

You're ignoring all my questions and just repeating yourself over and over. Again....

Are you saying evolution doesn't happen unless changes produce entirely new domains?

What exactly is a "kind"?

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

TVoT,

Not all hybrid events are like what you describe. For example: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/12/04/hybrid-speciation-strikes-agai/

From your article:

Abstract

Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus (both 2n = 4x = 24) are recent allotetraploids derived from T. dubius × T. porrifolius and T. dubius × T. pratensis (each 2n = 2x = 12), respectively. The genome sizes of T. mirus are additive of those of its diploid parents, but at least some populations of T. miscellus have undergone genome downsizing. To survey for genomic rearrangements in the allopolyploids, four repetitive sequences were physically mapped. TPRMBO (unit size 160 base pairs [bp]) and TGP7 (532 bp) are tandemly organized satellite sequences isolated from T. pratensis and T. porrifolius, respectively. Fluorescent in situ hybridization to the diploids showed that TPRMBO is a predominantly centromeric repeat on all 12 chromosomes, while TGP7 is a subtelomeric sequence on most chromosome arms. The distribution of tandem repetitive DNA loci (TPRMBO, TGP7, 18S-5.8S-26S rDNA, and 5S rDNA) gave unique molecular karyotypes for the three diploid species, permitting the identification of the parental chromosomes in the polyploids. The location and number of these loci were inherited without apparent changes in the allotetraploids. There was no evidence for major genomic rearrangements in Tragopogon allopolyploids that have arisen multiple times in North America within the last 80 yr.

Either you can choose a source that dumbs it down to say..plain English, or I can stick with my initial reaction that I haven't been refuted, just punked.

 

[River Jordan]

Either you can choose a source that dumbs it down to say..plain English, or I can stick with my initial reaction that I haven't been refuted, just punked.

First of all, are you seriously telling me that a person who has deemed themselves qualified to declare that evolutionists are delusional and that evolution is a religion, doesn't posses the knowledge to understand that paper? Do you see the disconnect there?

Perhaps you should read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."

Finally, that's why I posted the second link to a blog post describing hybridization as a mechanism of speciation. It's written in more layperson friendly terms.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Couldn't find any evidence, huh? I'm not ignoring your questions, you're ignoring my answers because they don't fit into your worldview. As for the "domain" thing, I don't have to subscribe to the arbitrary organization & grouping of species that is based on bad (non-observable) science. Even Darwin recognized that the fossil record was a huge problem for his theory because it didn't show gradualism. In Darwin's words, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin hoped that future fossil discoveries would vindicate his theory, but time has proven him wrong. If Darwinism were true, we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now. But according to the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist), "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." And furthermore, I do not have to answer your questions, you are the one promoting this theory; you have to prove it.
As for the donkey & the seedless grapes, so you're saying evolution occured by two species crossbreeding and creating a sterile offspring...something is wrong with that logic.
Have a blessed day!
Fred Lamm

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

First of all, are you seriously telling me that a person who has deemed themselves qualified to declare that evolutionists are delusional and that evolution is a religion, doesn't posses the knowledge to understand that paper? Do you see the disconnect there?

Perhaps you should read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."

Finally, that's why I posted the second link to a blog post describing hybridization as a mechanism of speciation. It's written in more layperson friendly terms.

What I'm detecting from all your postings is "You aren't qualified to discuss evolution unless you're as smart as me." Such supercilious nonsense! And yet, when I or others here attempt to discuss the issue on a common denominator of intelligence, you pull rank as if one needs to climb to the highest peaks to pow-wow with the guru. Your sickening pride is so un-Christ like, I can hardly grasp how you have any claim to Christianity. And then you post this, a naked insult to my intelligence. Again WWJD? doesn't even enter the picture for you.


The problem isn't my intelligence. I have an IQ of 129 which I'm proud of because it certainly ranks high, but I've concluded that intelligence means nothing if I'm wrong because in the end, that's all that matters. There are many "intelligent" people promoting the global warming myth, but if in fact man does not contribute to global delta in temperature, then all the intellectualism can be rightly viewed as crap. Assessing intelligence can be pragmatically tied to end results because if indeed God created the suns and the planets and every creature according to its kind, it doesn't matter how many complex scientific formulas are marshaled into opposition of that truth. Put in more pithy form, if God indeed is creator, than a state penitentiary inmate with an IQ of 88 who believes that is smarter than you.

You would do well to start reading the Proverbs and see how the wise king assigns futility to intelligence untempered by wisdom.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Dunning and Kruger were picked on in high school me thinks.

 

[River Jordan]

Couldn't find any evidence, huh?

Bizarre. I posted a paper and a more layperson friendly blog post describing exactly what I"m talking about (the observed evolution of new species), and you're saying "couldn't find any evidence"? Absolutely bizarre.

I'm not ignoring your questions, you're ignoring my answers because they don't fit into your worldview.

No, you've not defined "kind" or explained where you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not.

As for the "domain" thing, I don't have to subscribe to the arbitrary organization & grouping of species that is based on bad (non-observable) science.

That's fine, but it doesn't really help me understand your position. You claimed "evolution is not a fact", I posted the observed evolution of a new trait (hyperswimmers), and you responded that "they're still bacteria".

So from your POV, is it only "evolution" if the changes cross a specific taxonomic line? If so, what is that line?

I do not have to answer your questions, you are the one promoting this theory; you have to prove it.

Yeah, that's pretty consistent with most of the creationists I've encountered. They like to make all sorts of confident declarations that evolution isn't a fact, transitional fossils don't exist, etc., but as soon as those declarations are questioned, they suddenly yell "I don't have to answer any questions".

Pretty lame.

As for the donkey & the seedless grapes, so you're saying evolution occured by two species crossbreeding and creating a sterile offspring...something is wrong with that logic.

Um....you need to pay closer attention. I didn't say that at all.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Dunning and Kruger were picked on in high school me thinks.

 

[River Jordan]

What I'm detecting from all your postings is "You aren't qualified to discuss evolution unless you're as smart as me."

Not at all. You guys are making incredibly bold assertions about the field of evolutionary biology and many of its sub-disciplines. Now I would think basic humility would dictate that you wouldn't make such assertions unless you'd actually spent a fair amount of time studying the subject. On that basis, I'm assuming that you have done that. So I'm asking questions about what you've studied and providing you scientific papers.

But in response, I see you ignoring my questions, declaring you don't need to answer questions, saying the papers (and even blogs apparently) are beyond your understanding, and generally complaining that I'm even daring to question your assertions and/or your qualifications to make them.

IMO, that's indicative of a group of people who've been fed a handful of simplistic talking points, but are unable to discuss the subjects any further. But rather than admit this, they try and attack the person who dared to question the talking points.

Such supercilious nonsense! And yet, when I or others here attempt to discuss the issue on a common denominator of intelligence, you pull rank as if one needs to climb to the highest peaks to pow-wow with the guru. Your sickening pride is so un-Christ like, I can hardly grasp how you have any claim to Christianity. And then you post this, a naked insult to my intelligence. Again WWJD? doesn't even enter the picture for you.

Exhibit A

I'd love to discuss the data. I've been begging you and Fred to do so. But you apparently can't go beyond your talking points.

The problem isn't my intelligence. I have an IQ of 129 which I'm proud of because it certainly ranks high, but I've concluded that intelligence means nothing if I'm wrong because in the end, that's all that matters.

I've not said one word about your intelligence. Could it be that you're confusing "intelligence" with "knowledge"?

Assessing intelligence can be pragmatically tied to end results because if indeed God created the suns and the planets and every creature according to its kind, it doesn't matter how many complex scientific formulas are marshaled into opposition of that truth. Put in more pithy form, if God indeed is creator, than a state penitentiary inmate with an IQ of 88 who believes that is smarter than you.

Ah, so perhaps this is more central to the discussion. If your position is first and foremost rooted in how you read scripture, why not stick to that? Why the need to try and argue against science that you've never studied?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Others have studied science. We simply believe them over you. I have given you names repeatedly. Also many times. And frequently. As in more than once.

With that in mind, and this is not a rant, from the beginning I asked that we not just post link against link. Perhaps that was wrong. I assumed you were familiar. I may have been incorrect. If you want some links, I will furnish some. Just ask.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Your bacteria changing a trait isnt evolution, its adaptation. Now if you can get your one celled bacteria to become a multi-celled something else, a process that had to have ocurred millions of times for there to be the diversity of creatures we have now, we would have something to talk about. Again for a theory to be a fact it has to be proven. You have no observable evidence to present and never will have. I notice you didn't use my quotes from Darwin and Gould, Are we throwing out information that doesn't fit? Turns out the fossil record doesn't support evolution at all, but it is a pretty good argument for creation.
My apologies for not naming the poster of the donkey thing. People, don't be academically bullied into believing bad science and don't let your children be either. visit http://afastore.net/afr-simulcasts/evolution-vs-god-simulcast-set.html and get the dvd "Evolution vs. God". Its the best five dollars you will ever spend and it totally exposes evolution as what it is, bad science. And no I am not affiliated with this dvd in any manner whatsoever and recieve no benefit from it's sale.

 

[River Jordan]

Others have studied science. We simply believe them over you.

Ok, this is a very good point. On what basis do you decide to believe one over the other?

Your bacteria changing a trait isnt evolution, its adaptation.

What's the difference between a population evolving and one adapting?

Now if you can get your one celled bacteria to become a multi-celled something else, a process that had to have ocurred millions of times for there to be the diversity of creatures we have now, we would have something to talk about.

Done.

Experimental Evolution of Multicellularity

Again for a theory to be a fact it has to be proven. You have no observable evidence to present and never will have.

Oops.

I notice you didn't use my quotes from Darwin and Gould, Are we throwing out information that doesn't fit? Turns out the fossil record doesn't support evolution at all, but it is a pretty good argument for creation.

Oh, if you like quotes from S.J. Gould....

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

Oops.

And again, you claimed that there are no transitional fossils. Where exactly did you look?

People, don't be academically bullied into believing bad science and don't let your children be either. visit http://afastore.net/afr-simulcasts/evolution-vs-god-simulcast-set.html and get the dvd "Evolution vs. God". Its the best five dollars you will ever spend and it totally exposes evolution as what it is, bad science. And no I am not affiliated with this dvd in any manner whatsoever and recieve no benefit from it's sale.

Why would such a historic discovery be restricted to a dvd?

Again, what is a "kind"?

From your POV, is it only "evolution" if the changes cross a specific taxonomic line? If so, what is that line?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

A mixture of the following:

Presuppositions (everyone does)
Trust in foundation. (God)
Is it logical. (Signature in the cell by Meyer seems logical to me)
Who holds the opposing view? (Ungodly, worldly scientists)
The opposing view supports what? (Abortion, infanticide, eugenics, subjective morality, atheism)

 

[River Jordan]

A mixture of the following:

Presuppositions (everyone does)
Trust in foundation. (God)
Is it logical. (Signature in the cell by Meyer seems logical to me)
Who holds the opposing view? (Ungodly, worldly scientists)
The opposing view supports what? (Abortion, infanticide, eugenics, subjective morality, atheism)

That's an extremely clear answer and says a lot. Thanks for being so open and honest.