Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Tony]

As stupid as this is, its not what you're expecting. It is about the "debate" between people who hold to theistic evolution and people who believe intelligent design and the general question of whether evolution is compatible with christian doctrine. There are a few bits I wanted to highlight.

http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/16494

Think of any doctrine you or your church holds to strongly—the deity of Christ, the Trinity, Christ’s dual nature as God and man, salvation through Christ alone—and chances are the form in which you know it today grew out of a historical process of challenge, dispute, and resolution.

He conveniently leaves out persecution of other views, murder, censorship, book burning and government coercion via a state church.

What, for example, does evolution mean? Is it change over time? Common descent from one ancestral organism? Variations within species (as in bacterial antibiotic resistance)? Or the core Darwinian theory that all life on earth is the product of random variation and unguided natural selection?

He doesn't even know what evolution is. If he did, he wouldn't need to ask these questions. Yes, evolution is change over time. Common descent is a consequence of change over time. Variations within species is another way of describing change over time and the last sentence is just disaster.

With thinking this shoddy and shallow, it is no wonder that Christians are lost in a sea of ignorance.

 

[randman]

If "evolution" is just change over time, then all creationists and IDers are evolutionists. The reality is "evolution" is defined differently, a kind of bait and switch. Evos say change over time is demonstrated. Change over time is evolution. Therefore, evolution which entails universal common descent is demonstrated. Of course, "evolution" has a different definition in the prior sentence and so "evolution" is not demonstrated. There are 2 different definitions but the same word.

That's the use of semantics to create propaganda and yet is at the heart of evolutionist arguments and claims.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's the use of semantics to create propaganda and yet is at the heart of evolutionist arguments and claims.

I think you'll find that the heart of "evolutionist" arguments and claims is the overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution.

 

[randman]

I think you'll find that the heart of "evolutionist" arguments and claims is the overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution.

I haven't found that to be so even though I used to be a Darwinist (evolutionist at least in believing it) as well.

That's kind of a broadening of the topic though. The point is evolution is not simply used and defined by evolutionists as change over time and when they do that, they at the same time use the same term, evolution, to mean the theory of adaptionist evolution aka Darwinism, and so are relying on propaganda.

The fact groups of creatures evolve means very little as evidence for adaptionist evolution or even common descent at all.

 

[ThunderChunky]

If "evolution" is just change over time, then all creationists and IDers are evolutionists.

No. Creationists think god created all of life as it is today...no change over time. IDers (which are really creationists hiding behind a pseudo-intellectual facade) just claim evolution is false and provide illogical arguments, they dont actually take any position on the history of life (because they cannot without owning up to being a creationist).

 

[ThunderChunky]

The fact groups of creatures evolve means very little as evidence for adaptionist evolution or even common descent at all.

It does if you are a biologist that understands the mechanisms by which life evolves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The point is evolution is not simply used and defined by evolutionists as change over time and when they do that, they at the same time use the same term, evolution, to mean the theory of adaptionist evolution aka Darwinism, and so are relying on propaganda.

No, I think you'll find "Darwinists" rely on the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Tony]

If "evolution" is just change over time, then all creationists and IDers are evolutionists.

Cdesign proponentsists believe every species was created as it currently is.

The reality is "evolution" is defined differently, a kind of bait and switch. Evos say change over time is demonstrated. Change over time is evolution. Therefore, evolution which entails universal common descent is demonstrated. Of course, "evolution" has a different definition in the prior sentence and so "evolution" is not demonstrated. There are 2 different definitions but the same word.

That's the use of semantics to create propaganda and yet is at the heart of evolutionist arguments and claims.

Unlike creationism, evolution has mountains of evidence. Name one respected biologist who speaks about evolution in the terms you claim they do.

 

[randman]

It does if you are a biologist that understands the mechanisms by which life evolves.

not really....explain for example how genomes evolved....where did and where do new genes (genetic sequences) come from

 

[randman]

No, I think you'll find "Darwinists" rely on the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

I haven't found that to be the case at all. Of course, please define what you mean by "evolution."

 

[randman]

Cdesign proponentsists believe every species was created as it currently is.



Unlike creationism, evolution has mountains of evidence. Name one respected biologist who speaks about evolution in the terms you claim they do.

De Grasse called "evolution" meaning the theory of evolution accepted today as a "myth."

He was right and of course, a very prominent scientist in this field. I can name others if you'd so like. Goldschmidt rejected it too. So did Broome, and there are creationist and ID biologists that reject it as well.

Also, most of the young earth creationists do not believe species were created just as they are today. They believe God created "kinds" or as some say now, baramins, and that they evolved into what we see today. The original bears, for example, evolved into all the types of bears today. So you are unaware of what creationists believe it seems.

 

[Halfcentaur]

There are too many correlations among the evidence to deny what the evidence points to.

The only way to dismiss the evidence as circumstantial is to deny the correlations. The even distribution of species in the specific layers of the Earth's crust, the age and lay out of these layers, the correlation in age between the distribution and range of species that is found exactly where you would expect according to continental drift. The many transitional fossils we've found in light of how rare it is for a skeleton to fossilize.

It seems like the only thing deniers have left is to deny the correlations and demand we find every possible transitional fossil there is while ignoring what we do have. Seizing on whatever gap is possible while ignoring the probability that there will of course be gaps expected given the conditions we're dealing with.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

not really....explain for example how genomes evolved....where did and where do new genes (genetic sequences) come from

Ah, so you don't really know that much about the theory of evolution. Try reading up on it, and you'll find the answers you're looking for.

I haven't found that to be the case at all.

Evolution is not the prevailing scientific theory because of semantic games. It's because of the overwhelming empirical evidence in support of evolution. What you personally believe to be "the case" is entirely irrelevant to that.

Of course, please define what you mean by "evolution."

The theory of evolution.

 

[randman]

No. Creationists think god created all of life as it is today...no change over time. IDers (which are really creationists hiding behind a pseudo-intellectual facade) just claim evolution is false and provide illogical arguments, they dont actually take any position on the history of life (because they cannot without owning up to being a creationist).

I have never heard of creationists, IDers or others that believe no change has happened.

Where did you get that idea from?

Seems like you are unaware of the arguments and beliefs of creationists and others.

 

[randman]

Ah, so you don't really know that much about the theory of evolution. Try reading up on it, and you'll find the answers you're looking for.



Evolution is not the prevailing scientific theory because of semantic games. It's because of the overwhelming empirical evidence in support of evolution. What you personally believe to be "the case" is entirely irrelevant to that.



The theory of evolution.

I am quite sure I could argue for the theory of evolution much more than you would be able to, if I chose to.

I have found not one single shred of evidence for adaptionist macro-evolution aka Darwinism.

Have you?

Maybe we should start a thread discussing one of these evidences?

How does adaptionism, for example, explain the genome for starters? Since you present yourself as well-informed, that should be easy for you to answer and a good starting point for this thread at least.

 

[Tony]

De Grasse called "evolution" meaning the theory of evolution accepted today as a "myth."

Who? Why should I care what he says? When did he say it? This is an argument from authority.

He was right and of course, a very prominent scientist in this field. I can name others if you'd so like. Goldschmidt rejected it too. So did Broome, and there are creationist and ID biologists that reject it as well.

Who are these people? When and where did they reject evolution? Who are these creationist and ID biologists? If you remember, I didn't ask you to show biologists who rejected evolution, but ones who spoke about evolution in the manner you described.

Also, most of the young earth creationists do not believe species were created just as they are today.

Evidence?

The original bears, for example, evolved into all the types of bears today. So you are unaware of what creationists believe it seems.

Please identify these "original" bears. What did they look like? Show me a living or dead specimen or show me a fossil.

So far, it is you who is guilty of that which you claim "evolutionists" are guilty of.

 

[randman]

There are too many correlations among the evidence to deny what the evidence points to.

The only way to dismiss the evidence as circumstantial is to deny the correlations. The even distribution of species in the specific layers of the Earth's crust, the age and lay out of these layers, the correlation in age between the distribution and range of species that is found exactly where you would expect according to continental drift. The many transitional fossils we've found in light of how rare it is for a skeleton to fossilize.

It seems like the only thing deniers have left is to deny the correlations and demand we find every possible transitional fossil there is while ignoring what we do have. Seizing on whatever gap is possible while ignoring the probability that there will of course be gaps expected given the conditions we're dealing with.

That'd be a neat topic to get into on a different thread. The data itself may not actually say what you think it does. For example, the comment "every possible transitional fossil" suggests you may not be aware of the data concerning fossils. Once again, this gets into semantics but when evos say "transitional", they don't mean they have found any fossils of an actual macro-transition. It just means they have arranged fossils in a way where they say some are mid-way but there would be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of forms and fossils between the transitional fossils and the later forms. It's not there are gaps missing. It's like having a few seconds of film in a television series and then complaining the other side is just nitpicking about a few gaps in the series.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am quite sure I could argue for the theory of evolution much more than you would be able to, if I chose to.

Then you wouldn't ask the questions you asked above.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am quite sure I could argue for the theory of evolution much more than you would be able to, if I chose to.

I have found not one single shred of evidence for adaptionist macro-evolution aka Darwinism.

What's this "macro-evolution" thing? There's no such thing in evolutionary theory.

How does adaptionism, for example, explain the genome for starters?

What does that question even mean?

 

[Halfcentaur]

There are too many correlations among the evidence to deny what the evidence points to.

The only way to dismiss the evidence as circumstantial is to deny the correlations. The even distribution of species in the specific layers of the Earth's crust, the age and lay out of these layers, the correlation in age between the distribution and range of species that is found exactly where you would expect according to continental drift. The many transitional fossils we've found in light of how rare it is for a skeleton to fossilize.

It seems like the only thing deniers have left is to deny the correlations and demand we find every possible transitional fossil there is while ignoring what we do have. Seizing on whatever gap is possible while ignoring the probability that there will of course be gaps expected given the conditions we're dealing with.

That'd be a neat topic to get into on a different thread. The data itself may not actually say what you think it does. For example, the comment "every possible transitional fossil" suggests you may not be aware of the data concerning fossils. Once again, this gets into semantics but when evos say "transitional", they don't mean they have found any fossils of an actual macro-transition. It just means they have arranged fossils in a way where they say some are mid-way but there would be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of forms and fossils between the transitional fossils and the later forms. It's not there are gaps missing. It's like having a few seconds of film in a television series and then complaining the other side is just complaining about a few gaps in the series.

All species are constantly in a transitional phase. The term is only being used when describing fossils which demonstrate a transition to the current form of species today. Why is it you think certain modern species and their fossils are only found in progressively modern deposits of the Earth's crust. Why do species stop appearing when you get to layers that are older than the theory of evolution would predict? The correlations are only possible to deny if you have an agenda to prove rather than follow the evidence.