Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[Fred Lamm]

Looks more like colony organization to me than evolving into a two celled organisim that produces another two celled organisim. It would seem that it was mr Gould who made the oops and later trying to cover it up, I notice he did not offer any examples of the transitional fossils. For darwinism to be true, these have to exist, period. Darwin said so. And there have to be thousands of them, how would it be logical for the fossils of the final version of the animal to survive , but none of the tansitional ones? You cannot answer this hole in your theory and you won't be able to. In order to propose the "punctuated equilibria" theory, Gould had to reject gradualism, a basic component of darwinism and suggested that species evolved faster over a shorter period of time, to explain the huge fossil gaps. He proposed no natural mechanism by which this might have occurred, but sicnce he was an atheist, he had to explain the fossil record somehow. There aren't missing liinks, but a missing chain. Nearly all of the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian period. This evidence is totally inconsistent with Darwinism. All animal groups appear separtely, fully formed, and at the same time. Thats not evidence of gradual evolution, but of instantaneous creation.

 

[River Jordan]

Looks more like colony organization to me than evolving into a two celled organisim that produces another two celled organisim.

You didn't really read the paper, did you? I mean, it's even right there in the abstract that they evolved "a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules".

It would seem that it was mr Gould who made the oops and later trying to cover it up, I notice he did not offer any examples of the transitional fossils.

Because in that quote, he was lamenting people like you misquoting him in trying to argue that transitional fossils don't exist. He was pondering whether you engage in such dishonest behavior deliberately, or out of stupidity. In the same essay, he states...

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?"

In other essays and papers, he's written a great deal about specific transitional fossils. For example...

“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.” (Hooking Leviathan by Its Past)

For darwinism to be true, these have to exist, period. Darwin said so. And there have to be thousands of them, how would it be logical for the fossils of the final version of the animal to survive , but none of the tansitional ones? You cannot answer this hole in your theory and you won't be able to.

What makes you more qualified than S.J. Gould in the field of paleontology? He says transitional fossils are "abundant", you claim they don't exist. Why should we believe you over a Harvard paleontologist?

In order to propose the "punctuated equilibria" theory, Gould had to reject gradualism, a basic component of darwinism and suggested that species evolved faster over a shorter period of time, to explain the huge fossil gaps. He proposed no natural mechanism by which this might have occurred,

You probably should read everything he wrote about allopatric vs. peripatric speciation. That's exactly what you're claiming doesn't exist.

And that brings me to a larger point. Here you are, making definitive, authoritative assertions about all sorts of things related to evolutionary biology....yet they're all completely wrong. Contrary to what you've said, evolution happens, transitional fossils exist, the evolution of multicellularity (including propagation of the life history) has been observed in the lab, Gould proposed a specific mechanism for his hypothesis (allopatric speciation), etc., while at the same time you go out of your way to ignore most of the questions asked of you.

Does that sound to you like someone whose opinions on evolutionary biology anyone should take seriously?

Nearly all of the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian period.

Really? Where are the monotremes? Where are the mammals? Where are the reptiles? Where are the birds? Where are the angiosperms? Where are the insects? Or are you going to argue that mammals, reptiles, birds, angiosperms, and insects aren't "major groups"? If so, what exactly is a "major group"?

 

[KingJ]

River, no offence but I wish you were more qualified in both biology and theology.

You have had your circular discussions with so many already. Why continue?

If evolution was fact like a round earth / gravity, we would all know about it. Every atheist would be ramming it in our face. The news would report it.

You need to show more respect to the people you discuss with. Anyone who is 10 plus years older then you, is wiser in most things. Chief being common sense / sanity.

Be open minded. Stick to your beliefs by all means, but not with super glue. Stay extremely objective. The only book to stick to like super glue is the bible.

 

[snr5557]

If evolution was fact like a round earth / gravity, we would all know about it. Every atheist would be ramming it in our face. The news would report it.


Be open minded. Stick to your beliefs by all means, but not with super glue. Stay extremely objective..

Are you being serious?

 

[KingJ]

Are you being serious?

Why would you say that without explaining yourself?

You seem to like your quirky comments that stir the pot.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for your advice KingJ.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Just a quick reply, I'm a very busy guy on Sundays, with morning and evening services, choir practice and working with the youth, and I have to go to my second job in a little while. First let me say that I did not misquote anyone. Mr. Gould said those exact words.
Why would he make such a clear and explicit statement if He didn't believe it? As to why he later recanted, I suspect he was threatened by the liberal atheists he worked for. You see evolution is key for the atheist, because if its not true then they know deep down that they have to start looking around for a God, thus the viciousness and ire one gets when challenging them. As for me getting every thing wrong, I didn't have to search very far to find others who say the same thing, http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis ,did they get it all wrong too? I will post more when i get some time off.

Have a blessed day,
Fred Lamm

 

[River Jordan]

First let me say that I did not misquote anyone. Mr. Gould said those exact words.

Funny...the guy who actually said those words also said that creationists who try to use his quotes to make it sound like he believed there weren't any transitional fossils were either stupid or being intentionally dishonest.

Now, who should we believe to be the most qualified to accurately describe what S. Gould meant....you, or S. Gould?

Why would he make such a clear and explicit statement if He didn't believe it? As to why he later recanted, I suspect he was threatened by the liberal atheists he worked for.

Yeah sure....why not?

As for me getting every thing wrong, I didn't have to search very far to find others who say the same thing, http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis ,did they get it all wrong too?

Yes, I've directly shown your statements to be wrong. Evolution happens (you said it doesn't), transitional fossils exist (you said they don't), the evolution of multicellularity has been observed in the lab (you said it hadn't), and Gould cited a specific mechanism for PE: allopatric speciation (you said he didn't).

So again, why would anyone view your musings on those subjects as worthy of consideration, especially more so than professional scientists?

 

[KingJ]

River, you are like a pendulum.

- Evolution doesn't happen. You have yet to prove it without doubt.
- We have debunked / dealt with transitional fossils. You need many more. Remember the pre-school math?
- We have debunked / dealt with mutation = evolution. Radiation does not make me superman. There is no beyond doubt ''uphill'' evolution. Uphill = opposite of downhill. Downhill = devolution. Devolution is not evolution. Beneficial mutation is not uphill evolution.

I am impressed at how you keep your bias up / have absolute faith with no doubt. Your biology textbook is not gospel. It will be updated next year.

 

[River Jordan]

KingJ,

1. Yep, it happens...all the time. The only way a population doesn't evolve is if it replicates itself perfectly forever.

2. No, no one here has done anything of the sort. If you think they have, please link to the post.

3. You haven't said what "uphill evolution" is.

Finally, given everything you've said on this subject, I honestly don't care what your views on it are. It'd be like asking Richard Dawkins about his views on the Bible.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Good Evening River,
Actually I know a few professional scientists, I used to help them with their calculus homework. Of the 996,452 graduating seniors who took the SAT the year I graduated high school, 199 made a higher score than me. I had offers of a full scholarship to West Point, The Naval Acadamy, and The Air Force Acadamy. I say these things not to brag, but because you keep questioning my ability, and the ability of others on this forum, to understand science. Liberal Academia often make the mistake of thinking that long years of study make you smarter than everyone else. The amount of knowledge that you acquire does not increase your ability to learn. I have the impression that most of the people in this forum are pretty smart. I told you that transitional fossils did not exist and you responded by saying "where did you look?", instead of "here they are, right here." Now you say they exist because Mr. Gould (whom I suspect you didn't even know existed until I mentioned him in my post, because you never mention him in your posts before) says they do. In general it seems that you are not very well versed in the theory that you so dogmatically believe in. I almost regret to tell you that while the fossil record is the most obvious problem for evolutionists, its not the biggest one. Since you are really fond of hard science, would you like to discuss these more complex issues? By the way, about that multi-cellular thing, I've been around long enough to know a dog and pony show when I see one and they will never get anything other than a bacteria to crawl out of that dish.

Have a Blessed Day
Fred Lamm

 

[KingJ]

KingJ,

1. Yep, it happens...all the time. The only way a population doesn't evolve is if it replicates itself perfectly forever.

2. No, no one here has done anything of the sort. If you think they have, please link to the post.

3. You haven't said what "uphill evolution" is.

Finally, given everything you've said on this subject, I honestly don't care what your views on it are. It'd be like asking Richard Dawkins about his views on the Bible.

I have given you links on those to people MORE qualified then you objecting.

Now, ironically on the contrary it is your opinion / views that all here should be cautious of as...

ZERO objectivity + 100% bias = someone who should not be here.

You think dearest Richard doesn't know the bible? He probably knows it better then me ;).

 

[River Jordan]

I say these things not to brag, but because you keep questioning my ability, and the ability of others on this forum, to understand science.

Nope, I've not once questioned your, or anyone else's, intellectual abilities.

I told you that transitional fossils did not exist and you responded by saying "where did you look?"

And you still haven't answered. Personally, I tend to think that someone wouldn't go around making such declarations unless they've actually looked first. So that's why I think it's important to know where you've looked.

Now you say they exist because Mr. Gould (whom I suspect you didn't even know existed until I mentioned him in my post, because you never mention him in your posts before) says they do.

Yet again, you're wrong. I know they exist because I've actually looked, even to the point of holding some in my hands. And to suggest that I've never heard of S.J. Gould until you mentioned him....well, let's just say I"m... :lol:

In general it seems that you are not very well versed in the theory that you so dogmatically believe in.

*shrug*

That may be your opinion, but given your almost complete unwillingness to discuss this subject beyond your empty talking points, I don't think it's worth much.

I almost regret to tell you that while the fossil record is the most obvious problem for evolutionists

Again, how do you know? I keep asking you this and you keep refusing to answer. Are you hiding something?

Since you are really fond of hard science, would you like to discuss these more complex issues?

Sure, but you should start by actually addressing the issues that are already on the table. I'll list them below.

By the way, about that multi-cellular thing, I've been around long enough to know a dog and pony show when I see one and they will never get anything other than a bacteria to crawl out of that dish.

First of all, you're guilty of moving the goalposts. You wanted to see an example of observed evolution of multicellularity, and that's exactly what I gave you. Now you're waving it away because "they'll never get anything other than bacteria". The fact remains, the evolution of multicellularity is an observed fact.

Second, you're once again showing that you didn't even bother to read the material you requested. The first evidence of this was when you tried to object that the multicellular life form didn't replicate as such, even though the paper clearly stated that it did. Now you're referring to the organisms as bacteria, when the study was conducted with yeast.

That leads me to an obvious question: If you're not going to bother to read the material you request, why ask for it in the first place? The only reason I can think of for such behavior is that you raised the issue because you assumed I wouldn't be able to produce an example of multicellular evolution, and you figured it would stump me, at which point you'd declare victory. But I ruined that when I provided the example.

IOW, you asked because you thought it would be a gotcha moment, not because you were actually interested in the science.

So, to re-visit some points you still haven't addressed...

What exactly is a "kind"?

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

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

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

What makes you more qualified than S.J. Gould in the field of paleontology? He says transitional fossils are "abundant", you claim they don't exist. Why should we believe you over a Harvard paleontologist?

I have given you links on those to people MORE qualified then you objecting.

Now, ironically on the contrary it is your opinion / views that all here should be cautious of as...

ZERO objectivity + 100% bias = someone who should not be here.

You think dearest Richard doesn't know the bible? He probably knows it better then me ;).

1. I can provide you links to qualified people saying the earth is stationary and is orbited by the sun. Does that make it so? Again, the only way a population doesn't evolve is if it replicates perfectly forever. Is that what you think happens?

2. Sure. Everyone interested in this subject should go look for themselves. Go look at fossils at a museum, go talk to the scientists who study them, take a university course where you get to conduct experiments for yourself, get out in the field and look at the geology around you, go talk to the scientists who study it....

3. You still haven't said what "uphill evolution" is.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Why would anyone believe Fred Lamm over SJ Gould?

I mean it's not like Gould was ever accused of falsifying data. If that were true you could find links online.

Oh look, you can.

 

[River Jordan]

Actually CJ, you've already done a very good job explaining why you (and I think a lot of people) believe people like Fred over Gould......trust. You trust Fred because he's a fellow Christian and agrees with your beliefs on this issue, and you don't trust Gould because he's an "ungodly, worldly scientist" and you associate such people with "Abortion, infanticide, eugenics, subjective morality, atheism".

I thought that was an awesomely honest explanation.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

That's true. And because they are fallen men of subjective morality I cannot blindly accept their data. If I am going to accept a source as ultimate truth I will accept the Holy Scriptures.

I think this is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Where we put our trust is simply different. But again, I will chime in on what is being discussed.

 

[River Jordan]

That's true. And because they are fallen men of subjective morality I cannot blindly accept their data.

Aren't we all "fallen men of subjective morality"? I also wonder what you do when you have scientist A who says one thing, and scientist B who says another, and both are Christians?

If I am going to accept a source as ultimate truth I will accept the Holy Scriptures.

The funny thing is, I do too.

I think this is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Where we put our trust is simply different.

I think it's a bit deeper than that. It's not just who we trust; it's also how we decide to trust person A over person B that seems to be very different.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So, Dr. Craig thinks YEC's are an embarrassment to Christianity. I say he needs his head and his heart examined for saying this. Do I not accept his work in the philosophy of the existence of God? Absolutely not.

Meyer is a little less hateful to YEC's, but still holds to an old earth perspective. Do I not trust his ideas on DNA and the cell? Absolutely not.

Then we wake up to cosmic inflation yesterday (or was it the day before) where we are told that the universe was smaller than an atom and then seconds later it was larger than any human could understand. Krauss' only response was that this must be terrifying for believers. Really? The laws of physics being totally obliterated, the speed of light being left useless, and then they add to it that there was no light for a long period of time.

Believe in God's word River. Use a little faith in it. Pick and choose what to believe sometimes, you may find you are correct.

 

[River Jordan]

So, Dr. Craig thinks YEC's are an embarrassment to Christianity. I say he needs his head and his heart examined for saying this.

Why? A lot of Christians have expressed similar sentiments about YEC.

Do I not accept his work in the philosophy of the existence of God? Absolutely not.

Why do you accept his viewpoints here, but not in regards to YEC?

Meyer is a little less hateful to YEC's, but still holds to an old earth perspective. Do I not trust his ideas on DNA and the cell? Absolutely not.

Again, why? These folks are all Christians.

Then we wake up to cosmic inflation yesterday (or was it the day before) where we are told that the universe was smaller than an atom and then seconds later it was larger than any human could understand. Krauss' only response was that this must be terrifying for believers. Really? The laws of physics being totally obliterated, the speed of light being left useless, and then they add to it that there was no light for a long period of time.

The math and science behind it are extremely sound. So why wave it away out of hand?

Believe in God's word River. Use a little faith in it. Pick and choose what to believe sometimes, you may find you are correct.

I already do, so there's no need to say that. What would you say if I told you that you should trust in God to ensure that his creation reflects the way in which He created it?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

The question is why do I need to accept all of a person's work in order to accept part of it? Your point makes no sense.

I choose what I believe. Quite Armenian of me true. I answer for it as well. Could I be incorrect about something? Of course. I would like for you to admit the same, but no breath is being held.

I hope the math is sound. You missed my point completely, I hope it is true. A nearly infinite universe in a few seconds? No light for a period of "time." Yea, let's hope it holds.