Topic: Evolutionism and Atheism (Read 3498 times)

bevets · « **on:** May 24, 2006, 09:28:11 PM »

A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"

Atheists would like everyone to agree that evolutionism has been proved by science, however science is not competent to offer a reliable conclusion about origins. In reality, evolutionism has little to do with science and much to do with escaping our Creator.

Christians have evidence that trumps all human speculation about origins. We have an inerrant account from our Creator:

Genesis 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Those who believe evolutionism, reject the Word of God. Those who believe the Word of God, reject evolutionism.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #1 on:** May 24, 2006, 10:22:45 PM »

Welcome, bevets.

Quote

Those who believe the Word of God, reject evolutionism.

There are some "who believe the Word of God" and yet do not reject evolution.

It will be interesting to see what some make of your parable

Bdean · « **Reply #2 on:** May 24, 2006, 10:27:29 PM »

Welcome Bevets!

You offer an interesting parable, although I am not sure that I accept it as an accurate description of those who argue for a naturalist evolutionary worldview. To say that the man pulled several hundred million dollars and showed them to you strikes me as more accurate. But, I must add that you notice one or more of the dollars to be fake, and are therefore skepitcal of the rest. Or, perhaps you don't find any fake money, but you suspect the man to have engaged in many questionable activities in the past and so, are skeptical of his claim.

Heretic · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2006, 02:27:16 AM »

Oh your God!!

A bible verse offered as a refutation of evolution and proof of creationism!! A BIBLE VERSE!!

Well, there ain't no arguing that! I'm convinced! I must run down to my local chaplain's office and beg forgivness for my years of disbelief! I'm converted!!

See johnny, all those years of trying to convince and convert me could have been avoided by merely offering a bible verse! Proof of all proofs! Irrefutable evidence!!

bevets · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2006, 06:56:24 AM »

Quote

Christians have evidence that trumps all human speculation about origins. We have an inerrant account from our Creator:

Genesis 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Those who believe evolutionism, reject the Word of God. Those who believe the Word of God, reject evolutionism.

Quote from: Zagzagel

There are some "who believe the Word of God" and yet do not reject evolution.

'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

Evolutionism makes God superfluous.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson

God makes evolutionism superfluous.

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2006, 05:10:54 PM »

Quote

'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

Ah, I figured you would point out a difference there somewhere.

Heretic · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2006, 11:57:52 PM »

Uhh.... Evolution has nothing to do with, nor says anything about the origins of life.

Can you offer any proof of this "God" character you keep spouting on about?

bevets · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2006, 01:57:00 AM »

Quote

'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

Quote from: Heretic

Evolution has nothing to do with, nor says anything about the origins of life.

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
~ Erasmus Darwin

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. ~ Charles Darwin

If it were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the Earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter. ~ Thomas Huxley

The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. ~ George Gaylord Simpson

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** May 26, 2006, 07:51:23 AM »

Broken · « **Reply #9 on:** May 26, 2006, 09:49:22 AM »

Quote from: bevets

Quote
'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

Quote from: Heretic
Evolution has nothing to do with, nor says anything about the origins of life.

Quote

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life originated.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from George Wald-

Every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality. For if that line of life had ever broken, how could we be here? All that time, our germ plasm has been living the life of those singlecelled creatures, the protozoa, reproducing by simple division, and occasionally going through the process of syngamy -- the fusion of two cells to form one

JustLiz · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:08:20 AM »

Quote

Here is one of my favorite quotes from George Wald-

Every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years. That really is immortality. For if that line of life had ever broken, how could we be here? All that time, our germ plasm has been living the life of those singlecelled creatures, the protozoa, reproducing by simple division, and occasionally going through the process of syngamy -- the fusion of two cells to form one

Heretic · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:29:57 AM »

What you posted were opinions about the origin of life. The theory itself makes no claims of the origins of life. Darwin may have been instrumental in putting forth the theory and his books may have played a big part as did Huxley, Simpson and Wald, but by no means are the books considered "bibles".

Liz, not literally deciding or willing. When it said "wants to..." it's metaphoric.

Silly Christians.

bevets · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2006, 09:09:53 AM »

Quote

Atheists would like everyone to agree that evolutionism has been proved by science, however science is not competent to offer a reliable conclusion about origins. In reality, evolutionism has little to do with science and much to do with escaping our Creator.

Quote

'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

Quote

'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. ~ George Gaylord Simpson

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald

Quote from: Broken

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life originated.

This isnt an argument. Its not even a contradiction.

As I mentioned already, atheists insist on using 'evolution' so they can smuggle in their mythology while no one is paying attention. I am a Young Earth Creationist. I have met several other YECs in my day. I have NEVER known a YEC who rejects 'change in allele frequency over time'. OTH Half the country rejects Single Common Ancestor and abiogenesis. This is where the controversy lies.

If you intend to make an argument, please explain why Simpson and Wald were mistaken in their belief that abiogenesis is a logical and necessary component of evolutionism.

Broken · « **Reply #13 on:** May 27, 2006, 01:21:59 PM »

Quote from: bevets

Quote from: Broken

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life originated.

This isnt an argument. Its not even a contradiction.

I am pointing out that you are incorrect to call abiogenesis part of the theory of evolution.

From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is a process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species (speciation) and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. . Here is the LINK.

Quote

As I mentioned already, atheists insist on using 'evolution' so they can smuggle in their mythology while no one is paying attention. I am a Young Earth Creationist. I have met several other YECs in my day. I have NEVER known a YEC who rejects 'change in allele frequency over time'. OTH Half the country rejects Single Common Ancestor and abiogenesis. This is where the controversy lies.

Disagreeing with the Bible's version of life's history does not make one an atheist. Both Newton and Darwin believed in God. Both were skeptical of using the Bible as a scientific source.

Evolution does not claim a single common ancestor, but a common pools of ancestors. The earliest known organisms in the fossil record are all bacteria (or archaea, relatives of bacteria). So evolution claims we are all evolved from this early life.

YECs may accept that allele fequency can change with time, but they do not usually accept that evolution is capable of producing the geological sequence of fossils leading from early life to the modern era. On the other hand, over 99% of professional biologists take evolution as a fundamental, if not THE fundamental, theory of biology.

Quote

If you intend to make an argument, please explain why Simpson and Wald were mistaken in their belief that abiogenesis is a logical and necessary component of evolutionism.

Neither Simpson nor Wald claimed abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution, whether or not they personally believed in the abiogenisis. Many people speculate on life's origins. Since there is no data from the time before bacteria, and science requires data, it is all just speculation.

bevets · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2006, 07:26:50 AM »

Quote from: bevets

Quote
Atheists would like everyone to agree that evolutionism has been proved by science, however science is not competent to offer a reliable conclusion about origins. In reality, evolutionism has little to do with science and much to do with escaping our Creator.

Quote
'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

Quote
'Evolution' is a loaded term atheists use to obscure reality, I said 'evolutionism'.

The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. ~ George Gaylord Simpson

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald

Quote from: Broken

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life originated.

This isnt an argument. Its not even a contradiction.

As I mentioned already, atheists insist on using 'evolution' so they can smuggle in their mythology while no one is paying attention. I am a Young Earth Creationist. I have met several other YECs in my day. I have NEVER known a YEC who rejects 'change in allele frequency over time'. OTH Half the country rejects Single Common Ancestor and abiogenesis. This is where the controversy lies.

If you intend to make an argument, please explain why Simpson and Wald were mistaken in their belief that abiogenesis is a logical and necessary component of evolutionism.

Quote from: Broken

I am pointing out that you are incorrect to call abiogenesis part of the theory of evolution.

Neither Simpson nor Wald claimed abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution, whether or not they personally believed in the abiogenisis.

This is beginning to resemble a mobius strip. I have clearly stated that I am not referring to 'evolution', why do you continue to bring it up?

Quote from: Broken

Many people speculate on life's origins. Since there is no data from the time before bacteria, and science requires data, it is all just speculation.

What is the data that supports single common ancestor? Could life have begun with 14 common ancestors instead of only 1? How could these different hypotheses be tested?

'Since there is no data from the time before bacteria' and 'science requires data' and 'it is all just speculation', should the Miller Urey experiment be included in science textbooks? Should other theories also be included? What should the criteria for inclusion be?

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2006, 11:09:07 AM »

Quote from: bevets

This is beginning to resemble a mobius strip. I have clearly stated that I am not referring to 'evolution', why do you continue to bring it up?

Actually, you have never bothered to define the difference between evolutionism from mere advocacy of the theory of evolution. You have only said that the two are different. Can you define the difference for us?

Broken · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2006, 04:08:49 PM »

Quote from: bevets

I agree with Copernicus, it is not clear how you are defining "evolutionism".

Quote

What is the data that supports single common ancestor? Could life have begun with 14 common ancestors instead of only 1? How could these different hypotheses be tested?

The oldest fossils are exclusively bacteria. Bacterial colonies, called stromatolites, form dome-shaped mounds ranging from 1 cm to roughly 1 meter in size. The stromatolite bacteria form layers: the top-most layers are mostly phtosynthetic bacteria and the lowest layers are sulpher bacteria. Stromatolites can still be found today, living in the coastal waters of Australia.

Fossils of stromatolites dating back billions of years have been found over a large part of the Earth. Some have been dated to 3.5 billion years ago, but there some is controversy whether these oldest fossils are true stromatolites. In any case, here is a microscope image of some bacteria from a stromatolite which was dated at "merely" 2 billion years old:

Since bacterial fossils pre-date the fossils of other organisms by billions of years, one can call these life-forms the original "common ancestors" of life today. Obviously, it is unknown how many types of bacteria existed 3 billion years ago, but modern stromatolites contain a dozen or so bacterial types. The similar structure of ancient stromatolites suggests they also contained a variety of bacteria.

Quote

'Since there is no data from the time before bacteria' and 'science requires data' and 'it is all just speculation', should the Miller Urey experiment be included in science textbooks? Should other theories also be included? What should the criteria for inclusion be?

Since the earliest known life was bacteria, it is reasonable to look for life on other planets which might support bacteria. The Urey-Miller experiments show that simple organics molecule can give rise to amino acids under the right conditions. Another important group of organic reactions, the formose reactions also produce bio-chemicals necessary for life such as ribose sugars.

So, to locate planets around the Sun (or other stars) which might support simple life, one clue might be to look for evidence of formose or Urey-Miller reactions, since these reactions produce biomolecules needed by even the simplest life forms.

However, reactions like the Urey-Miller or the formose are a long ways from setting abiogenesis on a firm footing. They are a necessary but far from sufficient step in establishing if or how abiogenesis might have occured. There is still a big gap between these reactions and the "RNA-World" hypothesized as the predecessor to bacterial life.

SML · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2006, 05:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Broken

However, reactions like the Urey-Miller or the formose are a long ways from setting abiogenesis on a firm footing.

That's quite an understatement! Would you care to share with the rest of the class what the manifold problems are that arise from this experiment? I'm pretty sure you ought to be aware of them.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2006, 05:56:47 PM »

Now, now, Maj. I didn't tell you about the latest in science. For example, I took the complete text of Shakespeare's Hamlet, including spaces, and ran it through a randomizer. Would you believe that I found almost two thousand instances where whole words were formed!?!??! There were many "I" 's, many "a" 's and quite a few an's, in's, to's, and the like.

I even found a nearly complete "and" ! It was actually "anb" but that's pretty dang close!

Therefore, it is a scientific fact that Shakespeare's Hamlet asembled over a billion years.

Please don't ask me what happened when I ran the now jumbled text through the randomizer again.

All you need to know is that its a FACT. It HAPPENED. We don't know how, we don't know when, we don't know why, we didn't see it, we don't hope to every really see it again, but it HAPPENED.

Also, aTEXTgenesis is completely distinct from 'textual evolution,' as any scientist will tell you.

I was able to take the text of Hamlet and after 10 trillion trillion computations, by mutations, and transposings, and all sorts of completely naturalistic tricks that I thought up as possibilities, managed to finally get "To be or not to be" to say "Call me..." Which of course is the first two words of "Moby Dick," an entirely different species of literature.

Yes, I know that the rest of the text was incomprehensible. That's not the point. NEW WORDS WERE OBSERVED. IT'S a FACT. Scientific, man. Scientific.

And by God, that's the only version we are going to allow in schools. Or in universities.

Maj, I do hope this has shown you the error of your ways and how any rational person can accept that I'm speaking the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. The only alternative is that you are a religious nut, and don't you know being a religious nut is bad?

Broken · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2006, 06:28:12 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

Quote from: Broken
However, reactions like the Urey-Miller or the formose are a long ways from setting abiogenesis on a firm footing.

That's quite an understatement! Would you care to share with the rest of the class what the manifold problems are that arise from this experiment? I'm pretty sure you ought to be aware of them.

There are no "manifold problems" with this experiment unless you take the data as showing more than it does: simple molecules such as water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia when exposed to electric discharge or UV light will form most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars, depending on what simple molecules one starts with.

The experiment does not produce these results when oxygen is present in significant quantities. However, there is strong evidence that the early atmosphere had little or no oxygen, judging from the very low oxidation of the most ancient rocks. Also, amino acids appear to form rather easily, since they are found in metorites, comets, and even in interstellar dust clouds.

There are a number of other naturally occuring chemical pathways which convert simple organic molecules such as formaldahyde and hydrogen cyanide into more complex bio-organic molecules such as glucose and ribose. One such pathway is the formose reaction.

The scenario I find most intriguing as a generator of complex biomolecules involves underwater volcano vents as organic chemical reactors. The hot water convection cycles near volcanic vents can drive many organic reactions including converting inorganic phosphates into organic ones. ATP, an organic phosphate, is a key energy molecule of life.

One experimenter even used a hot water convection cell, to drive a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) - the creation of many DNA molecules from a single copy.

Still, as I said in my last post, even the simplest conjectured lifeforms are a lot more complex than "organic soup".

Author Topic: Evolutionism and Atheism (Read 3498 times)