14 reasons not to believe in Macro-Evolution

[MorningGlory]

You people are told what to think, how to think it, if not you lose your jobs, your paycheck, your creditability. Think I'm wrong Lurker, prove me wrong, go into your school tomorrow, and tell your students that Evolution is just a theory, and that creation science should be considered as well. Let's see how long you keep your job.

That's a very good point; I'd love to see a teacher try to teach anything but the evolution 'line'. It won't happen.

[wyguy]

Oddly enough, your ability to make this claim does not actually make it true. The theory of biological evolution does not deal with origins, there are other theories that seek to explain both the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

Oddly enough, you are the one in error here. Cosmic evolutionary theory deals with the singularity, the origin of the universe, and biological evolutionary theory does indeed cover the origin of biological life - abiogenesis, the "warm little pond" as Darwin called it, or the recent "crystal hypothesis."

Scientists are at a loss to explain numerous phenomena, but in every such case they try to proceed using the scientific method to figure out how things work. Just because a single theory can't cover every topic doesn't make it invalid. That's like saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life.

Actually, if you'd do a little research into thermodynamics and causality, you would soon learn it's impossible, from a scientific standpoint, for a universe to create itself from nothingness, or life to create itself from dead matter.

I'm afraid the ignorance tag is all yours here as the biological theory of evolution simply doesn't cover these topics. . .your error seems to start from a misconception of what a scientific theory actually is. It isn't a set of generalized "thoughts" that explain everything as you seem to be implying here but is instead,

"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena."

Pay special attention to the part about "a specific set of phenomena" instead of "every single blasted thing".

What a classic cop-out.

You tote the theory of evolution as fact, yet try to wiggle out of the details when it suits you. Again, evolutionary theory does indeed attempt to cover origins, as I pointed out above. If you are unfamiliar with those aspects of the theory, do a web search and bone up.

[wyguy]

The theory of biological evolution explains the diversity of life, abiogenesis explains the origins of life - these are two different theories.

*sigh*

Let me put it this way, either it all came about naturalistically through a process devoid of outside intelligence, i.e., "God" or it was created by said outside intelligence through a divine will. Unless you are one of those who are willing to "allow" God to start it all (until you can therorize Him out).

The big bang theory doesn't claim that the universe "created itself" so your first point is a non-starter.

Okay, I first have to ask if you are pulling my leg.

Big Bang theory does, in fact, claim that all matter, energy, space, and even time itself, was created at the event. Have you studied cosmology at all?????

No, I've said that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the diversity of life. If you disagree I would welcome any alternative theory you have that explains more observations.

Give me an actual example of macroevolution that is being observed. Changes over time within a species are indeed observed, but not one species has changed, or is changing, through scientific observation. You can claim it to high heaven, but there is no observational evolution occurring.

If you want to insist on believing this that's fine as long as you understand that you pretty much stand alone in this rather odd definition of evolutionary theory

Again, it was either all through naturalistic proccesses, or it wasn't.

Before we go on, I'd like to ask you something.

If you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how everything began, that, in fact, the Bible got it all wrong, why believe any other events in the Bible?

Do you believe the Bible on Jonah and the great fish? The Exodus? Moses parting the sea? The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? And if you don't believe the Bible on any or all of those, why believe it when it speaks of this man Jesus who died for the sins of mankind? Afterall, Jesus Himself believed in Adam and Eve and the creation story. Looks like Jesus got it wrong, huh?

Don't you think it would have been easy for God to explain creation via change over time (evolution) in a way man could understand if that's how it really happened?

"In the beginning, I brought forth man from the dust of the ground and water. And over great spans of time I molded him, bringing him ever upward, through trail and tribulation, until the point I gave man a living soul, and I called him Adam"

I'm sure God could have done a better job than I just did, but you get the point I'm sure.

My point is, if you claim to be a Christian, why do you deny God's word?

[wyguy]

Is there a particular reason we need to restrict ourselves to this kind of all or nothing dichotomy?

Well, as you claim to be a Christian, either the Bible is right, or you are. And again, bear in mind, Jesus believed in the Genesis account of creation. So, to take it one step farther, either Jesus got it wrong, or you are mistaken.

Correct, all time, space, matter, and energy began at the big bang singularity. Prior to the singularity there was no time, space, matter or energy. Therefore it is non-sensical to say that the universe "created itself" because the universe didn't exist prior to it's creation

Without God, then the only other choice is it has always existed, unfortunately, the steady state theory was debunked long ago, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics. (The entropy law).

If you are of the mind that the universe itself came about through naturalistic processes, you must then account for the singularity, i.e., all the matter and energy in existence. They exist, thus they must have a cause. Remember, one of the basic laws of science is causality. Whatever comes into existence must have a cause outside of itself. And as the universe came into existence, it's cause must be greater than itself.

Here's an example of a new species arising via hybridization and polyploidy. There is a great deal of information on that page regarding evolution and speciation, I suggest you read over it.

I read a great deal of the material from the link. What strikes me is they cannot even agree on what a species actually is. And there are no examples of an increase in information in any genome. It is simple chromosome swapping.

This is nothing more than already existing gene strains within organisms. Dormant genes being activated. And if you'll notice, they do not change into new species, but a strain within the existing species that they are calling "new."

That does not mean that it's part of the same theory. You are drastically moving your goal posts here - the fact that two theories propose natural mechanisms to explain phenomena does not make them "the same"

It does indeed if both are under the guise of naturalism, and they both are. Cosmic and biological evolution through naturalistic processes.

If this were true then gravity and plate tectonics would be considered "a single theory" since they both use natural mechanisms to explain observations about reality.

They are both simple by-products of an original cosmic naturalistic event. Is gravity and plate tectonics natural, or supernatural mechanisms?

I don't think it's quite so all or nothing as you make it out to be. I certainly don't have a problem acknowledging that the gospels are not all perfectly accurate in places where they disagree with each other, yet am able to retain my faith in Christ. Therefore, it's not at all problematic to recognize that Genesis is not written as 21st century literal history while at the same time being a Christian.

Again, if God created through an evolutionary process, He could have easily said so in a manner understood by anyone. As I pointed out earlier:

""In the beginning, I brought forth man from the dust of the ground and water. And over great spans of time I molded him, bringing him ever upward, through trail and tribulation, until the point I gave man a living soul, and I called him Adam"

You avoided my original questions. A yes or no to each would be appreciated:

Do you believe the Bible on Jonah and the great fish?

The Exodus?

Moses parting the sea?

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

And I am very interested in what you have to say about Jesus believing the Genesis creation account. Was Jesus mistaken?

And if you don't believe that Jesus got it right on the creation account, why believe anything else He had to say? If Jesus didn't know that the Genesis account was wrong, then He wasn't God. As God Himself revealed the Scriptures to mankind. And if Jesus wasn't God, then He wasn't the savior of mankind.

Are you willing to deny what Jesus said was true?

[wyguy]

I don't think that something need be literally accurate to be true

Contradiction in terms anyone?

Well. . .I think you're stretching things just a bit to say that "Jesus believed", it would be better to say that Jesus referenced the traditional creation account. I think he did this to draw on a common cultural understanding in order to teach a spiritual point, not to endorse a literally accurate account of life's history on earth. So no, I don't think Jesus was wrong, I just don't think he was using the creation account in the same way you are using it.

Well, Jesus said in the beginning God created them male and female. See that word, "beginning?" Not, "In the beginning God created a simple celled organism."

Also, you seem to have forgotten that Adam is in the genealogy of Jesus. (Luke 3:38). If Adam was not an actual person, the Bible lied once again.

The Bible says death came about as the result of Adam's sin. With you, millions of years of suffering and death happened before Adam ever stepped onto the world stage.

Hmmmmmm....looks like the Bible was wrong yet again.

a law is simply a description of how the universe works

A scientific law is called a law for a reason. It has been verified as such.

All our current laws start breaking down anyway near the big bang singularity.

Okay, give me one shred of proof that that is so. That is entirely theoretical. No cosmologist or physicist would ever claim there is proof of that. Please post the "proof" that these laws broke down at the singularity that is not totally theoretical.

In fact, the big bang theory technically rules out "natural" causes for the singularity.

Wha??? Where in the theory, do those atheists who hold to it, claim anything other than naturalistic processes? Where do they inject super-naturalism???

While it is true it violates scientific laws, they do not invoke anything other than a naturalistic explanation. One of their new pet theories are multi-verses that birth other universes.

More goal-post moving. You asked for evidence of macroevolution, I gave it to you - evolution does not need to adhere to your apparently convoluted definitions of "information", all it requires is variation and selection.

Goal post moving? Did you actually read the stuff from the link you sent me?

No, proposing natural causes for phenomena is what makes them theories, it does not make them part of the same theory. Because supernatural causes are inherently untestable they don't even rise to the level of a good hypothesis much less a theory. Methodological naturalism is not synonymous with philosophical naturalism.

Oh? And just where was I when life was created from dead matter in a lab somewhere? Biological origins are untestable, and unobservable. Looks like in your own words, that makes evolutionary biological origins less than a good hypothesis.

Current theories of both gravity and plate tectonics explain observations using natural mechanisms, that's what makes them, you know, theories.

You just made my point for me. Like I said, they are both simple by-products of an original cosmic naturalistic event.

Sure, though again I don't think every tiny detail needs to be 100% accurate in order for us to see the Bible as a valid revelation of God's will.

Either God's Word is true or it's not. If one event is wrong, such as the creation in Genesis, why accept any of it? If Jesus lied about God creating Adam and Eve in the beginning, and the genealogy account of Adam to Christ is also wrong......well heck, who can trust a book that is that unreliable?

[wyguy]

Not even a little bit, no. For example, if you wanted to explain an ATM to an isolated tribe of Congolese pygmies you wouldn't be able to use literally correct technical terminology like "electricity", "fiber optics", or "bank". Instead you would have to relate the central ideas to something witch which your audience was familiar ("Credit is like. . ." ect.)

We are not talking about an ATM we are talking about God's Holy Word. And if it can't get the details of a major doctrine (the creation) right, then it cannot be trusted.

Again, I don't think he was teaching a biology course, I think he was teaching a spiritual point to which a literally true description of creation would have been superfluous.

No, He was teaching truth. Nowhere in that statement was Christ just teaching a "spiritual point." He was stating as fact that God created Adam and Eve in the beginning.

Spiritual death, not physical death.

Just what Bible are you reading? Not only was the curse spiritual death, separation from God, but physical death as well.

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)

Notice the death that is spoken of in this passage was Christ's physical death. The very same physical death that was passed on to all men through Adam.

Also, in the beginning God said His creation was "very good" Can millions of years of animal slaughter, suffering and death from disease be "very good?" It has to be if physical death was not included in the curse as you claim.

Yes, it is a description of how the universe operates that has been shown to be consistent.

Ummm yeah, that's what I said.

Well, that would kind of depend on what you mean by "theoretical". In a sense I think you are right, this view hinges on special relativity being true (which it probably is). According to special relativity the universe doesn't exactly behave like it should when you start getting close to the big bang singularity, especially gravity. I would think even a cursory overview of big bang cosmology would have illuminated this point.

Theoretical meaning none of the disciplines of physics offer any actual proof that those laws break down at a singularity. If you want to use your imagination, that's fine. But don't state that as fact.

Well what is "natural"?

Naturalism in the atheistic sense - no deities involved in any way.

obviously the big bang singularity is not natural because when it occurred the physical universe did not exist.

The singularity was all the matter and energy that makes up our physical universe. How could the singularity take up space that did not exist yet??? There was no space before the Big Bang event! How could the cart come before the horse?

Cont.

[wyguy]

Nor, I might add, does the big bang theory claim to be able to explain the actual singularity - it merely seeks to explains what happened after it occurred.

Great! We actually agree on something!

Yes, did you?

Indeed I did. And nowhere was it proved that there was any genetic information increase in any genome for it to evolve into a new species. No new information, no new species.

Hmmmm. . .I disagree, though we haven't directly tested some of the hypothesis' of abiogenesis I don't think it's fair to say that it's "untestable".

Be sure to post it when they do manage to pull that miracle off.

I suppose you could go down that road, but it just seems like you're using semantics to redefine "natural" instead of dealing with the real issue - which is that multiple phenomena do not require direct supernatural intervention to occur.

The "real issue" is what put all of that into motion in the first place.

[wyguy]

Your definition of "information" continues to be a purely semantic invention, as far as evolutionary theory goes it is completely worthless. All that evolution requires is variation, and mutations (among other things) provide this. These variations can and do result in new traits that can then be selected for by Natural Selection. Ta-da. Evolution has just occurred.

Are you serious????????

You are actually denying that there are genetic instructions (A = adenine G = guanine C = cytosine T = thymine U = uracil) contained in DNA?????

So, every human and animal just "happens" to turn out that way by chance everytime one is born? That there are no instructions contained in DNA to make one a human and another an animal or a plant?

Are you actually serious??????

So, to those that just mapped the genetic code in the human genome that won them the Nobel prize had better return it because they mapped a non-existent genetic code?

Wow. I'm simply...........amazed.

More semantic fluff. If we take this meaning then "natural" loses all relevance. A great tactic for arguments, but a poor one for practical applications of ideas

I see. So with you it's "who cares" about how it began, it's not important!"

[Guest]

.... Observation without application is useless ....

The Living God

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Hebrews 3:12

By Faith In His Word

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:1-7

Is Observed As Our Lord God Creator

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Revelation 4:11

But Belief Without Application

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17

Is Observed By Bible Believers As Both A Deceit Of The Faithless And The Blindness Of The Scoundrel

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8

Non-Believing Fellows Hiding Behind A Cardboard Science And Blaming Their Shameful Mocking Of The Word Of God On Their Reason (Treason!)

Is The Holy Word Of God So Worthless That These Dust Bunnies In White Lab Coats Think It Reasonable To Overwrite The Bible With (Falsely Called) Scientific Speculations?

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:25

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 11:25-26

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

1 Corinthians 3:18-21

[wyguy]

Now, now. Calm your little heart down, there's no need to go off the deep end. If you want your critique of evolution to make sense you need to define what you mean by "information". As it stands mechanisms such as gene duplication do just fine in creating variation, which is all evolution requires.

Ummm, sorry pal, but no genes duplicate without the information incoded in the DNA. The same genetic information that makes sure when a human has offspring, a human baby comes out and not a kangaroo.

The same genetic information evolutionary biologists as well as creationist biologists espouse.

To Quote:

Genetic information: "The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of DNA. DNA is said to carry the genetic