Which do you trust, God or science?

"This is inconsistent reasoning on your part UT. "

Not really.

His source was AIG. So I showed him where his own source admits that the halos can form in rock that is not original. To go through the whole discussion of why the halos are wrong in general would be too long and complex. An occasional poster is not going to stick around for that. I would not call it an anomoly because the case can be made that all the halos are in rocks that have a history.

 

Certain extremely immoral and unethical individuals would have us believe that the only alternative to intelligent design is random chance and that evolutionists believe and teach that to be the case. However, these most wicked and pernicious individuals who have no respect for the truth or the persons they are attempting to deceive know for a fact that no evolutionist has EVER believed or taught such ridiculous nonsense. I don’t believe that man evolved from another species, but I am certainly not going to resort to the most iniquitous of sins to convince others that I am right and they are wrong.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well that certainly is strong language coming from someone using a saint icon. My point was simply to ask what are the options other than random genetic mutation or intelligent design? Natural selection of Darwinianism was largely based (simplistically speaking) on random genetic mutations of which only the most adaptable survived. That is not "intelligence." What is this middle ground of which you speak?

 

Please post three examples for us to consider.

Neither abiogenesis nor cosmology are branches of evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis, however, is loosely related to evolutionary biology, so it is no wonder that we find that those creationist who write about have an extreme difficulty with telling the truth. In order to be 100% fair, honest, equitable and ethical, here are three examples for you to consider:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

I am not academically qualified to post on the topic of cosmology, so I shall make no further comments about it. No, this is not a cop-out—it is Christian ethics.

 

1 Tim. 1:8. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9. realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10. and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11. according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (NASB, 1995)

Rev. 21:8. "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (NASB, 1995)

Dear Pastor,

As several have posted, including myself, the answer to your question is natural selection, a process that is neither random nor intelligent but which takes advantage of approximately random events and selects those that are favorable for adaptation, which very often includes greater complexity—including better vision and higher intelligence.

We find an analogy in powerful storms that are approximately random events. People who live in grass huts in low-lying coastal areas on south pacific islands are much less likely to survive these storms than those who live in well-built brick homes in the inland hills of Southern California. Would you suggest that the residential communities of well-built brick homes in the inland hills of Southern California are proof that these communities were designed and created by God?

by the grace of God.

 

2 Timothy 2:24-26 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Assuming you are right, you have a different responsibility. You are not Paul writing under the inspiration of the Spirit.

I think that is a wholly dissimilar analogy. In natural selection, the changes are random genetic mutations. The parent organism does not decide what genes to change in the daughter organism. Putting aside the inherent problems and unproved assertion of adding complexity, the "choices" of natural selection are natural, not intelligent. That is why they call it natural selection. No one sits down and says, I think I will choose this one. The weaker don't survive. Building a house is entirely different since people are making intelligent choices. OF course, we should probably question the intelligence of anyone who lives in California :D ... ;)

 

"No one sits down and says, I think I will choose this one."

So your wife was purely random? You two did not choose one another? Sexual selection in action.

"...and unproved assertion of adding complexity."

You must have missed the other thread. Here are a few examples of adding complexity.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2710/18.html#000263

 

I hope this was an attempt at humor, because no one could seriously think this is the same as natural selection.

I think your link was answered sufficiency to show the weaknesses of it.

 

That isn't the point. The point is that the general rule of thumb regarding these halos points to a young rather than old earth.

You avoided my point completely.

 

"I hope this was an attempt at humor, because no one could seriously think this is the same as natural selection. "

No humor. Sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution. For most of us, our selections are not random.

"I think your link was answered sufficiency to show the weaknesses of it."

The only answers were general doubts about it. Nothing concrete. THese are examples of new complexity. It remains so even if some deny it.

 

Which do you trust, God or science ?

This was the opening question; and it seems that there is little problem determining which each poster prefers! :rolleyes:

 

But you are not talking about something even remotely similar to natural selection as defined by evolution. You are not even in the same ball park. And no, my choice of a wife was not based on sexual selection. All that did was get rid of half of the population. There were many other factors that figured into it. And with humans, you are injecting the element of intellect into it. Natural selection in evolution does not inject that element.

Your examples suffer from your own critique. They are general, and not concrete. It remains so even if you deny it.

 

"But you are not talking about something even remotely similar to natural selection as defined by evolution. You are not even in the same ball park. And no, my choice of a wife was not based on sexual selection. All that did was get rid of half of the population. There were many other factors that figured into it. And with humans, you are injecting the element of intellect into it. Natural selection in evolution does not inject that element."

NS is NOT the only mechanism of evolution. Sexual selection is another. YOur choice of wife was based on SOMETHING! I doubt it was a simple lottery. Sexual selection can include many things.

"Your examples suffer from your own critique. They are general, and not concrete. It remains so even if you deny it."

They are examples of new genes and new functions evolving. There were multiple cases of of these being observed.

Perhaps you could supply us with a defintion of "complexity" by which we can judge and where each example fails the test.

 

"That isn't the point. The point is that the general rule of thumb regarding these halos points to a young rather than old earth."

I did not ignore you. I disagree with the assertion that the halos indicate youth. I find other interpretations much mre compelling. Surprise. It was simply easier to point out where the poster's own source admits other means to form halos than to go into the whole debate. It is quite complex.

 

Please post three examples for us to consider.

</font>[/QUOTE]Before I go to an effort to provide this proof, I would like agreement on a definition. Do you find this acceptable?

 

Honesty... as opposed to the refusal to look at the full range of possibilities by evolutionists.

It is not honest to arbitrarily dismiss answers simply because they do not support naturalism/TOE.

 

I have read both sides of the halo debate extensively. I honestly disagree with the assertion that they indicate youth. It is not based on any presuppositions. I think one side presents a better case. I do not expect you to agree on which side presents a better case because for all your talk about bias, I find you much more biased than I see myself. It could be a mattter or perspective.

I have honestly considered both sides on many of these issues. I started with a YE bias. I simply find the YE answers wanting. That's my opinion and there is no garauntee that it is right. But it is mine.

 

Please post three examples for us to consider.
</font>[/QUOTE]

In other words, it is by chance, not selection of any kind.

In other words, natural selection is the process which random (chance) mutations are fixed.

Natural selection itself is an observation, not a mechanism capable of producing any change at all.

Quotes taken from these two pages:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/chance.htm

 

Thank you for your honest opinion. I sincerely believe that I am more open to evidence for evolution than you are for creationism or against evolution... but to be honest, I am highly skeptical of evolution from the premise forward so I wouldn't assign great flexibility to either of us.

 

You, and perhaps Waddington, are making the elementary mistake of assuming that because something is termed x in a mathematical equation it cannot refer to something real in the real world. If a gene makes a gazelle run a little bit faster, it is helpful, and anybody can see that to be the truth! The whold thing is an argument from ignorance - I don't know every possible way these genes might help, and therefore they don't help . . .

According to C. H. Waddington, "random mutation" is the only way new hereditary variation occurs:
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, that's perfectly true, and its also true that the changes brought about by chance alone are, in the theory, put through the selection seive of real life, and we find out which ones help and which ones hinder by how well they do in real life. It's merely a restatement of only part of the theory of evolution.

In other words, natural selection is the process which random (chance) mutations are fixed.
[/quote]

Another restatement of the theory of evolution, and one wonders why you think this restatement is an argument for the insuffiency of the theory.

Of course natural selection doesn't PRODUCE the changes, it ACTS on the changes and SELECTS BETWEEN THEM. In the same way, MUTATIONS don't pick and choose, they simply churn out changes, and it is NATURAL SELECTION that does the picking and choosing.

No evolutionist EVER DENIES that chance PLAYS AN ESSENTIAL ROLE in the generation of changes through evolution, it is merely also true that CHANCE IS NOT THE ONLY OPERATOR HERE, there is also the part played by SELECTION FOR THE BETTER REPRODUCERS over the span of geological ages.

So your whole set of quotes winds up being an attempt to show the theory insufficient by carefully concealing important parts of the theory from consideration.

 

I don't think anyone here has said that only chance is involved in the TOE. I definitely don't think I have said that.

However evolution is DEPENDENT on chance. Not only in the realm of mutations but also in the course of natural selection. The fact is that the strongest don't always survive. Sometimes what would otherwise be considered a strength is subject to disease or other catastrophic threat. Sometimes it would be the "lucky" not the fittest that survive. The same size/strength attributes that might make a group able to hold territory around water holes in a drought could end up being a disadvantage during flooding or an earth quake or volcano eruption or famine...

You can possibly make generalizations but even natural selection isn't "directed" in any true sense... it occurs (supposedly) as favorable mutations by pure happenstance meet conditions favorable to the changes.

Without the element of "chance", the only remaining alternative is intelligence... and such an intelligence certainly would not need evolution. He could have used it... but there would be no need to.

Like it or not, for evolutionists to maintain the TOE as "science" they must depend on chance as an indispensable element since they refuse to include or consider a transcendent intelligent creator... so those that you charge above are absolutely warranted in their contention that the alternative to intelligence presented by evolutionists is chance.

"Random chance" is redundant.