Mailbag: Nonsense of Evolution
Subject: Questions
First of all, I assume that you believe in evolution, considering that a lot of documents on your page deal with the topic of how stupid theists are.
Talk about a non sequitur! Even if it were true that this site were filled with pages on "how stupid theists are," that wouldn't entail the conclusion that I "believe in" evolution. Those are two entirely separate subjects - there are, after all, many theists who don't have a problem with evolution.
It is also somewhat incorrect to speak about "believing in" evolution. Evolutionary theory isn't something that people "believe in" like a religion or ideology - that implies some measure of faith. No, it is more accurate to speak of simply "believing" evolution, like we "believe that the sun will rise tomorrow or that when we wake up in the morning, the kitchen will still be right were it was the previous evening.
Anyway, I just had a question. If a scientist decided to say that they thought a theorem they had made was true, the skeptics would require at least: a consistent written record (backing up the claims), eye witness accounts, and other sources to confirm this theorem before verifiying it true. Well, when talking about evolution vs. creation, atheist/evolutionists claim there is no proof of a God. They require all of those things listed above as proof.
What, is there some official atheist rule book which stipulates that all of those things are required for atheists to believe in the existence of a god? Granted, those are all very good pieces of evidence and having them would certainly simplify things, but since when has there been a required list? A rational belief in the existence of a god could be based upon less than what Tim lists - it all depends upon what sort of claims Tim makes about his god. The larger the claims, the larger the support necessary - and note that I say "support" rather than "proof." Proving things is very difficult, but support shouldn't be that hard.
We also see here once again reference to the supposed link between evolution and theism - here, Tim assumes that atheists and "evolutionists" are basically one and the same. The fact of the matter is, some atheists don't really give much thought to evolutionary theory (I doubt that most people do) while a great many theists and Christians accept evolutionary theory. Evolution does not imply atheism and atheism does not imply evolution. Someone has been seriously misleading Tim about reality.
Well, they do exist. The consistent written record is the Bible, there are numerous eye witness accounts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (the many followers and also the deciples witnesses), and various other historical documents that verify that the Bible's claims are true (such as any true statement made by biologists about the origin of species can easily be backed up by the Bible's records of creation).
Tim here is seen as having a very poor understanding as to what qualifies as good support for a claim - in particular, he doesn't seem to understand that importance of independent corroboration for something. Multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion provide very strong support for that conclusion. That's exactly what we see with evolution - but it isn't what we see with Christianity.
The Bible is not independent from the "eyewitness accounts" because the latter are contained in the former. In addition, the "eyewitness accounts" are not themselves independent because the stories were edited together and relied upon one another. No prosecutor would ever get a conviction in such circumstances. There is independent evidence for some of what we read in the Bible - but no one can seriously claim that this justifies concluding that everything else must be true as well.
Also, biological knowledege refutes evolutionary claims (such as the SCIENTIFIC law of entropy states that all things are in a state of decay [downward to an end] and evolutionists claim that humans are evolving upward with no end). Evolutionary models also tend to support creation models (such as the claim that creatures didn't evolve separately, they all shot off within a short amount of time of each other could mean that they were all created within a short amount of time of each other).
Tim seems to be one of those poor Christians who, ignorant of science, has been misled by creationists into thinking that evolutionary biology and "real science" conflict. The fact of the matter is, evolutionary biology is one of the strongest examples of modern science; without it, nothing in biology would make sense. To accomplish this deception, creationists rely upon a host of errors as to what evolution and science are all about.
For one thing, evolutionary biologists do not claim that "humans are evolving upward with no end" - that's a creationist caricature. This "law of entropy" is presumable the Second Law of Thermodynamics (he can't even get that right), but contrary to what many creationists allege it does not disprove evolution. Entropy increased in the whole system over time, but it can decrease temporarily in small parts of the system.
Finally, scientific logic can present a good case: a Creator that creates a very complicated universe is more likely to me than saying that "it just happened" (like the big bang theory just happened, the appearance of the first one-celled organism just happened, the evolution into multi-celled organisms just happened, and the evolution one species to another just happened).
Scientists don't say that events like the evolution of multi-celled organisms "just happened." This is another way of saying "chance" and nature doesn't operate according to chance. Instead, nature operates according to natural laws - and while at times the interaction of forces and objects may be too complicated for us to understand, it still isn't "chance."
Also, if something mutates or evolves into something greater, then, that requires a GAIN of information. Evolution supports the LOSS of information. (For example, if a big dog evolves into a small dog, the big dog has to LOSE the genes that make it big, it can't gain them by some magical process).
Has anyone figured out yet that Tim doesn't have the slightest idea how biology works? That may have some relevancy to how poorly he understands evolution. Dogs don't "lose" genes as they change size - the numbers of genes are the same, but small dogs have certain alleles which prescribe a small size while big dogs have different alleles which prescribe a larger size. Tim's statement is like someone saying that a person with brown eyes has "lost" genes that exist in people with blue eyes!
Another thing is, how do you support the "intermediate" shapes like a fish-mammal when something in between two species would likely be eliminated by natural selection.
This is an odd argument: evolution needs evidence from transitional fossils, but transitional forms are impossible; therefore, evolution is impossible! In reality, transitional forms are only impossible if a form provides no advantage in survival. On the other hand, if some "intermediate" does confer survival benefits, then it will appear.
Sorry for ranting on, I just want to support my belief. One last thing is that, when atheists think they are being rational and objective, they need to eliminate the thought that there is no God to begin with and work from the standpoint of proving themselves wrong, instead of finding arguements to support their theory. I've found that if you pick a side first, you will automatically do this, no matter what you're arguing.
I'm sure that Tim was very anxious to support his beliefs about evolution and creationism - unfortunately, all he did was demonstrate that what he does believe about them is founded almost entirely upon ignorance and misinformation. Tim is right, though, that it can be helpful sometimes to stop assuming that you are right and work to find evidence that goes against your beliefs - this is good to avoid Confirmation Bias. But why does Tim assume that atheists don't already try to do this, and why does it seem as though Tim hasn't done it himself?
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
Finally, scientific logic can present a good case: a Creator that creates a very complicated universe is more likely to me than saying that “it just happened” (like the big bang theory just happened, the appearance of the first one-celled organism just happened, the evolution into multi-celled organisms just happened, and the evolution one species to another just happened).
Scientists don’t say that events like the evolution of multi-celled organisms “just happened.” This is another way of saying “chance” and nature doesn’t operate according to chance. Instead, nature operates according to natural laws - and while at times the interaction of forces and objects may be too complicated for us to understand, it still isn’t “chance.”
I understand that the events listed by Tim are caused by natural laws, but here is my dilemma. Like Tim said that he didn’t see any cause for evolution, I don’t see any cause for natural laws. That’s why I am so frustrated, because it seems that something must exist without cause. And I am frustrated because one might as well try to prove the existence of a god that is the cause of itself. I am curious.
Be gentle. -Cory
But you’re OK with saying “god just did it”?
No, it’s not another way of saying “chance” — that’s a creationist straw man.
But you’re OK with not seeing any cause for a god?
And why can’t the universe be that something?
Why? What is this “god” thingy that we need to incorporate into our explanations?
Honestly, which is easier to believe: that God made everything, or it rained on rocks for millions of years to form everything? I believe in the beginning God. Evolution teaches in the beginning nothing blew up and everything was formed. All matter got together for a big squeeze in a swirling dot most like smaller than a period at the end of this sentence. The dot then squeezed down even more till it became nothing and then blew up. Man, that makes a lot of sense. Think about how stupid your theory is before you tell me there is no God. Just because God offends you is no reason for you to try to say there is no God. Don’t email me back with your silly comments about evolution. There is absolutely no scientific evidence. Thank you and God Bless.
1. There’s no reason to believe in any gods.
2. No one says that it rained on rocks for millions of years to form everything. This is what’s known as a “false dilemma” fallacy.
So?
No, it doesn’t.
You haven’t described my “theory,” you’ve only described something you made up and which bears no substantive resemblance to reality.
Very true - and if there were any gods, I wouldn’t claim that they didn’t exist if they offended me. However, at the present time I don’t see any reasons to believe that any gods exist, much less that any gods have offended me.
Once again, you are simply making something up and attributing it to me.
There is lots of scientific evidence supporting evolution.
Maybe you should read what the textbooks teach about evolution and “then” comment on what I have said.
Since you say “Evolution teaches in the beginning nothing blew up and everything was formed,” I am quite confident that you haven’t read any biology texts that discuss evolution.
“Since I know nothing about science or evolution” (as you say) I’m simply going to give a few definitions to prove that most every thing the evolutionary theory teaches is not science. Evolution is broken up into six categories.
1. Cosmic Evolution - The origin or time, space and matter. “The Big Bang” (Swirling dot that became nothing and exploded) No proof that it ever happened. You can’t observe it; therefore, it’s not science. It kind of sounds like some sort of religion.
2. Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. Proven wrong, but its still part of the evolutionary theory. Has never been observed. Once again its not science.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution – Origin of stars and planets. We have never seen a new star form! Therefore, it’s not science.
4. Organic Evolution – Origin of life. Living Organism forming from non-living organisms. It never happens. It was proven wrong; therefore, it’s not science, but its still a part of evolution.
5. Macro Evolution – Change from one kind into another kind. It has never been observed and there is no proof that it has ever happens. It can’t be observed so once again it’s not science.
6. Micro Evolution – Variations in a kind. This one is science. It can be observed. Example: a horse and a zebra can bring forth after their kind.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Micro evolution is a Biblical concept.
The evolutionary theory is simply a religion for someone who doesn’t want to believe there is a God.
If you take a little bit of truth and mix it with a whole lot of lies it is still a lie, and that’s not good for anyone.
Thank you for your time. God Bless
All the categories you list are “evolution” in the broad dictionary sense, but only the last two have anything to do with “evolution theory,” the subject studied in biology.
Differentiating between “micro” and “macro” evolution is something done almost exclusively by creationists. Insofar as scientists do it, they treat them as simply different stages along a continuum because there are no logical or biological barriers which prevent “micro” evolution from becoming “macro” evolution over time.
Not only are there large numbers of Christian scientists who accept evolution, but most major Christian denominations have explicitly stated that evolution does not contradict Christianity.
The minor changes in micro-evolution are nothing like and can not be compared to a change from one kind to another kind as is supposed to be displayed in macro-evolution.
I will agree that some creationist have compromised their believes, but none the less evolution is still a religious idea.
“Kind” is a religious concept without application or relevance to evolutionary theory. It’s a term creationists get out of the Bible and use to derail serious discussion. Because it has no scientific application, it’s impossible to claim that changes in “kinds” can or cannot happen
The only connection between evolution and religion is the persistence of creationists to inject their religious beliefs into scientific issues. Evolution doesn’t contradict either religion or Christianity, necessarily. Evolution does not entail atheism nor is it a religion.
Evolution is scientific on every relevant level. Creationism is not. Creationist attempts to criticize evolution have precisely the same status and credibility as astrologers trying to critique astronomy. Like astrologers, creationists have absolutely nothing to offer, no credibility, and no authority.
Evolution does contradict the Bible. The Bible speaks of six literal days of creation. Through the Bible the age of the earth can not be more than 6000 – 7000 years old.
Evolution does contradict the Bible. The Bible speaks of six literal days of creation. Through the Bible the age of the earth can not be more than 6000 – 7000 years old.
Not all Christians interpret the Bible this way. Of course, under this interpretation just about all of the natural sciences contradict the Bible: astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.
So whatever case you may think you have for saying that evolutionary theory must be rejected because it contradicts your religion, you have the same case for rejected all of the natural sciences.
It’s not very smart to reject modern, proven, tested science in favor of an ideology founded upon Bronze Age writings.
There is no proof that the Earth is billions or even millions of years old, and the bible in my opinion is scientifically accurate. There are also many scientists that agree that the Earth can’t possibly be millions of years old.
There is no proof that the Earth is billions or even millions of years old
There is as much or more evidence for the ancient age of the earth as there is for anything in science. Rejection of this is nothing more than denial in the service of wishful thinking.
the bible in my opinion is scientifically accurate.
I’m sure that this is your opinion. The truth, however, is that your opinion is 100% wrong on this matter. You opinion is not supported by any evidence and only exists in order to preserve and out-dated, superstitious belief system. It’s value and reliability are non-existent.
There are also many scientists that agree that the Earth can’t possibly be millions of years old.
I’ll bet you can’t cite a single working geologist who has published peer-reviewed research demonstrating that the earth is not or at least is not likely millions of years old. This position has the same empirical and scientific value as astrology and palm reading.
It has been fun watching you try to defend a dead theory, and thanks for your time. I have enjoyed discussing this matter with you, and seeing your dodgy responses. It doesn’t matter to me if you think I’m ignorant, as you have mentioned time and time again. I also believe that you are ignorant in some areas we have discussed. Ignorance can be corrected, and I hope that you will truly study the “FULL” issue of evolution and see that it could not possibly be true. Thanks again for your time.
God Bless,
Scott
John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Advances in our understanding of biological evolution appear constantly in both peer-reviewed journals and in popular media. Evolution is not “dead” because it is moving forward every day — and the reason that it is moving forward is that it is scientific.
This can be contrasted with creationism, a religious ideology which has not progressed one iota, which has not produced any new knowledge, and which does not provide us with any reliable, testable information about the world we live in. The only reason for not calling creationism “dead” is the fact that the wishful thinking of ignorant Christians won’t let it die — but it is unquestionably a dead end.
I noticed you took off the comment about knowing that I am ignorant; I find that interesting. Anyway, Could you tell me what you believe about the origin of the universe?
I don’t believe that I have changed anything here; at least, not within a few minutes of posting.
The origin of the universe is irrelevant to evolution, though ignorant creationists often conflate the two issues. Of course, Bible verses are also irrelevant to scientific discussions but some people insist on pretending otherwise. Anyone who imagines that Bible verses have any sort of authoritative status in a scientific discussion can probably be summarily dismissed because in science, religious ideology simply has no authoritative place.
I accept the Big Bang theory as the best scientific explanation of events thus far. This is because I accept that the scientific method is the best way for learning about the world, not reading the thoughts of Bronze Age religious figures.
My question had nothing to do with the Bible or if you think the origin of the universe has anything to do with evolution; my question was simple and to the point. Your answer however was vague and dodgy. Anyway, why do you accept (believe in) a theory (the big bang) that has no scientific evidence to back it up, and several scientific facts against it?
You are, however, commenting on a post about evolution. You are asking about the origin of the universe in the context of a discussion about evolution. In your mind, the two subjects are apparently linked and I commented on that.
I can’t figure out how to make my answer any more clear and direct. You asked what I believe and I told you.
I accept, not “believe in,” the Big Bang theory as “the best scientific explanation thus far” (perhaps you think my answer was “vague and dodgy” because you didn’t read it — you certainly missed that clause) precisely because all available scientific evidence supports it.
Do note that “believe in” is the incorrect term to use here. I don’t “believe in” the heliocentric model of the universe; I accept it as accurate. I don’t “believe in” plate tectonics; I accept it as the best scientific explanation for how the Earth works. The phrase “believe in” is not normally used in science and I doubt that those who try to apply it to scientific subjects anyway really understand what they are talking about.
What scientific evidence suports the big bang?
All relevant evidence from physics and astronomy supports the Big Bang theory. Buy a current astronomy text and read it. I’m not going to teach you Astrophysics 101 in the comments on a blog post. You have to learn to do your own research.
“All relevant evidence from physics and astronomy supports the Big Bang theory”
That’s a bit of a stretch! The Law of angular momentum is completely contradicted by the big bang. Second there has never been any explosion that brought forth order. Third like I said before the big bang teaches that all the matter came together into a small swirling dot probably smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. One science book (HBJ General Science) states: “…from the state of nothingness the universe began with a gigantic explosion.” From the state of nothingness, nothing blew and here we are. Man that’s a good theory. NOT!! Furthermore, the whole theory of evolution was made up to tell us where we came from. So with out and origin the theory is dead. Microevolution is still the only evolution we have ever been able to study, witness, or know it happens.
Thanks for your time,
Scott
Prove it - but not here, as this post isn’t about the Big Bang theory. You’re off topic and you know it. Post in the forum. Further posts on the Big Bang where they are off topic will be deleted.
So?
Actually, that’s not the Big Bang theory, that’s just a short summary of part of what the theory says.
Prove it. In the forum.
Prove it. In the forum.
Sucessful troll is scusessful. Or, at least, I hope Scott is just a troll…
Oh bugger, I should have proof read. Now I just look silly.
Speaking of trolls,I notice that few of Mr Savage’s posts have been appearing in the last few days. Has Mr Cline been deleting Mr Savage’s comments recently?
Actually, explosions do have order. On Earth, an explosion will have an epicenter, a blast radius, and a debris field, and the debris field will be sorted, with heavier debris closer to the epicenter and light debris closer to the edge of the blast radius, which, unobstructed, will be roughly circular, depending on bomb construction.
before leaving JWs, i never really put any “thought” into evolution. this is because i thought i had all the answers given to me from my religion. i read THEIR books where they provide “proof” of creationism and shared scientific blunders. nowhere did they show the positive experiments, or supporting theory or anything that would put evolution in a positive light.
being young, i accepted this. God wouldn’t let someone lie, or hide evidence, or misrepresent truth would He?
so, even though i thought i knew all that was required to know about evolution, it turns out i knew nothing. evidence was hidden from me. illogical statements were made logical through repeated drumming of information into my brain.
a statement such as Tim’s:
“a Creator that creates a very complicated universe is more likely to me than saying that “it just happened”.”
was something i would have said.
but in the end, taken at face value, it’s an equal leap. believing in a creator is only “easier” because you’ve been trained to believe in it your whole life. you’ve never known anything different.
take the face value statement and add the knowledge attained from a “dummies guide” to evolution and there would be a whole new spectrum of information to weigh while making the decision of whether there is proof that a god exists.
Here’s a theory that’s almost as well-supported as evolution:
If the number of comments to one of Austin’s posts is greater than 20, a raving creationist / fundamentalist is loose whose statements are 99 - 100% wrong.
“What scientific evidence suports the big bang?”
The two primary lines of evidence are the Hubble expansion and the comic background radiation.
The Hubble expansion is the observed expansion of the universe. It’s there, and it’s undeniable. That observation led to two theories: steady state and big bang. Big bang predicted that the “first light,” or the original energy output of the expansion would permeate the universe, at a temperature dependent on the age of the universe.
The cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Labs, well within predicted wavelength range. They weren’t even looking for it. They were testing a new instrument that was so sensitive that the background radiation was interfering with it. With the discovery confirmed predictions made in 1948 by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, who were working on the big bang theory.
This is a perfect example of how real science works. Observation leads to hypothesis, hypothesis leads to predictions, further observation confirms (or eliminates) predictions. Confirmed predictions lead to theory. In this case, the prediction of the comic background radiation was made almost two decades before humans had the ability to observe it, but once it was observed, it looked exactly like we predicted. In 1989, the COBE satellite took detailed images of the cosmic background and further confirmed our theories, including those that explain ordered systems within the universe, such as galaxies. More recently, WMAP has take even more detailed images and has helped us explain even more about the shape and structure of our universe.
Again, this is real science. Not all of that make believe that creationists like to play.
For godless geek:
The Bible actually tells us that the universe is expanding. And it told us that years before scientist proved it!!!
For godless geek:
The Bible actually told us that the universe is expanding years before the scientist proved it.
Why is it that these believers insist that whatever is in the bible is true, because it’s in the bible? This ridiculously circuitous argument they pose drives me up the wall!
Yet, they are so brainwashed, they can’t see it! It still truly amazes me!
The Bible actually told us that the universe is expanding years before the scientist proved it.
Yet, a) you can’t provide a chapter and verse, and b) none of the Bible writers were scientists, and I doubt any of them knew half of what we know about the universe today.
I am really disappointed. I hate to waste my time with creationists going on about the bible and how it is so accurate and scientific. The Torah was written by Jews for Jews as a method to help remember an oral history. It is written in parables, with hidden meanings and not to be taken literally. The new testament was copied by people, decades later, that had never met Jesus. Does that make it accurate and devine? The bible, in English, contains many errors of translation. It is written that Jesus was a carpenter. The original word was “handyman”. The translation of Mary as virgin, originally was maiden or young woman. Pretty big difference in translation. There are similar translation “errors” throughout the bible. The Torah is written at different levels for different levels of itelligence . If you read it as fact, you might get a little knowledge, but not understand it. If you read deeper, you might attain understanding. If you have the capacity and tenacity to read the deepest hidden meanings, you might attain wisdom. Understanding Jewish tradition is a prerequisite. I am afraid some haven’t mastered the first level and have only attained a little knowledge. Just enough to be boisterous and annoying. It appears to me that they haven’t attained any understanding or wisdom. I just wish more Christians would do their own research and quit parroting old ideas. If they weren’t so lazy, they might be the ones to find information to challenge atheist minds, but I am not holding my breath. Till then, I will take the Big Bang and evolution for what they are. The best evidence (not proof)available at this time.
Religionists pick on evolution because when people understand it (which isn’t simple), they see through a lot of cons. Crooks have no god or country. They use god and country.
On Explosions and Order:
Tim is out of his depth. His comment about order not arising from explosions shows that he doesn’t understand or refuses to accept that particles behave in certain ways. Carbon likes to join up with Oxygen. Particles in general like to be near other particles. Open a bag of flour in deep space and eventually it will sort of lump together. We can take two or more metals and combine them into alloys that have very distinct properties.
Life could have formed in the same way. This chemical met that chemical and they made something new.
Also, Evolution doesn’t make any claims about abiogenesis.
Scott does the same thing the religious always do once they have lost an argument: he stops persecuting others, stops denying reality, and then lies by pretending that that which his religion used to oppose, it now not only embraces, but embraced all along:
“I will agree that some creationist have compromised their believes, but none the less evolution is still a religious idea.”
This sort of “thinking” by the religious is a travesty and a nonsense. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so harmful. Today Christians go on about how equality for women, democracy, racial equality etc are religious in origin, when, of course, the exact opposite is true, and their religion has been literally fighting against freedom for 2000 years.
A church near my house says it all in it’s billboard this week: “to love god is to obey god.” That’s not love. That’s obedience. Christians are so conditioned to twisting the meaning of language that they are not even aware that they do it.
The problem is that religious belief has no merit, and religious viewpoints are always harmful and wrong, therefore there is nothing left for the theist in arguing his position but to lie in this fashion. This should allow any objective or inquisitive person to realise that that there are some serious contradictions, and some serious moral and ethical dilemmas for anyone who follows a religion.