• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolution and its effects.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Creationist explains:
For the most part, creationists use the same classification scheme, but they accept common ancestors only to a point. Where the evolutionist sees branches on a single massive tree of life, the creationist sees an orchard of many shorter trees.

Evolution only to a point. Which is quite a journey from insisting that new species couldn't evolve.
Nope. Darwinists are just desperate that their religion be respected.

For example, from the same source, which Barbarian refused to credit:


Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment. It is considered a driving force for evolution. But natural selection results in a loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the gain of information required for evolution.



Also, almost all changes to the genome are next to invisible to natural selection.

Moreover, we commonly see morphological changes to populations that happen "overnight" in response to a change in environment. No natural selection could be at play.

The only arguments Darwinists have are over who says what. They steadfastly refuse to engage over the evidence. It is obvious why.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
As the above quotes indicated, creationism evolves. It's hard, I suppose, for those creationists who don't keep up with the changing story.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Nope. Darwinists are just desperate that their religion be respected.

For example, from the same source, which Barbarian refused to credit:


Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment. It is considered a driving force for evolution. But natural selection results in a loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the gain of information required for evolution.



Also, almost all changes to the genome are next to invisible to natural selection.

Moreover, we commonly see morphological changes to populations that happen "overnight" in response to a change in environment. No natural selection could be at play.

The only arguments Darwinists have are over who says what. They steadfastly refuse to engage over the evidence. It is obvious why.

I would say the religion aspect of it is more, much more, than that. They want their religion and morals to be the only ones accepted, not just respected. Just like the socialists they think their point of view is the only point of view. Both groups buy the arguments of naturalism and everyone who buys into naturalism rejects out of hand anything coming from the opposite camp, Christianity and creationism. It's the reason facts will never win an argument with either group. They look at the same facts as we do, but come to opposing conclusions because they start their reasoning process from an opposing bias.
 

Amyrich

New member
We are in a world where everything is information driven. Big data and bigger models. we are not yet clear if these things work fully, but we persist. If data can be collected from evolutionary scientists and then an intersection between philosophy and this evolutionary data is made, will that help us understand better? This sounds pretty confusing. The Fundamental of Information Science as taught in colleges, is all about problem solving. So if this intersects with good data, are we coming up philosophy of evolution? Sigh, I think I am going down a slippery slope here.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
We are in a world where everything is information driven. Big data and bigger models. we are not yet clear if these things work fully, but we persist. If data can be collected from evolutionary scientists and then an intersection between philosophy and this evolutionary data is made, will that help us understand better? This sounds pretty confusing. The Fundamental of Information Science as taught in colleges, is all about problem solving. So if this intersects with good data, are we coming up philosophy of evolution? Sigh, I think I am going down a slippery slope here.

That began before evolution was known. St. Augustine, for example, believed that God created the universe in an instant, containing the potentiality to form all things, which then appeared in time as He created them to do. So it's very ancient. Remember Augustine was at odds with pagans and others who argued the the world was eternal; always here, always would be, much as cosmologists had to deal with the same belief by atheists like Fred Hoyle, who opposed the idea of the Big Bang, because it meant a universe of finite age.

The notion of a God capable of making a universe that would unfold as He intended it to do, was quite a break from the pagan notion of special creation of all things, a bit at a time. Even some Christians found it hard to accept.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Stripe finally remembers something Barbarian taught him:

The problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science:

Yes. A theory is an idea or group of ideas, repeatedly verified by evidence.

But then he gets it wrong:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is justifiably asserted because of experiments.

No. Evidence. Newton did no experiments on gravity. He observed the motion of the moon, and used that evidence to formulate his theory. Experiments are just one way to get evidence.

What Stripe forgets is that it's a hypothesis that must be testable; theories are always, in principle falsifiable precisely because they depend on falsible hypotheses.

As Stripe learned, scientists point out that a scientific theory is never considered to be proven; it's always provisional on new information. Macroevolution (evolution of new taxa) is a fact, because it's directly observed. Evolutionary theory will never be a fact, since it explains the phenomenon, and is only provisionally true.

This is where Stripe gets into trouble. He cannot get his head around the distinction between evolution (the observed phenomenon), natural selection and mutation (agencies of evolution), and things like universal common descent(consequences of evolution). Hence his continuing difficulties.

Creationists want none of that when it comes to their religion, so they conflate evolution with natural selection with common descent.

When challenged, they assert that scientists don't know what a theory is as if it were not them who committed the most egregious of scientific failings; obfuscation of the difference between these three things.

The other error — actually the same (perhaps unintentional) error — is they confuse phenomenon with theory. Gravity and evolution are observed facts. There are theories that explain each. In each case, the discoverer's theory remains in place, but over time, we've found some of their conclusions are not correct.

Newton assumed that time and mass are constant with regard to velocity. Which is a reasonable approximation at velocities and masses we normally encounter. But it's not strictly true, and while NASA uses Newton's theory of Gravitation to navigate probes about the solar system, they do have to sometimes consider relativistic effects.

Likewise, while Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, he assumed the scientific thought of his time with regard to inheritance. So today, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time, rather than "descent with modification." Ironically, this discovery cleared up a really difficult objection to Darwin's theory. If inheritance is like mixing paint (as everyone assumed in his time), then it's hard to see how a new variation could persist; it would be gone like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. On the other hand,if it's like sorting beads (and that is what Mendel discovered) then Darwinian theory makes complete sense.

However, the phenomena of gravity and evolution remain facts.

Stripe's other problem is his belief in "just a theory." Theory is a strong as it goes in science. People unfamiliar with science generally think a law is stronger. But it isn't. Lacking explanitory power, it's weaker.

Until he get this right, he will never be part of a sensible discussion.

Those who assume the truth of their ideas aren't practicing science, they're asserting their religion.

One should keep those things in mind and thereby won't embarrass one's self when talking to someone who knows science.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I'd say that it's more of a hypothesis... calling it a theory it giving it way too much credit.

The key is whether or not a hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Such hypotheses are theories. The more successful predictions, the more solid the theory is.

From a YE creationist, who also happens to be a biologist:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

It's possible to be an honest and informed YE creationist, as Ken Wood is. But there aren't that many of them who are both honest and informed.
 
Top