Whatever-of-the-gaps?

[Neopatriarch]

Evolutionists claim that appealing to God as an explanation of the origin of species is a special form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy: Since no one can explain how life evolved, God-did-it.

But how is the evolutionist's claim that this all happened by natural selection and undirected natural processes so different? Isn't the claim that nature-did-it or chance-did-it the same type of stop gap for ignorance the creationist is allegedly guilty of? Evolutionists don't really know how evolution occurred, they just know it must've occurred somehow by natural processes. I don't see how this gets them off the hook.

Further, if it occurred somehow by natural processes. How is this falsifiable? You might shoot down a zillion bankrupt attempts at explaining how it occurred, but there is always some other pathway.

-Neopatriarch

[somethingcleverhere]

Evolutionists claim that appealing to God as an explanation of the origin of species is a special form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy: Since no one can explain how life evolved, God-did-it.

But how is the evolutionist's claim that this all happened by natural selection and undirected natural processes so different? Isn't the claim that nature-did-it or chance-did-it the same type of stop gap for ignorance the creationist is allegedly guilty of? Evolutionists don't really know how evolution occurred, they just know it must've occurred somehow by natural processes. I don't see how this gets them off the hook.

Further, if it occurred somehow by natural processes. How is this falsifiable? You might shoot down a zillion bankrupt attempts at explaining how it occurred, but there is always some other pathway.

-Neopatriarch

What the answer to your question boils down to is that because (natural process here) is scientifically provable (or disprovable) and God is not, the evolutionist can shuffle through his (natural process)-did-its until he finds one that he feels is proved well enough and then settle on that one. But since God is not scientifically provable or disprovable, He is tossed out as a possibility altogether.

[Neopatriarch]

Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence (do you want a link?)

How about these:

*Edit Links

?

Evolution is falsifiable. It has been said that evolution would be disproved if we found rabbits in the Precambrian (or something along those lines, I can't find the quote).

Why would a Precambrian rabbit falsify evolution?

"Evolutionists don't really know how evolution occurred", what do you mean by this? Which parts of evolution aren't understood? (Evolution being entirely separate from abiogenesis, which is currently not well understood)

The gradual process of macroevolution. Explain how the eye, lung cilia, blood clotting, flagellum, and ect. evolved. What are the mechanisms involved? How does such incredible order and complexity arise? Nature-did-it?

-Neopatriarch

[Neopatriarch]

Neopatriarch

Why would a Precambrian rabbit falsify evolution?

Because the Precambrian period spans from the formation of the earth, about 4.5 billion years ago, to the Cambrian explosion about 500 million years ago, and the only organisms around at this time were single celled, or very basic multi celled ones. Since the complexity created by evolution is a gradual process, a rabbit at this time would destroy the theory.

If a Precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution because of the lack of evolutionary precursors in the fossil record, then it seems that the Cambrian explosion itself should've falsified evolution. But it hasn't, so I doubt that a Precambrian rabbit would do the trick.

Neopatriarch

Explain how the eye, lung cilia, blood clotting, flagellum, and ect. evolved. What are the mechanisms involved?

theatheistreview

By the same process as microevolution. Natural variation and selection.

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." James Shapiro, microbiologist, University of Chicago, "In the Details . . . What?" National Review (Sept 16, 1996)

I've never heard of a case where microevolution creates additional specified complexity in an organism like the kind you would find in molecules-to-man, macroevolution.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Hello friends,

There is a specific rule about posting on these forums. It has to do with linking to anti-Christian teachings. This Forum and Board are here for the Glory of the Lord and Him alone.

Peace,

Dave

Worthy Servant

[Special Creation]

Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence

Respectfully, this is not a true statement.

There are two distinctly different definitions for the word 'evolution'. The first is for micro-evolution which is another way of saying that things produce after their own kind. This is both Scriptural and it is scientifically accurate. Dogs can produce a variety of dogs...but it is still a dog. Roses can produce a variety of roses...but it is still a rose.

Macro-evolution on the other hand claims that the dog and the rose had a common ancestor in the distant past i.e. billions of years ago. This has never been demonstrated scientifically, nor is it scriptural. Evolutionists in publications and textbooks often try to provide proof for macro-evolution by citing proof for micro-evolution. It is apples and oranges and demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on the part of those authors. One is not proof for the other.

For Macro-evolution (whether it be Darwinism, neo-Darwinism or punctuated equilibrium, theistic etc) to be true, the earth and indeed the universe need to be billions of years old. Time is the magic ingredient for this equation. There is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that the earth is not billions of years old. The Institute for Creation Research www.icr.org is an organization of Christian scientists that believe in the Biblical account of creation as told in Genesis. That one website has years worth of research available to anyone, be them lay person or scientific researcher. I would highly recommend it for study and consideration.

Macro-evolution did not and could not have happened. Scripture is very clear on this point. I reference Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:3 and Genesis 1:1. Jesus, in discussing marriage stated that Adam and Eve (the first male and female) were at the beginning. Genesis states the heaven and earth were made at the beginning and everything within were also created that first six literal days. Adam and Eve according to the Jewish calendar as well as chronologies and geneologies given in scripture was approximately 6000 years ago. Thus there were no billions or even millions.

This is quite an in-depth discussion and volumes could be, and have been written on it. Suffice it to say that the Bible is accurate. It is an anvil that has worn out many hammers (attacks from critics). ICR is an excellent place to begin for those truly interested in learning the truth about this topic. We are suppose to always be ready to give an answer, and the Bible and ICR provide plenty of answers.

God bless.

[Special Creation]

Special Creation

There are two distinctly different definitions for the word 'evolution'. The first is for micro-evolution which is another way of saying that things produce after their own kind. This is both Scriptural and it is scientifically accurate. Dogs can produce a variety of dogs...but it is still a dog. Roses can produce a variety of roses...but it is still a rose.

So micro-evolution occurs, but not macro?

Well isn't macro evolution just a summation of multiple stages of micro evolution? What is the mechanism that stops a species from evolving when it gets too close to the limits of it's 'kind'?

Also, what is the definition of a kind? And are there any gray areas between these vague terms 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution'?

You pose some very good questions. First, it is nice to meet you. Secondly I will do the best I can to answer your questions so that you have an idea of my view point. I was once an evolutionist, more along the lines of theistic evolution i.e. I always believed in God from my youth yet just figured He used evolution to get us here. After all, that is what I learned in college. Things like the big bang, billions of years etc. I changed my viewpoint about ten years ago due to my research into the topic. I like to state that I love science, discovery etc but feel that science needs to be absolutely objective during research. A hypothosis should be put forth and evidence should take us to a proper conclusion. If it fits then great, if not science should reevalutate the hypothosis.

I would also like to state that I believe most atheists, evolutionists, Christians, creationists etc are sincere, intelligent people who generally try to be 'good' people. I'm not finger pointing or any other such thing. Merely relating the results of research which required me to change my world view in some areas.

With that said, yes I believe that micro-evolution occurs but not macro-evolution. A 'kind' as presented in Scripture would be along the lines of dogs, for example. As I understand it, we now have over 400 different varieties of dogs in the world. Many look very different in size, characteristics, life expectancy etc. But they are still dogs. They belong to the dog 'kind'. It is important to remember that terms such as kingdom, species, order etc are relatively new in regards to science terminology.

I have no problem accepting that all dogs had a common ancestor. I have no problem accepting that a horse and a zebra had a common ancestor. But they have always been dogs and horses. I've yet to see credible evidence that indicates that dogs and horses have a common ancestor. For that matter, all animal and humans are suppose to have a common ancestor according to the various evolutionary theories i.e. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Puctuated equilibrium etc. But credible proof has always plauged the theory.

Another thing is the many hoaxes and misinterpreted fossils used to support the theory. A credible theory should not need fraudulent or misinterpretation to stand. I bring to rememberance Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Lucy, Embryonic recapitulation, the horse chart, Archaeopteryx etc. I have a problem with this. It is intellectual dishonesty on the parts of those researchers and scientists. It smacks of an agenda to push a theory for personal motives and not pure science.

Lets take Ernst Haeckel for a moment if we could. His embryonic recapitulation theory and chart were fraudulent. He was accused of fraud, admited to the fraud and was convicted of it at the University of Gena in the late 1800's. Yet I have a college textbook from the 1990's with his charts and theory being used as proof for macro-evolution. A proven fraud should not still be used as evidence a century later. Archaeopteryx is another example. This was also exposed as a fraud, yet I sit with my young son and see it used as evidence on a children's morning show 'between the lions'. Here is a prime example. It is not credible evidence for transition between dinosaurs and birds. Yet it shows up as one on a children's program designed for kindergarten students. Most adults can't even correctly pronounce or spell Archaeopteryx yet its on a children's program. I have a problem with this personally. If we have credible evidence, then it needs to be presented. Why the rehash of discredited evidence?

Neanderthal man is yet another example. Upon discovery (the first ones), Virchow the father of modern pathology stated they were just humans suffering from a vitamin deficency. He was the foremost expert in the world and the father of a whole branch of science. Yet his findings were disregarded. Several other scientists, I'm assuming with an agenda proclaim it as the missing link. Yet 4o years later it was admitted to be just as Virchow stated in the first place. Put Neanderthal man in jeans and a T-shirt and have him walk through the mall and he wouldn't get a second look. They were humans. Yet the public conciousness to this day still has the idea of Neanderthal man as a knuckle dragging, club totting cave man. I could go on and on but this post would get to long to read.

I'm not saying that creation scientists haven't made mistakes in their research. They have, yet I don't see the same level of 'bend it to fit' that I have with evolutionary science. The dating methods is another prime example that most lay people have no idea of, and is perhaps a post left for another day. Suffice it to say that dating methods are not what people think they are.

Oh, I wanted to touch base on your last question i.e. micro being a precurser to macro. If it was, we should see the evidence in the fossil record. Yet we do not. We've never seen one kind of animal produce another higher form of animal in the fossil record. This was acknowledged by Darwin and his contemporaries as a major problem. It was one reason that Richard Goldschmidt developed the saltation theory, also known as the hopeful monster theory and later rehashed by Eldridge and Gould in the punctuated equilibria theory. Yet no fossil evidence exists for that either.

I would like to recommend to you and anyone interested a couple of well written books for further research;

In the Minds of Men by Ian Taylor ISBN 0-9691788-6-7

Bones of Contention, A Creationists Assessment of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow ISBN 0-8010-5677-2

I would like to close by reiterating that nothing I've said should be taken as an attack on anyone here or their world view. I'm stating that I once was an evolutionist but felt no other recourse was viable but to change to a creationist based upon my personal research. Being well versed in college in evolutionary theory I felt that honestly looking at the alternative with an open mind was appropriate. Only then could I make an intelligent decision based upon the facts that I know from both sides. I am now a young earth creationist and an even stonger Christian because of it. Thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view to you and others. Being face to face and talking over a cup of coffee is always better of course for these types of discussion but hopefully I've had some measure of success in communicating on this topic.

God bless.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Special Creation

[4Pillars]

Special Creation

There are two distinctly different definitions for the word 'evolution'. The first is for micro-evolution which is another way of saying that things produce after their own kind. This is both Scriptural and it is scientifically accurate. Dogs can produce a variety of dogs...but it is still a dog. Roses can produce a variety of roses...but it is still a rose.

So micro-evolution occurs, but not macro?

Well isn't macro evolution just a summation of multiple stages of micro evolution? What is the mechanism that stops a species from evolving when it gets too close to the limits of it's 'kind'?

Also, what is the definition of a kind? And are there any gray areas between these vague terms 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution'?

Micro-evolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. There's no such thing as "GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE LIMITS OF ITS KIND" - where did you come up with that FLAWED ASSUMPTION?

God Bless

[apothanein kerdos]

What is the mechanism that stops a species from evolving when it gets too close to the limits of it's 'kind'?

That's a flawed argument. It's arguing from a negative, which makes no sense. In order for there to be a mechanism that would stop macro evolution, macro evolution would have to be the status quo. If, however, it cannot be found to be as such, you cannot use it as the status quo in your argument. Thus, it is safe to assume there is no mechanism for evolution within anything because there would be no need for such a mechanism - it is simply the natural order of things.

In other words, why would there need to be a mechanism to stop what doesn't exist?

[Special Creation]

Very good comments above. The only thing I could add would be to take a look at Scripture where God repeatedly states 'brings forth after their own kind'.

I'd like to touch on a comment that theatheistreview made in his last post;

On fraud. There will always be cheats in any professional field. Hopefully the honest scientists (the vast majority) can weed out fraudulent evidence before it's done too much damage.

Here in lies the problem my friend(s). There has been a definate lack of effort to 'weed' out fraudulent evidence. Haeckel taught his theory which relied on intentionally doctored pictures for quite a long time all over Europe. After being exposed as a fraud a trilogy of the fraud was published further exposing it to the scientific community. Someone needs to explain why his theory and pictures continue to turn up in high school and college textbooks over a hundred years later....and counting???

Just how long does in take to get proven fraudulent material out of the textbooks that children and young adults read and are tested on? Or is there a larger agenda at work here? I can think of no other logical explaination other than it is a case of indoctrination rather than education.

I took at look at your link my friend. One of the areas I visited was the reptiles to birds portion. Yet again I see Archaeopteryx being used as evidence. It is an exposed fraud my friend.

I'd like to take a moment to quote, not creationists, but evolutionists. I provide full documentation so that it can clearly be seen that the comments are not taken out of context;

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. raup, David M.,Evolution and te Fossil Record, Science, vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p.289.

In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record in favor of the theory of evolution as oposed to special creation. Ridley, Mark, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25 1981),pp830-832.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants-instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationists argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible. Czarnecki, Mark, The Revival of the Creationists Crusade, Maclean's January 19, 1981.

While many inferences about evolution are derived from living organisms, we must look to the fossil record for the ultimate documentation of large-scale change. In the absence of a fossil record, the credibility of evolutonists would be serverely weakeded. We might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. Stanley, Steven M.,Macroevolution:Pattern ad Process (San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Co., 1979), 32pp.

The above quote was on p. 2. The next one was on p. 39 of the same reference...

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.

I could go on and on till I get typers cramp (to late lol), but the point is that the fossil record does not in any way, shape or form provide evidence for any type of evolution. It never has. Again, this isn't an attack on anyone or any scientist, I'm just stating a fact here. To present the fossil record in any other light is to be dishonest to a student, a lay person or another scientist or researcher.

Again I ask, how long does it take to get fraudulent material out of a textbook? It took 40 years to get Piltdown man out. How many people doubted the Bible based upon this dishonest evidence?

Theaetheistreview, I don't know you my friend. I don't know what events has shaped your world view. I would suspect, either on the surface or deep down you are looking for answers you have not yet found. Or perhaps you've found them yet they war against informational sources you've taken in during your life. I don't know. I do know that we are not here by accident. Neither you nor I are an accident. Neither is our conversation on this board at this time. Ask the Lord to make Himself known to you my friend. Think about this, I don't know you. I don't get a sum of money if you ask the Lord Jesus to forgive you of your sins. I don't get a bonus if you get saved and born again. I have nothing of material profit should you turn to your creator, talk with Him, get to know him, get to know His Word. I might never know unless we meet in heaven. The point is that I'm reaching out to you with what I've found to be true. Asking you to put your trust in something besides men's philosophy, men's ideas. Don't take my word. Ask the Lord for HIS Word to be revealed to you. He will because He loves you more than you yet realize.

It doesn't boil down to your intellectual mind, it boils down to your eternal soul. God bless.