Arguments Against Organic/Biological Evolution

[astrocometman]

Tis not that I'm unable, but rather that I'm unwilling to do so with one too
full of anger & hubris, & too unfamiliar with the science which you criticize.
I'm here for fun...not to rise to every hostile challenge.

It's good for you not to rise to every hostile challenge, especially when you can't overcome their challenge. That's like a man confronted by a gorilla. What is the man going to do, try to deal with the gorilla or high tail it out of there? I know what I'd do. It's the same thing with your saying. The gorilla my question represents is best to leave alone, or shall I say flee from.

 

[astrocometman]

What is your point on "disease and defense?" I'm not seeing it in any of your posts.

It would be helpful, though, if you at least broke your posts into paragraphs for ease of reading. It's difficult to wade through a giant post with giant text that isn't organized into pieces.

In asking about disease defense you got the essence of what I was writing. For your own need, directly quote what you have a problem processing. I'll deal with direct quotes and comments.

 

[Iti oj]

i dont understand a word of this gibberish.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's good for you not to rise to every hostile challenge, especially when you can't overcome their challenge. That's like a man confronted by a gorilla. What is the man going to do, try to deal with the gorilla or high tail it out of there? I know what I'd do. It's the same thing with your saying. The gorilla my question represents is best to leave alone, or shall I say flee from.

Just remember that you compared yourself to a gorilla, not I.

 

[godlikemadman]

Can you just get to the point and neatly, succinctly lay out the points of your argument without the candy-*** prose and the colors? Bullet-point would be nice. State what exactly is flawed about the Theory of Evolution (not abiogenesis as Alter has been inexplicably arguing) and state your sources for such claims. I want legitimate evidence, not quote-mines. Do that, and we can have a nice, chatty, civilized discussion. You barging in here and rambling about how wrong we are and how right you are is not considered evidence, by the way.

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your response. So that I may subtly and briefly shoot it down.

 

[Agnostic75]

To be true to your world view you have no choice but to see no problem. Evolution is a necessity for your world view. To see evolution lost to something you've lived to reject would be devastating.

Obviously not since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution, including Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, who believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, although he believes that the mechanisms of evolution are directed by God, not naturalism.

In addition, if a God created life on earth, so what? If that is the case, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are.

Is creationism a necessity for your worldview? If so, how about the global flood theory, and the young earth theory?

 

[McBell]

Is creationism a necessity for your worldview? If so, how about the global flood theory, and the young earth theory?

Seems to me that the use of the word "theory" with 'global flood' and 'young earth' is at best misleading and at worst just flat out wrong.

 

[godlikemadman]

Seems to me that the use of the word "theory" with 'global flood' and 'young earth' is at best misleading and at worst just flat out wrong.

Heh, I think the man was just trying to appeal to our opponent's beliefs. I highly doubt an agnostic actually believes these things to be scientific theories. Here he's using the word theory to refer to the common definition, theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(&#601rē| noun: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

 

[Agnostic75]

ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No it isn't. Consider the following:

http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/EST10/site/spotlight/darwin/articles/OrganicEvolution.pdf

Encyclopedia Article


Organic, or biological, evolution is the modification of living organisms during their descent, generation by generation, from common ancestors. It is to be distinguished from other phenomena to which the term evolution is often applied, such as chemical evolution, cultural evolution, or the origin of life from nonliving matter. Organic evolution includes two major processes: anagenesis, the alteration of the genetic properties of a single lineage over time; and cladogenesis, or branching, whereby a single lineage splits into two or more distinct lineages that continue to change anagenetically.

Evolution does not try to explain how life on earth started, only how it changed after it started, hence, as the article says, "evolution is the 'modification' of living organisms during their descent......."

 

[Agnostic75]

Seems to me that the use of the word "theory" with 'global flood' and 'young earth' is at best misleading and at worst just flat out wrong.

I was just being generous. Those theories are of course not legitimate theories.

 

[Agnostic75]

Heh, I think the man was just trying to appeal to our opponent's beliefs. I highly doubt an agnostic actually believes these things to be scientific theories. Here he's using the word theory to refer to the common definition, theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(&#601rē| noun: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

You've got it. Thanks.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's what a message board is for, to post a succession of messages that take a topic to its highest level of expression and consideration.

I don't know which is funnier - that you think that's what message boards are for, or that, if you do, then you've elevated irony to its highest level of expression.

 

[McBell]

then you've elevated irony to its highest level of expression.

I suspect that he has only just started....

 

[Iti oj]

ohhh man this thread is killing me guys,,, i keep following the updates and i can't handle this man..... entertainment of this level is hard to find.....and i dont understand how you guys even know what hes saying let alone find interesting ways to reply...frubals too all i can give too

i hope takes the :how to make a readable post" lesson seriously so i can join in and discuss things.

hmm sounds like a good sticky thread actually.

 

[McBell]

ohhh man this thread is killing me guys,,, i keep following the updates and i can't handle this man..... entertainment of this level is hard to find.....and i dont understand how you guys even know what hes saying let alone find interesting ways to reply...

For the most part, creationists play the same song and dance.
Some are better at the sugar coating than others.
But when you cut through all the glam and glimmer, window dressing and puffery, it is the exact same old same old.

 

[Iti oj]

astro i owe you frubal i ran out before i could reach your name....yes i meant every one in this thread,

 

[Agnostic75]

If you can present evidence to prove that evolution theory is fact, by all means present it for all to see.

Why yes I will, and here it is, from none other than Michael Behe himself:

Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

".......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them...In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection.......tries to account for the differences between creatures.......What could cause such staggering transformations?.......By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept." The Edge of Evolution, p 2.

And there you have it, "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans......."

 

[astrocometman]

Obviously not since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution, including Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, who believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, although he believes that the mechanisms of evolution are directed by God, not naturalism.

In addition, if a God created life on earth, so what? If that is the case, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are.

Is creationism a necessity for your worldview? If so, how about the global flood theory, and the young earth theory?

Numbers are often bandied about without any certified survey reference. You make a declarative statement, saying what millions of Christians accept. What is the source of your statement? I've done research projects, one on a national scale for NIDA. Numbers don't come from people's imagination only are not meant to be taken seriously. If you have research survey data to validate your claim lets see it. If its an anecdotal statement there may be some truth to it, at the same time it might not be. I want to see something solid, you're simply saying what millions of Christians has no call to be taken seriously.

On what you term to be the global Flood, there are some very interesting observations to be noted in that regard. I would say the observations are notable. The Great Pyramid has watermarks 400 feet above the level of the Euphrates. The water was sea water, the salinity was not from the stones on the structure, the composition is that of sea water. With that, shells were found accumulated at the base of the structure. The accumulations were such to sit several feet high on the pyramid's side. The Euphrates, the only substantive water flowing in the area is not salt water. The question is where did the water come from, the sea water no less. All one need to is look at the plain the pyramid sits on. The Gizeh plain covers a lot of area. Look at the video, observe all the area water would have to fill to rise 400 up the side of the structure. The shells of sea creatures, not river creatures also speaks far more convincingly than individuals asking questions without a thought of what's in view on the world where water disaster is concerned. The view of the area in proximity of the Great Pyramid should be enough to cause you to wonder what kind of water went through there to fill the plateau, then rise as high on the sides of the Great Pyramid. If that doesn't make you think I have no idea what thinking is motivated by.


On theistic evolution it is true that some take this into view. I do not. There would be no need for a succession of transformations to become something perfectly fit for the environment. For what we see of phyla and their complexity to be a matter of nature's reckoning, that's more phenomenal where faith is concerned than the proposition of a conscious entity who exists out of space time in consciousness and conscious awareness. I can a matrix out of which a structure would have its defining architecture set on a course of coming into being. This is in view in scripture where encrypted messages underlay the foundation of words that appear on scripture's words. The words on the surface rest on a foundation of other words sub-scripted in encryptions in context of the words that people read every day. The directive idea that theists have is within tolerance where reasoning goes. The idea of a directive power having a complex in its mind that depends on chance to define the outcomes of its thoughts is contradictory to me. If it were your mind's fate to be circumscribed to uncertainty in the formation of its architecture do you think happenstance would result in a similar result than what's in you today? I don't. As I've pointed out, the numbers are against evolution. Yet, despite the numbers there are those who affirm it, without a thought how bad it looks when tabulated. Evolution is the only "science" that goes against the numbers. That should tell you something as well.

There are very serious issues evolution does not have much to say. The politics behind evolution is a stacked deck for a discussion and learning in our schools that tame what ardent evolutionists want to establish on a factual basis. It's about education in this. I've had enough formal education and have been in association with individuals who have made major contributions in science and technology. One is a physicist named Gerald Grushaw. Gerald is a very good friend of mine. This man worked in the development of weapons systems for the Aegis Cruiser, the world's most sophisticated warship.

A man who knows science knows numbers, except evolutionists who deny numbers have anything to do with what they claim. That isn't true. A science that doesn't have much to say on numbers is suspect in its validity. There are other things to say, this will do for now.

 

[astrocometman]

Why yes I will, and here it is, from none other than Michael Behe himself:

[/I]

And there you have it, "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans......."



One thing people hope for in court room battles are a series of declarations that define the reality of an argument. Evidence is evidence, it is not necessarily in the service of one or another's side of a case. Do you perceive a commonality denotes a linkage where heritage goes? I'm willing to discuss the point you've raised. You'll have to give more to substantiate your idea what you've noted evidences evolution. That isn't necessarily so. I'm sure, if you are accepting of the reality of matters of this kind that similarity isn't necessarily a marker of a common ancestry. How about you post what reasoning you draw on to conclude what you've noted is a marker of evolution. It's take more than simply saying to be convincing.

 

[McBell]

It's take more than simply saying to be convincing.

I agree.

Yet that is all you have done....