Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Did GODDIDIT or did EVOLUTIONDIDIT


Well, these two views would have to be held by the majority of the people in the world regarding how our world came to be. Other philosophies would have a different title to EVOLUTIONDIDIT when concerning the formation of the universe by itself. Evolution works by the same principle by developing somehow or another by itself without any help from premeditated Guidance. An example would be the development of soils from rocks, its not evolution but the same idea is behind it.

I would tend to lump the IDON’TKNOWDIDIT’s with the EVOLUTIONDIDIT’s or similar by default, because they obviously think (in general) that whatever did bring our universe or world into being holds them with no accountability to anything... we just happened. Its like turning up to work without an understanding as to why exactly you turned up to work. You can leave when you want or stay when you want because you don't believe in a boss that pays your bills and gives you work.


I have just been to a creation science speaker a couple of weekends ago to hear him speak about several topics. He was a young-earther, so I tended to disagree with some of what he said, but he did bring out some interesting points which made me think. Points I found interesting was his stance on how different worldviews interpret data, so true! And we are all guilty of it to a degree. You can have layers of rocks with fossils of trees in it that look to an old earther as lots of layers formed overtime but when speaking of Yellowstone the trees did not have any roots which was interesting. This could possibly indicate that the trees were ripped from their original position (most likely a flood) and laid down in place like what happened to the logs at mount St Helens. But what I do not know is whether tree roots will fossilize with the tree? I will have to research.

However, I was not totally happy with his answer to ice cores and their layers that have been dug around the world. Reasons to Believe give a good argument for an old earth using the ice cores on their site and the reply didn’t do the argument justice I thought.

Anyway among lots of others things the talk was very interesting to listen too.

I do not know a lot about science, however I do know a little - I am half way through my apprenticeship and I have been finding it very interesting. I have basically been learning about how to grow plants and more specifically, how to grow orchids. Isn’t it amazing how wonderful God’s creation is! How it is so complex and interwoven within itself.

Acknowledge the 16 elements that are needed for plant growth. They all serve their purpose and their function whether it is building cell walls, regulating water loss by operating the stomata, the formation of chlorophyll for photosynthesis, it is all so well operated and interwoven like a machine.

Imagine if one of them were not present…

Even environments affect growth. Orchids grow in the roots of trees in the wild so we have to learn their growing styles. They don’t like growing in soils but enjoy having air around their roots. They don’t like full sunlight but enjoy a little shade. They don’t like to be really wet so they like their water in little amounts at a time.

Well, enough with plants, what about God’s intricate design in the human body? Amazing from even an amateurs understanding.

I don’t know much about the human body but one fact I found interesting was blood clotting. I found this page really interesting, although it is above my head and I could just understand the general idea of it:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html

Also you can read Behe’s response to “talk Origins” rebuttal here:

http://creationwiki.org/Blood_clotting_is_irreducibly_complex_(Talk.Origins)

I believe the bible leaves room for some evolution within its words, but I cannot yet take the leap of belief that is required for me to believe it happened on the large scale that full blown evolutionists accept it on (even when looking at some of the evidence for evolution).

The sentence that I thought stood out from the “doesgodexist” article was the following: “The engine of Darwinian evolution only works if there is something to select--something that is useful right now, not in the future.”

Makes sense to me.

I have fingers that are useful to me now but how would they be useful to me two millennia or so ago (who knows when) when they were stumps… or even a finger. How and why grow longer or more fingers? Did it evolution plan it? Surely not - that can’t happen except through premeditation by a higher power! At least, I think so. I can agree that in general the fittest survive, but how on earth (quite literally) do the fittest get to be the fittest accidentally? Not only in one area but in all areas eventually?! I know natural selection and random mutation attempts to answer this, and I know what they are and what they do, but it doesn’t quite equate for me.

Wow, what a fruit salad post, when reading it again.

Aaaaarrrrgggghh, opening a can of worms again. It’s been a while. Some may think I am ridiculous, but really, it goes both ways somehow. Lol.

What an amazing world we live in, one that I cannot comprehend developing without the premeditation of a Higher Power.

25 comments:

  1. Welcome back, yeah a real can of worms here.

    First of all, False Dichotomy. As you well know. You know that it's not either/or, but that for many (if not most) people it's 'Both'.

    And again as you no doubt know, Behe and his cronies lost the Irreducible Complexity argument in a court of law.

    You should at least read some non-creationist resources on the issue, here is one
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html
    but of course there are many others if you look.

    Of course this all ignores that Irreducible Complexity was a *prediction* of Evolutionary Theory from the 1920s! The Mullerian two-step essentially works like this 1. Add Something 2. Make it Necessary.

    Your fingers trace back directly to fish fins.

    Your creationist didn't perchance happen to bring up the lost squadron in relation to Ice Cores did he?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Acknowledge the 16 elements that are needed for plant growth. They all serve their purpose and their function whether it is building cell walls, regulating water loss by operating the stomata, the formation of chlorophyll for photosynthesis, it is all so well operated and interwoven like a machine.

    You're looking at this backwards. Your theory is that those 16 elements exist to make the orchid grow. No, the orchid uses those 16 elements to grow because those elements were already there to use. It's not like the orchid could use 16 elements that weren't there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello PF,

    You're looking at this backwards. Your theory is that those 16 elements exist to make the orchid grow. No, the orchid uses those 16 elements to grow because those elements were already there to use. It's not like the orchid could use 16 elements that weren't there.

    From my view your forwards is probably more backward to me lol. However I think we are both right. They interchange hand in hand.

    I bought my dad a McGuyver series on dvd for father's day. He is an interesting guy. He makes bombs out of bubble gum and you name it, he will use anything he can get hold of (just as the orchid arranges the use of the different elements). The difference is that orchids don't have intelligence and McGuyver does. Only people who are knowledgeable can make bombs from odds and ends... how did the orchid become so knowledgeable... or rather functional in its usage of the elements?

    Did EVOLUTIONDIDIT?

    DP

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey BT!

    First of all, False Dichotomy. As you well know. You know that it's not either/or, but that for many (if not most) people it's 'Both'

    Well, I assume you mean deists and the like?
    Why do people assume a deist God? From my understanding it is usually because they believe that this universe cannot come about by random chance. (Talking only about the BEGINNING of things) They still technically say that GODDIDIT in the beginning but then move into EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
    You are right and I may not have been completely clear as I hoped in my first paragraph or so. Deists in the end admit that GODDIDIT and that Someone is up there somewhere.

    And again as you no doubt know, Behe and his cronies lost the Irreducible Complexity argument in a court of law.

    No I didn't actually.

    You should at least read some non-creationist resources on the issue, here is one
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html
    but of course there are many others if you look.


    Goes both ways. Make sure you get to read arguments for ID and not just rebuttals from opponents.

    Your fingers trace back directly to fish fins.

    Who said? Where, how and why did this happen?
    Is it claimed by someone who assumes evolution anyway?
    Therefore making them a presuppositionalist?

    Who are your sources?

    Your creationist didn't perchance happen to bring up the lost squadron in relation to Ice Cores did he?

    LOL, yeah he did. It wasn't really touching the ice core arguments.

    cheers,

    Dan

    P.S. Did you like the inception movie?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I assume you mean deists and the like?

    Er, not at all, any 'theistic evolutionist'.

    Nothing to do with Deism at all.

    Goes both ways. Make sure you get to read arguments for ID and not just rebuttals from opponents

    I was a hard core creationist for 20 years which is why I say I generally have a better understanding of Creationism than most Creationists.

    The simple fact that all of Behe's icons of IC, the flagellum, Blood clotting etc, have been shown to not be IC.

    You should watch the Nova documentary "Intelligent Design on Trial" about the Dover Trial, it's excellent.

    "Your fingers trace back directly to fish fins."

    Who said? Where, how and why did this happen?
    Is it claimed by someone who assumes evolution anyway?


    /facepalm
    /facepalm
    /facepalm

    You were asking where fingers came into things from an evolutionary paradigm. Of course evolution is going to be part of the answer. Geez.

    Did you like the inception movie?
    Yeah it was quite good, not as trippy as I expected it to be. I don't think they explained the rules that well, could you think up weapons and stuff or not? But overall I enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Er, not at all, any 'theistic evolutionist'.

    You will probably find that theistic evolutionists accept input from God or else they would not be theistic. Therefore they come under the category of assuming GODDIDIT (God is involved).

    You were asking where fingers came into things from an evolutionary paradigm. Of course evolution is going to be part of the answer. Geez.

    :D more of a Rhetorical question I should think. So what is the evidence? I hope it is better than "Look! whales have 5 finger bones in their fin, we must be related to them!"

    What do you make of the fossil record and how there appears to be gaps between each fossil? Apparently there are periods of a species and then none and then more of another kind. There are also species in the fossil record years ago that are the same today. Interesting.

    I would like to emphasize that I am not necessarily against evolution. I am against the idea that it all happened without the input from intelligence.

    The simple fact that all of Behe's icons of IC, the flagellum, Blood clotting etc, have been shown to not be IC.

    I read through the rebuttal of talk origins to Behe's Blood Clotting argument and it seems they were missing the point Behe was making. I wonder if "Intelligent Design on Trial" is similar?

    I know that it was ID that convinced people like Anthony Flew to becoming a deist... he was an atheist for YEARS and a leading one too.

    cheers,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  7. You will probably find that theistic evolutionists accept input from God or else they would not be theistic. Therefore they come under the category of assuming GODDIDIT (God is involved).

    Congratulations you just worked out the False Dichotomy. Both is also a valid answer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A mix of the two come under the belief that God is involved. The other, does not accept God's involvement.

    Still two camps. But from those two camps different variations of views come about as you have brought out. Yet each view has something in common with the two main positions which are: God's involvement in our existence or not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fine be that way, it's nonsensical, but that's your prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are you fussing over me using evolution for the universe developing itself without God?

    Maybe a better term would be materialism/naturalism as opposed to theism/deism as the two main world views.

    Can you not see?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not fussing, as I said if you want the false dichotomy, keep it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But you have not shown me why it is a false dichotomy. You gave some examples and yes I can agree with you that some people accept both evolution (in its rawest terms) and still believe in a God that started everything.

    The point I was making in my post is that on large there are two groups. One group accepts that our universe has always been or came into being itself and the other like myself believe in intelligent input to achieve the outcome that has developed, and that outcome is complexity in creation. Both assume about what they perceive about our universe and upon those assumptions beliefs are developed, sometimes even unwittingly, as is quite obvious in some atheists I meet around the place.

    I then went on only to talk about some whatif's? and how's? about our creation to make some suggestions that our world is designed.

    I am actually packing up house at the moment and moving to new house with my wife, so I need to go... the mrs is calling lol.

    gotta go!

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm eating dinner and watching The Changeling, hence the rest of my response is in another window half written.

    ReplyDelete
  14. :D more of a Rhetorical question I should think. So what is the evidence? I hope it is better than "Look! whales have 5 finger bones in their fin, we must be related to them!"

    Well since it's rhetorical I won't waste any time going into the lines of evidence such as comparitive physiology & biochemistry/genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, embryology, paleontology/faunal succession, etc. All the lines of evidence that someone could look up themselves if they were really interested.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What do you make of the fossil record and how there appears to be gaps between each fossil? Apparently there are periods of a species and then none and then more of another kind. There are also species in the fossil record years ago that are the same today. Interesting.

    Can you find anyone other than a Creationist who thinks the Fossil Record should be perfect?

    1) You understand that we have known fossils species numbering in the few hundreds of thousands. Conservative estimates of the number of the species we have today is in the millions. Only a tiny fraction of the species we know that exist today are found in the fossil record. You are going to have to go a long loooong way to show to anyone that 'the fossil record' is meant to be a complete record of anything.

    2) You comment on kinds is completely meaningless because there is no defintion of kind! It's a made up creationist word that means only what the individual creationist needs it mean at the time.
    The way this usually goes if that you can actually force someone to define some kinds lets say for this example Feline kind and Canine kind (I've done this before), and you then show them the plentiful fossils that bridges the 2 kinds (Miacids) then the person sudden goes, "oh that's a new kind!". Most of us have no trouble pointing to kind busting fossils once the person takes an actual stand.

    The general structure of the tree is fairly laid out now. Fine detail we might never know, but the overall picture is there. This gets hilarious on so many levels. I mean the fine detail is what most creationist accept anyway, the evolution "within kinds" of new species since noahs ark.

    3a) Nothing in the Theory of Evolution requires something to change if there is no selective pressure on it to change.
    3b) The actual number of species that are exactly the same today as they appear in the fossil record is actually quite small. There is the term 'Living Fossil' that I have actually argued with people about (creationist and non-creationist) because it's not a technical term so it doesn't have a precisely defined meaning. I think it should mean 'species' but it's actually used more broadly to 'genus or close to a species in the fossil record'. Very often people point to example of stasis in the fossil record that is actually an example of change.

    I will give you one example that I am sure you have heard of before. The Coelacanth. Hey there is Coelacanth in the fossil record, we thought they were extinct, then we found some, hey "Where's the Evolution at!"

    Here's the trick Coelacanth is not a species of fish! It's an Order of fish. Within Orders there are Families, Genuses then Species.

    To give you an example of another Order? Primate. "Hey there are Primates in the fossil record and Primates today! Where's the Evolution?" would just make you look stupid.

    Coelecanth is an order of Fish spread over 9 Families, 27 different Genus. Only 1 Genus is currently still around today represented by 2 Species, neither of which are found in the fossil record. And that's the poster boy, er Fish for Living Fossils!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would like to emphasize that I am not necessarily against evolution. I am against the idea that it all happened without the input from intelligence.

    And that's fine, and if you were able to show that, you would be instantly very very famous.


    I read through the rebuttal of talk origins to Behe's Blood Clotting argument and it seems they were missing the point Behe was making. I wonder if "Intelligent Design on Trial" is similar?

    Talk Origins? Did you mean Panda's Thumb? If we are all missing the point then please feel free to enlighten us.

    I know that it was ID that convinced people like Anthony Flew to becoming a deist... he was an atheist for YEARS and a leading one too.

    Really? I hadn't even heard of Flew before his conversion, and I would wager good money you didn't know of him either in any meaningful sense. Besides, he was a philospher, not a scientist. And the idea that ID converted him to Deism is hilarious since the whole point of Deism is a hands off God which is in direct conflict with ID which requires a hands on God.

    And just what is a Leading Atheist anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ok,

    I have finished the shift! and come to the blog and wow, we have started a lot of topics here lol. Where to start/continue? It is all good fun though.

    Well since it's rhetorical I won't waste any time going into the lines of evidence such as comparitive physiology & biochemistry/genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, embryology, paleontology/faunal succession, etc. All the lines of evidence that someone could look up themselves if they were really interested.

    I originally said "Who said? Where, how and why did this happen?
    Is it claimed by someone who assumes evolution anyway?
    Therefore making them a presuppositionalist?"

    I meant, that if even though there may be some good evidence (of which I am interested in), I would be concerned about taking the evidence if someone was just trying find a way of showing a logical reason for them to believe in use forming fingers from fish. Like when you say "Did a creationist say this by any chance?"... are you really interested in who said it or are you making a point?

    Hope I am clear.


    Can you find anyone other than a Creationist who thinks the Fossil Record should be perfect?


    I don't know of anyone who claims that it should be perfect.
    But I know that the proof or greatest evidence for evolution would lie in the fossil record so heavy weight should be laid on it... don't play games with it and make bold assumptions and imagining links that might not be there.

    Nothing in the Theory of Evolution requires something to change if there is no selective pressure on it to change.

    But something has to have changed in order for TOE to select it. How and why does that change occur is the question because there appears to be so many complex and extremely helpful things about creation that would not be helpful if broken down. Sure they may be able to be broken down (coming against some IC here) but why would they accidentally develop something that is not useful to them yet. it is hard to imagine the starting of fingers in fish fins as what people have "discovered" now as being useful then.

    And that's fine, and if you were able to show that, you would be instantly very very famous

    Is it already shown/known but people don't want to accept it?

    Talk Origins? Did you mean Panda's Thumb? If we are all missing the point then please feel free to enlighten us.


    I gave a link to it. Sorry I don't know what Panda's Thumb is.

    Really? I hadn't even heard of Flew before his conversion, and I would wager good money you didn't know of him either in any meaningful sense. Besides, he was a philospher, not a scientist. And the idea that ID converted him to Deism is hilarious since the whole point of Deism is a hands off God which is in direct conflict with ID which requires a hands on God

    He only participated in debates with Lewis and wrote many books about atheism and Dawkins even bothered to mention him.

    What the? Deism has a hands on god but only to a different degree. They believe in a god that started everything (all the complex laws our universe is based on) and then let it all be itself. A theist is someone that believes God could change the weather today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

    And just what is a Leading Atheist anyway?

    Someone that is a well known representative of atheism... like Dawkins.

    The actual number of species that are exactly the same today as they appear in the fossil record is actually quite small.

    But why are they there, did they not have enough pressure put on them to change? But what happens to the beneficial mutations? why don't they develop?

    LOL,

    Getting too big these posts. Lots of questions and thoughts and so little time.

    cheers,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I believe the bible leaves room for some evolution within its words, but I cannot yet take the leap of belief that is required for me to believe it happened on the large scale that full blown evolutionists accept it on (even when looking at some of the evidence for evolution).

    This is true. Evolution within a species is possible and natural and does not go against the Bible, "...after its kind.". However, interspecies evolution, as most evolutionist push, is not possible naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And again if you had a sliver of proof for that, indeed, if you were able to provide an actual definition of *kind* you would be instantly famous.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The whole evolution versus creation discussion is conjectural as neither side has "...a sliver of proof..." for their position. Therefore, your rebuttal of my position is mute, and simply a statement of your belief.

    All I said was there is no interspecie evolution. Insects cannot evolve into humans, humans cannot evolve into cats and dogs, and of course apes cannot turn into humans. No matter how many times evolutionist try to manufacture "evidence", it cannot past the muster of scientific scrutiny. Kind simply means species.

    As a matter of fact, the so-called evolutionistic evidence, now in the possession of evolutionists is under lock and key. Non-evolutionists have no access to the "evidence". What are they afraid of? I tell you what they're afraid of, the truth. The truth that evolution has not been proven and possibly they may have to be responsible to a creator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You comment is laughable, I've already outlined many of the lines of evidence that lead people to hypothesize and test the the ideas and concepts behind The Big Bang, The Theory of Evolution etc. These don't depend on religious belief, indeed many of the key figures of the development of these theories were Christians. Particularly The Big Bang.

    You are already presenting a dishonest representation (as so many creationists can't help but do) of Evolution. No one (but creationists) think that Evolution is about Insects evolving into Humans, or Humans evolving into cats and dogs.

    And the simple fact is Humans are Apes, it's part our biological classification as Homo Sapiens.

    And a Creationist 300 years made us so.

    Are you going to suddenly pretend you aren't a primate, or a mammal, or an animal, or chordate or eukaryote?

    If you think kind means species then you've failed right out of the gate, because one species becoming another is well known and observed. Indeed most creationist need this. See Answers in Genesis use of 'Super Evolution' to explain how a few thousands of representative animals can become the millions of species we have today in the few thousands of years since the magical flood.

    The Theory of Evolution has survived scrutiny for the past 150 years so for you to claim otherwise, again is just bizarre wishful thinking. Millions of scientists around the world are studying and testing it. And you can read their work as it's online available for people to read. Try Pubmed for starters.

    And then to top it off with the global conspiracy theory that non-evolutionists are 'lock out' of the evidence is just pathetic.
    If it was true they would just simply have to pretend to be evolutionists and magically they would have access to this locked away evidence!
    Once again again, their work is published for people to evaluate, nothing is stopping you from read this work and critiquing it.
    And considering that much of the evidence is simply the physical world around us, how do you think the evolutionists are supposed to keep the creationists away from it?
    And considering that it would take me 5 seconds to google up christian fossil expeditions, sorry but your conspiracy mongering is just childishness of the highest order.

    ReplyDelete
  23. " I've already outlined many of the lines of evidence that lead people to hypothesize and test the the ideas and concepts behind The Big Bang, The Theory of Evolution etc."

    First of all, we are discussing evolution and its claim of interspecies evolution not the Big Bang or anything else. Just the fact that you feel the need to muddy the waters show that you are insecure about your position and rightfully so for it has many holes.

    "The Theory of Evolution has survived scrutiny for the past 150 years so for you to claim otherwise, again is just bizarre wishful thinking."

    False. As a matter of fact, many evolutionist scientist are running for the door in order to distance themselves from the fanatics and Kool-Aid drinkers as you so aptly represent. I was going to list a few but I feel it wouldn't matter as you would claim that they are made or a product of my imagination. Another method of debate fanatic evolutionist utilize. Again, as you have so beautifully demonstrated here.

    "And considering that it would take me 5 seconds to google up christian fossil expeditions, sorry but your conspiracy mongering is just childishness of the highest order."

    And while we are at it, let's look up anti-christian expeditions, expeditions by atheists or expeditions by dogs lead by clowns with big red noses. Your final comment is as ludicrous, outlandish and far-fetched as most of your arguments. I shouldn't expect anything else. It is a common ploy to throw something ludicrous to back up your "rebuttal".

    BTW, I give you one more chance. Please!!!!!show me an example of "LEGITIMATELY DOCUMENTED" interspecies evolution. And please......no Lucy or other far-fetched bedtime stories.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan included 'the formation of the universe in the very first paragraph', so of course it's part of the discussion. You are the one making false statements about what evolution is and says.
    What I will note is that you failed to rebut anything I actually said.

    You should probably look up
    "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism"

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

    A collection of quotes going back 150 years of so about how Evolution is going to fail... any day now.

    Any day now.....

    And you are free to give me any list of scientists who dispute evolution that you like, bare in mind the Discovery Institutes 'dissent from darwinism' list isn't actually anti-evolution. It's carefully worded.

    And then there is the counter list 'Project Steve' where they just got Scientist 'Steves' to sign up. They now have over 1100.

    And just for fun you could look up the Clergy Letters project. That will really make your eyes fall out.

    You gave no proof of the global conspiracy to lock 'non-evolutionists' out of the physical world. Which was what the whole point of the christian fossil expedition was about, I mean the evolution global conspiracy is locking them out aren't they? that's what you said.

    And if you cared to search for yourself you could find documented cases of speciation for yourself.

    Try Pubmed, I mean there's only 5000 papers currently listed on evolution & speciation.

    But since you clearly need the help here is a list of examples

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    You don't have to take their word for it, they list their sources (something you have yet to do) so you can check them for yourself.

    And again it doesn't change the fact that speciation is a fundamental requirement for most creationist organizations for the post flood explanations.

    It's rare to find creationists who believe Noah took millions and millions of pairs of animals on ark, but you aren't the first I've come across.

    You are just rattling off a bunch of canards and now feigning righteous indignation so that you don't have to back up anything you say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey guys,

    I have just shifted house as I have already stated and still trying to get internet hooked up... be back sometime soon hopefully.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete