How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

>>For example - the claim that evolutionists are engaged in actual science - is debunked by atheist evolutionists themselves...<<

>>Let me use atheist evolutionist and paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History for much of the 20th century - Colin Patterson has he himself laments the "NOT SCIENCE" of his fellow believers in evolutionism by saying that stories about how one thing came from another "are stories easy enough to make up - but they are NOT SCIENCE because there is no way of putting them to the test".<<

[BobRyan]

>>

Life seems to follow a tendency to self-organize. Neurons, which eventually form the spinal cord of an embryo, do so by a process we might describe as hit and miss; that is, a neuron meets another and – should that meeting prove unfortuitous, the neuron dies – the process repeating as often as it takes until a neuron meets a neuron fulfilling its ‘tendency’, if you will. And so on it goes with the embryo developing its spinal cord.

[karl]

Thanks for tackling this, Bob.

Here's a few more questions and observations from Fred, who does not claim to be a Paleontological Giraffologist.

To work, a theory presumably must (a) be internally consistent and ( map onto reality. You have to have both. Classical mechanics for example is (so far as I know) internally consistent, but is not at all points congruent with reality. Evolution has a great deal of elaborate, Protean, and often fuzzy theory. How closely does it correspond to what we actually see? Do the sweeping principles fit the grubby details?

For example, how did a giraffe get a long neck? One reads as a matter of vague philosophical principle that a proto-giraffe by chance happened to be taller than its herdmates, could eat more altitudinous leaves than its confreres, was therefore better fed, consequently rutted with abandon, and produced more child giraffes of height. This felicitous adaptation therefore spread and we ended up…well, up—with taller giraffes. It sounds reasonable. In evolution that is enough.

But what are the practical details? Do we have an unambiguous record of giraffes with longer and longer necks? (Maybe we do. I’m just asking.)

Evolution is said to proceed by the accretion of successful point mutations. Does a random point mutation cause the appearance of longer vertebrae? If so, which mutation? If not one, then how many random point mutations? What virtue did these have that they were conserved until all were present? Have we isolated the gene(s) that today control the length of the beast’s neck? How can you tell what happened in the distant past, given that we have no DNA from proto-giraffes?

There may be perfectly good, clear, demonstrable answers to a few of these questions. I’m not a paleontological giraffologist. But if evolutionists want people to accept evolution, they need to provide answers—clear, concrete, non-metaphysical answers without gaping logical lacunae. They do not. When passionate believers do not provide answers that would substantiate their assertions, a reasonable presumption is that they do not have them.

The matter of the giraffe is a simple example of a question that inevitably occurs to the independently thoughtful: How do you get evolutionarily from A to B? Can you get from A to B by the mechanisms assumed? Without practical details, evolution looks like an assertion that the better survives the worse; throw in ionizing radiation and such to provide things to do the surviving, and we’re off to the races. But…can we get there from here? Do we actually know the intermediate steps and the associated genetic mechanics? If we don’t know what the steps were, can we at least show unambiguously a series of steps that would work?

Or - can we at least show that the steps took place?

[BobRyan]

Karl - good points all.

I liked this one (with just one edit added)

Quote:

When passionate believers do not provide answers that would substantiate their assertions (and yet wildly and fanatically claim that it is all "proven science"), a reasonable presumption is that they do not have them.

[karl]

Karl - good points all.

I liked this one (with just one edit added)

Quote:

When passionate believers do not provide answers that would substantiate their assertions (and yet wildly and fanatically claim that it is all "proven science"), a reasonable presumption is that they do not have them.

Good revision

[doug yowell]

Thanks for tackling this, Bob.

Here's a few more questions and observations from Fred, who does not claim to be a Paleontological Giraffologist.

[karl]

Fred on Intelligent Design:

An example, for anyone interested, of the sort of unlogic to which I was exposed by evolutionists: Some simple viruses are strings of nucleotides in a particular order. In 2002 Eckhard Wimmer, at the University of New York at Stony Brook, downloaded the sequence for polio from the internet, bought the necessary nucleotides from a biological supply house, strung them together, and got a functioning virus that caused polio in mice. It was a slick piece of work.

When I ask evolutionists whether the chance creation of life has been demonstrated in the laboratory, I get email offering Wimmer’s work as evidence that it has been done. But (even stipulating that viruses are alive) what Wimmer did was to put OTS nucleotides together according to a known pattern in a well-equipped laboratory. This is intelligent design, or at least intelligent plagiarism. It is not chance anything. At least some of the men who offered Wimmer’s work as what it wasn’t are far too intelligent not to see the illogic—except when they are defending the faith.

-------------

Remember that Fred is not a Christian. Just a cynic.

[jasd]

>>Entaglement-cameras would be a great way to have a faster than light being travel multiple light years away then - transmit a video back in real time.<<

Ya’think?

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Did Gd create “creation groaning and travailing” – or did something occur that caused the present state of the “whole creation”? If Gd did not create waste and void or equally – a disordered creation,

then, might the Biblical expositor infer that it may have been Satan’s actions which caused the disruption St Paul mentions.? Either Satan is credited with more power than evident, or there is something similar to

the ‘entanglement’ of quantum physics manifested.

It could hardly have been Adam’s fall, could it?

>>Just a thought about those "full of eyes" comments in the Bible.<<

Someone once made the observation that NASA Houston was similarly depicted with that Biblical reference – of a sea of glass ‘with eyes roundabout’; that is, the sea of glass upon which was depicted the flight pattern of the space vehicle and the monitors surrounding, roundabout.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Kinda incoherent of Colin, eh? an evolutionist who describes his métier as – “NOT SCIENCE”? (absurdum logicum) Sheesh, mebbe, the Peter Principle might apply – re Colin, yes?

>>Said like a true devotee of the dark ages.<<

Yet, even in the misinterpreted “Dark Ages” there existed threads of truth – despite the absolutist’s assertions.

>>But critical thinking such as Patterson is using to decry the defects in his own prefered world-view on origins - turns out to be a "good thing".<<

So, what’s that say? other than his postulations were defective...

>>You might want to think about trying it some time.<<

Doucement, doucement.

Oh Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...

“Critical thinking”, eh? I leave that to your evidently capable self. It is neither an indulgence of mine, nor is it my forte. My thought processes may be likened to the crippled wing of a gull: flap-flapping and soaring as it might. Perhaps, more apropos, ...the gossamer wings of the abstract

>>Patterson is trying to address the glaring gaps in his preferred model with the hope of one day solving them. Meanwhile true devotees to nothing-but-evolutionism merely see the exposure of those gaps as "the peter principle applying to Patterson".<<

Again you infer incorrectly. I AM, ULTIMATELY, A CREATIONIST – and do not embrace a “nothing-but-evolution" view.

>>How sad that atheist evolutionists feel "more freedom" to address their problems factually than some TEs.<<

I take it that you mean by TEs – Theistic Evolutionists, yes? Again, you infer amiss. I tend towards the belief that the Creator, in probability, allowed some evolutionary processes to take their own direction. He does seem inclined to “pondering”. That said, I believe also – that there were and will be other Intelligent Designers – other than the Great Gd Almighty.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Life seems to follow a tendency to self-organize. Neurons, which eventually form the spinal cord of an embryo, do so by a process we might describe as hit and miss; that is, a neuron meets another and – should that meeting prove unfortuitous, the neuron dies – the process repeating as often as it takes until a neuron meets a neuron fulfilling its ‘tendency’, if you will. And so on it goes with the embryo developing its spinal cord.

>>Wow! What complete knowledge!

So that means human gestation could taken anywhere from 9 months to 90 years depending on how often "fortuitous meetings" just so happened to occur in that "just so" story.

Who woulda guessed.

I think we all must just-so-happen to be missing all those "other" long term gestation events.<<

Color me blushing; I do not process effusive compliments well. [/blush]

Two things: does not the spinal cord continue development after birth? And, I believe that the operative term here is... self-organize.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

...who lament the fact that "stories about how one thing came from another" that are "based on the fossil record" are simply "stories easy enough to make up - but they ARE NOT science because there is no way of putting them to the test".

Quote:jasd

So, are you saying that scientists are not scientists – until their hypotheses can be tested?

>>You know that "falsifiable" idea just never goes away.<<

Practically everything, per se, is “falsifiable”; however, as used in the above, it seems to imply that it acknowledges my statement as truth – as it is not false, but “falsifiable”.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

I am saying that even atheist evolutionsts "know when to blush" on this point.

Quote:jasd

Blushing’s good; however, to blush for the simple sake of blushing is vanity.

>>Well then - feel free to ignore any atheist evolutionist pointing out the weakness in evolutionist story telling.<<

It goes without saying that evolutionists have “weaknesses” – as do creationists. Prima facie.

>>While I take the time to notice each time they do it.<<

Well then, notice this: Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

KJV “cursed is the ground for thy sake;”

YLT “cursed is the ground on thine account;”

NASB, “Cursed is the ground because of you;”

“cursed is...” is in the Qal – Passive Participle --BDB

Sounds, to me, like a sea change (evolutionary change) ...without the active voice of Gd. Kinda like something on the quantum level took creation in another direction, yes?

>>That works for me!!<<

Though differently, me too!

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

viruses carry packets of information and can either ‘influence’ its host or overtly cause mutations; another dot being that organelle mitochondria seem to have begun as – bacteria invading and taking up residence in the human cell’s cytoplasm – establishing an agreeably endosymbiotic relationship with the human cell at a very early point... etc.

>>Fun storytelling - but does not get you birds from reptiles - because at the end of the day - eukaryote systems like reptiles and birds need homolagous genes to express in phenotype.<<

You said it yourself, “...at the end of the day”. A looonnnng day? Figuratively speaking, of course.

>>And you know what - natural selection only works at the phenotype level -- "as it turns out".<<

Umm, if you think so. Only with that which is observable, eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Again, I remind, “I am a creationist” – an ultimately, Gd-created creationist. That, however, does not preclude Gd creating in ways – the which – we have no cognizance. There is always

>>Sounds like re-baked warmed over TE to me.<<

I’m good with that: even half-baked... I’d also include with that – IDs; otherwise, I perceive only absolutist assertions/opinions from the parochialists..

>>What am I missing?<<

Flexibility? Ellipticism?

[karl]

More Fred - this from a more recent column at his web site dated 1/25/10

Quote:

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. Evolutionists today have it in spades. Just as the church once reacted punitively to Galileo for abandoning the party line, so do ideological evolutionists to those who do not accept the dogma of evolutionary political correctness.

An example: In a column I once wrote regarding the alleged accidental formation of life, asked: “(1) Do we actually know, as distinct from hope, suspect, speculate, or pray, of what the primeval seas consisted? (2) Do we actually know what sort of sea or seas would be necessary to engender life in the time believed available? (3) Has the accidental creation of life been repeated in the laboratory? (4) Can it mathematically be shown possible without making highly questionable assumptions? And (5) If the answers to the foregoing are “no,” would it not be reasonable to regard the idea of chance abiogenesis as pure speculation?”

The response was violent. I found myself accused of “trying to tear down science,” of wanting “to undo the work of tens of thousands of scientists.” I wouldn’t have thought the tearing down of science within the destructive powers of this column, but perhaps I am playing with a loaded gun. I pictured smoking shards of laser physics, embryology, and organic chemistry lying in dismal mounds on a darkling plain.

The evolutionarily correct take apostasy seriously....

I pondered this flood of unleashed humility, typical of its kind, and thought, “Huh? I asked questions. A question is an admission of ignorance.

... reaction was less that of a scientist to questions than of an archbishop to heresy. Why the savagery? ...my circling assailants could simply have answered my questions. For example, “Actually, Fred, residual pools of the ancient seas have been discovered, and you can find a quantitative analysis at the following link.” Or “Craig Venter has in fact replicated the chance formation of life, but it didn’t make the papers. Here’s the link.” (I made those up.)

....

If the answers to all four questions were “no,” it wouldn’t establish that the asserted abiogenesis didn’t happen, but only that we didn’t know whether it had happened. So why the blisterish sensitivity?

Because (or so I suspect) “no” answers would be conceding that the middle link of the Big Bang-abiogenesis-natural selection chain was pure speculation. It would be like asking a Christian to say, “Well, we don’t really know that Jesus was the son of God, but he could have been.”

[olger]

Evolution - false religion.

Creation - true religion.

Amalgamation - indigestion.

[Twilight]

More Fred - this from a more recent column at his web site dated 1/25/10

Quote:

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. Evolutionists today have it in spades. Just as the church once reacted punitively to Galileo for abandoning the party line, so do ideological evolutionists to those who do not accept the dogma of evolutionary political correctness.

An example: In a column I once wrote regarding the alleged accidental formation of life, asked: “(1) Do we actually know, as distinct from hope, suspect, speculate, or pray, of what the primeval seas consisted? (2) Do we actually know what sort of sea or seas would be necessary to engender life in the time believed available? (3) Has the accidental creation of life been repeated in the laboratory? (4) Can it mathematically be shown possible without making highly questionable assumptions? And (5) If the answers to the foregoing are “no,” would it not be reasonable to regard the idea of chance abiogenesis as pure speculation?”

The response was violent. I found myself accused of “trying to tear down science,” of wanting “to undo the work of tens of thousands of scientists.” I wouldn’t have thought the tearing down of science within the destructive powers of this column, but perhaps I am playing with a loaded gun. I pictured smoking shards of laser physics, embryology, and organic chemistry lying in dismal mounds on a darkling plain.

The evolutionarily correct take apostasy seriously....

I pondered this flood of unleashed humility, typical of its kind, and thought, “Huh? I asked questions. A question is an admission of ignorance.

... reaction was less that of a scientist to questions than of an archbishop to heresy. Why the savagery? ...my circling assailants could simply have answered my questions. For example, “Actually, Fred, residual pools of the ancient seas have been discovered, and you can find a quantitative analysis at the following link.” Or “Craig Venter has in fact replicated the chance formation of life, but it didn’t make the papers. Here’s the link.” (I made those up.)

....

If the answers to all four questions were “no,” it wouldn’t establish that the asserted abiogenesis didn’t happen, but only that we didn’t know whether it had happened. So why the blisterish sensitivity?

Because (or so I suspect) “no” answers would be conceding that the middle link of the Big Bang-abiogenesis-natural selection chain was pure speculation. It would be like asking a Christian to say, “Well, we don’t really know that Jesus was the son of God, but he could have been.”

Can you post the link Karl?

Mark :-)

[karl]

Quote:

Can you post the link Karl?

Mark :-)

Yeah it's in this thread a couple of times, but go to fredoneverything.net and click on "columns." The latest column will come up but there is a directory on your left. Scroll down to "Darwin."

[Twilight]

Quote:

Can you post the link Karl?

Mark :-)

Yeah it's in this thread a couple of times, but go to fredoneverything.net and click on "columns." The latest column will come up but there is a directory on your left. Scroll down to "Darwin."

Thank you Karl :-)

[jasd]

Erratum: I attributed the following quote to Bob Ryan. Sorry guy, I’ll bet that hurts

#332036 - Yesterday (02.07.10) at 01:19 AM

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

viruses carry packets of information and can either ‘influence’ its host or overtly cause mutations; another dot being that organelle mitochondria seem to have begun as – bacteria invading and taking up residence in the human cell’s cytoplasm – establishing an agreeably endosymbiotic relationship with the human cell at a very early point... etc.

It was mine.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Paste

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. Evolutionists today have it in spades.

“The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics.”

Well, I haven’t a brief with the above; however, perhaps karl would like to share how Xtians responded when similar questions were posed – to them – by, who was it?—fred, yes?

Does one suppose that the response might be “hostility” in like spades?—c’mon, let’s project a bit of that bruited Xtian honesty here..., no?

[BobRyan]

>>Entaglement-cameras would be a great way to have a faster than light being travel multiple light years away then - transmit a video back in real time.<<

Ya’think?

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Did Gd create “creation groaning and travailing” – or did something occur that caused the present state of the “whole creation”? If Gd did not create waste and void or equally – a disordered creation,

then, might the Biblical expositor infer that it may have been Satan’s actions which caused the disruption St Paul mentions.? Either Satan is credited with more power than evident, or there is something similar to

the ‘entanglement’ of quantum physics manifested.

It could hardly have been Adam’s fall, could it?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Kinda incoherent of Colin, eh? an evolutionist who describes his métier as – “NOT SCIENCE”? (absurdum logicum) Sheesh, mebbe, the Peter Principle might apply – re Colin, yes?

>>Bob said of jasd's comment: Said like a true devotee of the dark ages.<<

Yet, even in the misinterpreted “Dark Ages” there existed threads of truth – despite the absolutist’s assertions.

[BobRyan]

>>bobRyan: And you know what - natural selection only works at the phenotype level -- "as it turns out".<<

Umm, if you think so. Only with that which is observable, eh?

No one has come up with a way for natural selection to select based on "what if testing" prior to production -- as it turns out.

Funny thing about the environment "Selecting for" a given trait -- that trait must "exist" to be selected.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

I know Bob. It's funny how that turns out.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: jasd

>>bobRyan: And you know what - natural selection only works at the phenotype level -- "as it turns out".<<

Umm, if you think so. Only with that which is observable, eh?

No one has come up with a way for natural selection to select based on "what if testing" prior to production -- as it turns out.

Funny thing about the environment "Selecting for" a given trait -- that trait must "exist" to be selected.

in Christ,

Bob

Evolutionists often give evidence to their "faith" by referring to evolution as self-directed, which is a far cry from random mutation and survival of the fittest. Evolution wanted to do this or that and so it did this to get there.

OK, whatever you say. I'm just a dumb guy, but I did notice that Emperor Evolution is buck naked.

[Bravus]

Hi All

About 8 months or so someone quoted Professor Bill Cobern in this thread. I mentioned that I knew him, but also said some unfair things about his ideas and positions. This post is just to unreservedly retract and apologise for those comments. We disagree about many things, but he is an excellent science educator and a good man, and I'm ashamed to have attacked him as I did.