United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 12 arguments evolutionists should avoid.
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get ... atures/arguments-evolutionists
Published: Jul 16, 2010
Author: answersingenesis.org
Post Date: 2010-07-16 18:49:15 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 126432
Comments: 153
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid. These worn-out tropes have not only passed their expiration date, but they never should have been made to begin with. Argument1 Evolution is a fact When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof. Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position. Argument 3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview). Argument 4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot. Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs. Argument 6 It’s here, so it must have evolved A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be. Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview. Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better. Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes. Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. Argument 11 The Scopes trial Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account. Argument 12 Science vs. religion News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 145.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
That's a lie. We see it in disease all the time.
No one said mutations don't happen. When do new species emerge? NEVER!
Padlock's article just did.
Padlock's article just did. Actually, you are making Fred Mertz look like a genious because the article said nothing of the sort.
"Evolution is not a fact"... Evolution of organisms is a fact. Why are we immune?
Here is the problem in a nutshell: Mutations within a species ARE indeed a fact. Evolutions extrapolated the evidence of mutation within a species into a theory that one species can evolve into another. But, evolution of one species into another has never been demonstrated or observed. In spite of this, the evolutionists claim with absolute certainty that their theory that one species can evolve into another is a UNDENIABLE FACT. That's the issue.
Careful with this. Species do indeed evolve into other species. But it's a man made classification. Wolves, coyotes, and poodles, are all different species, can all interbreed, and probably all evolved from some common canine. But none of them could ever evolve into a leopard.
I understand your point. Let me clarify. The broad definition of species has to do with reproduction. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are all of the Canidae species. They can interbreed with each other. Their were mutations within the species Canidae that gave us not only wolves, dogs and coyotes, but also many sub-species, e.g., red wolves, gray wolves, poodles, German Shepards, etc. Mutations within a species is indeed a proven fact. I don't believe that anyone with who has any knowledge of biology would say otherwise. The theory of evolution states that todays primates (including humans) all evolved from a common ancestor. However, humans cannot breed with other other primates. Since we can't breed together, we not of the same species, and there is no evidence that one species can evolve into another.
Yepper. As did all the dogs you concede did. Neanderthal DNA has been found in human DNA. We know that the more complex a species becomes that a genetic barrier arises that would prevent inter breeding of different species within an order.
No, you COMPLETELY missed the point, as usual. Dogs, wolves and coyotes can interbreed. Humans, chimps and baboons cannot. This IS the salient point between a MUTATION within a species and the EVOLUTION of one species into another. There is NO evidence whatsoever for the latter.
You need to ping Stone and padlock. This will be news to them.
You need to ping Stone and padlock. This will be news to them. Dumbass, I brought up the point to pegler; not that I had to.
Oh, pardon me padlock. I assumed that after posting "I think Michelle Obama's daddy probably did fuck an ape, and they should be using this to fortify their position." that you're as dumb as Stone. I guess you're just a racist, but where's the news in that?
Maybe if you'd study Darwin's original works, you'd realize he was making a case blacks were inferior to whites.
And if you'd pull your head out of George Bush's ass you might notice that evolutionary biology has moved far beyond Darwin.
Yeah the fossils say GLOBAL FLOOD. You folks can keep shifting your theories but they are built on sand and you will have to move them over and over and over. You don't know what science is.
Where did all the water go, Stone? Where did it come from? How high was the "flood"? Why are there layers of fresh water sediments below layers of salt water sediments? There are many, many more complex questions I could ask but I doubt that you're up to answering these.
Current geological evidence points to melting glaciers at the end of the ice age which caused floods around the world.
And that's undoubtedly where the god-created flood myth came from. Rising waters from glacial melt would have flooded low lying areas, but the idea that miles of water covered the entire earth 10,000 years ago is completely wrong.
Please read post #120 regarding Newton versus evolution.
Even that is now being reconsidered, since it doesn't explain why the universe is expanding at ever greater speeds. Now there's dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow to contend with.
Yes I posted about dark matter, energy and flow earlier in the thread. Thanks for helping me make my point -- even with observation, our best theories of how things work can still be wrong. Physicists know this. Evolutionists and "Climatologists" refuse to accept that their theories can be proven wrong. That's my problem with them and their unproven theories.
Curious. You said you never said the earth is billions of years old. But you never said the opposite either. Do you have a position on the age of the earth.
Let me share how I think about these things. The Bible said the universe was created in 7 days. It also said the Israelis wandered in the desert for 40 years. American fundamentalists take these numbers literally, but the bulk of Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc) view them as colloquialisms (common expressions of the time). American Indians used the phrase "many moons" to describe a long period of time. So, 7 days might mean a very short period of time and 40 years might mean a very long period of time. Of course, physics tell us that the experience of time is relative to the observer. Mainstream physicists have a theory called "inflation". They believe that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light after the big bang. Why do they believe this? Because it fits with their observations of how uniformly energy is dispersed in the universe. So, "God said 'let their be light'" -- THE BIG BANG. God create the universe in 7 days (meaning a very short period of time, relative to God's perspective) -- INFLATION. I'm not claiming that the Genesis account of creation is correct. What I am saying is that it is very compatible with how modern physicists view the creation of the universe.
Days are days. Gods word is literal unless other parameters are give. Example parables. If it was long periods as you say (putting mans word over Gods) then there would have been eons of darkness and things would have froze and died.
You want us to believe that a guy who can ABRA CABRA things into existence is worried about things like temperature.
Look sack of ****. You are the one claiming the spontaneous combustion of mud to life. Your opinion is shit.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Hmmm...sounds a lot like: "Hey Rocky...watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat..."
There are no replies to Comment # 145. End Trace Mode for Comment # 145.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEvolution is not a fact
#4. To: war (#2)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#4)
No one said mutations don't happen.
#41. To: war (#23)
No one said mutations don't happen.
#44. To: no gnu taxes (#41)
#49. To: war (#44)
(Edited)
Evolution of organisms is a fact.
#51. To: jwpegler (#49)
species into a theory that one species can evolve into another. But, evolution of one species into another has never been demonstrated or observed.
#54. To: no gnu taxes (#51)
#55. To: jwpegler (#54)
(Edited)
The theory of evolution states that todays primates (including humans) all evolved from a common ancestor.
#58. To: war (#55)
Yepper. As did all the dogs you concede did.
#59. To: jwpegler (#58)
Dogs, wolves and coyotes can interbreed. Humans, chimps and baboons cannot.
#62. To: Skip Intro (#59)
Dogs, wolves and coyotes can interbreed. Humans, chimps and baboons cannot.
#64. To: no gnu taxes (#62)
Dumbass, I brought up the point to pegler; not that I had to.
#70. To: Skip Intro (#64)
#77. To: no gnu taxes (#70)
Maybe if you'd study Darwin's original works, you'd realize he was making a case blacks were inferior to whites.
#85. To: Skip Intro (#77)
And if you'd pull your head out of George Bush's ass you might notice that evolutionary biology has moved far beyond Darwin.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#85)
Yeah the fossils say GLOBAL FLOOD.
#116. To: Skip Intro (#88)
(Edited)
Where did it come from?
#118. To: jwpegler (#116)
Current geological evidence points to melting glaciers at the end of the ice age which caused floods around the world.
#121. To: Skip Intro (#118)
Evolution is a theory, just like Newtonian physics is a theory
#122. To: jwpegler (#121)
(gravity is not an external force, but rather a consequence of the curvature of spacetime). This has been proven by every experiment and observation over the last several decades.
#126. To: Skip Intro (#122)
Even that is now being reconsidered, since it doesn't explain why the universe is expanding at ever greater speeds. Now there's dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow to contend with.
#127. To: jwpegler (#126)
#130. To: A K A Stone (#127)
(Edited)
Do you have a position on the age of the earth.
#133. To: jwpegler (#130)
#136. To: A K A Stone (#133)
#139. To: war (#136)
(Edited)
#145. To: A K A Stone (#139)
Replies to Comment # 145.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]