Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

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

I've not seen anything circular in my logic, especially given that in this latest discussion I've not really made a positive claim. But let's see....

We give you the high probability that Darwinian evolution is not sufficient for the variety of life on earth

And I pointed out how such post hoc attempts at probability calculations are a misuse of probabilities. I also cited mathematicians who agree.

and then we give you an alternative that is either true or not true and you continue to pretend you don't understand.

Now here, it looks to me like you're doing exactly what I described earlier, i.e., trying to compare mathematical probability to asserted probability based solely on faith.

Do you think that's a logical and reasonable comparison?

 

[Secondhand Lion]

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


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.


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.

Part of the problem is that you have to go to a pro evolution website after you google "debunk mathematical probability of evolution argument". I could and would argue live and\or in person with any of the people who "debunk" this line of thinking. To discuss it with you when your only argument is "That's not true! nanee nanee booboo!" and "Use any source other than one I don't agree with" is a bit absurd. The last example I gave you is fundamentally accurate. Accept it, or don't.

You argue that evolution is not random chance, yet you say in the very next sentence "the fundamental step is random". If you cannot see the contradiction in this statement, I do not know what more there is to say. You want to observe so much...yet you seem to miss so many of the basic everyday things. To say "the fundamental step" is to say what it is built on....If the foundation is shaky...you can not have a first floor, much less a 30th floor. I heard somewhere once that if you build your house on sand...something bad would happen...maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know what the problem is with your apparent concern with "post hoc" (except google told you to use that phrase). Evolution is built completely on the post hoc process...but it's not okay for mathematicians to use also? I agree, when you just keep looking for more and more statistics to use after the fact...it rarely generates productive results, but certainly you can see the difference between taking the 500th statistical sample of the mating rituals of otters as somehow being productive for laundry soap and discussing the probabilities of random chance (fundamentally) producing the organization we see as opposed to a designer...right?

 

[River Jordan]

Part of the problem is that you have to go to a pro evolution website after you google "debunk mathematical probability of evolution argument". I could and would argue live and\or in person with any of the people who "debunk" this line of thinking. To discuss it with you when your only argument is "That's not true! nanee nanee booboo!" and "Use any source other than one I don't agree with" is a bit absurd. The last example I gave you is fundamentally accurate. Accept it, or don't.

Really? You think this...

"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."

...is no different than "That's not true! nanee nanee booboo!"?

Why do you have to resort to such ridiculousness?

You argue that evolution is not random chance, yet you say in the very next sentence "the fundamental step is random". If you cannot see the contradiction in this statement, I do not know what more there is to say.

Ok, let's walk through this....

I have 100 coins. I flip them all one at a time until I've flipped all 100. I then put aside all the heads, and re-flip all those that came up tails. From those I again set aside all the heads and re-flip all the tails. Eventually I will have 100 coins showing heads.

But how can that be? The fundamental step in that process (flipping each coin) is random! What are the odds that I would end up with 100% heads?

Do you understand the point? Even though the initial step is random, subjecting the results to a non-random filter makes the outcome decidedly non-random. Evolution works in much the same way. Each individual mutation is random, but its effects are subjected to the non-random filter of natural selection.

I don't know what the problem is with your apparent concern with "post hoc" (except google told you to use that phrase).

See above. You're looking at an event that has already happened and trying to infer something about its likelihood by independently multiplying the probability of every event preceding it. That's a fundamental misuse of statistics.

Evolution is built completely on the post hoc process...but it's not okay for mathematicians to use also?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

I agree, when you just keep looking for more and more statistics to use after the fact...it rarely generates productive results, but certainly you can see the difference between taking the 500th statistical sample of the mating rituals of otters as somehow being productive for laundry soap and discussing the probabilities of random chance (fundamentally) producing the organization we see as opposed to a designer...right?

Well let me ask you this....do you honestly think you're the first person who's ever thought of this? Do you think evolutionary biologists are so terrible at their jobs that this sort of thing would absolutely stump them?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Your coin flip scenario is an epic fail. You are sorting and storing outcomes of random flips based on future knowledge.

Here is where you quote me and respond "no I'm not."

It is the same way with darwinism. There is no future knowledge.

Here is where you say, "yes there is."

Therefore, by extension, the whole process is random. I gloss over most of your long posts, are they all this remedial?

This is where you respond with some sort of emoticon.

 

[River Jordan]

Your coin flip scenario is an epic fail. You are sorting and storing outcomes of random flips based on future knowledge.

Here is where you quote me and respond "no I'm not."

It is the same way with darwinism. There is no future knowledge.

Here is where you say, "yes there is."

Therefore, by extension, the whole process is random. I gloss over most of your long posts, are they all this remedial?

This is where you respond with some sort of emoticon.

No, the process is not based on "future knowledge", it's based on the present, i.e., what works and doesn't work right now.

Are you guys just thinking this stuff up on the fly and posting it?

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Really? You think this...

"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."

...is no different than "That's not true! nanee nanee booboo!"?

Why do you have to resort to such ridiculousness?


Ok, let's walk through this....

I have 100 coins. I flip them all one at a time until I've flipped all 100. I then put aside all the heads, and re-flip all those that came up tails. From those I again set aside all the heads and re-flip all the tails. Eventually I will have 100 coins showing heads.

But how can that be? The fundamental step in that process (flipping each coin) is random! What are the odds that I would end up with 100% heads?

Do you understand the point? Even though the initial step is random, subjecting the results to a non-random filter makes the outcome decidedly non-random. Evolution works in much the same way. Each individual mutation is random, but its effects are subjected to the non-random filter of natural selection.


See above. You're looking at an event that has already happened and trying to infer something about its likelihood by independently multiplying the probability of every event preceding it. That's a fundamental misuse of statistics.


Sorry, that doesn't make sense.


Well let me ask you this....do you honestly think you're the first person who's ever thought of this? Do you think evolutionary biologists are so terrible at their jobs that this sort of thing would absolutely stump them?

Okay, I was a bit frustrated when I wrote that post. I try to keep myself away from keyboards when I am upset. Please remove all my insanely placed comments pretending to know what you were thinking and doing. I'm sorry.

I am saying (by your own standard) that a biologist is not a mathematician, as a mathematician is not a biologist. You claim we can not all be experts in all fields (and you are right), I claim you are not either. Nothing more. No, I am not the first person to have thought of this. I am unexceptional in every way. I have never hidden from this.

Post hoc analysis is not strictly a math issue. It does not merely deal with statistics. Post hoc analysis is almost a science of itself dealing with many subjects over the course of many issues. It boils down to any secondary analysis that deviates from the original objective and tries to gather more information than the original objective intended. Evolution then, by definition, is all post hoc analysis.

Now onto your coin analogy. It is inaccurate. The reasons are numerous, please allow just a couple major ones:

1. It bears nothing out according to what we are talking about. There are only two possible results as opposed to infinite results possible.

2. Your example actually argues in my favor. You are guaranteeing the results of your test. You are guaranteeing intelligence, you are the architect. The outcome is exactly what you were aiming for. This argument is one based in at least intelligent design and at most you are seeing the outcome of a Creator with no actual randomness involved. I think you are starting to come over...this is good.

I know I said a couple but I will throw this in for a bonus.

3. The choice we face is just like a coin flip. Only one of two possibilities. Bible account is true. Bible account is false. When you boil it all down to its most fundamental issue it is a question of "Did God really say?". As I have stated many times...it is not a coincidence this is the original question asked in the Bible.

Again, I am sorry I was frustrated. I will endeavor to stay away from the keyboard when in this state. :unsure:

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Random mutation and natural selection cannot select for a future function.

How can it? How can evolution have future knowledge. This is a well known critique of darwinism.

Now this is where you should claim a designer, but I am predicting you won't. Am I correct?

 

[Secondhand Lion]

River,

Again, I will bow out here. This time I will leave it alone. Thank you again for the good conversation!

I will state for the record again.....you are not my enemy and I will not view you that way. I have enjoyed our conversations and I sincerely wish you the best in your studies. I hope to get into further discussions with you on other subjects, but do feel this one has come to an end.

If I am wrong in my viewpoints, I admit, I can not see them any other way and I am pig headed and stubborn in them. As with all other areas, I am completely and totally dependent on God's grace in the midst of my faults.

I am not a biology major, or minor, or even a private...I just scrub the latrines. Thank you for your patience with me. :)

SL

 

[River Jordan]

Okay, I was a bit frustrated when I wrote that post. I try to keep myself away from keyboards when I am upset. Please remove all my insanely placed comments pretending to know what you were thinking and doing. I'm sorry.

No worries at all. :)

I am saying (by your own standard) that a biologist is not a mathematician, as a mathematician is not a biologist. You claim we can not all be experts in all fields (and you are right), I claim you are not either. Nothing more. No, I am not the first person to have thought of this. I am unexceptional in every way. I have never hidden from this.

The two fields are not as discrete as you think. Are you familiar with the study of population genetics? It's an entire field of science dedicated to studying the mathematical concepts behind how populations evolve. I've taken several courses in it myself.

Post hoc analysis is not strictly a math issue. It does not merely deal with statistics. Post hoc analysis is almost a science of itself dealing with many subjects over the course of many issues. It boils down to any secondary analysis that deviates from the original objective and tries to gather more information than the original objective intended. Evolution then, by definition, is all post hoc analysis.

I'm not saying all post hoc analyses are meaningless. I'm saying those of the sort you're vaguely referencing are.

1. It bears nothing out according to what we are talking about. There are only two possible results as opposed to infinite results possible.

Irrelevant to the point of the analogy. The point is to demonstrate that a process with a random first step can still generate non-random results.

2. Your example actually argues in my favor. You are guaranteeing the results of your test. You are guaranteeing intelligence, you are the architect. The outcome is exactly what you were aiming for. This argument is one based in at least intelligent design and at most you are seeing the outcome of a Creator with no actual randomness involved. I think you are starting to come over...this is good.

Irrelevant to the point of the analogy. The point is to demonstrate that a process with a random first step can still generate non-random results.

3. The choice we face is just like a coin flip. Only one of two possibilities. Bible account is true. Bible account is false. When you boil it all down to its most fundamental issue it is a question of "Did God really say?". As I have stated many times...it is not a coincidence this is the original question asked in the Bible.

Irrelevant to the point of the analogy. The point is to demonstrate that a process with a random first step can still generate non-random results. And not everyone thinks in such black/white terms.

Again, I will bow out here. This time I will leave it alone. Thank you again for the good conversation!

You too! I urge you to read more about population genetics and statistics. You should look into things like "the law of large numbers".

I will state for the record again.....you are not my enemy and I will not view you that way. I have enjoyed our conversations and I sincerely wish you the best in your studies. I hope to get into further discussions with you on other subjects, but do feel this one has come to an end.

Absolutely. I don't think of anyone here as my enemy. We may disagree on things like evolution, but we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot select for a future function.

How can it? How can evolution have future knowledge. This is a well known critique of darwinism.

Now this is where you should claim a designer, but I am predicting you won't. Am I correct?

I just wrote to you above...

No, the process is not based on "future knowledge", it's based on the present, i.e., what works and doesn't work right now.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So, when the lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very foundation of the world, God was not concerned about what He would look like, what people would look like etc?

Some organisms could hang on a cross and not die, so I guess it just didn't matter. After all, the earth reigns supreme.

Just what is the image of God by which we are made?

 

[River Jordan]

So, when the lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very foundation of the world, God was not concerned about what He would look like, what people would look like etc?

?????? God is omniscient, right?

Just what is the image of God by which we are made?

Sentient beings with a soul.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Your question marks betray you. They open the curtain on your youth and lack of understanding of the brevity of your trust in science falsely so-called.

On one hand you say God let it happen. On the other hand you claim He is all-knowing. With your third hand (yes which doesn't exist) you claim an unguided materialistic process that defies scripture and logic.

What is "right now?" Before you speak it, it becomes the past, before you can act, it is already the future. Explain the right now, and hope there are no physicists looking on.

Right now doesn't exist. Our illustrious second hand lion, who is our beetle expert but left us before the completion of our diatribe could expound on this further.

Look up Dawkins' weasel. It will give you some insight into my point. It's okay you were not aware of it, again you are not an expert on everything. Who is?

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I suppose if you want to get into the whole philosophical question of, if God is omniscient can anything really happen on it's own, we can do that. But of course that even brings up the question of whether you and I are even having this conversation, or if it's just God talking to Himself.

 

[KingJ]

River, your beliefs 'seem' all over the show. Making sense of them / avoiding curcular discussion is difficult. I am sure you mean well, but would you mind giving us all (or just for me ;)) more clarity please :wub:.

Section A: Please answer with a Yes, No or Not sure:

1. Intelligence = accountability?
2. Natural selection = evil?
3. Intelligent man was found in Ethiopia 200 000 years ago?
4. Were the first two humans accountable for sin, Adam and Eve?
5. Evolution = fact, no faith needed?
6. You believe we come from 1 cell 3.5 billion years ago?
7. Do you believe 1 cell can evolve alone / not on a population level?
8. You believe God set things in motion with the big bang?
9. Do you believe the bible is the word of God?
10. Do you believe God can inspire those who wrote His word?
11. Do you believe God did inspire / closely guide those who wrote His word?
12. Do you believe there is a devil on earth?
13. Do you believe the fallen angels are able to influence mankind?
14. Do you believe God is good and honest?

Section B: How are we to read these passages of scripture? Secondly, if your answer is anything but literally, please explain why you think they were written.

1. Genesis
2. Rest of the Pentateuch (aka books of Moses)
3. History of Joshua to Esther
4. Prophets Isaiah to Malachi
5. Job
6. The gospels
7. History of acts
8. Letters in Romans to Jude
9. Revelations

Section C: Please answer with a short / concise answer:

1. Approximately how many particles / molecules / atoms were involved in the 'first phase of random evolution'?
2. How many steps of macro evolution / noticeable missing links for the average Joe have taken place among humans in the last 30 000 years?
3. How many steps of macro evolution / noticeable missing links for the average Joe have taken place between us and the flatworm of 550 million years ago?

Section D: Feel free to answer as you wish. These questions are taken from this site http://contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php. I am sure all of us would appreciate you explaining / attempting them. Especially keen to hear the differences between TE's and AE's (atheists) on them:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
4. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
5. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
6. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters should never produce Chinese books.)
7. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
8. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

9. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?

10. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

11. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

12. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
13. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
14. How did photosynthesis evolve?
15. How did thought evolve?
16. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
17. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
18. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
19. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

 

[Floyd]

Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence
That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient


DISCOVERY INSTITUTE Press Release originally issued on July 18, 2005 - By: Staff - October 6, 2005 - SEATTLE — More than 400 scientists have signed onto a growing list from all disciplines who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”

Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in PBS’ “Evolution” series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.

“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”

In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” The list includes over 70 biologists.

The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology an Honorary Professor at Moscow State University and a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences...

“Lately in the media there’s been a lot of talk about science versus religion,” said West. “But such talk is misleading. This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds.”

Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.


Colossians 1:16

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

The Age of the Earth Controversy: (Separate Study)

 

[River Jordan]

Geez guys....I guess if you can't discuss the subject thoughtfully, spam the thread.

 

[KingJ]

I am simply trying to help you see where you are in error. Simple questions with simple answers will do that.

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah right. Let's see...

1. Partially
2. No
3. Don't know the exact date
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Don't know
7. No
8. In a way
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes, in general
12. Depends
13. Yes
14. Yes

Section B: In context of the times in which they were written, the people who wrote them, interpreted them, edited them, and compiled them, and other factors.

Section C: Very stupid questions

Section D: Again, mostly stupid questions and/or ones that require enormous amounts of time to answer, and given that you've already shown that you don't bother reading the material you request, it'd be a waste of time to bother.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Number 12 depends on what?

 

[KingJ]

Yeah right. Let's see...

1. Partially
2. No
3. Don't know the exact date
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Don't know
7. No
8. In a way
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes, in general
12. Depends
13. Yes
14. Yes

Would you mind explaining yourself in numbers 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12.
Then, 1. why do you say yes to 9 if you say '11. Yes, in general'? after saying yes to 14? A good and honest God, would either inspire or not inspire His word. And if He did, He would do it properly, surely? 2. How can you say yes in 5 confidently whilst saying yes in 13? If you were the devil and wanted to derail God's children, would you ignore science as a viable option?

Section B: In context of the times in which they were written, the people who wrote them, interpreted them, edited them, and compiled them, and other factors.

So these people were partially inspired by God? I wanted to see how you interpret these as you regard the 5 books of Moses as a Jewish charter myth. Not sure how any Christian can. Do you have a link to Christians who believe that? If you disregard the books of Moses how can you accept Jesus's teaching on the law being fulfilled...as fact?

Section C: Very stupid questions

Can you at least try help 'stupid me', a qualified CA with the correct math.

30 000 years of NO visible change = a visible change every 30k years correct? 30k goes into 550 million years 18 333 times = 18k visible changes between us and a flatworm. What am I missing? Should we not be evolving more then the flatworm too? Given that we have more molecules / population etc

Section D: Again, mostly stupid questions and/or ones that require enormous amounts of time to answer, and given that you've already shown that you don't bother reading the material you request, it'd be a waste of time to bother.

Why do you say that? I do read your material. Those are valid questions. I was also keen on reading you explain the questions atheist evolutionists can't, like ''where did space come from''. Do you want me to narrow them down?