My Epiphany

[Kylie]

Right (let us suppose), so we should see caterpillars turning partially into butterflies and butterflies creating bigger and smaller caterpillars - no? Burning the candle at both ends?

I've explained this to you several times now.

A caterpillar turning into a moth is NOT the result of a mutation.

Right (let us suppose) and if the alternative to a mutation is "strong internal consistency" (among adaptations) then the process (of Evolution) is approximate not forced.

Approximate faith, is ultimately far stronger than any direct forcing (of mutation, for example).

This makes no sense whatsoever. Evolution is a process. Saying something is an approximate evolution makes no sense whatsoever.

Monkeys become Humans, but caterpillars are always caterpillars.

You are in danger of contradicting everything Evolution stands for?

My position has never been inconsistent. If you think it has been, it is only because you don't understand evolution.

Stop trying to box truth in. Science is not strong enough to determine what truth should or shouldn't be (it is truth that determines science).

I doubt you'll find anyone who actually understands science who would disagree with me.

Yes but as long as you are in this world, post the fall, you must address good and evil. It's part of our history, not part of our imagination!

The nature of good and evil are totally irrelevant to the topic of evolution and genetics.

 

[Kylie]

Yes it is! That shows the power of Evolution is moderated (not absolute).

You will have to try harder than that, to elide the relevance of God (who is beyond need of being moderated)?

No, it is not an argument against evolution. Stop trying to make evolution into what you think it is, because your ideas about evolution are just plain wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

No, it is not an argument against evolution. Stop trying to make evolution into what you think it is, because your ideas about evolution are just plain wrong.

I have "New Evolution" now, I could not be happier!

All I need to do is reconnect with my past.

 

[Kylie]

I have "New Evolution" now, I could not be happier!

All I need to do is reconnect with my past.

You do not understand evolution in the slightest.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I learned during that time is there are indeed a lot of credibility issues with so-called transitional forms.

Let's see what informed YE creationists say...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

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.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

These men are honest enough to admit the facts. They simply chose to follow their religious beliefs in preference to the facts. You should learn from them.

I also don't think a Christian can believe in evolution as even Jesus spoke about creation, Adam and Eve, and the flood.

But He never said that God didn't use nature to create living things. The Bible says that He did. Evolutionary theory doesn't rule out Adam and Eve. And while the Bible doesn't say the flood was worldwide, science has found evidence for a catastrophic regional flood in the Middle East. Don't try to put words in God's mouth.

There are plenty of Ph.D scientists who accept creationism over evolution.

Comparing the list of "Scientists who Doubt Darwin" from the Discovery Institute and the list from Project Steve, it turns out that about 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or related fields, don't accept evolutionary theory. Not 3%, 0.3%.

Evolutionists are emphatic, that, though the fossil record is imperfect, it still gives strong evidence of what happened. I am curious how a former staunch evolutionist would not know that.

Yep. When you check what these guys think evolution and evolutionary theory are, you discover that the vast majority of them have no idea, and have pulled up the most amazing things from their imaginations. Not all of them. But most of them.

 

[The Barbarian]

For example, a naturalist will look up at the stars and think, "wow! All those vast distances for starlight to travel! The galaxy must be billions of years old!" Where the bible says stars are for signs and marking of calendars and travel. God could've placed those there in an instant to be used.

That's a huge problem for YE creationists. You see, we often see a supernova, where a star explodes and destroys itself. Many of them are millions of light-years away. Now, the creationist explanation is that God created the light on its way to us, so we're seeing an image God created for us. But in the case of supernovas, God would be showing us evidence for something that never existed.

God being Truth, that is inconsistent with Who He is. So that won't work for a Christian who believes in the God of Abraham.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionary theory doesn't rule out Adam and Eve.

That's true.

Only scientists call them "y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve".

Then say they lived some 20,000 years apart.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a huge problem for YE creationists.

Not it isn't.

And while I'm not a YEC, per se, I do like to answer those who get on their case for something.

Back to what you said though, no, it isn't a huge problem for YE creationists.

Ever heard of wormholes?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory doesn't rule out Adam and Eve.

That's true.

Only scientists call them "y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve".

No. You're a little confused. Science doesn't rule out two people as our common ancestors. Y-Adam and DNA-Eve are the last common male and female ancestors of all humans living today, not our first ancestors.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a huge problem for YE creationists. You see, we often see a supernova, where a star explodes and destroys itself. Many of them are millions of light-years away. Now, the creationist explanation is that God created the light on its way to us, so we're seeing an image God created for us. But in the case of supernovas, God would be showing us evidence for something that never existed.

God being Truth, that is inconsistent with Who He is. So that won't work for a Christian who believes in the God of Abraham.

Not it isn't.

It is if you believe that God is truthful.

Ever heard of wormholes?

Sorry, that won't work, either. Would you like to learn why?

 

[Tom8907]

Ah, yes, reminds but of when I was a Creationist. I kept trying to make real arguments that addressed the physical observations, and those that were on my team were making arguments like this.

Does your argument in any way address the fossil record?

Jesus's miracles are literal. Also, there is nothing stopping you believing in the gospel and Old Earth/ Evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Jesus's miracles are literal. Also, there is nothing stopping you believing in the gospel and Old Earth/ Evolution.

YECs consistently and persistently present it as a problem, denying that that is possible. Not all, but many, and often the most vocal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't rule out two people as our common ancestors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't science say populations change -- not individual people?

Y-Adam and DNA-Eve are the last common male and female ancestors of all humans living today, not our first ancestors.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

That's how evolution can separate them (on paper) by 20,000 years.

It's interesting too how unbelievers scoff at those who claim ...

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Then turn around and blame the weather on Jesus Christ (El Niño).

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, that won't work, either. Would you like to learn why?

I've argued wormholes here before.

But go ahead and tell me, as I have forgotten what they deny about them.

 

[Estrid]

No, it is not an argument against evolution. Stop trying to make evolution into what you think it is, because your ideas about evolution are just plain wrong.

Rejecting what one knows nothing
about isnt even on the intellectual level of
a 4 yr old pushing umfamiiatr food away
saying "I dont like it, what is it?"


For lo! The child is aware he does not
know, is curious and wants to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rejecting what one knows nothing about isn't even on the intellectual level of a 4 yr old pushing unfamiliar food away
saying "I don't like it, what is it?"

Unless one believes its antithesis to be correct.

I reject alchemy, which I know nothing about, because I accept chemistry.

I reject astrology, which I know nothing about, because I accept astronomy.

I reject Phlogiston theory, which I know nothing about, because I accept Combustion theory.

I reject evolution theory, which I know little about, because I accept Genesis 1 as literal.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's true.

Only scientists call them "y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve".

Then say they lived some 20,000 years apart.

Those two can't be the same as the literal Biblical Adam and Eve... because if there was a literal Adam and eve in the 6000ish years of generations (less given life span of antediluvian people) then you can't measure genetic relatedness of humans (or anything) because genetic diversity is all miraculously added in and the patterns of similarity are a fiction.

 

[Kylie]

Unless one believes its antithesis to be correct.

Believe? Or know?

I reject alchemy, which I know nothing about, because I accept chemistry.

And you can know that chemistry is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

I reject astrology, which I know nothing about, because I accept astronomy.

And you can know that astronomy is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

I reject Phlogiston theory, which I know nothing about, because I accept Combustion theory.

And you can know that Combustion theory is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

I reject evolution theory, which I know little about, because I accept Genesis 1 as literal.

So tell me, what testable predictions does Genesis 1 make? How have you determined that the explanation given in Genesis 1 is the only valid explanation? Why is it that different people can study Genesis 1 and get different interpretations?

 

[Estrid]

Believe? Or know?

And you can know that chemistry is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

And you can know that astronomy is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

And you can know that Combustion theory is correct because it makes testable predictions and leads to consistent results no matter who studies it.

So tell me, what testable predictions does Genesis 1 make? How have you determined that the explanation given in Genesis 1 is the only valid explanation? Why is it that different people can study Genesis 1 and get different interpretations?

Predictable that there would be about
as many one true interpretations as there are readers.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've argued wormholes here before.

Put it up and I'll show you why it won't work.

Hint: Schwartzchild wormholes could theoretically happen at microscopic levels in which information could be moved one way, but since we are talking about remnants of supergiant stars, and there are often other stars partially eclipsing them, between the supernova and our POV, the wormholes would have to be light-years across. Show us the math that would permit that.