Re: Evolution - Just One Thing!
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Steven Estes wrote (post #2543):
> The main point I believe is that we must realize that science isPreachers and other religious propagandists are notoriously bad at
> LIMITED to what we can OBSERVE and what we can EXPERIMENT with in
> repeatable units. OBVIOUSLY nobody observed the origin of the
> universe, and it is obvious that you cannot repeat the experiment,
> therefore were not talking "scientifically" but rather
> "philosophically." The point is; that science DISPROVES evolution,
> but DOES NOT and CANNOT "disprove" a special creation of God!
guessing at what science is and isn't, and representing it correctly.
>There are an awful lot of problems with these statements and their
> The problem is, we have 2 philosophical FAITH propositions,
> evolution or creation. The question is: Based on the scientific
> evidence that we all have, is it more logical, is it more
> rational, and is it more scientific to put our faith in evolution?
> OR, is it more rational, more logical and more scientific to put
> our faith in God and creation?
One problem is the play on the word "evolution." Evolution is
typically used to refer to biological evolution, but here Steven uses
the word "evolution" to refer to the origin of the universe, when
actually the more proper term to use in reference to that subject
is "cosmology" or "physics" or "astrophysics."
Another problem is the implied premise that one who puts his faith in
God must be a young earth creationist. This premise is patently
false. There are a great number of Christians who would flatly
disagree with Steven on this point. These are Christians who believe
in God and who at the same time accept the fact that the universe and
the earth have been in existence for billions of years, and that life
on earth has evolved over its duration of existence on the earth.
>Well, the theory of evolution does NOT say "that everything is moving
> THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC evidence for creation! IN FACT evolution is
> PROVEN WRONG by science. The first law of thermodynamics states
> that energy and matter ARE NOT being created or destroyed, they
> remain constant!
> The 2nd law of TD states that all the energy in the universe
> useful for work (kinetic energy) is in a process of running down!
> Evolution has it BACKWARDS! The theory of evolution says that
> everything is moving upwards to greater and greater complexity and
> organization, ALL BY CHANCE! But THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (the 2nd law
> of TD) says that everything is going in the OPPOSITE direction,
> from what the evolutionists ASSUME!
upwards to greater and greater complexity and organization." Also,
the theory of evolution does NOT say that evolution occurs "ALL BY
CHANCE." So Steven's representation of evolution is simply wrong on
these two counts.
>The Second Law of thermodynamics does not say this at all. Steven is
> Evolutionists (many of them) will state that if you just allow
> enough time ANYTHING can happen. Time is the "magic pill" for
> them. BUT A BASIC LAW OF PHYSICS states that the GREATER THE TIME
> SPAN, the GREATER the CHAOS and DISORGANIZATION!
adding his own rhetoric into the mix here.
>For more detailed discussion of young earth creationists' abuse of
> My question to you is ; what do you do with the 2nd Law of
> Thermodynamics? Now, I do not want your "philosophical
> assumptions," give me SCIENTIFIC FACTS!
the Second Law of thermodynamics, take a look here:
Entropy, God and Evolution
by Doug Craigen
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith
by Allan H. Harvey
(By the way, both Craigen and Harvey are Christians.)
>The origin of life is an outstanding issue of current scientific
> My other question is what do you do with the PROVEN LAW OF
> BIOGENESIS? That Louis Pasteur and others established when they
> PROVED over 130 years ago that NONLIFE CANNOT PRODUCE LIFE!!!
> When Louis Pasteur DISPROVED spontaneous generation, he DESTROYED
> the whole foundation of the evolutionary theory. LIFE ONLY COMES
> FROM LIFE.
> Now I know some do not want to be confused by the facts but just
> want to hold on to their bias presuppositions, But spontaneous
> regeneration if SCIENTIFICALLY impossible!
investigation. I would point out here though that this is an
independent issue from the evolution of that life once living
organisms exist and are replicating.
>I would note here that Steven completely ignored my previous post
> There is NO evidence for evolution, in fact, it all demonstrates
> that we are a unique creation of GOD!
(post #2530) on the subject of evolution. In other words, Steven
simply ignores the evidence for evolution and then falsly states that
there is no evidence for evolution.
Here is a link to my post:
"Re: Evolution - Just One Thing!" (10/2/03)
>As I have pointed out already, and as I'm sure I'll have to point out
> Some will not accept this fact philosophically because some do
> not want to believe in God, therefore they choose to believe in
> that which they KNOW is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
again several times since young earth creationists find it virtually
impossible to correct even obvious errors in their rhetoric,
evolution is not somehow merely a "faith" that's being promoted by
those who "do not want to believe in God." (Gee, some of this
rhetoric - such as this particular one about evolution being merely
some kind of atheistic faith - has been around for several decades,
has had the error pointed out for just as long, and yet YECs just
continue to promote the error without any respect for the truth.)
Just from the two references I gave above we have the fact that both
Craigen and Harvey believe in God and accept evolution. Here's
another example of the fact that Christians accept the antiquity of
the world and evolution:
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003)
edited by Keith B. Miller
from the website:
| Whatever views one may entertain about the implications of the
| Christian faith for the practice of science and about the bearing
| of the natural sciences on Christianity, *Perspectives on an
| Evolving Creation* is essential reading for those interested in
| these relationships. Editor Keith Miller has put together a
| superb slate of contributors for a volume dedicated to the
| proposition that an evolutionary conception of creation is
| compatible with orthodox, evangelical Christianity and with a
| high view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. The authors
| approach the theme of an evolving creation from the vantage
| points of history of science, cosmology, geology, paleontology,
| biochemistry, anthropology, theology, and environmental studies.
Indeed, the general Christian community accepted both the antiquity
of the world, and evolution (but not "Darwinism"), over a hundred
years ago. This is simply a matter of historical fact. When are
Steven and other young earth creationists who are so fond of using
this kind of false rhetoric going to remove this falsehood from their
Scientists don't make it a habit to "choose to believe in that which
they KNOW is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" because they are
*scientists*, by which I mean that they are engaged in scientific
research (in other words, as professionals). Scientists as a
community are pretty unforgiving of those who "choose to believe in
that which they KNOW is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE." For example, part
of the evaluation of professors in universities who are engaged in
scientific research is based on publication of their research in the
professional science literature. These professional journals take a
very dim view of scientists who try to write stuff about science that
is scientifically impossible. They don't get published. Not getting
published reflects back on their professional evaluations with
respect to their jobs. In other words, scientists have a personal
incentive to *not* get bogged down in personal dogma with respect to
their scientific research, because doing so will have adverse affects
on their careers. (And when it comes to outright fraud, when fraud is
discovered, the scientific careers of those scientists who have
engaged in it are ended. The scientific community is extremely
intolerant of fraud.)
So in both of these respects Steven's claim here is flatly wrong.
>The question "How do you get life from non-living matter?" is an
> I have a few questions;
> 1. How do you get life from non living matter? When it is
> scientifically impossible, the law of Biogenesis says that life
> ONLY comes from life! I want to know the scientific FACTS, not
> your ASSUMPTIONS of faith in evolution.
excellent question. Several researchers around the world are engaged
in research relevant to this very question.
It is spontaneous generation that is scientifically impossible.
Hypotheses concerning the origin of life by origins of life
researchers today do not involve spontaneous generation. Good thing,
>News flash! The origin of life was not the result of mere random
> 2. In regards to the basic Laws of Probability, what is the
> probability of life arising by chance? This one I will answer for
> you; the probability of life arising by chance is the same
> probability as throwing a six on a die FIVE MILLION CONSECUTIVE
> The probability of life evolving to greater and greater
> complexity and organization by chance is the same probability as
> having a tornado tear through a junkyard and producing a Boeing
> 747 jetliner at the other end!
> The FACT is: Random impersonal chance does NOT produce complexity
> and organization, it produces only greater CHAOS! People need to
> be intellectually honest!
chance (as I've already pointed out, hypotheses concerning the origin
of life by origins of life researchers today do not involve
spontaneous generation), but the result of stepwise processes
occurring over time as the result of chemical affinities in local
>Instead of Steven's misrepresentative caricature, you might try
> So, the RIDDLE is this: How, when no life existed, did substances
> come into being which are absolutely essential for life, BUT can
> only be produced BY LIFE? (examples; the metabolic motor of a
> cell, RNA, DNA etc. etc.)
> How when no life existed, did these (RNA,DNA etc) and other
> substances come into being which are essential for life, but
> again can ONLY be produced by life?
> You must ASSUME BY FAITH, that contrary to the Laws of science,
> SOMEHOW it occurred!
taking a look at a recent article from genuine origins of life
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary
transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic
prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells
by William Martin and Michael J. Russell
(note line-wrapping of link; 2.1 MB PDF file)
>There are all kinds of transitional fossils, but Steven simply
> Why are there no PROVEN (not hoaxes like the Piltdown man, Lucy,
> etc) transitional fossils? There should be MILLIONS upon millions
> of transitional forms, but in REALITY not ONE has been found.
> What has been found is everything appearing FULLY FORMED after
> its own kind!
chooses to ignore them. (I pointed out some examples of transitional
fossils, such as the *Acanthostega gunnari* in my previous post - the
post that Steven has completely ignored.)
The Piltdown man was indeed a hoax, and it was evolutionists who
exposed the hoax.
"Lucy" (an Australopithecus afarensis specimen) is *not* a hoax.
Steven is wrong about this.
>This is simply a lie. I discussed how we observe evolution in the
> We have never observed evolution in the fossil record,
fossil record in my previous post.
> and we haveThis, too, is simply a lie. Indeed, Steven needs to catch up with
> never observed evolution in the natural world.
some of his fellow young earth creationists on this. The YEC
organizations ICR, CRS, and AiG accept that evolution in the natural
world is observed to occur today. They call it microevolution.
> IN FACT, evolutionIsn't it easy to say whatever you want when you feel free to simply
> exists ONLY in the IMAGINATION of evolutionists!
ignore and lie about the objective data that you don't like?
>Oh, yes, how can a YEC possibly discuss this subject without making
> I think that many think that evolution is "morally comfortable,"
> that as long as they believe they are nothing but an accident,
> evolved from slimy algae, that they are nothing but an animal,
> they can live morally any way they choose.
> They seem to think that if there is no God and they are simply
> evolved from slimy algae, they have no moral consequences. BUT,
> as soon as they ADMIT that there is a creator, then they become
> morally RESPONSIBLE to that creator! And, they do not want to be
> morally responsible to anyone! If people "understand" that as
> long as they believe that they are nothing but animals, they can
> live any way they choose! BUT, as soon as they admit there is a
> God, the whole ball game changes.
> More upcoming, Steven Estes
the "evolution is nothing more than an atheistic conspiracy"
argument? I challenge Steven to find one single article in the
scientific literature relevant to biological evolution (biology,
biochemistry, or paleontology) that uses the idea of "no God, no
morals" as some kind of support for the idea of evolution. In fact,
Steven cannot find such an article because one does not exist. (And -
again - Christians accept the fact of evolution, just as they also
accept the fact that the earth orbits the sun.) This is a classic
case of young earth creationists using a completely irrelevant (and
false) *ad hominem* kind of argument.
It's also so very amusing to see a young earth creationist talk about
morality and responsibility when these are the same guys who promote
such silly propaganda as, say, the moon dust argument or the
shrinking sun argument for decades after it is known to be wrong. I
guess young earth creationists are fond of showing us by example
their "moral comfort" with hypocrisy.
Todd S. Greene
- Todd, you wrote, in part:
> It is spontaneous generation that is scientificallyShould the "It is" have been "Is it" with a "?" at the end to
indicate a rhetorical question?
Or, maybe you meant "It is not"?
In the context, you through me off with that.
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #2547):
> Todd, you wrote, in part:Hi, Robert.
>> It is spontaneous generation that is scientifically
> Should the "It is" have been "Is it" with a "?" at the end to
> indicate a rhetorical question?
> Or, maybe you meant "It is not"?
> In the context, you threw me off with that.
Thanks for asking. Actually in this case there is no typo involved.
Spontaneous generation is indeed scientifically impossible. The point
I made was that origins of life research does not involve the concept
of spontaneous generation. A "simplest living organism" is *not*
going to organize spontaneously from the elements by random chance -
and no origins of life researcher would ever say that it did. This is
my point. When creationists invoke "spontaneous generation" in
connection with origins of life research today, they are merely
playing a typical creationist game of misrepresentative caricature.
- --- Todd wrote:
> Thanks for asking. Actually in this case there is no typoIs this clear to anyone else?
> involved. Spontaneous generation is indeed scientifically
> impossible. The point I made was that origins of life
> research does not involve the concept of spontaneous
> generation. A "simplest living organism" is *not* going to
> organize spontaneously from the elements by random chance -
> and no origins of life researcher would ever say that it
> did. This is my point. When creationists invoke "spontaneous
> generation" in connection with origins of life research
> today, they are merely playing a typical creationist game of
> misrepresentative caricature.
Is Todd claiming that randomness was not involved in his
origin of life scheme? Or that life was not created through
natural processes? Or is he saying the process that created
life was externally directed?
How does Todd say life began if it did not organize
spontaneously from the elements by random chance?