Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Scott J:
UT, Have you seen this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml

The key point in that article is the motivation Antony Flew found to make a change. The compelling argument the unsolvable!

In the article Flew is quoted as saying

NEWSMAX: Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004 4:55 p.m. EST
Science Gives Famous Atheist Faith in God

NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God, more or less, based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.
...

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This reference to abiogensis and it's obvious and blatant need for God INSTEAD of simply telling "stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science" --- Flew has just barely enough acceptance of objective fact, science and God to admit - that UTEOTWs slavish devotion to evolutionism's doctrines at all costs - is just silly and even an Atheist like Flew can see in the Abiogenesis problem a total loss for the naturalist's doctrine that God is not needed for that to happen.

(Now what is very surprising is that UTEOTW never actually MENTIONS the KEY point in the article which is the THE POINT that cause Antony Flew to accept some form of God!!! Amazing that this would mean nothing to a Christian arguing FOR evolutionism today!!)

Too bad we can't get UTEOTW to such a modest level of objective thought in favor of the God of Creation as Atony Flew achieves when considering Abiogenesis!

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 10, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is with evolution. We can observe the mechanisms. We see mutations happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we don't see is mutations that create new species that have acquired genetic information from a source other than the parents. Very simply- we don't see the types of changes needed for evolution nor do the mechanisms we observe result in evolution.

You are arguing against "accumulated advantage" driven by evolutionism.

So also do some atheists - too bad Christian evolutionists must be in the "slow class" on this one.

"High school textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

No HINT of accumulated advantages?!! Then it really was all just “Stories easy enough to make up… but NOT science!!”

Nothing more than "popularly Told Stories"?? Surely not!

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

So - just stories "easy enough to MAKE UP" but not actually science??!! Really??


As Colin Patterson said --

the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

Well - I guess that is the end of that!

No sense in having people teach a Bible class if they can't even agree with the Bible view of origins enough to see light in the criticism ATHEISTs bring against the "Stories" of evolutionists!!

No sense at all.

In Christ

 

[UTEOTW]

I'll try this one last time. Let me know how YOU would explain the evidence that we see for the whales. Why do YOU think we see these things? Why do you think things are as we see? Why is your explanation BETTER than common descent? What would change you mind?

I am looking for the fossil record, the oxygen isotope data, the genetic evidence, the morphological vestiges, the genetic vestiges, the developmental vestiges, and the atavisms.

Here it is from common descent. Whales are mammals and thus must be derived from a land dwelling ancestor. There are certain physical traits, like the vestigal legs and the type of movement in the body that support this. So it predicts that we should find fossils that are intermediate between today's whales and land dwelling ancestors.

In the last couple of decades, this prediction has come true. The fossils trace whales back to the even toed ungulates. We find whales that could only live in the water and somethat could only live on land and some that would be amphibious. The form of the bones tell us which are which. Measuring differing ratios of oxygen isotopes in the fossil confirm the fossil records.

From this, we can say that genetic testing should show a close link between whales and modern even toed ungulates. When tested against a wide variety of animals, it turns out that whales do in fact test the closest to animals such as deer and pigs, as predicted.

In addition, if whales evolved from land animals, then common descent predicts that you should find vestiges of this. And you do. Physically, you find that whales have vestigal remains of legs. Genetically, you find that they have vestiges of genes from land dwelling animals. The best example are the scores of psuedogenes for a sense of smell. There should also be developmental vestiges. Indeed we find that developing whales go through a period with legs that are reabsorbed as they fully develop. This leads to the atavistic legs that remain when these legs mistakenly continue to develop.

So, how do you better explain each of these observations if all the whales were recently created as is?

 

[Scott J]

There are two rules of logic UT that fit my assumption but don't fit evolution.

1) Every effect has a cause.

2) Every cause is greater than its effect.

Evolution argues that the greater arises from the lesser. Not only as I mentioned before is there no proof for this in nature, it violates logic.

It is far more logical to presume and attempt to prove that more genetically specialized animals descended from more genetically variable animals than to assume that genetically simple forms evolved in to genetically complex forms.

The problem still lies with the naturalistic assumptions at the core of evolution. Once those assumptions are accepted, you cannot pursue the more logical without violating your premise.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

So, how do you better explain each of these observations if all the whales were recently created as is?

You will note that I am not proposing this. I am proposing that highly adaptable animals were created as the biblical "kinds". From those parents, the animal kingdom speciated through the loss of genetic information directly resulting from environmental conditions.

 

[Scott J]

You know. Most of your models would work for my idea as well...

The difference being that animals are effectively losing information as they adapt instead of gaining it... which also negates the necessity for millions of years for the changes to occur.

We see many changes of size and function through simple adaptation (no gain of genetic info) all over the place. For instance the size and proportion differences between Alabama and Missouri Whitetail Deer.

You can probably list examples where a subset of a species that is isolated for even as little as 100's of years loses an ability due to disuse that is still maintained by the larger population.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Every cause is greater than its effect."

What is this supposed to mean? What rules of logic are you going by? A tiny cause can initiate a very large effect.

"You will note that I am not proposing this. I am proposing that highly adaptable animals were created as the biblical "kinds". From those parents, the animal kingdom speciated through the loss of genetic information directly resulting from environmental conditions. "

First, define "kind." What were they? How can we tell if something came from the same "kind?"

Second, then use this to explain what we see with whales. Explain the fossil record, the genetics, the atavisms, the genetic vestiges, the physical vestiges and the developmental vestiges. Invoke the supernatural if you wish but provide logic. I really doubt you can come up with anything as simple and plausible as common descents explanation, outlined above. If you could, you would have done so already instead of avoiding the question. I am really curious how you will answer the vestiges, the atavisms and why a whale should be genetically closest to deer and camels and not, say, a seal or walrus.

"The difference being that animals are effectively losing information as they adapt instead of gaining it..."

False assertion. See this thread

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

and specifically this post

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html#000001

to see a few examples. If you want to support your false assertion, then take the information challenge there. And yes, these are new traits that the parents did not have. When you post again, let me know if you have read the whole thread and if you wish to take the challenge.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Every cause is greater than its effect."

What is this supposed to mean? What rules of logic are you going by? A tiny cause can initiate a very large effect.

Nope. If you think so then name one.

If you could, you would have done so already instead of avoiding the question.

I am avoiding? I never claimed to be an expert in any of these fields. In fact, I acknowledge being a novice. My purpose is not and was not to categorically prove an alternative view but rather to simply illustrate that a reasonable one exists. One that fits the Bible, logic, and observed facts. I am not sure why you so dogmatically clings to the notion that the Bible must be wrong or else science itself fails.

You want to get mired in the details... to avoid discussing the failure of evolution's premise. It is you that is avoiding the fundamental question...

 

[UTEOTW]

"Nope. If you think so then name one."

OK. I am going skiing in a few weeks. If I cut across a steep, snow loaded slope my tiny movement could cause an avalanche that might conceivably destroy whole buildings and tear down acres of forest.

You still did not explain what you mean.

"I am avoiding? I never claimed to be an expert in any of these fields. In fact, I acknowledge being a novice. My purpose is not and was not to categorically prove an alternative view but rather to simply illustrate that a reasonable one exists."

Yes, exactly. Please give the reasonable alternative that explains the fossils, the genetics, the atavisms and the genetic, physical and developmental vestiges. You are avoiding giving an answer. To claim lack of knowledge is to admit that you do not know enough about the subject to make the claims you make.

Did you read the information thread?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html

You should. It might change your mind about whether new information can be created. If it does not change your mind, then you should be able to take the challenge that Gup failed.

"I am not sure why you so dogmatically clings to the notion that the Bible must be wrong or else science itself fails."

Huh? You misrepresent my position.

 

[Scott J]

BTW, why should I enter that kind of fray with you even if I had the expertise?

You never sufficiently addressed Gup20's responses. You simply treated his answers as if they must be mutually exclusive from an answer given by evolution or else he was evading. I don't think you ever took his answer and seriously considered it.

One thing though- What is the definition of 'delective'? I searched every internet dictionary I could find and none has a definition for this word.

 

[UTEOTW]

"BTW, why should I enter that kind of fray with you even if I had the expertise?"

You claim that common descent is not the best explanation. You should be able to demonstrate this if you think it is true. Thus far you seem to have strong opinions with no basis in fact. No offense intended, but to have such strongly held opinions you really should be able to show that you know enough about the topic to support such opinions.

"You never sufficiently addressed Gup20's responses. You simply treated his answers as if they must be mutually exclusive from an answer given by evolution or else he was evading. I don't think you ever took his answer and seriously considered it."

For two of the three Gup addressed something different than what was posted. I said A and he went and proved that B was wrong. He did not even address the examples. For the middle one, he simply asserts that duplictating a gene and the duplicate evolving a new function is not new information without explaining to us why it is not. It adds information. It adds specified complexity. And it adds a new function.

"One thing though- What is the definition of 'delective'? I searched every internet dictionary I could find and none has a definition for this word. "

The "d" and the "s" are next to one another on the keyboard and I cannot type. My lack of typing skills requires a little bit of contextual reading to understand at times.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Nope. If you think so then name one."

OK. I am going skiing in a few weeks. If I cut across a steep, snow loaded slope my tiny movement could cause an avalanche that might conceivably destroy whole buildings and tear down acres of forest.

Your tiny movement is only a small part of the cause for an avalanche. If there were no packed snow and your tiny movement caused an avalanche then your example would be valid.

You still did not explain what you mean.

Yours suits fine. The end result can never exceed the sum of the causes.

"I am avoiding? I never claimed to be an expert in any of these fields. In fact, I acknowledge being a novice. My purpose is not and was not to categorically prove an alternative view but rather to simply illustrate that a reasonable one exists."

Yes, exactly. Please give the reasonable alternative that explains the fossils, the genetics, the atavisms and the genetic, physical and developmental vestiges.

I did. The fact that it flies against your convention does not mean that you have disproven it. In fact, you have not attempted to disprove it so for all you know my proposal is "scientific" in that it can be falsified. My reliance on a supernatural starting point cannot be a disqualifier since evolutions prime cause is purposefully left undefined because it ultimately cannot be natural.

You are avoiding giving an answer.

No. I am asking you to validate yours and proposing an alternative that you have not disproven.

To claim lack of knowledge is to admit that you do not know enough about the subject to make the claims you make.

Not at all. Darwin made claims, many of which even evolutionists disavow, without the knowledge to prove it. He based his theory on his limited observations and a philosophical bias. I have certainly done no less and probably a good bit more. I do not have the resources to test my theory. Others have proposed similar things and you won't listen to them either... why should I conceive that you will listen to me?

My main objection to evolution isn't that it isn't coherent. My objection is that it is based on a false premise. No argument, no matter how well done, that is based on a false premise can be declared truth with the zeal that you declare evolution.

Did you read the information thread?

Parts of it. And the responses. I do not have the same command of the jargon as you do.

You should. It might change your mind about whether new information can be created. If it does not change your mind, then you should be able to take the challenge that Gup failed.

Didn't see where he failed. You didn't disprove what he asserted.

BTW, the first one didn't seem to be a real world example of usable information. What specific organism had a beneficial mutation due to that process?

"I am not sure why you so dogmatically clings to the notion that the Bible must be wrong or else science itself fails."

Huh? You misrepresent my position.

Not at all. You say it is allegorical but either way you contend that God could not have meant what he told Moses and by extension that none of the other citations of Genesis 1-11 can be treated as literal for the purpose of developing doctrines... like sotierology.

You do this without giving one concrete reason that we should assume that Genesis is not literal. It is written in every respect as if it were describing literal events even to the point of defining a day as a morning and an evening.

If Adam is not literal then Paul had real problems in Romans 5... he cites him just as he does Moses.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"BTW, why should I enter that kind of fray with you even if I had the expertise?"

You claim that common descent is not the best explanation.

This is based on my acceptance of scripture as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. If I am going to have faith in either naturalistic presuppositions or a directly creative God, I will defer to the Bible first.

You should be able to demonstrate this if you think it is true.

With my previous answer in mind, my objective is not to disprove evolution scientifically but rather to simply propose an alternative that fits scripture, logic, and fact.

Thus far you seem to have strong opinions with no basis in fact.

You have strong explanations of facts with no basis in logic or scripture.

... but to have such strongly held opinions you really should be able to show that you know enough about the topic to support such opinions.

[/qb] See above. I am a great deal more concerned with what God's Word says especially in light of the fact that evolution is based on a false philosophical premise.

"One thing though- What is the definition of 'delective'? I searched every internet dictionary I could find and none has a definition for this word. "

The "d" and the "s" are next to one another on the keyboard and I cannot type. My lack of typing skills requires a little bit of contextual reading to understand at times.

That helps. So effectively what you are saying is that the monkey's DNA was coded in such a way that when exposed to certain pressures that dormant capabilities were activated, right?

Otherwise, it is next to impossible that the exact necessary mutation would have occurred independent of a coded cause.

You don't have a point on this one.

 

[Scott J]

In your third example, was the insertion and coopting of the cited retrovirus gene observed or speculated based on the presence of the gene in the two specified systems?

If all they have is commonality, you have not shown an increase in information but rather just another speculation about what occurred.

 

[Scott J]

Please cite a real world example of the type of selective sweep cited in your first example in which numerous beneficial mutations occur.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm - the accumulation of numerous beneficial mutations!

Wait! Didn't we see an atheist coming out with something about that recently?

"High school textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

No HINT of accumulated advantages?!! Then it really was all just “Stories easy enough to make up… but NOT science!!”

Now you know - if an atheist says it - it MUST be true (the rule of all evolutionists).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Scott J:
[QB] BTW, why should I enter that kind of fray with you even if I had the expertise?

You never sufficiently addressed Gup20's responses. You simply treated his answers as if they must be mutually exclusive from an answer given by evolution or else he was evading. I don't think you ever took his answer and seriously considered it.

Bingo!

But another more glaring and obvious problem is that the subjec title here is evolutionists - evolutionism and credible Bible teachers.

Notice that any effort made in the history of this thread to go to the Bible and show how a BIBLE teacher would sustain the Gospel without evolutionism - or with it, is avoided by evolutionists.

Attempts to turn this into a Bible based topic on origins - will always be thwarted, misdirected and obfuscated by evolutionists who have no interest in a discussion that goes in that direction.

How "surprising". How like the many "other" evolutionists in the world -- eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"I did. The fact that it flies against your convention does not mean that you have disproven it. In fact, you have not attempted to disprove it so for all you know my proposal is "scientific" in that it can be falsified. "

I must have missed your alternative explanation for the whale evidence. I think you spoke earlier about horse saying that the horses we know today descending from some master horse "kind" (Whatever that is supposed to be and what data you have for that I am not sure.) But I do not see anything of the sort for whales. As a I said, if you think a naturalistic explanation for the whales is unneeded and you can do so invoking the supernatural, then by all means do so. But I am real curious how you handle the genetics and the atavisms and the vestiges.

"No. I am asking you to validate yours and proposing an alternative that you have not disproven. "

No. I gave you a nice synopsis of how one thing leads to another and I have cited data that supports my ideas. Do I need to start quoting references to prove my point? For example

"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997).

I am not sure what alternative you have that I should be disproving.

"My objection is that it is based on a false premise."

What false premise?

"Didn't see where he failed. You didn't disprove what he asserted."

On two of the three he failed at the get go because he did not even address what I posted. I said the sky is blue and he said no it is not because grass is green. The middle one, he simple asserted that it was not new information even though there was a new gene that did not exist before that specified new complexity that did not exist before and performed a new function that the organism could not do before.

"BTW, the first one didn't seem to be a real world example of usable information. "

Why not. Two genes are duplicated. The duplicates are recombined into a new gene through mutation. A new gene with a new function is born.

"What specific organism had a beneficial mutation due to that process?"

This was observed to happen in Drosophila.

"You do this without giving one concrete reason that we should assume that Genesis is not literal."

Do you have one concrete reason I should not think that the sun goes around the earth?

"If I am going to have faith in either naturalistic presuppositions or a directly creative God, I will defer to the Bible first."

Fallacy of the false dilemma. It is possible that you misinterpret scripture just as centuries ago some insisted that teh Bible literally spoke of an earth that does not move and a sun that orbits the earth.

"With my previous answer in mind, my objective is not to disprove evolution scientifically but rather to simply propose an alternative that fits scripture, logic, and fact."

But it does none of these.

"You have strong explanations of facts with no basis in logic or scripture. "

I have given plenty of logic and said that I do not believe the Bible speaks directly to these issues.

"So effectively what you are saying is that the monkey's DNA was coded in such a way that when exposed to certain pressures that dormant capabilities were activated, right?"

Close. It is possible that the mutation preceeded that new diet in an individual. When the new oportunity came along, the ability aided this individual giving it a selective advantage and the gene spread and became ficed in the population. Or the mutation to the copy could have occured later, giving whoever had it an advantage and it spread and became fixed.

This could get deep into a puncuated equilibrium discussion if not careful.

"Otherwise, it is next to impossible that the exact necessary mutation would have occurred independent of a coded cause."

I am not sure what you mean.

"In your third example, was the insertion and coopting of the cited retrovirus gene observed or speculated based on the presence of the gene in the two specified systems?"

There is no speculation necessary. It is a retroviral insert. I think that the markers that indicate such are well above the level of this discussion and my ability to adequately explain such and your level of understanding of these subjects. Just know that retroviral inserts leave calling cards of what they are.

"[/i]Please cite a real world example of the type of selective sweep cited in your first example in which numerous beneficial mutations occur.[/i]"

The first example IS an example. From the abstract "The gene has a new testes-specific promoter derived from a protein-coding region in a gene encoding the cell-adhesion protein annexin X (AnnX), and it contains a new protein-coding exon derived from an intron in a gene encoding a cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain (Cdic)."

 

[Scott J]

"What specific organism had a beneficial mutation due to that process?"

This was observed to happen in Drosophila.

You're being evasive.

Was the actual process observed or recreated in a lab (which really isn't good enough either)? I am not interested in an explanation based on evolutionary presuppositions of something that was discovered after already occurring. If I were explaining the observation that some of these organisms have this characteristic while others don't, I would presume a deletion rather than an addition... and am all but certain that you could put members with this trait under conditions that would cause it to disappear in a few generations.

Please list the environmental conditions that scientists have placed members without this trait under and produced the trait in a few generations without interference.

Did this organism become another species or gain a direct advantage due to this mutation? Was the mutation a benefit that would have resulted in a higher rate of success for its progeny or was it neutral or was it a waste of energy that actually left the organism with a competitive disadvantage?

 

[Scott J]

"Otherwise, it is next to impossible that the exact necessary mutation would have occurred independent of a coded cause."

I am not sure what you mean.

I mean that you have not demonstrated that the adaptation cited was not programmed into the subject by its parents. You have not demonstrated that any of its ancestors were not likewise genetically capable of this adaptation.

For your contention to hold water, this genetic adjustment would have to be a random occurrence in no way the result of encoding already present that happened to meet the right environmental circumstances.

Otherwise, you have not disproven my contention that a more adaptable ancestor was the direct source of this capability.