The lie of evolution, part II

[Helen]

"literal interpretation"

This is an oxymoron. If something is taken literally, it does not need interpretation. If you interpret it, it is not being taken literally.

Genesis is a straightforward series of eyewitness accounts of what really happened. This is how it presents itself, with the actual authors signing off at the end of each of their accounts. You must either accept or reject it ON ITS OWN TERMS. Changing the terms to something you prefer is dishonest, to say the least.

 

[Phillip]

Oh, come on Helen, you know as well as I do that only certain people who frequent these threads have evolved and ascended to the point of being able to "interpret" a simple story.......


We were having lunch with an English professor after finals one year and I asked her---"Have you ever really wondered if the nuggets of gold we try to dig out of the famous literature that we read is something just made up by another professor? ...and that the author (who was usually drunk or stoned) was just telling a simple story?" Her answer surprised me.

She said, "Sure, we try to read between the lines because that is what we are taught to do." Then she admitted the truth...."I was just trying to get you to READ the stuff in the first place, let alone put a spin on it."

 

[Helen]

Funny, but sad, Phillip. I wonder what percentage of Christians have not read the Bible?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The assertions that are put forward by the YE side are quickly and factually addressed by the OE side. These assertions are without fail shown to be based on same sort of flaw or ommission. They do not stand up to judgement.

Not true. Evolutionists attack YE ideas with the presumption that both evolution and strict naturalism are true. You assume a premise that precludes the argument then use this contradiction as "proof" against the idea.

IOW's, you "defeat" or more usually "dismiss" the ideas by "rule" rather than dealing with them in the context of a supernatural premise.

The assertions from the OE side are very rarely addressed by the YE side. There is talk about alternate interpretations and bad assumptions, but it is unusual to see a fact based response.

That is untrue and even the objections of your side prove it. When YEC's point to obvious problems with your assertions you all counter that we offer no alternatives. Actually that assertion is untrue also. We simply don't offer an alternative that conforms to naturalism so you are unwilling to accept it.

Sometimes there will be an ad hoc kind of story. But the lurker should notice a distinct lack of factual, testible, falsifiable alternates to the observations in support of an old earth.

The lurker should also note the distinct lack of factual, testable, falsifiable supports for an old earth. Every assertion made by your side about how the evidence should be evaluated is based on the presupposition that naturalism and evolution are true. You cannot falsify evolutionary trees since the concept itself can accommodate any point of data.

IOW's, the theory is so fluid as well as unrepeatable that the only limitation in claiming any and all evidence as support is the imagination of the scientist.

You never see OEers claiming that the other side is trying to tear down God or publically doubting their faith or any of the other personal attacks that get launched for taking an unpopular opinion.

Frankly that is because our opinions are developed under submission to the Word of God.

We assume first and foremost that God's Word is true and is only non-literal when it makes such an indication itself. Genesis 1 and 2 is written as a narrative. There is no biblical reason not to believe that it is a narrative. We believe that the evidence from science must conform to scripture.

You all start from the premise that what you were taught by those operating from a naturalistic presupposition about origins is true and that for the Bible to be true it must somehow be molded around that philosophical premise.

This is ultimately a philosophical debate over what the correct premise is when approaching the issue of origins. The debate over interpretations which is what you wish to turn it into is of marginal merit. If you are wrong about your premise then your interpretation becomes dramatically weaker since your assumptions lose their strength.

 

[just-want-peace]

Not true. Evolutionists attack YE ideas with the presumption that both evolution and strict naturalism are true. You assume a premise that precludes the argument then use this contradiction as "proof" against the idea.

IOW's, you "defeat" or more usually "dismiss" the ideas by "rule" rather than dealing with them in the context of a supernatural premise.

Once again I say:

9) You will hear/read many wordy rebuffs to arguments such as I offer here, but the common thread will be that NONE will offer ANY real proof, only theories that are based on suppositions that are based on still other suppositions, none of which are provable. Nor will they offer any proof by way of Scripture support for their beliefs; only man-made theories that contradict the Word of God. Conversely, the Creationists refer you to the book of Genesis for "creation" Scripture proof.

It's not spitting in the wind, jwp, even though it seems like it. Petrel, Paul, UTE, etc. are presenting a stage on which we can present the creation facts and arguments, and people read these discussions to see what they are. The readers here are not dummies -- they can see what is happening and I get PM's and emails letting me know how much they appreciate what we present and the logic and faith we show.

Thanks Helen!

 

[UTEOTW]

"Not true. Evolutionists attack YE ideas with the presumption that both evolution and strict naturalism are true. You assume a premise that precludes the argument then use this contradiction as "proof" against the idea."

Well, it is true that evolution is science and science can only deal with what is natural and has no ability to make a statement about the supernatural. For example, above Phillip supposes that God could have made the earth with the coal already in the ground. What can we do about such a statement? From a scientific perspective, we can only look at the coal from the perspective of how it might have formed naturally. We see that it seems to be made from plant material. The chemistry is consistent with it being held at certain temperatures for lengths of time. The geology in which the coal is found amy or may not agree with the estimated age of the coal. The geology may also tell us how the material that became the coal was deposited. In short, science can examine various aspects of the coal and see how well the observations match to get a sense of how the coal was formed. However, science is completely unable to determine if the coal was supernaturally made in place but with characteristics that only seem to indicate something else.

At this point I suppose we can debate whether such "appearances of age" are within the characteristics of the God of teh Bible. I strongly suggest not, but others have a different opinion. But I do not see how you could possibly suggest a way to distinguish between something that is supernaturally made to appear a certain way and something actually made that way. (Of course, to resort to an appearance of age is to admit that the data really does support evolution but you still deny it.)

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural but do you have any suggestions as to how you can test for the supernatural? Is there a way to put God in a box and test Him? If not, then what is it t hat you propose to be done? I suppose we could stop looking for explanations for anything. I mean, did the apple fall because of gravity or did God have to supernaturally change the position of the apple?

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural. But then in a contradictory move, many YEers will turn around and claim that the evidence really does support a young earth. You cannot have it both ways. If you cannot believe the evidence then you cannot present evidence for a young earth. You cannot know anything for sure. But if you say that you can believe the evidence, then you have to accept the chips where they fall. It is contradictory to assert that the evidence supports your position but then to dismiss the criticisms of that evidence because it depends on natural laws.

Which leads into something else. I have several times tried to address the claim of assumptions being the difference. I have taken several of the lines of evidence that suggest evolution and tried to build a set of assumptions on what would be expected based on common descent and what would be expected based on recently created kinds.****

I did my best to present both sides. No YEer has volunteered to accept or reject my assumptions. No YEer has yet offered to give their own set of assumptions on what should be seen. They talk about differences in assumptions and alternate interpretations, but they always seem to be missing when you need a specific answer. Lot's of talk, no results. It should be simple to present an alternate theory and to tell how you would distinguish that theory from the prevailing one.

"The lurker should also note the distinct lack of factual, testable, falsifiable supports for an old earth. Every assertion made by your side about how the evidence should be evaluated is based on the presupposition that naturalism and evolution are true. You cannot falsify evolutionary trees since the concept itself can accommodate any point of data."

While we are speaking of lurkers and what they should notice, please pay very close attention to how the words were parsed here.

Evolution and other sciences related to an old universe provide many opportunities to be tested and falsified. Such opportunities have been discussed ad nauseum. The problem then is whether you can accept natural explanations. In other words, can you trust your lying eyes. I must go on the assumption that what we observe in the universe is an accurate representation of the way things are and that God would not have faked data to make it look like something happened that did not actually happen. Is this a bad assumption? I hope not. If it is a bad assumption, then we can never know for sure about thereality of the world at large. It is possible that the world was created last Thursday and your memories are just cunning implanted thoughts. If it is possible that things are not as they seem, then any possiblity is open.

Anyone have ideas on how to know if things are as they seem?

On the other hand, once you accept that things are likely to be as they seem, then YE offers nothing to explain the observations of our universe. Nothing testible. Nothing falsifiable. Nothing factual.

Now if you wish to cast your lot with not being able to know what is what, go ahead. I have no way of knowing for sure that things are not really an illusion. Put if you accept that you can trust your observations of the world, then YE needs to provide some answers.

"IOW's, the theory is so fluid as well as unrepeatable that the only limitation in claiming any and all evidence as support is the imagination of the scientist."

Not true at all. As I said, we have been over many times before how various parts of the data could be falsified. For example, I have often used atavisms, such as three toed horses and whales with legs, as bits of data suggesting common descent. If you were to find a pattern of atavisms that did not match common descent, it would be a serious problem. For example, if you found mammals born with atavistic feathers. Mammals do not have ancestors with feathers so this would be a difficulty. I am sure your imagination can come up with other such examples.

Also, if evolution is not falsifiable, then why is it that most assertions that YEers make claiming a factual response is too make claims as too why evolution cannot be true? It is contradictory to claim it is not falsifiable and then try and falsify it. Unsuccessfully.

On the other hand, these YE assertions are themselves generally quite easy to falsify. Now if we could just get them to commit to some alternate explanations that are detailed enough to be falsifiable.

"Frankly that is because our opinions are developed under submission to the Word of God."

Exactly what I mean. They go into it assuming that theirs is the only possible answer and concluding that those who disagree not only disagree with them but also with God Himself. Remember, there are many interpretations of many things from the Bible. Even though you may be "sure" you're correct, that does not mean that you are nor that your opponents are disagreeing with God as well as with you. While YEers never admit the possiblity of error, I think you will see OEers much more open to new ideas and the possibility that they could be wrong. You'll never see them charge someone with disagreeing with God simply for disagreeing with their interpretation.

"This is ultimately a philosophical debate over what the correct premise is when approaching the issue of origins."

Fine. Are you arguing that we cannot trust our observations about the world? If so, there is not much to debate. If not, then, well, we need those alternate interpretations and how to diffrentiate them from common descent.

 

[UTEOTW]

**** One example of the text I have used when trying to make assumptions on what one would expect form the different views.

The question to be asked is what interpretation best explains the evidence that we observe. As new information comes in, it will either support your interpretation or contradict it. Support tells you that you are on the right track. Contradiction tells you that you need to rethink your theory.

The first observation that gets discussed is morphology. Now if we look at the animals that are alive today and the animals that the fossil record tells us were alive in the past, we see that the form a nested heirarchy. All by itself this could mean that all of these animals were produced by common descent or by common designer. (As a note, I am not trying to set up a false dilemma here. I recognize that there may be other explanations that could be put forward but I am purposely restricting the discussion to the two possibilities under discussion.) So you have to go to the next observation.

The next most obvious observation is genetic. If you examine all the different types of genetic material that has been tested and use it to construct phylogenic trees, you find that you get much the same pattern as you do when you arrange the fossils by morphology. Let's see how these observations stack up.

One easy test is to look at just the functional genes. These can again be used to support common descent or a common designer. Both will claim that creatures that are the most similar should have the most similar DNA.

But you can start to untangle the two by looking into further types of genetic material that is not related to the functional part of DNA. One example would be to look at retroviral inserts. These happen when a virus inserts part of its genome into its host. If this happens in a reproductive cell, then the genome of the virus can be passed on to the offspring. Since this has nothing to do with the functional part of the genome, it can shed light on the situation for us. For example, if common descent were true, then you would expect the retroviral DNA to show the same pattern as the other lines of observation. If a common designer were the true explanation, then you would expect a random distribution of the retroviral inserts when compared between the species. In fact, you see that the pattern follws that which wbe expected of common descent. The common designer option cannot explain this pattern.

If you take the retroviral discussion and repeat it with things like paralogs, pseudogenes, retrotransposons and such you will find the same result. One pattern would be predicted by common descent and another by a common designer but the patterns only fit that of common descent. For example, whales have a complete set of psuedogenes identical to what land based animals possess for their sence of smell. If whales evolved from land based ancestors, this is easily explained. But if they were recently created as is, there is no reason for them to possess such useless genes. A common designer advocate is forced into giving an arbitrary, ad-hoc explanation for this observation.

From here let's move on to other topics. Let's first loook at atavisms. We have brought a few into discussion already. Atavistic legs on whales. Two extra toes on horses. Unfused leg bones in horses. Atavistic tails on humans. The observation is that these atavisms ONLY manifest themselves in a pattern consistent with the phylogenic trees generated from the other lines of evidence. The atavisms only make parts that were possessed by their ancestors in the common descent interpretation. You never see atavisms that fail to follow this pattern. Common descent offers a simple explanation. The common designer option gives no reason why we should expect whales to have genes for making legs of humans to have genes for making tails. They are again forced into capricious explanations.

Development tells a similar story.This has the potential to get rather complicated, so I'll stick with an example already in play. We observe that whales go through a developmental stage in which they possess rear legs. Again, this shared developmental trait follows the same pattern as the other lines of evidence. Common descent offers a simple reason for this to be the case. A common designer has no logical reason to send whales through a stage with legs which must later be reabsorbed.

This can keep going for a long time. If you look at other areas of evidence, you keep coming back to the observation that all the bits always fit the tree that you get from morphology and genetics. This is true for parahomlogy. This is true for vestiges. This is true for the chronology of the fossils. Every observation that you make brings you back to these same trees.

So the question is which interpretation of the data fits the observations. The answer is that common descent offers a simple and compelling answer for each one. A common designer can be hypothesized for some of the observations but for many of the observations, the evidence is the opposite of what would be expected. The only recourse for YEers is to ignore these contradictions. But you really must worry about someone's ideas when they must ignore so much.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Frankly that is because our opinions are developed under submission to the Word of God."

Exactly what I mean. They go into it assuming that theirs is the only possible answer and concluding that those who disagree not only disagree with them but also with God Himself.

The problem is that you didn't first assume that the Bible is true and only non-literal when it internally indicates that it is... as would be expected if it were a book of divine origin and supervision... then come to the conclusion that the Bible supports evolution. You decided that evolution and the underlying philosophical assumption of naturalism were true with regard to creation and that if the Bible disagreed then it must not be literal no matter whether what.

Remember, there are many interpretations of many things from the Bible.

Of course there are. Genesis 1 and 2 however are written as a general narrative with no hint that the details are allegorical or open to interpretation.

If you said, "I went to the store, locked my car, went in a purchased a toothbrush, then went home"... I wouldn't make the assumption that there was anything in your statement that you wanted me to interpret. I would take it that you wanted me to know in general terms what you had done.

Even though you may be "sure" you're correct, that does not mean that you are nor that your opponents are disagreeing with God as well as with you.

Evolution does not agree with Genesis at its very basic premise. Genesis recounts numerous supernatural acts by God to include speaking the universe into existence. Evolution says that everything must ultimately have a naturalistic cause. You can hand wave all you want but Genesis declares the reality of the supernatural as it pertains to the natural world while evolution fundamentally denies it.

While YEers never admit the possiblity of error,

I do and have admitted the possibility of error. You can look back through my writings and see that I have said that I believe that Genesis can be interpretted in a way that allows an old universe absent life.

The simple fact of the matter is that evolution in detail and philosophical underpinnings stands in contradiction with Genesis 1 and 2. The interpretations presented by theistic evolutionists here and elsewhere effectively deny that words mean anything like what their definitions are in order to conform the Bible to their presuppositions on origins.

I think you will see OEers much more open to new ideas and the possibility that they could be wrong.

You aren't. You refuse to recognize that your presupposition of naturalism could be wrong. Every time you get close, you dive back into a discussion on the details of evolutionary thought that presuppose naturalism and evolution as the governing rules.

You'll never see them charge someone with disagreeing with God simply for disagreeing with their interpretation.

Yes you will. Evolutionists here have accused us of making God a liar. The twisted logic goes like this: scientist operating under the assumption of naturalism decide that the world is old, therefore if someone says it isn't then the evidence left by a supernatural God leads them to a false conclusion so God must be lying or else evolutionists are correct.

It is about as consistent as evolutionists are. On the one hand the want an explanation that presumes God was not needed. On the other hand, they want to use that explanation as if it came from God Himself.

"This is ultimately a philosophical debate over what the correct premise is when approaching the issue of origins."

Fine. Are you arguing that we cannot trust our observations about the world? If so, there is not much to debate. If not, then, well, we need those alternate interpretations and how to diffrentiate them from common descent. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
It's not a matter of reinterpreting, but rather a matter of Bible explaining Bible. You will find the NIV does a pretty good job here of translation: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all of the beasts of the field..."

If you really think Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, then you are being incredibly insulting to generations of Jews -- who are, as a group, known for their brains -- that they did not notice this 'contradiction' in the first two chapters of their Scriptures.

So maybe, just MAYBE, you are the one who is wrong with your criticism. Just PERHAPS your preconceived notions are coloring your reading to such an extent that you REQUIRE an evolutionist/allegorical/mythological reading of Genesis, eh? [/QB]

Well, the NIV people are the same ones who are willing to retranslate scripture to be "gender neutral" . . . and this is not the only place where they are willing to retranslate in order to remove a perceived difficulty in the Bible. But why go to the trouble of mistranslating the Bible? Why not just ACCEPT WHAT IT SAYS . . . and live with the fact that it is a contradiction?

It's only a contradiction if you take it literally.

As for the "incredible insult" argument, it simply ignores the ability of men to gloss over such things. It really is quite possible to read the stories and not notice the "problem" . . . and that happens over and over among us.

It remains necessary to selectively indulge in rescue interpretation. One must indulge in rescue interpretation to reconcile these two passages and then one must refuse to further indulge in rescue interpretation to maintain the conflict with modern science.

I think it is unreasonable to be so selective in the way one applies rescue interpretation.

 

[Scott J]

"This is ultimately a philosophical debate over what the correct premise is when approaching the issue of origins."

Fine. Are you arguing that we cannot trust our observations about the world? If so, there is not much to debate. If not, then, well, we need those alternate interpretations and how to diffrentiate them from common descent.

I have given you alternatives but all you do is hand wave since a) I reject naturalism as a constraint and b) because I lack the time and funding to impress you with some verbose, technical sounding answer.

I didn't say that observations cannot be trusted. But your faith isn't in the observations. Your faith is in the interpretations of the observations that are built on a presupposition of naturalism.

The sad thing to me is that you accept and even demand such answers even though a basic rule of those giving those answers is that God cannot be invoked to explain anything in nature at any point.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The problem is that you didn't first assume that the Bible is true and only non-literal when it internally indicates that it is... as would be expected if it were a book of divine origin and supervision... then come to the conclusion that the Bible supports evolution. You decided that evolution and the underlying philosophical assumption of naturalism were true with regard to creation and that if the Bible disagreed then it must not be literal no matter whether what.

The problem with this argument is that it is not applied consistently. In particular, YEC almost uniformly agree with the findings of science and against the Bible in regards to the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night.

I defy you to find any internal evidence from the Bible that supports the earthly rotation theory. It just is not there. And there are many many verses that support the idea that the Sun goes around the earth instead; indeed, scripture indicates it has a chamber in which it resides during the night.

So you and others like you do precisely the thing you accuse the evolutionist of doing . . . accept the findings of modern science instead of the literal words of the Bible.

Your only clue that it is right to do this is in fact the very findings of modern science themselves which you, for some strange reason, have decided to accept over and above the words of the Bible.

We all know what the strange reason is, of course. You have been utterly convinced by the evidence.

Evidence that didn't come from the Bible.

And then you tell us we are wrong to do the very same thing you have already done!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Not true. Evolutionists attack YE ideas with the presumption that both evolution and strict naturalism are true. You assume a premise that precludes the argument then use this contradiction as "proof" against the idea."

Well, it is true that evolution is science and science can only deal with what is natural and has no ability to make a statement about the supernatural.

Evolution is not science. Science can only deal with what can be observed, measured, and tested. History is beyond those bounds.

For example, above Phillip supposes that God could have made the earth with the coal already in the ground. What can we do about such a statement? From a scientific perspective, we can only look at the coal from the perspective of how it might have formed naturally.

Actually, you can do much more than that. You can see how that an intelligent entity in a very short period of time can take organic matter, heat, and pressure- and produce a barrel of oil.

Now what do we know? Do we "know" that natural forces could ever accidentally create oil? No. We don't. That's an assumption we cannot observe.

Do we know that an intelligence with sufficient power and resources can do it? Yes. We do. That is a theory we can test and prove.

We see that it seems to be made from plant material. The chemistry is consistent with it being held at certain temperatures for lengths of time. The geology in which the coal is found amy or may not agree with the estimated age of the coal. The geology may also tell us how the material that became the coal was deposited. In short, science can examine various aspects of the coal and see how well the observations match to get a sense of how the coal was formed. However, science is completely unable to determine if the coal was supernaturally made in place but with characteristics that only seem to indicate something else.

Again, science cannot give categorical answers about unobserved history. It can only speculate.

At this point I suppose we can debate whether such "appearances of age" are within the characteristics of the God of teh Bible.

Go ahead. You argue that the appearance of age would make God a liar and I will argue that his truthfulness is not determined by whether your perceptions of age are accurate or not.

(Of course, to resort to an appearance of age is to admit that the data really does support evolution but you still deny it.)

No more so than the appearance of age means that a piece of furniture is an antique. You can make a piece of furniture that looks old from the start if it suits the purpose or you can put it under conditions that age it faster.

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural but do you have any suggestions as to how you can test for the supernatural?

I criticize evolution, not science, for presupposing that the universe is the result of purely natural rather than intelligent forces. I criticize supposed scientists for making the claim that they can speak definitively about unrecorded natural history that is far more dependent on the assumptions of the theory than the evidence.

I am reading a book that explains generally the rule of parsimony. Interesting. But the problem is that when you string dependent events together based on their individual probabilities of having occurred... you end up even after a series of probable events with a very improbable string.

Evolution's explanations are improbable to the absurd so for anyone to treat them as reliable fact is irrational.

Is there a way to put God in a box and test Him?

Is there a way to put evolutionary explanations of natural history in a box and test them as a coherent set of interdependent events?

If not, then what is it t hat you propose to be done?

If not, I propose that you stop saying that evolution makes a more reasonable and scientific framework for explaining origins than God.

I suppose we could stop looking for explanations for anything.

Or we can stop limiting explanations to those that agree with the naturalistic presuppositon. ID is a very good place to start.

I mean, did the apple fall because of gravity or did God have to supernaturally change the position of the apple?

Or did the apple fall because God created gravity by His Word?

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural. But then in a contradictory move, many YEers will turn around and claim that the evidence really does support a young earth. You cannot have it both ways.

YEC is malleable enough to accommodate the evidence even if the explanations are highly improbable... just like evolution.

If you cannot believe the evidence then you cannot present evidence for a young earth.

It isn't the evidence that is in question. It is the interpretations and particularly the presuppositions behind those interpretations that I question. But I have told you that many times and each time you want to retreat to demands for complex detailed explanations.

You cannot know anything for sure.

Actually, I can be sure about alot more than you apparently are.

I can be sure that if God said He spoke the world into existence then all explanations of evidence must conform to what the one, perfectly truthful and accurate eyewitness to creation told us.

But if you say that you can believe the evidence, then you have to accept the chips where they fall.

Not when you restrict where we can look for fallen chips by nothing more than an arbitrary presupposition.

It is contradictory to assert that the evidence supports your position but then to dismiss the criticisms of that evidence because it depends on natural laws.

It is contradictory to assert that you believe in an omnipotent Creator then dismiss criticisms of a naturalistic human theory because the existence and activities of that creator contradict the philosophical premise of the human theory.

Which leads into something else. I have several times tried to address the claim of assumptions being the difference. I have taken several of the lines of evidence that suggest evolution and tried to build a set of assumptions on what would be expected based on common descent and what would be expected based on recently created kinds.****

Each time I have seen you do this, you restrict the creationist conclusion to something ridiculous while claiming proof positive for the evolutionist model. This goes back to what I said before. Evolution is fluid enough to accommodate virtually any evidence. Therefore it is irrational to say that the evidence supports it.

No YEer has yet offered to give their own set of assumptions on what should be seen. They talk about differences in assumptions and alternate interpretations, but they always seem to be missing when you need a specific answer.

Not true. I have engaged you this way many more times than I should have before making you validate your premises.

If for example common descent from certain kinds is true then later forms would become more genetically fixed, less adaptable/variable, and unable to breed with fairly close relatives. That's what we see. If it is true then we would routinely observe the loss of genetic information within species... and we do.

If common ascent is true however we should routinely be seeing the accummulation of genetic information and the formation of new biological systems.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Not true. Evolutionists attack YE ideas with the presumption that both evolution and strict naturalism are true. You assume a premise that precludes the argument then use this contradiction as "proof" against the idea."

Well, it is true that evolution is science and science can only deal with what is natural and has no ability to make a statement about the supernatural.

Evolution is not science. Science can only deal with what can be observed, measured, and tested. History is beyond those bounds.

For example, above Phillip supposes that God could have made the earth with the coal already in the ground. What can we do about such a statement? From a scientific perspective, we can only look at the coal from the perspective of how it might have formed naturally.

Actually, you can do much more than that. You can see how that an intelligent entity in a very short period of time can take organic matter, heat, and pressure- and produce a barrel of oil.

Now what do we know? Do we "know" that natural forces could ever accidentally create oil? No. We don't. That's an assumption we cannot observe.

Do we know that an intelligence with sufficient power and resources can do it? Yes. We do. That is a theory we can test and prove.

We see that it seems to be made from plant material. The chemistry is consistent with it being held at certain temperatures for lengths of time. The geology in which the coal is found amy or may not agree with the estimated age of the coal. The geology may also tell us how the material that became the coal was deposited. In short, science can examine various aspects of the coal and see how well the observations match to get a sense of how the coal was formed. However, science is completely unable to determine if the coal was supernaturally made in place but with characteristics that only seem to indicate something else.

Again, science cannot give categorical answers about unobserved history. It can only speculate.

At this point I suppose we can debate whether such "appearances of age" are within the characteristics of the God of teh Bible.

Go ahead. You argue that the appearance of age would make God a liar and I will argue that his truthfulness is not determined by whether your perceptions of age are accurate or not.

(Of course, to resort to an appearance of age is to admit that the data really does support evolution but you still deny it.)

No more so than the appearance of age means that a piece of furniture is an antique. You can make a piece of furniture that looks old from the start if it suits the purpose or you can put it under conditions that age it faster.

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural but do you have any suggestions as to how you can test for the supernatural?

I criticize evolution, not science, for presupposing that the universe is the result of purely natural rather than intelligent forces. I criticize supposed scientists for making the claim that they can speak definitively about unrecorded natural history that is far more dependent on the assumptions of the theory than the evidence.

I am reading a book that explains generally the rule of parsimony. Interesting. But the problem is that when you string dependent events together based on their individual probabilities of having occurred... you end up even after a series of probable events with a very improbable string.

Evolution's explanations are improbable to the absurd so for anyone to treat them as reliable fact is irrational.

Is there a way to put God in a box and test Him?

Is there a way to put evolutionary explanations of natural history in a box and test them as a coherent set of interdependent events?

If not, then what is it t hat you propose to be done?

If not, I propose that you stop saying that evolution makes a more reasonable and scientific framework for explaining origins than God.

I suppose we could stop looking for explanations for anything.

Or we can stop limiting explanations to those that agree with the naturalistic presuppositon. ID is a very good place to start.

I mean, did the apple fall because of gravity or did God have to supernaturally change the position of the apple?

Or did the apple fall because God created gravity by His Word?

Which leads into something else. You criticize science for only dealing with the natural. But then in a contradictory move, many YEers will turn around and claim that the evidence really does support a young earth. You cannot have it both ways.

YEC is malleable enough to accommodate the evidence even if the explanations are highly improbable... just like evolution.

If you cannot believe the evidence then you cannot present evidence for a young earth.

It isn't the evidence that is in question. It is the interpretations and particularly the presuppositions behind those interpretations that I question. But I have told you that many times and each time you want to retreat to demands for complex detailed explanations.

You cannot know anything for sure.

Actually, I can be sure about alot more than you apparently are.

I can be sure that if God said He spoke the world into existence then all explanations of evidence must conform to what the one, perfectly truthful and accurate eyewitness to creation told us.

But if you say that you can believe the evidence, then you have to accept the chips where they fall.

Not when you restrict where we can look for fallen chips by nothing more than an arbitrary presupposition.

It is contradictory to assert that the evidence supports your position but then to dismiss the criticisms of that evidence because it depends on natural laws.

It is contradictory to assert that you believe in an omnipotent Creator then dismiss criticisms of a naturalistic human theory because the existence and activities of that creator contradict the philosophical premise of the human theory.

Which leads into something else. I have several times tried to address the claim of assumptions being the difference. I have taken several of the lines of evidence that suggest evolution and tried to build a set of assumptions on what would be expected based on common descent and what would be expected based on recently created kinds.****

Each time I have seen you do this, you restrict the creationist conclusion to something ridiculous while claiming proof positive for the evolutionist model. This goes back to what I said before. Evolution is fluid enough to accommodate virtually any evidence. Therefore it is irrational to say that the evidence supports it.

No YEer has yet offered to give their own set of assumptions on what should be seen. They talk about differences in assumptions and alternate interpretations, but they always seem to be missing when you need a specific answer.

Not true. I have engaged you this way many more times than I should have before making you validate your premises.

If for example common descent from certain kinds is true then later forms would become more genetically fixed, less adaptable/variable, and unable to breed with fairly close relatives. That's what we see. If it is true then we would routinely observe the loss of genetic information within species... and we do.

If common ascent is true however we should routinely be seeing the accummulation of genetic information and the formation of new biological systems.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
The problem is that you didn't first assume that the Bible is true and only non-literal when it internally indicates that it is... as would be expected if it were a book of divine origin and supervision... then come to the conclusion that the Bible supports evolution. You decided that evolution and the underlying philosophical assumption of naturalism were true with regard to creation and that if the Bible disagreed then it must not be literal no matter whether what.

The problem with this argument is that it is not applied consistently. In particular, YEC almost uniformly agree with the findings of science and against the Bible in regards to the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night.</font>[/QUOTE] The problem with this red herring is that it is absolutely ridiculous.

First, virtually everyone recognizes that figurative language is used in the Bible with markers.

Second, there is nothing inconsistent with believing that the Bible contains wholly accurate, inspired accounts of human sayings or perspectives that aren't necessarily wholly accurate or literally true while also believing that the narrative account in Genesis is wholly accurate and inspired.

I defy you to find any internal evidence from the Bible that supports the earthly rotation theory. It just is not there.

Nor does it have to be. What the Bible affirms is true. However, the Bible does not affirm every single truth. There is no book that could physically contain such a record.

The Bible does say that God spoke the world into existence in 6 phases characterized as "days" consisting of a "morning" and an "evening".

So you and others like you do precisely the thing you accuse the evolutionist of doing . . . accept the findings of modern science instead of the literal words of the Bible.

Not by a very long shot. I haven't heard anyone cite the things you mentioned as narrative accounts. Truly, those things aren't written as narrative accounts but rather as language based on perspectives.

Your only clue that it is right to do this is in fact the very findings of modern science themselves which you, for some strange reason, have decided to accept over and above the words of the Bible.

Let's say that your 55 gallon argument holds one ounce of water...

The fact of the matter is that we can observe and measure the rotation of the earth. We cannot observe evolution. Evolution is a faith based system that directly contradicts scripture.

There isn't even an allegorical reading of Genesis that can be generally true if evolution is true.

We all know what the strange reason is, of course. You have been utterly convinced by the evidence.

That and the fact that it does not directly contradict scripture the way evolution's account of origins does.

And then you tell us we are wrong to do the very same thing you have already done!

The simple fact is that you aren't doing the same thing I have done. You have shown me oranges and claimed that they match your apples. They don't.

 

[Charles Meadows]

LURKING.......

Interesting.

It would seem that paul has a good point here. The Bible does seem to suggest that the earth is the center of things. Yet this is not disputed while evolution, or even old earthism is.

On the other hand it is true that the former can be directly observed and the latter cannot.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The fact of the matter is that we can observe and measure the rotation of the earth. We cannot observe evolution. Evolution is a faith based system that directly contradicts scripture.

There isn't even an allegorical reading of Genesis that can be generally true if evolution is true.

I would like to ask an evolutionist why God would bother to repeat that plants or animals came from their own kind. Even if Genesis were considered as non-literal--wouldn't this be a conflict between what God says and what an evolutionist believes?

 

[UTEOTW]

" Of course there are. Genesis 1 and 2 however are written as a general narrative with no hint that the details are allegorical or open to interpretation."

And when Jesus is tempted, that sure sounds like narrative to me. But the writer appears to think that the world was flat since all the kingdoms of the world were shown to Jesus. But I bet you find another interpretation that is not even hinted at in the text, do you not?

" Evolution does not agree with Genesis at its very basic premise. Genesis recounts numerous supernatural acts by God to include speaking the universe into existence. Evolution says that everything must ultimately have a naturalistic cause. You can hand wave all you want but Genesis declares the reality of the supernatural as it pertains to the natural world while evolution fundamentally denies it."

You are asserting that I have a position which I do not have. I recognize God as the Creator but through the natural laws He has set up. He kicked it off and uses it to HIs will.

"I have given you alternatives but all you do is hand wave since a) I reject naturalism as a constraint and b) because I lack the time and funding to impress you with some verbose, technical sounding answer."

Your alternatives have been little more than ad hoc stories. They have had no ability to be tested to see which explanation is better nor any support that makes them seem to be more likely.

"I didn't say that observations cannot be trusted. But your faith isn't in the observations. Your faith is in the interpretations of the observations that are built on a presupposition of naturalism.

The sad thing to me is that you accept and even demand such answers even though a basic rule of those giving those answers is that God cannot be invoked to explain anything in nature at any point."

You misrepresent my position.

Science is unable to invole the supernatural as an explanation. You are free to invoke the supernatural. Just please explain how you are supposed to tell the difference. If there is no way to tell the difference, then the supernatural explanation should be dismissed by Occam's razor as not being the most simple. If a natural answer is sufficient to answer the question, then to impose the supernatural can only be done on an arbitrary and illogical basis.

 

[JWI]

Scott J said,

"Your faith is in the interpretations of the observations that are built on a presupposition of naturalism."

Right on! This is exactly what they do.

Everything MUST be interpreted to support evolution because to them evolution is true.

They can see no alternative. They can believe nothing else.

Any evidence that supports evolution must be true because they believe evolution to be true. Any evidence against evolution must be false because they believe evolution is true.

It is circular reasoning.

It is not scientific or even logical thinking.

So, the simple narrative in Genesis 1 must be twisted to fit their belief. It cannot be taken literally, because they know as well as we do that it does not support evolution taken literally.

They understand this simple account as well as we do. They know it gives them problems.

It is self-deception.

However, I do not believe there could be a period between when the earth was created and all the life mentioned in the six day creation in Genesis 1.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Note the verse says EVERY THING HE HAD MADE. That would include the earth and heavens in Gen 1:1.


Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

This verse ties together the creation of the earth and heavens with all life.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Note the verse says on the seventh day God ENDED his work. It also says ALL HIS WORK WHICH HE HAD MADE. All would include the earth itself.

If the earth were created before the first day, then there would be more than six days of creation.

There would necessarily be an eighth day, or even more.

So he could not have rested on the seventh day as Gen 2:2 clearly and simply says he rested from ALL HIS WORK WHICH HE HAD MADE.

This is just people trying to interpret an OE creation that is not there.

It is the same thinking that the evolutionists use.

 

[JWI]

Scott J was correct. Evolutionists necessarily see a naturalistic explanation for everything.

They have laughed and scoffed several times in this thread asking how there could be a morning and evening before the sun was created.

It is not clearly shown, but it is not a stretch to believe the Lord himself provided the light before the sun was created. We have evidence of this in Revelation.

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

So, it is not a stretch to assume that the Lord provided the light before the sun was created.

But the evolutionists cannot accept a spiritual explanation. But Genesis 1 points to that.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Verse two clearly says the SPIRIT of God moved upon the face of the waters. Verse three shows the method of creation, God simply spoke light into existence.

Creation was a spiritual and supernatural event, not naturalistic.

 

[UTEOTW]

" Evolution is not science. Science can only deal with what can be observed, measured, and tested. History is beyond those bounds."

Good thing we are talking about evolution and not history then. If you ask for evidence of evolution you will be given plenty of observations. From genetics to homologies to atavisms to vestiges to fossils. These are all things which can be observed and measured. These are all things where others can examine the same materials and where new data can be used to test and refine the original hypotheses. It is definately science.

" Actually, you can do much more than that. You can see how that an intelligent entity in a very short period of time can take organic matter, heat, and pressure- and produce a barrel of oil."

Well we were talking about coal not oil, but they're all fossil fuels I suppose. Here is a chart I like to pull out whenever the quick organics to coal is mentioned.

http://www.blackdiamondenergy.com/Figures/Figure1.gif

This shows you changes to the chemical makeup of coal based on how high of a temperature the coal is held during formation. Now this is from a coalbed methane company so they do not have a dog in this fight. The rapid fossil fuel assertions are always based on some high temperature and pressure. But that only makes something superficially similar to a real fossil fuel. If you look at the chart, you will see changes in the chemistry of the coal based on how high of a temperature the coal reached. Now this puts a limit on the temperature during formation. Which eliminates the quick coal schemes that some propose.

"Now what do we know? Do we "know" that natural forces could ever accidentally create oil? No. We don't. That's an assumption we cannot observe."

Define observe. Do you mean to be around for the whole period of time of formation? Well then we can never "observe" a redwood forest growing, either, but I think you will admit that we know how that happens. But we can hypothesize on how it formed and see if various traits, such as chemistry and geology, are consistent with that. We can also observe fossil fuels in various stages of formation.

"Do we know that an intelligence with sufficient power and resources can do it? Yes. We do. That is a theory we can test and prove."

Now the challenge for you is to hypothesize what traits you would expect from the fossil fuels if they had been rapidly formed. Then test these predictions against actual fossil fuels to see how they stand up.

See how this works? Invoke supernatural explanations if you wish, but you need to be able to tell what would be different from the natural explanation. If there is no difference, then you have no explanation that can be examined.

And in this case, I have already given you one small piece above, chemistry, that argues against rapid fossil fuel formation.

" Again, science cannot give categorical answers about unobserved history. It can only speculate."

And test. You forgot that part. The most important.

Scinece does not claim to give "categorical" answers. Just the best explanation that fits the observations. And yes, no matter how many times you say otherwise, it is observations that we cite to support evolution and astronomy and geology and paleontology and all the other disciplines.

" Go ahead. You argue that the appearance of age would make God a liar and I will argue that his truthfulness is not determined by whether your perceptions of age are accurate or not."

YOu are equivocating a bit there. If you can show that the perceptions of age are wrong, then there is no "appearance of age." Only if the perception is correct is there such an assertion.

This gets right back to the alternate explanations. If there is one, then let us have it. That destroys our argument that God would not do such a thing and therefore the earth must really be old.

But if there is not a YE explanation, then you are telling us that it was supernaturally made with specific traits that show that something happened other than what really happened. And if you suggest that, then I suggest you are making God out to be a deceiver and not the God of the Bible.

"Evolution's explanations are improbable to the absurd so for anyone to treat them as reliable fact is irrational."

Nice assertion but where is the backing? Just what is so "improbable" and please demonstrate your assertion.

" Is there a way to put evolutionary explanations of natural history in a box and test them as a coherent set of interdependent events?"

Yes. I gave you an example of how to test one piece of the puzzle earlier today. If you want the larger picture, then things like how phylogenies from so many independent sources match one another is a good way to test and to demonstrate evolution as a theory with good explanatory powers and which passes detailed testing.

" If not, I propose that you stop saying that evolution makes a more reasonable and scientific framework for explaining origins than God."

False dilemma.

God made and uses the laws. Evolution follows the laws.

It is the only possible conclusion from the Creation itself. Your alternate is presently arbitrary and without an ability to be distinguished from evolution.

" Or we can stop limiting explanations to those that agree with the naturalistic presuppositon. ID is a very good place to start."

Not yet. Have you been following the Dover trial? Have you noticed how even the ID proponents say that at this point they have very little if any evidenary support?

" Or did the apple fall because God created gravity by His Word?"

Bravo! YOu got the point.

God created life on this planet by creating the natural laws under which evolution operates.

" YEC is malleable enough to accommodate the evidence even if the explanations are highly improbable... just like evolution."

Evolution makes specific, testible predictions about what kind of further observations will be made.

YE offers no such testible specifics. It cannot.

" Not when you restrict where we can look for fallen chips by nothing more than an arbitrary presupposition."

You are free to tell us what kinds of observations you would expect based on your presuppositions.

" Not true. I have engaged you this way many more times than I should have before making you validate your premises."

Not true. There has yet to be alternative theories presented which can be tested.

"If for example common descent from certain kinds is true then later forms would become more genetically fixed, less adaptable/variable, and unable to breed with fairly close relatives. That's what we see. If it is true then we would routinely observe the loss of genetic information within species... and we do."

If this is your assertion, then demonstrate it. There are a lot of assertions here, but I have not seen any evidence that they are true. In fact, you may run into your own problems when you try and gather data because you are going to have to find a way to compare the present to the past without violating your own assertions about the lack of observability in the past.

But please, explore this possibility. Tell us about genetics and fossils and all sorts of interesting things. Let us know what we can test about this to distinguish it from the alternatives.

"If common ascent is true however we should routinely be seeing the accummulation of genetic information and the formation of new biological systems."

And these threads are full of examples of such.