A Christian Response To Evolution And My Wtf Face

[sarahinprogress]

can someone post a response to this article:

 

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 ?

 

 

I'm reading it and i feel like what they are saying is wrong, but i don't know enough about evolution to refute it to myself.

Also, any resources in regards to evolution would be appreciated, im just getting started in my acquisition of knowledge on the subject and every little bit helps!

 

Thanks in advance =)

[Astreja]

I'll take Point #1: Copying errors are not universally negative. If an error causes the wingspan of a bird to be slightly wider, for instance, that bird and its offspring will be able to range further afield in search of food. Most copying errors, however, are inconsequential and do not affect an organism adversely or beneficially. Extremely negative mutations do not stick around, either -- If they are fatal to the offspring, that branch of the organism's family tree falls off within the same generation and the mutations do not get propagated. As a result, there is an overwhelming tendency for only neutral or favourable mutations to persist.

[Blue elephant]

Hi Duckie

 

While I'm not an expert on the apologetics of evolution, one thing I did notice as I read the article was a comment about mutations and how they are never beneficial.

 

One mutation that is known to be beneficial is the gene for sickle cell aenemia. It also protects against malaria.

 

Perhaps you should buy yourself a standard biology textbook. My daughter used 'Essential Cell Biology' by Alberts Bray Hopkin etc etc the year before last. You can get a used copy of the 2004 edition from $5.82 on Amazon.

 

The 8th edition of Campbells Biology is available used from $9.99 on Amazon.

 

Both of these are reputable textbooks. Campbells Biology was the best selling science textbook in the world at the time I was doing biology (I have the third edition).

[mymistake]

I will take point 2.

 

"First, he starts with the assumption that he is correct, by faith."

 

This is a lie. Point 2 is known as the strawman fallacy. Instead of dealing with an opponent's actual argument you make up a silly or flawed misrepresentation of their argument. Then when you expose the flaws you added you pretend that you have defeated your opponents argument when in fact you left it unaddressed.

 

That was easy.

[Guest Valk0010]

Some of these claims I have not heard before myself but a couple things I have heard and I will address those.

 

Mutation is just change of the genetic information in the genes. They sometimes really suck and we die, or there great and we live. Perfection has nothing to do with it. Its just change. Its simplistic becoming complex depend on chance. Imperfect, sure, its biology, but there is increasing improvement from imperfect. That is just how it is.

 

Who cares if huxley and Darwin were racists, it doesn't prove that they were wrong. They could be correct bigots and still evolution be correct.

 

I notice, they don't mention plate tectonics. That alone being very proven, disproves alot of there ideas about the geologic column.

 

You need micoevolution for macroevolution, so they hurt there own case proving that.

 

Alot of the stuff, said there were adhoc (meaning they just simply haven't adequately proved there point) or was other forms of fallacy, like ad hominen, when attacking stephen jay gould for being a marxist.

 

I love it how, and i have creationists even say this to me. If there is any gaps in knowledge or errors, the whole of evolution has been disproven. No, it just means there is missing puzzle pieces. This isn't like medicine where you have to have 100 percent success.

 

He also does the either or fallacy, even if evolution is false, christian creation is not automatically true.

 

 

Young, as defined by what. He is going have to quantify that.

 

The speed of light is not always a constant, so what. Just because it could have happened in 10000 years doesn't mean it did. Probability and possibility aren't the same things.

 

And I doubt people, have not found a way to account for the possibility of fake red shift, people just not that dumb.

 

Anyway other people knowing way more then me can help.

[sarahinprogress]

I'll take Point #1: Copying errors are not universally negative. If an error causes the wingspan of a bird to be slightly wider, for instance, that bird and its offspring will be able to range further afield in search of food. Most copying errors, however, are inconsequential and do not affect an organism adversely or beneficially. Extremely negative mutations do not stick around, either -- If they are fatal to the offspring, that branch of the organism's family tree falls off within the same generation and the mutations do not get propagated. As a result, there is an overwhelming tendency for only neutral or favourable mutations to persist.

 

Yes! I was just discussing this with my boyfriend. The whole "you can only mutate 'down'" thing was just baffling to me. I mean, consider selective breeding, of house cats, say: you can get certain characteristics pretty easily!

Hi Duckie

 

While I'm not an expert on the apologetics of evolution, one thing I did notice as I read the article was a comment about mutations and how they are never beneficial.

 

One mutation that is known to be beneficial is the gene for sickle cell aenemia. It also protects against malaria.

 

Perhaps you should buy yourself a standard biology textbook. My daughter used 'Essential Cell Biology' by Alberts Bray Hopkin etc etc the year before last. You can get a used copy of the 2004 edition from $5.82 on Amazon.

 

The 8th edition of Campbells Biology is available used from $9.99 on Amazon.

 

Both of these are reputable textbooks. Campbells Biology was the best selling science textbook in the world at the time I was doing biology (I have the third edition).

 

I did not know that! thank you!

Yeah, i probably should pick up a biology text. I went to a christian highschool, so my text was creationist based.

I will take point 2.

 

"First, he starts with the assumption that he is correct, by faith."

 

This is a lie. Point 2 is known as the strawman fallacy. Instead of dealing with an opponent's actual argument you make up a silly or flawed misrepresentation of their argument. Then when you expose the flaws you added you pretend that you have defeated your opponents argument when in fact you left it unaddressed.

 

That was easy.

 

 

Thanks for that, i needed a laugh haha.

 

Here's another question i've had: I was told that there are places on earth where the geological scale is found BACKWARDS in its entirety. True? If not, where did this story come from?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Thanks for that, i needed a laugh haha.

 

Here's another question i've had: I was told that there are places on earth where the geological scale is found BACKWARDS in its entirety. True? If not, where did this story come from?

Plate tectonic has alot to with it, plates travel over, go up, down. That is one of the few things I know that can account for geologic diversity.

[JoeCoastie]

Also remember you aren't a copy. You've inherited two sets of genes.

[sarahinprogress]

Also remember you aren't a copy. You've inherited two sets of genes.

 

THAT is an excellent point!

[LivingLife]

You have to remember, the xian starts from the perspective that genesis is true and we are created. Any acceptance of evolution negates their doctrine of original sin and redemption.

 

They have nothing to prove their case and as such will quote mine science journals, take stuff out of context etc. The are NO creationist peer reviewed scientific publications anywhere in the world.

 

Arguing evolution with them is a waste of time.

[blackpudd1n]

Holy fuck, that's a long, convoluted article. Anyone else ever noticed how creationists just can't explain something simply? These days, my bullshit meter goes like this: if you can't explain something to me in plain english, it's probably bullshit. It's like they deliberately write shit to make people confused and unable to work out what they are on about, so that they won't question them. And you've really got to pick apart everything that they say, find the source of every quote to see that it was taken out of context.

 

Why can I understand Dawkins a lot easier than this shit? Because he's not being dishonest, plain and simple.

[sarahinprogress]

You have to remember, the xian starts from the perspective that genesis is true and we are created. Any acceptance of evolution negates their doctrine of original sin and redemption.

 

They have nothing to prove their case and as such will quote mine science journals, take stuff out of context etc. The are NO creationist peer reviewed scientific publications anywhere in the world.

 

Arguing evolution with them is a waste of time.

 

LL, its not that i want to debate with people, its just that i grew up learning that creationism was FACT, and learned NOTHING about evolution. Now im trying to come to terms with accepting evolution with the little bit of information that i have....im dealing with all the questions i still have.

[sarahinprogress]

Holy fuck, that's a long, convoluted article. Anyone else ever noticed how creationists just can't explain something simply? These days, my bullshit meter goes like this: if you can't explain something to me in plain english, it's probably bullshit. It's like they deliberately write shit to make people confused and unable to work out what they are on about, so that they won't question them. And you've really got to pick apart everything that they say, find the source of every quote to see that it was taken out of context.

 

Why can I understand Dawkins a lot easier than this shit? Because he's not being dishonest, plain and simple.

 

excellent!

Yeah, i stopped reading right around "humans are also 50% like bananas" in response to how similar we are to apes.

[Guest Valk0010]

Holy fuck, that's a long, convoluted article. Anyone else ever noticed how creationists just can't explain something simply? These days, my bullshit meter goes like this: if you can't explain something to me in plain english, it's probably bullshit. It's like they deliberately write shit to make people confused and unable to work out what they are on about, so that they won't question them. And you've really got to pick apart everything that they say, find the source of every quote to see that it was taken out of context.

 

Why can I understand Dawkins a lot easier than this shit? Because he's not being dishonest, plain and simple.

 

excellent!

Yeah, i stopped reading right around "humans are also 50% like bananas" in response to how similar we are to apes.

Your better then me, i read the whole damn thing.

[LivingLife]

You have to remember, the xian starts from the perspective that genesis is true and we are created. Any acceptance of evolution negates their doctrine of original sin and redemption.

 

They have nothing to prove their case and as such will quote mine science journals, take stuff out of context etc. The are NO creationist peer reviewed scientific publications anywhere in the world.

 

Arguing evolution with them is a waste of time.

 

LL, its not that i want to debate with people, its just that i grew up learning that creationism was FACT, and learned NOTHING about evolution. Now im trying to come to terms with accepting evolution with the little bit of information that i have....im dealing with all the questions i still have.

No problems with wanting to understand evolution. Using any site with a xian or creationist flavour is wasting your time.

 

I posted a rebuttal to YEC here showing 5 different proofs of an old earth which also disproves the flood. I am no biologist so I defer to experts. The old earth and geological evidence worldwide puts the YEC of 6k yo earth to bed. The rest as they say means something else explains our origins.

 

DNA/RNA mapping shows irrefutable proof we are apes and related to apes and other critters.

 

How it all started out NO ONE knows. Evolution however has more factual evidence than gravity does. We still do not know how that works other than it is linked to mass somehow. (simplified) Yet Gravity is a theory and even accepted as a law. Evolution is in the same category.

[blackpudd1n]

Holy fuck, that's a long, convoluted article. Anyone else ever noticed how creationists just can't explain something simply? These days, my bullshit meter goes like this: if you can't explain something to me in plain english, it's probably bullshit. It's like they deliberately write shit to make people confused and unable to work out what they are on about, so that they won't question them. And you've really got to pick apart everything that they say, find the source of every quote to see that it was taken out of context.

 

Why can I understand Dawkins a lot easier than this shit? Because he's not being dishonest, plain and simple.

 

excellent!

Yeah, i stopped reading right around "humans are also 50% like bananas" in response to how similar we are to apes.

Your better then me, i read the whole damn thing.

 

Wow, Valk, I reckon you deserve an award for getting all the way through that tripe! I quit not too far in. Wasn't in the mood for any bullshit today. Not after receiving three fucking boxes of junk in the mail. Fuck me. I won't hijack the thread, I'll go write a rant about it. Ugh.

[Ouroboros]

Really dumb article. If I had more time, I would list all hundreds of mistakes made.

 

Btw, I never trust or let my knowledge rely on articles without author, date, or sources. No one can research where they got these stupid junk from, because the author(s) don't want you to. "Just trust them" and their ignorance.

[scitsofreaky]

I like how so many things were creationist arguments first, therefore, um, creationism must be true because "evolutionists," who are wrong, use them. Whaaaa?

The best line:

The creationist has no incentive to want to rearrange the evidence.

Apparently "evolutionists" are the ones that start with the answer and try to shoe horn the evidence to fit, and the creationists just follow the evidence. Wow. I'm glad I only skimmed the article because I'm not sure my brain can handle all the bullshit that is being spouted. This article isn't worth refuting point by point because (on a cursory level) every single point is wrong and it would take forever to get through them all.

[Ouroboros]

Here's another question i've had: I was told that there are places on earth where the geological scale is found BACKWARDS in its entirety. True? If not, where did this story come from?

Yes, I think that's true. Even if it isn't, I suspect there must be someplace where it must be anyway. The simple reason is that the ground we stand on is not fixed over time. It moves. There are geological events that changes it. For instance, the moving tectonic plates. The mountains we have are mostly created by that force. If two plates are pushed against each other, think about it, what will happen? Next time you make pizza dough (or pie crust, whatever), just try to push the ends to the middle. What happens to the middle? It rises up and then folds. So, you now have some crust that is upside down. Nothing strange there. I can totally see this is possible in geological sense too.

[sarahinprogress]

Next time you make pizza dough (or pie crust, whatever), just try to push the ends to the middle. What happens to the middle? It rises up and then folds. So, you now have some crust that is upside down. Nothing strange there. I can totally see this is possible in geological sense too.

 

Oh, that was a lovely analogy, thank you! That totally makes sense. I'm going to have to do some more research into this

[sarahinprogress]

 

The best line:

The creationist has no incentive to want to rearrange the evidence.

 

Yeah I had to snort disparagingly at that bit

[mymistake]

Here's another question i've had: I was told that there are places on earth where the geological scale is found BACKWARDS in its entirety. True? If not, where did this story come from?

 

Yes it's true. There are places where rocks are sideways. There are even places where things got flipped over. You see a section of rock can move around a lot as mountains are created or pushed over. In a billion years a lot can happen to a rock. Most rocks don't survive that long. They get dragged down an ocean trench after a while and melted. For more details look into geology. I'm sure there are geology websites for beginners.

[mymistake]

I like how so many things were creationist arguments first, therefore, um, creationism must be true because "evolutionists," who are wrong, use them. Whaaaa?

The best line:

The creationist has no incentive to want to rearrange the evidence.

Apparently "evolutionists" are the ones that start with the answer and try to shoe horn the evidence to fit, and the creationists just follow the evidence. Wow. I'm glad I only skimmed the article because I'm not sure my brain can handle all the bullshit that is being spouted. This article isn't worth refuting point by point because (on a cursory level) every single point is wrong and it would take forever to get through them all.

 

The rest of that paragraph is even more bankrupt.

 

"We may not understand it now; we may not have the correct interpretation of it now; we may never understand it until He comes back to tell us what it is all about; but we believe that whatever is found honestly will be consistent with a Creator God and we have no incentive to rearrange the evidence. The evolutionist must rearrange his evidence before he claims proof; and that is a monstrous difference!"

 

In other words evidence that favors ID or Creationism is true while evidence that favors evolution must be false. If something looks like it supports evolution then we just don't understand it and we should ask God about that when we get to heaven.

[Ouroboros]

Next time you make pizza dough (or pie crust, whatever), just try to push the ends to the middle. What happens to the middle? It rises up and then folds. So, you now have some crust that is upside down. Nothing strange there. I can totally see this is possible in geological sense too.

 

Oh, that was a lovely analogy, thank you! That totally makes sense. I'm going to have to do some more research into this

Another thing... a great worldwide flood cannot explain why some sediments would be upside down. Think about it. If the explanation for different segments of different sizes of animals is that a big flood put them there based on density, weight, etc. Then how would a complete, perfect, segmented upside-down layering be possible? Put it this way, reversed strata does not contradict geology and old Earth, but supports it. Only old Earth and true understanding of geology can explain it. Young Earth and Creationism cannot.

[electech98]

By the way, look at this for a refutation of the stupid "fossilization occurs rapidly" argument when the article talks about hats becoming fossils, etc.

 

It's called "concretion", not fossilization.