Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

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.

There ya' go....just as someone claiming 2+2=5 can't be a math expert, someone claiming evolution and natural selection never happen can't be a biology expert.

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

Ok then....it's all a conspiracy. Thanks for making that clear.

rjp,

So if we are to evaluate a concept by looking at what some of its advocates have said and done....do you think such an approach could be used against Christianity?

 

[Mr.Bride]

"No one is arguing that scripture isn't truth."

And that was a lie. Was it not River Jordan? This is amazing. You'd think it was a sheep till you see the zipper.

 

[KingJ]

There ya' go....just as someone claiming 2+2=5 can't be a math expert, someone claiming evolution and natural selection never happen can't be a biology expert.

Huh?, you really got that from what I wrote?

Ok then....it's all a conspiracy. Thanks for making that clear.

Saying that on a Christian forum makes you a troll.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

I am going to bow out of the conversation here. Thank you for the good conversation River, we just are not going to agree and that is okay. God is faithful enough to change one of our minds...I just hope you are ready for it to be you! just kidding....sort of

SL

 

[KingJ]

I am going to bow out of the conversation here. Thank you for the good conversation River, we just are not going to agree and that is okay. God is faithful enough to change one of our minds...I just hope you are ready for it to be you! just kidding....sort of
SL

Is it really 'okay' to not agree on evolution among Christians? That is like saying whether God is good or evil...it is okay if we don't agree.

The devil always comes with the appearance of truth. His native tongue is lying. The only goal behind his deceit is our destruction. We do well to identify it afar off and rebuke it harshly.

I will continue to do so until I die. Nobody can hold back the tides of darkness / ever more liberal Christianity...as it is God's will for the end days....but we can certainly do our best....making our short time left down here more bearable for us and our kids.

I think it is painfully easy to deduce the saved from the unsaved today. Simply see who respects scripture and who doesn't. Making those who don't, feel like you ''accept their beliefs'' only aids in pushing them further away / giving them peace in their error.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Is it really 'okay' to not agree on evolution among Christians? That is like saying whether God is good or evil...it is okay if we don't agree.

The devil always comes with the appearance of truth. His native tongue is lying. The only goal behind his deceit is our destruction. We do well to identify it afar off and rebuke it harshly.

I will continue to do so until I die. Nobody can hold back the tides of darkness / ever more liberal Christianity...as it is God's will for the end days....but we can certainly do our best....making our short time left down here more bearable for us and our kids.

I think it is painfully easy to deduce the saved from the unsaved today. Simply see who respects scripture and who doesn't. Making those who don't, feel like you ''accept their beliefs'' only aids in pushing them further away / giving them peace in their error.

I understand how you feel. I will hang onto and believe God's word with every ounce of my being until the day I die. I even believe what you are saying is true.

I do not stop the fight...I switch methods. I gave her very plain, simple arguments that can not really be thwarted. She will not accept them. This does not make her my enemy. My enemy is not in flesh and blood. Thus, my fight becomes one on my knees for River.

There is a point to answering a fool in their folly, but if they will not heed...you become like them to continue. (Proverbs 26:4-5)

I have learned enough to know, I could be the one who is wrong. I certainly do not think it is the case in this matter (young earth creation) as evolution flies in the face of what God has shown me in scripture, but this is an issue of hearts needing changed...I only know One in that business.

 

[River Jordan]

I am going to bow out of the conversation here. Thank you for the good conversation River, we just are not going to agree and that is okay. God is faithful enough to change one of our minds...I just hope you are ready for it to be you! just kidding....sort of

I understand. Thanks to you too! I appreciate your willingness to talk without getting too personal.

I gave her very plain, simple arguments that can not really be thwarted. She will not accept them.

No, your argument centers on a fundamental error, i.e., that post hoc probability calculations are meaningful in determining the likelihood of an event. As I pointed out, I can use the same method to claim that....well, anything probably didn't happen.

You should read this:

The Top Five Most Annoying Statistical Fallacies

"4. Confusing a priori probability of a specific event with a fortiori probability of a specific class of events

This sounds really difficult, but it is the most used statistical fallacy by creationists. It revolves around asserting that this or that biological structure has a very low probability of arising, because, say, the mutations needed are so improbable to occur in the right sequence, so therefore, evolution cannot have produced them. This is the a priori probability. This may seem like a plausible argument to laypeople, but imagine the following analogy. Have you ever played bridge? The number of possible bridge hands is 635013559600, so the a priori probability for a specific bridge hand is 1/635013559600. Imagine the silliness in getting a particular bridge hand, then exclaim that you could not possibly have gotten that particular hand that you just got since the probability is astronomically low. This is exactly the same error as these kinds of creationists are doing. In the same way that the question “how likely is the given hand I just got?” does not make sense in this context, but instead the relevant question is “how likely is that I get any bridge hand” he question should not be “what is the a priori probability that this sequence of mutations occurred”, but rather “what is the probability of any mutation giving a viable organism?”"

 

[HammerStone]

River Jordan, I am not here really to question your faith even though some of my following remarks may seem to go down that path. I think, just as you get after some for YEC views (I am old Earth), I see some issues with your interpretations of the first passages of Genesis with the concept of a mythic totality. I'm not sure that Christian liberals (using this term as taxonomy) are fully aware of the consequences of denying that Adam is but a concept. However, that is another thread for another day that we can hash out sometime.

In regards to your commentary about probability - I will personally say that whilst in of my scientific knowledge is lay knowledge, I think that to entirely dismiss probability as a legitimate criticism is glossing over the deeper issues. For instance, Boltzmann's entropy formula would perhaps at least hint that some of the issues are not quite so concrete as to warrant absolute dismissal - probability is involved to some degree. I think personally some of the argumentation here is a little beyond the scope of this community, but it should not be avoided.

The argument I see arising from the probability criticism is that our world could not exist without an supremely intelligent hand-guiding it. YEC and OEC would all but agree in this assertion. If you do not agree with that statement, then I would see fit to make the statement that you are not a Christian. (Even a Deist should agree that the deity had some level of involvement in creation - otherwise is He/She really a deity?)

Just some thoughts I wanted to throw into the hat. I think a lot of the tit-for-tat stuff is talking past one another on both "sides" of this debate.

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordan, I am not here really to question your faith even though some of my following remarks may seem to go down that path. I think, just as you get after some for YEC views (I am old Earth), I see some issues with your interpretations of the first passages of Genesis with the concept of a mythic totality. I'm not sure that Christian liberals (using this term as taxonomy) are fully aware of the consequences of denying that Adam is but a concept. However, that is another thread for another day that we can hash out sometime.

Ok, fair enough.

In regards to your commentary about probability - I will personally say that whilst in of my scientific knowledge is lay knowledge, I think that to entirely dismiss probability as a legitimate criticism is glossing over the deeper issues. For instance, Boltzmann's entropy formula would perhaps at least hint that some of the issues are not quite so concrete as to warrant absolute dismissal - probability is involved to some degree.

I never entirely dismissed probabilities as not being useful. They are very useful in a lot of circumstances. However, as I and many, many others have noted, using post hoc probability calculations to try and argue that X couldn't have happened is a fundamental misuse of probability.

The argument I see arising from the probability criticism is that our world could not exist without an supremely intelligent hand-guiding it. YEC and OEC would all but agree in this assertion. If you do not agree with that statement, then I would see fit to make the statement that you are not a Christian. (Even a Deist should agree that the deity had some level of involvement in creation - otherwise is He/She really a deity?)

While I agree with the conclusion, I disagree with using probabilities to justify it. In order to make a positive argument for "a supremely intelligent hand", you have to incorporate such a thing into your calculations. I don't know how that's possible.

Just some thoughts I wanted to throw into the hat. I think a lot of the tit-for-tat stuff is talking past one another on both "sides" of this debate.

Par for the course! ;)

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Sigh....I......can't.....do......it.......

Okay River,

I am afraid you keep misusing probabilities, I am sure you are a very good biologist and I am not prepared to discuss the biology of it all in a detailed way with you. (shhhh....don't tell anyone I hated biology ) I could understand a lot of the basics and I can read...so I can learn any of it. I would be much more comfortable discussing the physics of it with you.

The examples you are using to discuss the probabilities are flawed. Again, we do not have the space to teach a class on it here. This is why I decided to back out of the conversation. I decided if I gave you a better example maybe you would either see it more clearly, or maybe come closer to understanding what I am talking about. The problem is...we are speaking two different languages to a degree. Maybe a biologist and a whatever I am do not have enough of a commonality of language to fully understand each other....lets see.

I live in a very small town in Western Maryland. I commute four miles to work each day. I drive through a lot of wooded country on my way to the "big city" (if you only knew which "city"....town....berg you would laugh). Anyway, as I drive into the city where I work i notice a lot of organization to the roads, buildings, signs, and businesses. I could calculate the probabilities of all of this happening by random chance events basically down to the street names....It would never happen. I do not need to "redo" the calculations assuming a designer....because that is the only possibility that actually exists! When I see the city...I know someone designed it...I do not really need to do the math on calculating a designer, if for no other reason than the other calculation was so impossible. The only answer is someone designed the town.

I can not look at all the creation around me...the intricate nature of it all....how it all works together...and assume anything but a designer....architect...Creator. (Romans 1)

Sigh...I swore I was gonna give up.

SL

 

[River Jordan]

I am afraid you keep misusing probabilities,

I just quoted one mathematician describing what you're doing as a misuse of probabilities. Do you want more?

The examples you are using to discuss the probabilities are flawed.

Ok then provide an example of a mathematician conducting post hoc probability calculations for an event in the same way you are, and using the results to draw a conclusion about that event. And please, don't just go to some creationist website. I'd like to see something in a different context to see if the actual method you describe is valid.

I could calculate the probabilities of all of this happening by random chance events basically down to the street names....It would never happen.

There's another problem with how you're doing this. Evolution does not proceed by "random chance". The fundamental step (mutation) is random, but they are then subject to a selective filter (natural selection) that is entirely non-random. The fact that a petri dish infused with antibiotics grows only bacteria with resistance is not a random outcome.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

You keep using that word (or phrase mind you) post hoc probability. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If we were only speaking of probability, then you could claim your "yet here we are" argument.

We are not. We have posited an alternative possibility which does not rely on probability whatsoever.

Therefore, the question is not post hoc probability but rather which is more likely or probable?

Yes I have a dizzying intellect.

Sorry no more princess bride references .........for now.

 

[River Jordan]

If we were only speaking of probability, then you could claim your "yet here we are" argument.

We are not. We have posited an alternative possibility which does not rely on probability whatsoever.

Therefore, the question is not post hoc probability but rather which is more likely or probable?

Do you see the problem with what you just said? If you're going to argue that A is more probable than B, then by definition you have to have calculated the probability of both A and B.

But you said your alternative doesn't rely on probability.

Oops.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So as a Christian, what is your opinion on the probability of God existing and being true to His word?

Oops.

 

[River Jordan]

So as a Christian, what is your opinion on the probability of God existing and being true to His word?

Oops.

?????? There is no way to calculate such a thing.....which has been my point the entire time. Sheesh....... :blink:

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

We walk by faith, not by sight. If you believe it, then the probability, at least to you, is 100%. This is what we have been arguing the entire time.

Egads.

 

[River Jordan]

We walk by faith, not by sight. If you believe it, then the probability, at least to you, is 100%. This is what we have been arguing the entire time.

Except that is an asserted, believe solely by faith, "probability" (IOW, it's not a probability in any sort of mathematical sense). Yet throughout this thread, some people have been trying to compare that to actual mathematical probabilities, such as when you asked "the question is not post hoc probability but rather which is more likely or probable?"

So if your appeal to probabilities there is really an appeal to faith rather than math, then you should just say so and stop trying to compare it to actual mathematical probabilities.

 

[KingJ]

?????? There is no way to calculate such a thing.....which has been my point the entire time. Sheesh....... :blink:

Actually there is and its rather simple.

1. God existing = http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html AND Intelligent design Rom 1:20. There is no alternative in a realm limited by the laws of physics. 0+0 will never 1. Making the odds infinity / 1 in God's favor.

2. Being true to His word = We can be 100% certain of that if we saved 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. If not saved, we need simply use lateral thought..... a God that created all is more then capable of protecting / inspiring His word 2 Pet 1:21 AND lateral thought off ....a God that died for us not having any 'dishonest / evil' agenda with us. Odds are once more infinity / 1 in God's favor.

 

[River Jordan]

Actually there is and its rather simple.

1. God existing = http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html AND Intelligent design Rom 1:20. There is no alternative in a realm limited by the laws of physics. 0+0 will never 1. Making the odds infinity / 1 in God's favor.

?????? There's no mathematical probabilities there. And I would caution against citing men's passion for a belief as evidence that the belief has been proven true. It can just as easily be used for other faiths.

2. Being true to His word = We can be 100% certain of that if we saved 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. If not saved, we need simply use lateral thought..... a God that created all is more then capable of protecting / inspiring His word 2 Pet 1:21 AND lateral thought off ....a God that died for us not having any 'dishonest / evil' agenda with us. Odds are once more infinity / 1 in God's favor.

Again, you're not actually providing calculations, but rather assertions of faith. Nothing wrong with that, but not at all in the same world as mathematics.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

Your circular logic is indeed obvious, so I can clearly not choose the glass in front of you.

We give you the high probability that Darwinian evolution is not sufficient for the variety of life on earth and then we give you an alternative that is either true or not true and you continue to pretend you don't understand.