IF evolution is true,

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
Gravity is not the same as evolution because gravity is a law of science.

A law of science or a law of natural physics? And who passed that law, and who can repeal it?

 

[Gold Dragon]

A scientific law is a scientific theory which can be simply expressed. Like most scientific laws, there are exceptions to Newtons laws of gravity that Einstein's General Relativity explained for large masses.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Some thoughts by leading evolutionists on evolution and Christianity.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

They are entitled to their opinion, just as you are. I believe all of you are sincerely wrong.

But the reality is that evolution makes no statements about God, the Bible, Adam or Eve. To do so is beyond the scope of the theory. Just like trying to read Genesis like a science text is beyond its scope and intent.

PBS : Evolution FAQ

11. Does evolution prove there is no God?

No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

Talk Origins : God and Evolution

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

OldReg, You are right, of course that evolution can be presented as an atheistic worldview, an explanation of why and how we are here without God.

I would presume that anyone posting in this section of the BaptistBoard is Christian and therefore we are not talking atheism but a form of theistic evolution. You have debated some who would defend it heartedly.

The Macro-evolution used by theistic evolutionist is a defensible "theistic" theory, with a fully developed theology that can explain many of the impossibilities you presume.

Rob

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
Gravity is not the same as evolution because gravity is a law of science. It can be measured and observed and predicted outcomes occur. Evolution is a theory to which the scientific method cannot be applied because it takes millions of years to "occur". It cannot be observed or measured and have predictable outcomes.

I was commenting on the criticism that evolution is "atheistic".

Regarding your point, there are many things in science which are observed indirectly. Gravity is a good example of that too. We cannot see gravity but we can observe its effects on objects and measure those effects.

Evolution is also something that we indirectly observe although we have directly observed evolution as well. The indirect observation includes many measurements which creation scientists try to challenge with all sorts of faulty arguments.

 

[jdcanady]

A "law" of science, as best as I can remember from my college days, denotes a theory of science that has been so well documented through the scientific method that there is no longer any doubt as to its validity. We can measure and predict gravity so accurately that we send spaceships to Mars (no small accomplishment).

The Law is "repealed" if for some reason it is no longer considered valid. For instance, if our current observations of gravity turned out to be a temporary state due to some pulsating galaxy nearby, and we suddenly find our calulations and measurments are off, then we would have to rethink the "law".

The new information we have concerning DNA and the complex nature of cells makes the theory of evolution unworkable. The cells are too complex to have evolved in small steps because they function as a complete group. If one part of the group is missing, the entire system fails to function, thereby giving it no advantage in the "evolutionary process". If fact, without an intact DNA chain, no cell would function at all, since it is the DNA that contains the information to build every individual cell in the body.

Evolution would have to occur at the DNA level, and we have no evidence that occurs. In fact, the system is just too complex for that to occur. Therefore, we must rethink evolution as a scientific theory. The theory of "intelligent design" was developed by scientists who saw many problems with the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, evolution is just about the only theory that has so much political baggage that many scientists will not apply their own standards (scientific theory) to it. It cannot be observed, measured or predicted. It can only be blindly accepted because there is no good alternative for the scientific community to embrace, aside from intelligent design.

 

[jdcanady]

Gold Dragon

You said, "Evolution is also something that we indirectly observe although we have directly observed evolution as well. The indirect observation includes many measurements which creation scientists try to challenge with all sorts of faulty arguments. "

I am willing to consider any example you can give of evolution being observed, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
Gold Dragon

You said, "Evolution is also something that we indirectly observe although we have directly observed evolution as well. The indirect observation includes many measurements which creation scientists try to challenge with all sorts of faulty arguments. "

I am willing to consider any example you can give of evolution being observed, either directly or indirectly.

I provided a link with that quote.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
A "law" of science, as best as I can remember from my college days, denotes a theory of science that has been so well documented through the scientific method that there is no longer any doubt as to its validity. We can measure and predict gravity so accurately that we send spaceships to Mars (no small accomplishment).

The Law is "repealed" if for some reason it is no longer considered valid. For instance, if our current observations of gravity turned out to be a temporary state due to some pulsating galaxy nearby, and we suddenly find our calulations and measurments are off, then we would have to rethink the "law".

That is how some textbooks incorrectly misrepresent scientific laws and how it is commonly misunderstood by the lay person. Scientific laws can be doubted and challenged, which is exactly what Einstein did with Newton's laws of gravity.

Wikipedia : Physical Law

A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. Laws of nature are conclusions drawn from, or hypotheses confirmed by scientific experiments. The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from legal code and religious Law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law.

...

Outside the scientific community, it is often assumed that the laws of nature have been proved beyond a doubt, in the same manner that mathematical theorem can be proven. However, this is not so. It is just that no instances have ever been seen where they are repeatably violated. It is always possible for them to be invalidated by repeatable, contradictory experimental evidence, should any be seen. However, fundamental changes to the laws are unlikely in the extreme, since this would imply a change to the basic structure of the universe, which would almost certainly make it immediately uninhabitable (see fine-tuned universe); If the laws were to change, we wouldn't be here to notice.

Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations, to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving approximations.

 

[jdcanady]

I checked your link. Here is the one example that I found (he claimed thousands of examples of "observed evolution", but as far as I can tell, gave only this one.)

Chris Colby site:

"Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species have evolved within the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of a species."

Mr. Colby did not cite the scientific journal in which this information came from, so there is no way to varify his claims. However, not being a scientist, I found this statement puzzling.

Let's see, the definiton of a species in "reproductive isolation". This means one species cannot be fertilized by a different species. And yet, two different species fertilized each other to produce two more different species? ("The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring.") Didn't he just violate his own defintion of a species.

Mr.Colby calls scientific creationism "100% crap". Although I don't agree with scientific creationism, this is hardly appropriate language for a scientific endeavor. Could he have an agenda?

I am still waiting to see one example of observed evolution (not somebody claiming there are thousands) where I can look at the information myself and come to an opinion.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
I checked your link. Here is the one example that I found (he claimed thousands of examples of "observed evolution", but as far as I can tell, gave only this one.)

Chris Colby site:

"Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species have evolved within the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of a species."

Mr. Colby did not cite the scientific journal in which this information came from, so there is no way to varify his claims. However, not being a scientist, I found this statement puzzling.

Let's see, the definiton of a species in "reproductive isolation". This means one species cannot be fertilized by a different species. And yet, two different species fertilized each other to produce two more different species? ("The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring.") Didn't he just violate his own defintion of a species.

Mr.Colby calls scientific creationism "100% crap". Although I don't agree with scientific creationism, this is hardly appropriate language for a scientific endeavor. Could he have an agenda?

I am still waiting to see one example of observed evolution (not somebody claiming there are thousands) where I can look at the information myself and come to an opinion.

I'm not sure you are reading the correct link because the link I presented doesn't talk about a Mr. Colby.

Talk Origins : Observed Instances of Speciation

If you go to bullet 5.0, it list about 30 or so observed instances and the bottom of the article lists its sources.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

OldReg, You are right, of course that evolution can be presented as an atheistic worldview, an explanation of why and how we are here without God.

I would presume that anyone posting in this section of the BaptistBoard is Christian and therefore we are not talking atheism but a form of theistic evolution. You have debated some who would defend it heartedly.

The Macro-evolution used by theistic evolutionist is a defensible "theistic" theory, with a fully developed theology that can explain many of the impossibilities you presume.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]I repeat some thoughts by atheistic evolutionists on theistic evolution:

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
A "law" of science, as best as I can remember from my college days, denotes a theory of science that has been so well documented through the scientific method that there is no longer any doubt as to its validity. We can measure and predict gravity so accurately that we send spaceships to Mars (no small accomplishment).

The Law is "repealed" if for some reason it is no longer considered valid. For instance, if our current observations of gravity turned out to be a temporary state due to some pulsating galaxy nearby, and we suddenly find our calulations and measurments are off, then we would have to rethink the "law".

The new information we have concerning DNA and the complex nature of cells makes the theory of evolution unworkable. The cells are too complex to have evolved in small steps because they function as a complete group. If one part of the group is missing, the entire system fails to function, thereby giving it no advantage in the "evolutionary process". If fact, without an intact DNA chain, no cell would function at all, since it is the DNA that contains the information to build every individual cell in the body.

Evolution would have to occur at the DNA level, and we have no evidence that occurs. In fact, the system is just too complex for that to occur. Therefore, we must rethink evolution as a scientific theory. The theory of "intelligent design" was developed by scientists who saw many problems with the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, evolution is just about the only theory that has so much political baggage that many scientists will not apply their own standards (scientific theory) to it. It cannot be observed, measured or predicted. It can only be blindly accepted because there is no good alternative for the scientific community to embrace, aside from intelligent design.

Good post, good points.

 

[OldRegular]

The evolutionists talk about laws, but where did those laws originate? Did they evolve from nothing just like everything else?

There is one concept floating around as a counter to the fading "Big Bang" which postulates the spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

Now what was the origin of the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory? All this just shows how desperate the evolutionists are becoming.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Old Regular, you are right on the mark on this topic.

 

[Alcott]

If evolution is true, what was the human appendix once needed for?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Alcott:
If evolution is true, what was the human appendix once needed for?

Wikipedia : Veriform Appendix

...

Currently, the function of the appendix, if any, remains controversial in the field of human physiology.

Hypothesized functions for the appendix include lymphatic, exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular. However, most physicians and scientists believe the appendix lacks significant function, and that it exists primarily as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The evolutionists talk about laws, but where did those laws originate? Did they evolve from nothing just like everything else?

As I quoted in an earlier post, scientific laws originate from scientific observation. Scientific laws do often "evolve" in that our descriptions of them change in light of new evidence.

Of course, the physical laws that govern the universe do not change. But our descriptions of them in the form of scientific laws do.

 

[jdcanady]

Gold Dragon:

Looks like I went to one of your other links the first time. I followed your link and here is what I found.

"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate.

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events."

The author gives a brief summary of speciation events from journals. There are many examples of sterile hybrid plants produced in laboratories. (I don't see how being sterile helps in the evolutionary process, but I'm not a scientist) There is an instance where a smaller cluster of plants was found among a larger cluster of plants, and though they appeared to be the same, they were different species (I guess that means the smaller must have evolved from the larger, not that two different types of plants were growing in the same area).

There was a lot of talk about flys and insects, mostly sterile hybrids. The most interesting thing I found was the quote at the beginning which basically said scientists defined "speciations" in many different ways, bascially according to what they were studying. Scientists cannot agree on a definition, and yet, we are to assume this (speciation events) is true, based on what the scientists say.

I did not see any article that claimed the DNA of a particular species had changed to form separate DNA and a separate species. Not in flys, or hybrid plants (sterile) or fish or anything else.

Mr. Boxhorn, the man who put together the info on this site, states that scientists consider speciation a settled issue and do not put effort into studying whether it really occurs or not. That is very enlightening.

Sorry Gold Dragon, I looked and read, considered carefully, but I am still not convinced.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

JCanady,
Nice article and great obsrervation.