← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 11019 | Posts: 43 | Started: 2003-11-10
2003-11-10 22:29 | User Profile
They must, otherwise evolution would not occur. Selection explains part of it, but how did the different types come to be in the first place? That is, if, say, white skin evolved to adapt to a northern climate, there must have been some chemical change within single individuals within a generation.
Anyone know about this?
2003-11-11 13:02 | User Profile
No, a person's overall genetic makeup (genotype) does not change during that person's lifetime. Mutations in individual cells can and do occur due to environmental influences (such as exposure to too much harmful radiation) and due to factors such as aging. However, mutations occur during a person's lifetime they don't change the person's actual genotype, which is contained in the DNA of every "normal" cell in the person's body. Instead, they can be considered a kind of damage that's isolated in one or more cells somewhere in the body, and certain kinds of such mutations are essentially the cause of cancer.
The mutations responsible for natural selection almost always occur in the parents' reproductive cells prior to the conception of the children. When a child is conceived as an initial single cell, it has taken half of its genetic material from its mother and half from its father to form a new set of genetic instructions. Then, as that first cell divides into two, which each divide into two more to make four, which become eight, and so on and on and on, the genetic makeup of that original cell is being copied into each new cell. If that genetic material includes a mutation from one (or both) of the parents' reproductive cells, then that mutation is likewise copied into all the cells of the developing child's body.
If the child's mutation happens to cause an improvement in the child's chances of growing up and producing offspring of his or her own, then that represents improved chances for the propagation of that mutation through the breeding population. For example, if by sheer luck a certain mutation occurs in a parent's genetic material that causes its child to have improved resistance to pneumonia, then (all other things being equal) that child is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce than it would be if the mutation had not been passed to it by one of its parents. This process repeats through successive generations until the original genetic mutation has spread throughout the breeding population. Those who were unlucky enough to be born without the altered gene were simply more likely to die before reproducing.
I realize that the above explanation is very brief and full of gaps. Are you familiar with the site known as "HowStuffWorks"? It's a handy site with some really interesting articles on it, and I noticed that they have a good overview of evolution over there:
[url]http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm[/url]
One caveat: the author of the article seems to walk on eggshells a little bit when dealing with this topic, undoubtedly in an attempt to avoid offending too many "Fundamentalist Christian" whackos who refuse to accept reality (you know -- the kind who insist that the Earth is only 5000 years old, that the universe was created literally in seven days, that America must support modern Israel at all costs or face damnation, etc., etc.). To appease those religious fanatics, the author describes some of the "holes" in evolutionary theory, but he doesn't make it as clear as he should that the existing evidence that humans evolved from apes is overwhelming. When people say they doubt evolution because evolution is a "theory," they are only showing their lack of understanding about what a scientific theory actually is. While all the minute details of how evolution occurs have not yet been discovered, the evidence that evolution has occurred and continues to occur is about as strong as the evidence that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa.
2003-11-14 09:42 | User Profile
Each person is the physical manifestation of the unique mix of genes resulting from the sperm+egg that made them. If that's a successful mix, they'll get to father/mother more children. It's as simple as that! Modifications happen through things like cosmic rays, chemicals, etc basically knocking stuff loose, etc in the genetic material in sperm/eggs, if that sounds haphazard, it is. But once in a while useful "mods" occur. Many many many "mods" that help people succeed against lions etc on the African veldt, deal with the Icelandic winter, etc over time result in different races. But all this stuff is coded in. Us Northern types still want to build, plan for the winter, etc. African types are still geared to run from the lion, charge in and kill game, etc. No matter where in the world modern jet aircraft or our own two feet take us. In a way, effectively, genetic change can occur in a lifetime because the unique code each of us has never occurred before, and that's not counting stray cosmic rays etc. Which are instantiated in one's children in combination with another unique individual. Isn't Nature interesting? Isn't White science great to discover how this works? We have even discovered the cause of diseases, such as the smallpox virus, or the Jew.
2003-11-14 10:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]To appease those religious fanatics, the author describes some of the "holes" in evolutionary theory, but he doesn't make it as clear as he should that the existing evidence that humans evolved from apes is overwhelming. [/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.shtml?main]Response to "Up from the Apes" - Time, Aug. 23, 1999[/url]
2003-11-14 16:07 | User Profile
Hugh, Individual people, through phsiological responses, adapt to some degree in response to the environment. Like when you become acclimated to colder weather or get a tan to protect you from the sun. But, this is not inherited.
In the Theory of Evolution, change is not a response to the environment. Rather, change is 100% random from mutations in the reproductive cells. The adaptation of the population comes when individuals with the "unfit" variations are eliminated through competition.
Someone in hot, naked Africa born with white skin probably would not have done well (sun burn, skin cancer). But, the same white person born in the cold north had the advantage (No vitamin D deficiency). In Africa, food and warmth is all around. You only had to chase your food. In the cold north, you needed smarts to survive as food and warmth were hard to come by.
One caveat: The evidence against Evolution is overwhelming. Evolutionists themselves often insist that the differences between blacks and whites are completely insignificant in terms of Evolution. And, they've never been able to demonstrate that nature has much creative ability. Angler is upset because the HowStuffWorks website refuses to be as religious toward Evolution as a neocon toward Israel.
2003-11-15 01:31 | User Profile
TD:
Thank you for the link: I'll read that article as soon as I can and post comments on this thread afterward.
HH:
The evidence against Evolution is overwhelming. Evolutionists themselves often insist that the differences between blacks and whites are completely insignificant in terms of Evolution. And, they've never been able to demonstrate that nature has much creative ability. Angler is upset because the HowStuffWorks website refuses to be as religious toward Evolution as a neocon toward Israel.
Actually, I'm not upset about anything, and there's nothing "religious" about evolution. All scientific belief in evolution comes from evidence and inductive reasoning -- no blind faith is involved.
The fact is that those who refuse to accept or even consider the correctness of evolutionary science are afraid to do so. They have an emotional need to reject it, since it goes against beliefs that have been so deeply ingrained that they can't possibly imagine living without them. But fear should never, ever be the basis of belief in anything.
Of course the reality of evolution cannot be proved in a deductive sense, just as we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the law of gravity will not suddenly reverse itself next week. Nevertheless, reason and the available evidence lead us to believe certain things based on what has come before. That's how science works, and it works extremely well.
Man's evolution from apes is by far the best explanation available for the known fact that apes and humans have genetic codes that are 98% identical. It's also the best explanation for the observed fossil record. It's possible that God simply created all those things simultaneously, but by doing so He would be misleading human beings into believing that evolution occurred -- and Christianity holds that God is never a deceiver. (It's also possible that extraterrestrials created the earth, mankind, and even our entire known universe, but there's no more evidence to support that than there is to support Creationism.)
Some of the evidence for the evolution of man comes from the fact that evolution on a smaller scale is regularly observed in the world today. For example, you can watch evolution happen under a microscope in a laboratory. For example, bacterial resistance to antibiotics is caused by evolution: when an antibiotic is introduced into a population of bacteria, there's always a chance that some bacteria will have acquired a genetic mutation that allows them to survive the antibiotic assault. Those bacteria are then able to reproduce, unlike the ones that were killed, and thus the next generation of bacteria will have more members that are less susceptible to that antibiotic.
Another example of small-scale evolution that can be observed today comes from certain populations of moths. Populations of this kind of moth that live in highly-polluted areas tend to be colored more darkly than those of the same species that live in clean environments. This is because the moths that acquired certain random mutations of their "color gene" that caused them to be darker -- and thus have better camouflage against the soot-covered trees in the polluted area -- were less likely to be eaten by predators.
Of course these known examples of evolution are not as drastic as the subject of our debate, the evolution of mankind from apes. However, it should be noted that even a subtle change in a gene can have huge effects upon an organism's development. That's why apes and human beings are so different in spite of the known, observable fact that the genomes of these two species of primates are 98% identical.
So...what evidence is there against the evolution of men from apes? The Bible? I hope there's more than that, as the Bible is full of contradictions. For example:
How did Judas die after betraying Jesus? Did he hang himself (Matthew 27:5), or did he die in a fall that caused all his guts to fall out (Acts 1:18)?
Were both thieves who were crucified with Jesus bad, or was one good and the other unrepentant? The Gospels differ in their account. At most one account can be correct; the others are factually incorrect.
Other contradictions can be found here: [url]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#potter_field[/url]
Biblical contradictions do not, of course, disprove the existence of God; neither do they debunk Christianity. However, this much is certain: the Bible CANNOT be literally correct. It's logically impossible. That's a painful truth to many people, but it's inescapable. To say that every word in the Bible is correct makes no more sense than to say that 2+2=5.
Now, I should mention that I do believe in God and even consider myself a Christian; however, I'm not afraid to follow the truth wherever it leads. The existence of God can NEVER be proven or disproven by men. The Bible, miracles, "near-death experiences" -- none of those things amounts to proof. My intuition leads me to believe that God does exist, but that is for purely metaphysical reasons. The Bible in no way constitutes proof of anything, since it has never been proven to be God's word; in fact, it CANNOT be God's unadulterated word, since it contains logical contradictions and errors of fact.
2003-11-15 05:05 | User Profile
Angler, the theory of Evolution exists not because of its strength but because it's naturalistic as opposed to theistic. I don't think there is any deceit in how God does anything. There is simply much we don't know about the world and much evidence that is misrepresented by people trying to build the case for Evolution, or maybe innocently trying to interpret everything in the context of Evolution.
My simple problem with Evolution is that nature simply appears to lack the required creative ability. I don't see your examples of "small-scale evolution" as making Evolution a viable belief but as highlighting the difficulty of transforming a species. My attitude toward that evidence is "In all the world, those small things are about the best there is?"
Those evidences you point to aren't all they're cracked up to be. The genetic code similarity between apes and humans only applies to genes we both share. The whole genomes are not being compared. So, you have an exaggerated figure of similarity. Besides, similarity might dictate how you arrange relationships but it does nothing to prove those relationships are correct.
Mutations can lead to bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics. But, this is usually because the mutation breaks something and thus the bacteria cannot process the antibiotic efficiently enough to kill itself. The broken bacteria is also at a huge disadvantage when competing against other bacteria in the absence of the antibiotic. Besides, even a mutation with a lucky benefit is a miserable distance from the accumulation of mutations needed to really transform the bacteria, never mind that the mutation is not of a progressive nature.
Those moths aren't known to have acquired a color mutation. They always existed in two colors, just the proportions of the population's two colors changed. Besides, as with the bacteria, one mutation is an insignificant step. How about some examples of multiple mutations building on each other?
As far as I'm concerned, Judas hung himself and then fell from where he hung himself, like maybe he broke a branch while trying to hang himself over a precipice. It doesn't make any sense that he would have just fallen and burst open without a reason for falling. But, that seems to be what you assert when you say there's a contradiction. How did he fall? Nothing says he jumped.
Both the thieves on the cross were bad, but one became good. Even your "good" one admited that he deserved to be executed. As far as I'm concerned, they both attacked Jesus but one of them was moved by how Jesus responded and he repented. That's not spelled out, but it fits. To me, it shows that Jesus continued to change people even while being crucified.
This world is so full of ignorant conclusions based on the Bible that I'm not going to be dogmatic about anything that isn't explicit and repeated. I don't think any biblical text is error-free. And, we all suffer from misunderstandings of what the Bible correctly says. This world is also full of ignorant conclusions that exist for no other reason than people rejecting God.
If thousands of observed generations of bacteria result in nothing more notable than a little antibiotic resistance, how could I think thousands of unobserved generations of apes could result in humans? Never mind the Bible.
2003-11-15 15:59 | User Profile
Angler, the theory of Evolution exists not because of its strength but because it's naturalistic as opposed to theistic.
But that's just not the case. For one thing, it's entirely possible to believe in evolution and also believe in God, and many people do -- myself included. My belief in God is completely independent of my belief in evolution, the Big Bang, or any other scientific theory. Thus, I have absolutely no emotional stake in believing in any given theory over any other. Creationists DO have such a emotional investment. The thought that the beliefs they've had impressed upon them -- often from birth -- could be wrong is just too painful for them to acknowledge. Therefore, they start from the unproved premise that the Bible is 100% correct, then try to reconcile science with that premise. They never rigorously address the question, "How do I know the Bible is correct?"
Furthermore, why could God not have chosen to create human beings through evolution? Or perhaps God simply created the universe through the Big Bang, knowing full well that human beings would eventually evolve. There is one and only one reason why creationists refuse to admit this possibility: it conflicts with the literal Biblical account(s) of creation as described in Genesis.
Of course, there are many other aspects of nature that conflict with the Bible. For example, there is no "dome" in the sky. There are no "floodgates" in the sky that open to cause rain. There is no "firmament" that holds the stars in the sky. A mustard seed is not "the smallest of all seeds." There is no place on earth from which the entire world can be seen (as in the story of Christ's temptation by the Devil).
There is simply much we don't know about the world and much evidence that is misrepresented by people trying to build the case for Evolution, or maybe innocently trying to interpret everything in the context of Evolution.
Well, it's true that there are a great many aspects of nature that people have not yet figured out and may never be figured out. But take a look back over the centuries. Religion has always been used to explain the aspects of nature that mankind didn't understand. Each time science -- whether primitive or more modern -- found a natural explanation for some phenomenon that had previously been attributed to unseen supernatural forces, religion would have to backpedal a bit. For example, Christian dogma taught for centuries that the earth was the center of the solar system. Once evidence to the contrary became too strong to refute, the Church backpedalled. This pattern has been repeated over and over and over again.
The genetic code similarity between apes and humans only applies to genes we both share. The whole genomes are not being compared. So, you have an exaggerated figure of similarity.
That may indeed be the case; I'll take your word for it. Do you happen to know what the percentage of commonality is for the entire genomes?
Mutations can lead to bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics. But, this is usually because the mutation breaks something and thus the bacteria cannot process the antibiotic efficiently enough to kill itself. The broken bacteria is also at a huge disadvantage when competing against other bacteria in the absence of the antibiotic.
This is news to me. Do you have a source for this information?
Besides, even a mutation with a lucky benefit is a miserable distance from the accumulation of mutations needed to really transform the bacteria, never mind that the mutation is not of a progressive nature.
You seem to be assuming that a single mutation takes place and then the process stops there. That's not the case. If it were so, then bacteria would not be able to acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics over time -- as they've been known to do.
No, we cannot watch bacteria evolve into multicellular organisms in our own lifetimes. Such a process would take millions of years. But we can get a glimpse of the process that's sufficient to show how successive random mutations over generations, when combined with environmental pressure(s), can and will lead to improved organisms.
Those moths aren't known to have acquired a color mutation. They always existed in two colors, just the proportions of the population's two colors changed. Ah -- but what caused the proportions of the populations to change? The answer, of course, is natural selection, i.e., evolution.
Besides, as with the bacteria, one mutation is an insignificant step. How about some examples of multiple mutations building on each other? For examples of multiple mutations building on each other, one only needs to refer to the fossil record. More on that here:
[url]http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html[/url]
Of course, one could always claim that "all scientists are biased in favor of evolution and will only report evidence that supports it." But what would be the point? It's well-known that there are plenty of scientists out there who believe both in God and in evolution (my biology professor in college was one). If atheistic scientists were all in some sort of grand conspiracy to lie to themselves and to the public about the evidence for evolution, then they would quickly be overtaken in their careers by the more honest scientists who simply reported the evidence as they found it.
As far as I'm concerned, Judas hung himself and then fell from where he hung himself, like maybe he broke a branch while trying to hang himself over a precipice. Sorry, but that's grasping at straws. The two accounts are different. Let's look at the passages in detail:
First, Chapter 27 of Matthew:
*Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day.
Now let's look at Chapter 1 of Acts:
For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Nothing in Acts says that Judas fell after hanging himself. There's even a contradiction about what Judas did with the silver pieces.
It doesn't make any sense that he would have just fallen and burst open without a reason for falling. But, that seems to be what you assert when you say there's a contradiction. How did he fall? Nothing says he jumped. You're right, it doesn't make sense -- a lot of things in the Bible don't make sense! Trying to fit two of every living creature on earth into a boat with the Biblically-stated dimensions of Noah's Ark would be quite a challenge indeed.
Here's an even larger list of contradictions than the previous list I posted:
[url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html[/url]
Some of the contradictions listed can be resolved; most cannot without resorting to the most extreme contortions of imagination.
Does this mean I don't believe that Christ existed or that He was/is God's Son? No. I was raised Catholic and still consider myself a Catholic; the Catholic Church does NOT interpret the Bible literally, but only in a sense that relates to certain moral themes. Some of those moral themes seem doubtful to me as well -- for example, the idea of eternal punishment for offenses that cannot harm God and can only do finite, albeit grave, damage to human beings -- but it's possible that such themes represent the work of editors who relied on religion in past centuries as a means of control over the population (the "Divine Right of Kings").
If thousands of observed generations of bacteria result in nothing more notable than a little antibiotic resistance, how could I think thousands of unobserved generations of apes could result in humans? Never mind the Bible. A hell of a lot more time was involved in the evolution of humans from apes than is needed for the bacterial evolution we can witness today. That's why scientists are forced to rely on the fossil record. It is incomplete, yes, but the holes in the record are still being filled.
2003-11-15 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Nothing in Acts says that Judas fell after hanging himself. There's even a contradiction about what Judas did with the silver pieces.
You're right, it doesn't make sense -- a lot of things in the Bible don't make sense![/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html]Whither the Traitor?: Matthew vs. Acts on the Issue of Judas' Death[/url]
The truth is out there, Angler. Disbelief in the literal truth of the Scriptures cast doubt on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if you take that away then all of it is not worth anything. Any doctrine, Church, denomination or preacher that teaches the Bible is not the literally true, inspired word of God are in error and opening the door to the vilest heresies like we are witnessing in the Anglican Church over the homo bishop. In a bible-believing church, things like this are not even an issue.
2003-11-15 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html]Whither the Traitor?: Matthew vs. Acts on the Issue of Judas' Death[/url]
The truth is out there, Angler. Disbelief in the literal truth of the Scriptures cast doubt on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if you take that away then all of it is not worth anything. Any doctrine, Church, denomination or preacher that teaches the Bible is not the literally true, inspired word of God are in error and opening the door to the vilest heresies like we are witnessing in the Anglican Church over the homo bishop. In a bible-believing church, things like this are not even an issue.[/QUOTE]
** [url]http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/bnei-noach.html[/url]
Hellenic Jews interpreted the Hebrew Bible as allegory (i.e. Philo Judaeus). Christianity is rooted in Hellenistic Judaism and not Pharasaical or Talmudic Judaism. Early Christian Fathers were never Fundamentalists, having been rooted in the allegorical tradtion to begin with. **
2003-11-16 05:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html]Whither the Traitor?: Matthew vs. Acts on the Issue of Judas' Death[/url]
The truth is out there, Angler. Disbelief in the literal truth of the Scriptures cast doubt on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if you take that away then all of it is not worth anything. Any doctrine, Church, denomination or preacher that teaches the Bible is not the literally true, inspired word of God are in error and opening the door to the vilest heresies like we are witnessing in the Anglican Church over the homo bishop. In a bible-believing church, things like this are not even an issue.[/QUOTE]But simply stating that the Bible is literally true doesn't make it so. Saying that nonbelievers go to hell, or that human morality will go down the toilet if people don't believe everything in the Bible, does nothing to affect the truth or falsity of anything in the Bible.
Is it your belief that there is a "firmament" in the skies that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below? How about the stars; were they created after the earth? Is the sun not a star? The answer to all such questions must be "yes" if we are to believe that the Bible is literally true:
[url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/index.html[/url]
If you have proof that the Bible is literally true, then please refer me to it. I'd be very interested to see it (as would billions of other people). Please note, however, that the Bible cannot be used to prove the truth of itself. For all I know, the Bible is merely a collection of Jewish mythology. How can I know otherwise? As far as I can tell, all people who unreservedly believe in the Bible believe either because of blind faith, or they believe on account of the fear of what might await them if they don't believe and turn out to be wrong.
If God wanted people to accept everything in the Bible and wanted it to be the source of knowledge that would lead to mankind's salvation, then why did He allow it to be so vague and open to differing interpretations?
God, if He exists (and I believe He does), is assumed to be perfect. To allow men to be lost to eternal damnation on account of a book's vagueness, lack of cogency, and apparent moral flaws (such as the punishing of children for the sins of their fathers) is not a sign of perfection.
How can a person choose to believe in something when his reasoning faculties hinder him? In order to do so, it is necessary to lie to oneself -- to tell oneself that one believes when he really has great doubts.
Even more important is the question: Why is belief important? Why does an infinitely just and perfect God require human beings, whom He is said to love, to believe a certain story on blind faith, or else face inconceivably horrible and unending punishment? Does that make sense?
Imagine that one of your loved ones were sent to Hell, and you were somehow aware of this. Would you be able to love a God who sent your unbelieving (but good, kind, and just) wife, mother, child, or whomever, into a pit to feel the razor fangs of fire for eternity? All because of her failure to believe in a certain story without any solid evidence? Think about it.
There are many people in the world whom I dislike, and there have been some whom I've even hated. But there is nothing -- NOTHING -- that another human being could possibly do to me, or to anyone else, that could make me send them to hell, even if I were able to do so. My stomach turns at the thought of such horrible cruelty.
An issue like that of Judas' death is actually not even important to the overall message of the Bible. So, while every attempt to resolve that contradiction is, in my opinion, a desperate and tortuous attempt to reconcile two obviously different accounts of what happened to Judas and his blood money, such a contradiction need not sway anyone's faith. However, as shown in the link I posted above, the Bible is abounding in contradictions that have a direct bearing on one's salvation. For example, there's the "faith or works" debate. The reason why the debate has never been solved is that there is plenty of support for both views in the Bible. Take a look here:
[url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html[/url]
How many different branches of Christianity are there in the world today, Tex? 10,000? There's a reason for all that disagreement: the Bible is anything but clear. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic; I'm just honestly stating my thoughts. This isn't a subject I take lightly, as I was raised a Christian and only began to doubt the Bible when I studied it and thought about it carefully. The list of contradictions in the Bible -- many of which seem impossible to resolve -- is formidable indeed:
[url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/index.html[/url]
2003-11-16 06:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]But that's just not the case. For one thing, it's entirely possible to believe in evolution and also believe in God, and many people do
However, it's not at all possible for an Atheist to consider that God played any role in Creation. The natural sciences are dominated by Atheists.
Of course, there are many other aspects of nature that conflict with the Bible. For example, there is no "dome" in the sky. There are no "floodgates" in the sky that open to cause rain. There is no "firmament" that holds the stars in the sky. A mustard seed is not "the smallest of all seeds." There is no place on earth from which the entire world can be seen (as in the story of Christ's temptation by the Devil).
The Greek text does not say that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. The Greek text uses the word "small" not "smallest" in reference to the mustard seed. It looks like to me that translators choose "smallest" to try to create continuity with the word "all." A fair translation might be that the mustard seed is small among all seeds (but not necessarily the smallest). Or, it could be that Jesus was just talking about all the seeds that the locals or the locals and Him, in his human state, were familiar with. It doesn't say the smallest seed in all the world, but just the smallest they ("you") planted "in the ground" in a "garden"! Either way, I don't have a problem nor do I think either solution requires any amount of desperation to smooth things out.
If you provided a list of 100 alleged contraditions, it would break down as... 90 of them would just be weak with no difficulty to resolve. 9 of them might require accepting seemingly unlikely circumstances to resolve. And, only 1 of them would present a real difficulty. But, you know that you don't have to have every answer to believe something.
The lesson for the critic from "the smallest seed" and other alleged contraditions is not to jump to the conclusion that you've proven an error, and don't be be dogmatic about the wording of a specific translation and things that look implied. The latter is a point that "fundamentalists" also need to remember.
Religion has always been used to explain the aspects of nature that mankind didn't understand. Each time science -- whether primitive or more modern -- found a natural explanation for some phenomenon that had previously been attributed to unseen supernatural forces, religion would have to backpedal a bit.
That's just sophistry. Countless "natural explanations" have also been proven wrong. In fact, any conclusion of any nature based on a signficant lack of knowledge of something is bound to eventually be shown to be false. There was a scientific and religious belief in the Ptolemaic system (geocentrism)?. Why do you treat it as a black eye for religion that the religious belief was debunked but you don't treat it for a black eye for science that the scientific belief was debunked? In fact, the religious belief in geocentrism was rooted in the scientific belief. It was just that the corrupt religious government that made religious dogma of Evolution, err, geocentrism was less willing to change than the creationist Galileo.
Beside, you're wrong when you say the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Ever here of a chap named Albert Einstein? He promoted the concept of relativity which is now popularly accepted among scientists. According to such, it is as fair to call the Earth the center as it is the sun. It's all relative. You could build your little solar system model the same as usual but instead of attaching the base that holds up the model to the sun, you could attach the base to the Earth. And, if the universe is finite, the Earth might be at the literal and absolute center of the universe. See, your science is likely wrong in at least one, if not more, regards.
The important point is that I have yet to learn of any thing the Bible clearly says that has been scientifically refuted. The Bible doesn't clearly say that the earth is the center. It says the sun stood still in a the sky -- a completely accurate statement about relative positions. It doesn't mean anything that a bunch of claims by non-biblical religious texts have been refuted. And, it doesn't mean anything to me that dubious interpretations of the Bible have been refuted.
That may indeed be the case; I'll take your word for it. Do you happen to know what the percentage of commonality is for the entire genomes?
A comparison of the entire genome of any ape species to humans is still several years away.
This is news to me. Do you have a source for this information?
For example, Tuberculosis can, by mutation, gain resistance to isoniazid-based antibiotics. Whever you hear of a beneficial mutation, you should ask how the mutation works and then you will find that it isn't so evolutionary after all. TB eats the isoniazid and dies. TB has a catalase-peroxidase gene which is helps TB be an efficient eater by producing a catalytic enzyme. If that gene or a related gene mutates then the production of that enzyme falls through the floor. Now, TB gains resistance. It's not that the mutation created a mechanism that defeats isoniazid, it's that the TB is just too weak to use the antiobiotic to kill itself.
You're probably more familiar with sickle-cell anemia, which is caused by a mutation. It's hardly an evolutionary improvement. In fact, it's a sickly degeneration. But, it's more damaging to the malaria-causing parasite that needs healthy blood cells than it is to the host.
You seem to be assuming that a single mutation takes place and then the process stops there. That's not the case. If it were so, then bacteria would not be able to acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics over time -- as they've been known to do.
Not all gained resistance is caused by mutation. Bacteria can trade genetic material with other bacteria that already has the resistance and Selection can simply kill off the less resistant bacteria and make the resulting population that is more resistant. And, antibiotics that work in different ways can be defeated by breaking different mechanisms involved in the bacteria killing itself with the antibiotic.
Remember, antibiotics are by nature very weak to begin with else they would kill the sick person taking the antibiotic, so it's not a huge task to gain resistance to them.
But, what I want to see is any example of multiple mutations building on each other, not simply multiple mutations with similiar benefits. I have never heard of any such example. And, just as a matter of reason, it's not likely that these degenerative mutations passed off as Evolution could ever build on themselves.
No, we cannot watch bacteria evolve into multicellular organisms in our own lifetimes. Such a process would take millions of years. But we can get a glimpse of the process that's sufficient to show how successive random mutations over generations, when combined with environmental pressure(s), can and will lead to improved organisms.
The number of generations from the alleged chimp-human split is about the number of generations that can occur in bacteria in 50 years. Chimp and human populations have also been relatively small while bacteria populations are always huge, offering more opportunity for Evolution. Bacteria is often subjected artificially to increased evolutionary pressures. We have been looking at various species of bacteria for 50 years, so why have we not seen significant changes in bacteria when we have looked at it long enough!?
Ah -- but what caused the proportions of the populations to change? The answer, of course, is natural selection, i.e., evolution.
Sigh. Natual Selection is not Evolution. It's merely something Evolutionists believes plays a role in producing Evolution. No one disputes that Natural Selection happens.
For examples of multiple mutations building on each other, one only needs to refer to the fossil record. More on that here:
[url]http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html[/url]
That stuff as as weak as anything we've already discussed.
If atheistic scientists were all in some sort of grand conspiracy to lie to themselves and to the public about the evidence for evolution, then they would quickly be overtaken in their careers by the more honest scientists who simply reported the evidence as they found it.
Intolerance and bigotry does not require conspiracy. And, when the government has de facto established Evolution as a state religion, "honest scientists" are not very free to challenge Evolution. Remember Galileo?
Nothing in Acts says that Judas fell after hanging himself. There's even a contradiction about what Judas did with the silver pieces.
As I already asked, how did Judas fall if not after hanging himself? Why doesn't it say he jumped off a cliff? Why doesn't it say he was dancing on the edge of a tall building when he slipped? You almost demand a supernatural explanation to create a contradiction. He was walking down the street one day when he just fell down and burst open.
Some of the contradictions listed can be resolved; most cannot without resorting to the most extreme contortions of imagination.
So, you think my responses to your given examples of contradictions are extreme contortions of imagination?
A hell of a lot more time was involved in the evolution of humans from apes than is needed for the bacterial evolution we can witness today. [/QUOTE]
Bacteria reproduces in minutes, humans and chimps in years.
2003-11-16 10:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]How many different branches of Christianity are there in the world today, Tex? 10,000? There's a reason for all that disagreement: the Bible is anything but clear. [/QUOTE]
I'm not one for dogmatic apologetics as I believe that clear and certain 'proofs' only serve to diminish faith, and ultimately we can go no further than faith in our individual search for Truth. However, I also believe that in essentials the Scriptures are quite clear. The entire Old Testament serves to point the way for the life and work of one man, or rather the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Born of a virgin, fully God and fully man, who suffered death on the cross and rose from the grave to ascend into heaven. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved is a simple message, albeit sophistry to the Greek and a stumbling-block to the Jew. One can only 'know' this Truth existentially, that is to live it and believe against the understanding day by day.
I wish you the best in your searching out the answers to your questions. Indeed they are the most important questions you will ever ask yourself.
2003-11-16 16:15 | User Profile
It doesn't say the smallest seed in all the world, but just the smallest they ("you") planted "in the ground" in a "garden"! Either way, I don't have a problem nor do I think either solution requires any amount of desperation to smooth things out. This actually is a plausible explanation for this particular difficulty.
If you provided a list of 100 alleged contraditions, it would break down as... 90 of them would just be weak with no difficulty to resolve. 9 of them might require accepting seemingly unlikely circumstances to resolve. And, only 1 of them would present a real difficulty. But, you know that you don't have to have every answer to believe something. I would say that you're greatly understating the difficulties in the Bible. As I wrote in my last post, the "mustard seed" example is trivial and of no real importance to the larger picture. Even if there were an unresolvable problem there, it could be attributed to a copyist's error or some such thing. But then there are problems having to do with much more serious issues, particularly those having to do with salvation, and those are not as easily resolved.
As I said in other words earlier, if God wanted the Bible to be a source of information leading to the salvation of anyone who read it, you'd think He would have made it as unambiguous as a math textbook -- something that ALL intelligent people will interpret in exactly the same way. Otherwise, it seems that the question of each man's salvation is reduced to whether or not he has the wherewithal to interpret the Bible correctly. That's like a teacher giving a test in school and threatening to burn at the stake anyone who doesn't get an A -- only much more severe, since eternal damnation is threatened.
The lesson for the critic from "the smallest seed" and other alleged contraditions is not to jump to the conclusion that you've proven an error, and don't be be dogmatic about the wording of a specific translation and things that look implied. The latter is a point that "fundamentalists" also need to remember. I totally agree with that. In fact, many who point out Biblical contradictions are not doing so in an attempt to debunk Christianity, but only Biblical Fundamentalism. I realize that the Bible wasn't written in English during the 20th Century, and I've often tried to impress that point on Fundamentalists with whom I've debated (most of my debates on this subject, incidentally, were with Fundamentalists of the dispensationalist variety over modern Israel).
That's just sophistry. Countless "natural explanations" have also been proven wrong. In fact, any conclusion of any nature based on a signficant lack of knowledge of something is bound to eventually be shown to be false. There was a scientific and religious belief in the Ptolemaic system (geocentrism)?. Why do you treat it as a black eye for religion that the religious belief was debunked but you don't treat it for a black eye for science that the scientific belief was debunked? Because old scientific beliefs that have been debunked are always replaced by other ideas that came from science, not religion. That's how science works: mankind's store of knowledge is constantly being updating based on the acquisition of newer and more complete information. In the end, the value of a scientific theory in the eyes of scientists is how well its predictions fit experiment. The measure of a scientific theory in the eyes of Fundamentalists is: "Does it fit the Bible?"
Beside, you're wrong when you say the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Ever here of a chap named Albert Einstein? It would be odd if I hadn't, especially since I'm a physicist by trade.
He promoted the concept of relativity which is now popularly accepted among scientists. According to such, it is as fair to call the Earth the center as it is the sun. It's all relative. You could build your little solar system model the same as usual but instead of attaching the base that holds up the model to the sun, you could attach the base to the Earth. And, if the universe is finite, the Earth might be at the literal and absolute center of the universe. See, your science is likely wrong in at least one, if not more, regards. Not exactly. Although the earth can be considered to be the body around which all the other planets (and the sun and asteroids) revolve, the orbits would not be geometrically centered on the earth in such a model; they'd loop all over the place. That's why Copernicus' theory was so radical in his time. Anyway, the true "center" of the solar system is best defined as its center of mass, which is certainly NOT the earth.
The important point is that I have yet to learn of any thing the Bible clearly says that has been scientifically refuted. The Bible doesn't clearly say that the earth is the center. What about the "firmament," into which the stars were supposedly fixed, that supposedly separates the rain waters from the earth until the "floodgates" open? There is no such thing.
It says the sun stood still in a the sky -- a completely accurate statement about relative positions. No, that is not an accurate reflection of relativity. If the earth is moving with respect to the sun, then the sun is moving with respect to the earth. On the other hand, I have no problem with the idea of God interfering with nature; God isn't bound by physical laws. Hence, I don't find it difficult to believe that the sun once stood still in the sky. What I do find it difficult to believe is that God deceived and continues to deceive mankind by the presentation of a fossil record that indicates that mankind evolved from lower primates.
It doesn't mean anything that a bunch of claims by non-biblical religious texts have been refuted. Have they? Have Hinduism and/or the Koran been refuted by science?
And, it doesn't mean anything to me that dubious interpretations of the Bible have been refuted. As far as I'm concerned, any interpretation of the Bible that conflicts with science or logic is dubious. Again, my skepticism is not directed at Christianity per se (although I do have some doubts about it) but at a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I maintain that a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot be any more correct than the claim that 2+2=4576.
The difficulties in the Bible are not merely limited to science, either: there are also logical issues throughout the Bible. For example, before sending the Great Flood to destroy all living things on the earth (both innocent and guilty alike), the Bible quotes God as saying that He is "sorry" that He made them. But God, being omniscient, knows everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen. So how can God be "sorry" for doing anything? He knew that man was going to turn bad even before He ever made man, didn't He? So what's there for God to be sorry about?
As I already asked, how did Judas fall if not after hanging himself? Why doesn't it say he jumped off a cliff? Why doesn't it say he was dancing on the edge of a tall building when he slipped? You almost demand a supernatural explanation to create a contradiction. He was walking down the street one day when he just fell down and burst open. The clear implication of the text is that Judas simply stumbled and fell. After all, it does say that he fell headlong (I don't know the original Greek word used, but the KJV says "headlong"). His bursting open could have been a kind of divine, symbolic punishment for his treachery. Why does this seem like such a ridiculous interpretation to you? It's not like supernatural occurrences are unheard-of in the Bible!
2003-11-16 16:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I'm not one for dogmatic apologetics as I believe that clear and certain 'proofs' only serve to diminish faith, and ultimately we can go no further than faith in our individual search for Truth. However, I also believe that in essentials the Scriptures are quite clear. That's my whole point, Tex! The essentials are clear -- so what difference does it make if the book of Genesis turns out to be allegorical?
The entire Old Testament serves to point the way for the life and work of one man, or rather the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Born of a virgin, fully God and fully man, who suffered death on the cross and rose from the grave to ascend into heaven. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved is a simple message, albeit sophistry to the Greek and a stumbling-block to the Jew. I still believe in Christ, though I have serious doubts about the Bible. Look at it this way, TD: We know that throughout history certain evil men have used religion as a tool to manipulate people, right? Even today, if I turn on the boob tube on Sunday morning, I see these televangelists like Robert Tilton and Benny Hinn "ministering" to their flocks of simple-minded fools (mostly Blacks, incidentally), pretending to "speak in tongues" and telling them to send money. If this sort of thing happens on such a large scale today, then how do we know that some kind of deception wasn't involved in the writing, compilation, or editing of the Bible? For example, maybe Christ didn't really preach eternal damnation; that might have been only added in by unscrupulous early Church authorities for the purpose of controlling people by fear.
It makes no sense to me that God, Whom the Bible says is Love itself, would find satisfaction in being loved by people who only love Him because He threatens them with hellfire. Since when can true love be commanded? And where is the value in "love" that is commanded and enforced by the threat of torture? How can Love even consider sending a loved one to eternal punishment? Is that "love"? I wouldn't even send to hell someone who tortured and killed my entire family! An infinite punishment for a finite crime -- one with finite consequences and committed by a finite being of limited understanding -- seems very unjust to my conscience. I would believe more strongly in the Bible than I do now if it didn't essentially quote God as saying, Believe in Me and love Me -- or else!
One can only 'know' this Truth existentially, that is to live it and believe against the understanding day by day. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., all feel exactly the same way about their respective religions. They are just as certain that they're right as you are certain that you're right.
I wish you the best in your searching out the answers to your questions. Indeed they are the most important questions you will ever ask yourself.[/QUOTE]Thanks, I'll do my best. Yes, these are important questions -- nothing is more important than ultimate truth. However, I cannot bring myself to allow the fear of eternal damnation to suppress my thinking about these things.
2003-11-16 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]As I said in other words earlier, if God wanted the Bible to be a source of information leading to the salvation of anyone who read it, you'd think He would have made it as unambiguous as a math textbook -- something that ALL intelligent people will interpret in exactly the same way.
The zillion Christian denominations are a result of human power struggles, of extra-biblical revelation and bias, of biblical ignorance and disregard, and of obsessions with particular verses or doctrine.
Take yourself and the Catholic Church. The church's extra-biblical doctrines contributed to the formation of new denominations. You believe Genesis is allegorical because of your pro-evolution bias.
Yes, the bible is sometimes ambiguous, especially when you're trying to force it to say things it doesn't say. But, that ambiguity is not to blame for the numerous denominations nor for anyone failing to be saved. You don't have to get every question on the test right to be saved.
I realize that the Bible wasn't written in English during the 20th Century, and I've often tried to impress that point on Fundamentalists with whom I've debated
So-called Fundamentalists often don't take the bible seriously. Their zionism is as biblically ignorant as their claims that Jesus never touched alcohol. If they believed the Bible, they would believe that they're a holy nation, heirs to Abraham's blessing, and that Jesus drank real wine.
Because old scientific beliefs that have been debunked are always replaced by other ideas that came from science, not religion.
What clear teaching in the Bible has ever been debunked (proven false)? Where is a clear contradiction between the Bible and a scientific fact?
Theistic Evolutionists like to point to the Big Bang as an example of religion debunking science. They argue that scientists once thought the universe was eternal when the Bible teaches that the universe had a beginning. This is debunking to whatever capacity religion has to debunk things.
What about the "firmament," into which the stars were supposedly fixed, that supposedly separates the rain waters from the earth until the "floodgates" open? There is no such thing.
I wasn't there when the Earth was created, neither was any scientist. I can only speculate about these things. Evolution, on the other hand, should be held up to a much higher standard because it supposedly is based purely on science and it is forced upon our school children. You should spend more time considering the scientific inadequacies of Evolution than demanding that acts of God be duplicated in a lab or that precious little revealed detail of creation be fleshed out to meet standards that Evolution only meets in Evolutionists' dreams.
I have no problem with the idea of God interfering with nature; God isn't bound by physical laws. Hence, I don't find it difficult to believe that the sun once stood still in the sky. What I do find it difficult to believe is that God deceived and continues to deceive mankind by the presentation of a fossil record that indicates that mankind evolved from lower primates.
You are inconsistent when you leave room for God to interfere with nature when the fundamental philosophy behind Evolution is that God, if He exists, does not interfere with nature. And, if you use God to shore up loose ends of Evolution then you are guilty of trying to salvage a scientifically inadiquate theory by plugging God into the gaps.
Given that Evolution is false, how has God deceived man by making a fossil record indicate that man evolved from lower primates? Was it God who convinced people that a pig's tooth was from an ape man (Nebraska man)? Was it God who for decades suckered people into believing an obvious fraud of a orangutan jaw and a human skull put together as an ape man (Piltdown Man). That same Evolutionist desperation that caused those embarrassing blunders is behind the modern examples of ape men made from nothing more than extinct ape species or exctinct variation of existing species.
Have they? Have Hinduism and/or the Koran been refuted by science?
I think science has nicely refuted claims from the book of Morman. And, of course, Greek and Roman religious beliefs have been so well refuted that those religions are dead.
The difficulties in the Bible are not merely limited to science, either: there are also logical issues throughout the Bible. For example, before sending the Great Flood to destroy all living things on the earth (both innocent and guilty alike), the Bible quotes God as saying that He is "sorry" that He made them.
You don't think God was dictating to Moses and said He's "sorry" in clear modern English? I'm sure something has been lost in the translation. Do you think it likely that the author of Genesis thought of God as something so human that He could be "sorry" for something? There's nothing wrong with trying to understand the Bible in a way that makes sense rather than a way that creates a contradiction.
That "sorry" probably just means that God had to change his course of action because of the course man had taken. And, it's not that God didn't see this coming, it's that God wanted to show that He gave man an oppertunity to choose what is right.
The clear implication of the text is that Judas simply stumbled and fell. After all, it does say that he fell headlong (I don't know the original Greek word used, but the KJV says "headlong"). His bursting open could have been a kind of divine, symbolic punishment for his treachery. Why does this seem like such a ridiculous interpretation to you? It's not like supernatural occurrences are unheard-of in the Bible![/QUOTE]
Headlong means he fell head first or landed on his head. Unless he started his fall from an upside down position, he fell far enough to have time for his body to rotate. Bursting open implies that he fell far and onto rocks, but it could have been a divine act. We are not told it was a divine act and I doubt it would be a divine act for God to flip him upide down after a stumble. For that matter, if bursting was a divine act, then it would be reasonable to conclude that God pushed Judas in the first place and caused him to stumble. So, Judas is taking a walk when suddenly God pushes him, flips him, and bursts him open.
If he simply sumbled, it would have to have been at the edge of precipice to fall headlong and burst open.
But, stumbling off a precipice would create a contradiciton with the hanging account. And, it doesn't explain what he was doing at the edge of the precipice in the first place.
2003-11-16 23:06 | User Profile
You believe Genesis is allegorical because of your pro-evolution bias. Why would I have a pro-evolution bias, especially since I believe in God anyway? On the contrary, it is you, my friend, and other Creationists who have an anti-evolution bias. If the Bible were silent on the whole issue of creation, then I'd bet a million dollars you would have no problem whatsoever with believing in evolution.
I believe (actually, I know) that Genesis is allegorical because it conflicts with known facts about the universe; e.g., the example of the firmament with floodgates that open when it rains. There is no such thing, and there never was. If we are going to believe in such things, then why not believe that Mount Olympus used to exist and that Zeus lived there with Mr. Snuffleupagus as his fuzzy pet elephant? The strength of the evidence for the firmament and for Mount Olympus is the same.
I wasn't there when the Earth was created, neither was any scientist. I can only speculate about these things. It's not necessary to have been there. All that's necessary is to use physics, math, and reason -- the same physics, math, and reason that discovered quantum physics, took man to the moon, invented the transistor and the laser, etc., etc.
Evolution, on the other hand, should be held up to a much higher standard because it supposedly is based purely on science and it is forced upon our school children. Evolution is based on science. At least it's more solidly founded in science than Creationism is, which has no scientific basis whatsoever. In any case, I don't believe any kind of curriculum should be forced upon anyone. Parents should be in full control.
You should spend more time considering the scientific inadequacies of Evolution than demanding that acts of God be duplicated in a lab or that precious little revealed detail of creation be fleshed out to meet standards that Evolution only meets in Evolutionists' dreams. I have never demanded that acts of God be duplicated in a lab. And while statements about evolution being scientifically inadequate are certainly bold, on what are you basing them? Are you more knowledgable about biology than, say, James Watson? How about Walter Gilbert? Not being a biologist, I do not consider myself competent to judge their work -- especially since their work has brought innumerable benefits to mankind, such as Watson's discovery of the structure of DNA.
If no one had ever been willing to question the Bible, then we'd all still be living in the Dark Ages, burning old women at the stake and dying of the Plague. Fortunately, the methods of science and reason -- which I believe were given to humanity by God as a gift to be used for the benefit of humanity -- provide a candle in the darkness.
You are inconsistent when you leave room for God to interfere with nature when the fundamental philosophy behind Evolution is that God, if He exists, does not interfere with nature. That's incorrect. There is nothing in the theory of evolution stipulating that God cannot be the cause of certain mutations that guide evolution's course. Evolution is a highly plausible explanation for what happened, but not for why it happened.
And, if you use God to shore up loose ends of Evolution then you are guilty of trying to salvage a scientifically inadiquate theory by plugging God into the gaps. The only reason there are loose ends in evolutionary theory is that scientists have not yet found and examined every single fossil in existence. That doesn't mean they'll never be found.
Now, it's not too difficult to point out the unanswered questions in the evolutionary model -- that's what that first article Tex posted on this thread basically did. It's easy enough to point out that there are fossils missing from this period or that, etc. But here's much a harder question: What scientific evidence is there for the Biblical account of creation? Can you claim that there is more scientific evidence for the Genesis account (actually, there are two, and they conflict with each other) than there is for evolution? How much scientific evidence is there for the existence of a firmament and floodgates? How much for the Biblical implication that the earth existed before the sun, moon, and stars?
In short: If the Biblical account of creation is correct, then God must have changed the universe since then to deceive human beings -- particularly the most intelligent ones, such as Nobel Prize-winning scientists who learned calculus at the age of ten -- into thinking otherwise. I can't accept that. I believe that, if God exists, then He gave human beings reasoning ability so they could use it to learn about the universe, tame it, and use their discoveries to help their fellow men.
2003-11-17 01:50 | User Profile
How has this become a religious debate? The only brand of Christianity that makes sense for Whites is Identity Christianity. That's the only thread of it that's not suicidal for Us.
2003-11-17 05:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html]Whither the Traitor?: Matthew vs. Acts on the Issue of Judas' Death[/url]
The truth is out there, Angler. Disbelief in the literal truth of the Scriptures cast doubt on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if you take that away then all of it is not worth anything. Any doctrine, Church, denomination or preacher that teaches the Bible is not the literally true, inspired word of God are in error and opening the door to the vilest heresies like we are witnessing in the Anglican Church over the homo bishop. In a bible-believing church, things like this are not even an issue.[/QUOTE] Arguing that you have to disbelieve X because it would have some allegedly negative result is a classic example of a fallacy; I forget the term for what kind of fallacy, but essentially you're saying that you refuse to examine the truth or falsity of X based on an a priori assumption that precludes rational debate. You're essentially admiting that you're afraid to argue the facts because the facts might threaten a deeply cherished belief, and therefore, "so much the worse for the facts". If that's what religion really demands, it's not hard to understand why so many people reject religion. Of course, it's not true that all religions, or all Christians, adhere to such literalist beliefs.
2003-11-17 08:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Of course, it's not true that all religions, or all Christians, adhere to such literalist beliefs.[/QUOTE]
That's true. Some even ordain women and homosexuals as priests and archbishops. I consider them in a state of apostasy. Literalist belief in the scriptures is critical because Christianity is uniquely grounded in the real, historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is God as man speaking directly to each individual stating there is no other way but through me.
You're essentially admiting that you're afraid to argue the facts because the facts might threaten a deeply cherished belief, and therefore, "so much the worse for the facts".
Now you shouldn't make that assumption because I'm not doing this. For over 2000 years mankind has made every attempt to discredit and find fault with every minute aspect of the Bible in order not to submit to the authority of Christ. You can find just about all of it here on the internet, in fact. I don't believe it is my duty here to recount every defense of every challenge, especially when other men much more intelligent than I have already done so. As I stated previously, the Truth is out there and I would welcome anyone with questions to begin their search and question everything. Every man and woman for his or herself. For my part, I have full faith in the Canon Scripture (thank you Walter and the early Catholic church), and it's ability to withstand the closest scrutiny and investigation in it's presentation and ultimate testimony, which is Christ. My only responsibility is to present the Gospel, you are free to accept or reject it and go and do whatever you will in return.
2003-11-17 10:25 | User Profile
For over 2000 years mankind has made every attempt to discredit and find fault with every minute aspect of the Bible in order not to submit to the authority of Christ. Well...not really. The Christian Church certainly suffered severe persecution under Roman emperors such as Nero and Domitian in its early stages. But the fear of hell is a powerful motivator, and those who are afraid of hell will endure any earthly torture to avoid it. That probably accounts for the early success of Christianity -- those who are tempted to apostasize are reminded constantly of the eternal fires that they'll supposedly face after death.
Later on, when the Church gained power, it used unspeakable cruelty of the most vile sort to suppress both theological and scientific dissent. That continued over the centuries, and I have a sneaking hunch that not many doubters of the faith were willing to make their doubts public when faced with punishments that would make being burned at the stake feel like a soak in a jacuzzi. It wasn't just human cruelty that was behind the torture, though. In a sick, twisted way, the torturers might have thought that they were doing their victims a favor by rescuing them from eternal torture. They might have thought that by torturing those helpless creatures they were doing "God's work." How else could one human being be so cruel to another and then be able to sleep at night? He'd have to be totally insane.
Anyway, religions of all sorts have survived as long as they have because of (1) fierce persecution of non-believers, (2) fear of hell as punishment for not thinking the "right thoughts" or believing the "right things," and (3) the lack of knowledge about the natural universe that reigned supreme before the Enlightenment.
No, people do not require proof to believe in religious doctrines. They merely need to be indoctrinated by parents or other trusted figures, and then their brains become hard-wired to the point where it's nearly impossible for them to see any aspects of reality that conflict with the model that's been inculcated in them.
Human psychology is fascinating and mysterious, and there are countless examples of groups of people adhering to dubious beliefs. Remember the Heaven's Gate cult? They were those folks who committed group-suicide not too many years ago because they thought it was the only way to board a visiting UFO that was coming to take them to Heaven (or that's my recollection, anyway). We think they were kooks, of course, but they were actually reputed to be people of above-average intelligence who held what most would consider to be high-end jobs (I think many were into computer programming, for example). And these people were so sure that they were correct in their beliefs that they were willing to kill themselves on that basis! I wonder if many Christians today have as much faith as the Heaven's Gate cult did.
In spite of all these things, I do believe that some God must exist. It seems more intuitively reasonable to me to believe that the universe was created by a self-existent Higher Power that transcends the universe, than to believe that the universe was formed out of nothing for no reason. However, certain tenets of Christianity have some VERY serious problems that have by no means been adequately resolved by philosophers and theologians. That's the cold, hard, frightening truth.
2003-11-17 12:53 | User Profile
I sure had no use for Christianity as a kid, I saw that that way led to suicide. I grew up immersed in the fight for White survival, where just walking to the store at the wrong time could get you killed. And here were all these Christians preaching peace and love and treating humans and apes the same, encouraging love (both platonic and otherwise) between humans and apes. No way! I wanted, and needed, a religious system that was all about survival for me and my kind, and about pounding my enemies into jelly so they'd not wipe out myself and my kind. A religion that preaches killing one's enemy before they get you, and fertilizing your farm fields with their bones and blood. A White version of Islam would have been perfect; if there'd been an Odinist, Creativity, or Identity Christian church in town I'd have joined right up. That's what many people on here are talking about. Christianity is not cutting it these days, it's just getting Whites killed.
2003-11-17 16:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]In spite of all these things, I do believe that some God must exist. It seems more intuitively reasonable to me to believe that the universe was created by a self-existent Higher Power that transcends the universe, than to believe that the universe was formed out of nothing for no reason. However, certain tenets of Christianity have some VERY serious problems that have by no means been adequately resolved by philosophers and theologians. That's the cold, hard, frightening truth.[/QUOTE]
Angler, no disrespect intended at all I assure you, but you're not bringing up anything that I haven't already mulled over in my mind. Looks to me like you've already got it all figured out.
2003-11-17 23:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Evolution is based on science. [/QUOTE]
As I already mentioned, about 50 years of generations of bacteria is about the same as the number of generations from given time for the chimp-human split. We have carefully observed bacteria over that time and not a bit of real evolution. And, as I explained, even the petty antibiotic resistance is more illustrative of decay than evolution. Being too sick to eat poison doesn't make you more evolved.
We have observed thousands of generations of quickly reproducing organisms, including fruit flies, mammels, etc. And, none of them show the slightest tendency of "evolving," even with the most contrived efforts. What we see is a little genetic static and decay (leading to extinction).
Angler, that is science. Deal with it.
2003-11-18 01:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Acorn]How has this become a religious debate? The only brand of Christianity that makes sense for Whites is Identity Christianity. That's the only thread of it that's not suicidal for Us.[/QUOTE]
On the left we have godless Chrisianity which and on the right we have zionist Christianity. Both are suicidal.
Atheism is also suicidal as judged by the preponderance of the evidence as we enter a post-Christian atheistic/secular America. You show me an atheist and I'll probably be able to show you a nearly childless person who insists that there's no such thing as race.
Christianity is vital. And, it need not be as confrontational or as burdened as Identity Christianity to work great.
2003-11-18 02:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Angler, no disrespect intended at all I assure you, but you're not bringing up anything that I haven't already mulled over in my mind. Looks to me like you've already got it all figured out.[/QUOTE] You don't sound disrespectful at all, and hopefully you realize that I respect your views as well. But no, I certainly don't already have all these issues figured out, and that's why I don't think I'll ever rule out Christianity.
I think that atheists and very religious people are both inclined to be more certain about the correctness of their beliefs than the evidence allows. I can understand agnosticism perfectly, but I never could understand atheism, as it's certainly impossible to know or prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, the only thing I have figured out for certain is that, paradoxically, it's impossible for the human mind to be 100% certain of anything (other than that it exists). As crazy as it sounds, for all we know we could just be brains in jars on some alien planet -- like something out of Star Trek or The Matrix -- and thus our lives might be nothing but illusions. Can we prove that this isn't the case? Nope. But again, I realize that we also can't prove that God doesn't exist or that Christianity is false, and I feel that my doubts about the origins and/or inspiration of this-or-that book in the Bible are not a hindrance to my being a good Christian. Ultimate truth has no need of defense; it has nothing to fear from the most rigorous questioning and scrutiny that people can offer.
2003-11-18 02:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]As I already mentioned, about 50 years of generations of bacteria is about the same as the number of generations from given time for the chimp-human split. We have carefully observed bacteria over that time and not a bit of real evolution. And, as I explained, even the petty antibiotic resistance is more illustrative of decay than evolution. Being too sick to eat poison doesn't make you more evolved. If those bacteria are so sickly, then why don't the healthier strains of bacteria naturally overcome them in competition? Why are so-called "superbugs" considered a world-wide health hazard?
We have observed thousands of generations of quickly reproducing organisms, including fruit flies, mammels, etc. And, none of them show the slightest tendency of "evolving," even with the most contrived efforts. What we see is a little genetic static and decay (leading to extinction). I question the accuracy of your statements. It's not that I think you're being dishonest, but I think you've been misinformed. Do you have sources handy for the above information? Who said that 50 years of breeding is enough to see evolution occur in bacteria? 50 million years seems like a more reasonable figure to me.
Moreover, when human beings want to cause evolution rather than passively observe it, we can do it very easily. The breeding of dogs is an example of "artificial evolution" caused by humans. I.e., if we want to develop a stronger breed of dog, or one with a better temperament, we simply change the environment to cause selective breeding by isolating the animals we want to breed and letting them do their thing.
The reason I question the accuracy of creationists' claims is because I know that they've made egregious errors in the past. For example, some creationists have tried to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, since evolution involves the development of systems of higher complexity and lower entropy (i.e., organisms) from systems of higher entropy and lower complexity (i.e., macromolecules). Of course, anyone who knows anything about physics knows that this argument is ridiculous. In fact, it's not even necessary to understand physics to see that such an argument can't be correct: after all, human beings reduce the entropy of physical systems all the time (e.g., in manufacturing processes). In case you're not a physics person, the catch is that the 2nd Law of Thermo only holds for "closed" systems -- those that cannot exchange energy with their surroundings.
Angler, that is science. Deal with it.[/QUOTE]I know what science is, HH: I've studied it for most of my life (I do solid-state physics for a living, though I'll admit that my only biology background is a class I took back in undergrad school). But even more important, Nobel Prize winners such as Linus Pauling, James Watson, and others -- people much, much smarter than you or I -- know what science is. They all agree that the bulk of the evidence supports evolution, and no evidence whatsover supports the Genesis account. Other scientists' knowledge of biology and genetics has even made it possible for them to create genetic clones of animals (not that I think that's a good idea). Do you know something they don't?
C'mon, HH. I'm not trying to sound condescending here, as I don't claim to have any expertise in biology either. But shouldn't we leave interpretations of biological evidence to the experts?
Lastly, I don't think you've answered the key question yet. Never mind for now the apparent inconsistencies in the theory of evolution; what experimental evidence is there to support the Genesis account of creation (either one of them)?
2003-11-18 04:23 | User Profile
It's funny when rejection of evolution is accompanied by scientific arguments, when overall religious thinking rejects scienctific method as a valid tool of research.
As far as the race is concerned, it's exactly the faith-based "damn the evidence" approach that produces pc-maton.
2003-11-18 15:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]It's funny when rejection of evolution is accompanied by scientific arguments, when overall religious thinking rejects scienctific method as a valid tool of research.
As far as the race is concerned, it's exactly the faith-based "damn the evidence" approach that produces pc-maton.[/QUOTE]
I don't reject the scientific method or science, but I think that it is important to keep in mind what science can actually tell us and not try and make it something that it is not i.e. the nature of the soul.
Angler, a book for you:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076790303X/103-4262635-6818234?v=glance[/url]
2003-11-18 16:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If those bacteria are so sickly, then why don't the healthier strains of bacteria naturally overcome them in competition? Why are so-called "superbugs" considered a world-wide health hazard?
Those "superbugs" do lose to the competition in nature. Every bacterial biologist knows the term "cost of resistance" to antibiotics which is a decrease in fitness. But, keep in mind that most resistance is not gained by mutation and keep in mind the massive world-wide usage of antibiotics.
Who said that 50 years of breeding is enough to see evolution occur in bacteria? 50 million years seems like a more reasonable figure to me.
By what reason do you arrive at 50 million? When you randomly make up numbers, it's not reason nor "reasonable."
To repeat my argument, evolutionary scientists believe that humans and chimps split roughly 6 million years ago. If we cannot see evolution in bacteria over a similar number of generations in bacteria, which we have observed, why should we expect it to have happened in the same number of generations of apes, which we haven't seen? And, if there is no tendancy to evolve in those thousands of generations, why would you expect the tendancy to show up in another thousands of generations?
Moreover, when human beings want to cause evolution rather than passively observe it, we can do it very easily. The breeding of dogs is an example of "artificial evolution" caused by humans.
Humans have never caused evolution; and, it's not for lack of trying. Breeding dogs is not evolution, artificial or otherwise. That's bait-and-switch that Evolutionists must resort to because science does not support real Evolution. Dog breeding is selecting among pre-existing genes and thus breeders run into brick walls when trying to produce change. All dog breeders prove is that there is an impressive amount of variation possible in animal populations without evolution occurring.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about physics knows that this argument is ridiculous. In fact, it's not even necessary to understand physics to see that such an argument can't be correct: after all, human beings reduce the entropy of physical systems all the time (e.g., in manufacturing processes). In case you're not a physics person, the catch is that the 2nd Law of Thermo only holds for "closed" systems -- those that cannot exchange energy with their surroundings.
When a person builds something, it's not just energy that is entering the system, but also information. The problem for Evolutionists is that nature just doesn't appear to be very creative, for whatever reasons. Humans build homes from blueprints. Birds build nests from instinct. Snowflakes form from the properties of water. A thousand years ago, birds' nests were the same as now and snowflakes were the same as now. A thousand years ago, men lived in crude homes. Humans have more creativity than nature.
Lastly, I don't think you've answered the key question yet. Never mind for now the apparent inconsistencies in the theory of evolution; what experimental evidence is there to support the Genesis account of creation (either one of them)?[/QUOTE]
I believe I have already given you an example of experiemental evidence to support the Genesis account of creation. The Law of Nature is Devolution, not Evolution.
2003-11-18 23:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Angler, a book for you:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076790303X/103-4262635-6818234?v=glance[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks for the reference; it looks like a very interesting book. I'll add it to my wish list. However, take a look at this quote from the first editorial review at that Amazon link:
In recent decades, scientific discoveries in cosmology, paleontology, and quantum physics do not demonstrate or prove the activity of God, but they do remove conflict with that activity. Rapprochement occurs when believers read the Bible on the Bible's terms, avoiding literalism, and when scientists realize that science is powerless to pronounce on a purpose for life.
There's the kicker: "avoiding literalism." That's what I've been arguing against: a literal interpretation of the Bible. Now, that doesn't mean I think the Bible can be correctly interpreted by each person any old way he sees fit; clearly, each author who contributed to the Bible had something very specific in mind when each verse was written, and he sought to convey it using the literary methods of the time. So it can be argued that, while the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, it does nevertheless have only one correct interpretation. (Unfortunately, no one agrees on what that is.)
If this seems less than palatable to you, remember that Jesus Himself used fables (though they're generally called "parables," as you know) for teaching purposes. Nobody claims that Jesus was a "liar" because He made up stories to make certain points, just like nobody called Aesop a "liar" because of his fables. So, if Jesus frequently chose to teach through the use of metaphors -- and He obviously did -- then why should such methods not appear in other parts of the Bible, which is said to be inspired by the same God/Jesus?
So, my real difficulties with Christianity are actually not due to apparent factual inconsistencies in the Bible. When I read the Bible with the above considerations in mind, most contradictions vanish into thin air, and I can focus on the spiritual messages without feeling like I'm deceiving myself.
On the other hand, I still have trouble with some of the moral teachings in the Bible and with certain mainstream Christian teachings (by "mainstream" I mean the most popular denominations, such as Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.). As I mentioned before, I have a problem with the idea of eternal damnation, as well as with the doctrine of Original Sin. My conscience tells me that both of these concepts are unjust and altogether incompatible with a God Whom the Bible says is actually Love itself. I wouldn't be able to bring myself to even send a disgusting insect that had just stung me into eternal torment; so how can God, Who is said to be much more loving and compassionate than any human being, possibly allow eternal damnation to even be a possibility?
As another example, I absolutely reject the notion that justice is served when children are punished for their parents' sins. The latter is a common theme in the Old Testament, though there are passages (e.g., in Ezekiel) that contradict that theme, quoting God as saying that children are NOT punished for their parents' sins. So, which are we to believe? Are children punished for parents' sins, or are they not? The latter is the only just alternative; but then what are we to make of the statement attributed to God in Exodus, where He is quoted as saying that He is "a jealous God, punishing to the third and fourth generation the children of those who hate me"? That sounds a lot less like God speaking than like a Jew attempting to speak for God. Perhaps this is why Christ regularly disregarded the Old Testament regulations regarding certain activities and allowed his disciples to do the same, much to the outrage of the Jewish leaders of the time.
2003-11-19 02:42 | User Profile
Those "superbugs" do lose to the competition in nature. Every bacterial biologist knows the term "cost of resistance" to antibiotics which is a decrease in fitness. Then why do the "superbugs" continue to thrive?
But, keep in mind that most resistance is not gained by mutation and keep in mind the massive world-wide usage of antibiotics. If most resistance is not caused by mutation, then what is its cause? What accounts for the increasing population of antibiotic-resistant bugs? And if mutation isn't a factor, then how does the frequent use of antibiotics contribute to the problem of resistance?
By what reason do you arrive at 50 million? When you randomly make up numbers, it's not reason nor "reasonable." Of course I wasn't trying to imply that 50 million was an authoritative figure; I was simply trying to point out the extreme length of the time scales that mainstream science holds to be required for evolution to take place.
To repeat my argument, evolutionary scientists believe that humans and chimps split roughly 6 million years ago. If we cannot see evolution in bacteria over a similar number of generations in bacteria, which we have observed, why should we expect it to have happened in the same number of generations of apes, which we haven't seen? And, if there is no tendancy to evolve in those thousands of generations, why would you expect the tendancy to show up in another thousands of generations? I still think you're mistaken about the issue of bacterial resistance. If you can provide a reputable source to back up your claim that every bacterial biologist knows that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance cause a decrease in overall fitness, then I'd love to see it. I am not a biologist, so I must defer to the statements of biologists.
Humans have never caused evolution; and, it's not for lack of trying. Breeding dogs is not evolution, artificial or otherwise. That's bait-and-switch that Evolutionists must resort to because science does not support real Evolution. Okay, maybe my example was bad. Like I said, I'm not a biologist. But I'm not "resorting" to anything -- I have no agenda and no sacred cows to protect in this debate. I'm interested in one thing only: finding out what's real and true. Also, if "science doesn't support real evolution," then you'd better tell it to those Nobel Prize winners who say otherwise. Are you more qualified to speak on the subject than they are? How about those experts in biology who are Christian evolutionists? There's a biology professor at Brown University named Ken Miller who fits that bill. I just found his web page with a search: Here it is:
[url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html[/url]
Here's something else you might find noteworthy: A creationist web page that denies macroevolution but that claims that microevolution is entirely scientific, observable, and Biblical:
[url]http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/macro.html[/url]
If even some of your fellow Creationists admit that microevolution occurs (again returning to the issue of bacterial resistance), then why won't you accept the evidence that it does? Again, if you have reputable evidence that it doesn't, then please provide a link.
When a person builds something, it's not just energy that is entering the system, but also information. The problem for Evolutionists is that nature just doesn't appear to be very creative, for whatever reasons. Humans build homes from blueprints. Birds build nests from instinct. Snowflakes form from the properties of water. A thousand years ago, birds' nests were the same as now and snowflakes were the same as now. A thousand years ago, men lived in crude homes. Humans have more creativity than nature. Humans are part of nature, are they not? Besides, my example was only to provide an example of pseudoscience used by certain creationists. They frequently stray outside the bounds of their scientific knowledge and get into trouble as a result.
I believe I have already given you an example of experiemental evidence to support the Genesis account of creation. The Law of Nature is Devolution, not Evolution. That is not evidence in support of the Genesis account. Even if Evolution were scientifically proved false with 100% certainty, that would in no way implies that Creation occurred as described in Genesis. This is not an "all-or-nothing" debate in which either Evolutionists are correct or Creationists are correct. It's possible that neither view is correct. For all we know, aliens beings could have caused mankind to be created from apes (as in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey). Not that I subscribe to that view; the point is that we just can't know for certain. We need to look objectively and dispassionately at the evidence, which mainstream science says is in support of man's evolution from apes.
Since I believe in God anyway, I have not the slightest trace of internal bias against the Creationist viewpoint. How about you, HH -- can you claim to be totally unbiased on this issue? Or put it this way: if 100% rock-solid, irrefutable proof were found that evolutionary science was correct -- and don't just say "it won't be found," since whether or not proof will ever be found is irrelevant to this purely hypothetical question -- would you be upset about it? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is "yes," then you have a bias and are probably viewing all the available evidence tendentiously.
2003-11-19 04:01 | User Profile
Here's a good link that addresses some of your arguments, HH:
[url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/disclaimer.html[/url]
2003-11-19 05:06 | User Profile
HH's mistake is typical for the non-scientific type: they think they can extrapolate their ignorance of the subject into something bigger, like the failure of the basic scientific beliefs. I am even more ignorant of biology than he is, but I don't take on evolution theory while not being an expert there.
2003-11-20 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Then why do the "superbugs" continue to thrive?
19 million pounds of antibiotics are fed to farm animals each year. Antibiotics are also popular with people with bacterial infections.
If most resistance is not caused by mutation, then what is its cause?
In most cases, the resistance has always existed, either in a subpopulation or in another population that transfers over genes that provide the resistance. Antibiotic Selection does the rest.
I still think you're mistaken about the issue of bacterial resistance. If you can provide a reputable source to back up your claim that every bacterial biologist knows that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance cause a decrease in overall fitness, then I'd love to see it. I am not a biologist, so I must defer to the statements of biologists.
I don't know anyone who has polled biologists, but considering it's a fact that is discussed in every relevant college textbook then every bacterial biologist must know about it. However:
"The data available from recent laboratory studies suggest that [URL=http://www.emory.edu/BIOLOGY/EcLF/pubs/99costres.pdf]most[/URL], but not all, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost, but those costs are likely to be ameliorated by subsequent evolution." (It's a rule of Evolution that no one is allowed to point out a problem with Evolution unless they're pushing a possible solution and giving Evolution the glory).
Anyway, this whole line of debate reflects rather poorly on Evolution. That we're here debating, of all the things in the world, a little antibiotic resistance in bacteria that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that bacteria turned into fish and chimps into humans. If I can jump over a crack then I must be able to jump over the moon.
Also, if "science doesn't support real evolution," then you'd better tell it to those Nobel Prize winners who say otherwise. Are you more qualified to speak on the subject than they are?
For 2003, the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to Paul C. Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield "for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging scans" as if they invented MRI: "The two researchers took a technique used by chemists to study solutions and developed it into a way of imaging the human body." Yet, the MRI was created by Raymond Damadian, a strict biblical creationist who is associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Winning a Nobel Prize these days just means you're Politically Correct, not deserving.
"Raymond Damadian's intense curiosity and passion for science led him to develop the [URL=http://web.mit.edu/invent/a-winners/a-damadian.html]first[/URL] MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machineââ¬âone of the most useful diagnostic tools of our time."
Evolutionists, like those on the Nobel committee, are very intolerant of anyone who rejects their religion because people who are wrong cannot afford a free market of ideas. You'd have to be a liar to deny the Evolutionist's Thought Police mentality.
Here's something else you might find noteworthy: A creationist web page that denies macroevolution but that claims that microevolution is entirely scientific, observable, and Biblical:
No one denies what is sometimes called microevolution happens. It's not Evolution.
Even if Evolution were scientifically proved false with 100% certainty, that would in no way implies that Creation occurred as described in Genesis. This is not an "all-or-nothing" debate in which either Evolutionists are correct or Creationists are correct. It's possible that neither view is correct. For all we know, aliens beings could have caused mankind to be created from apes
I'm all for scientists looking for natural explanations everything. They should never say "God did it so I won't look into it..." Likewise, they should never say "I can't think of a better naturalistic explanation so I'm going to insist it's a fact."
Or put it this way: if 100% rock-solid, irrefutable proof were found that evolutionary science was correct
It was science, not the Bible, that made be reject Evolution. If Evolution were a proven fact, I suppose I'd be right back where I was before I rejected Evolution. I was raised as a Presbyterian and a Presbyterian I'd be again.
Do you think God has anything to do with Creation? If so, details?
BTW, from that linked source on bacteria: "To our knowledge, the only evidence for compensatory evolution occurring in bacteria isolated from patients comes from a retrospective study of isoniazid-resistant. tuberculosis [33]. These bacteria become resistant by virtue of knock-out mutations in the katG gene, which cause a loss of catalase activity and avirulence [34ââ¬â36]. The majority of clinical isolates with the katG mutation also contain a promoter-up mutation in the ahpC gene, which causes an increase in the level of alkyl hydroxyperoxidase reductase (AhpC). Even though no direct causality has been established, it is likely that the overproduction of AhpC due to promoter-up mutations compensates for the lack of catalase in the isoniazid resistant katG mutants and restores virulence [33]."
By coincidence, that's the example of a destructive mutation giving resistance I gave earlier.
2003-11-20 09:55 | User Profile
"The data available from recent laboratory studies suggest that most, but not all, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender some fitness cost, but those costs are likely to be ameliorated by subsequent evolution." (It's a rule of Evolution that no one is allowed to point out a problem with Evolution unless they're pushing a possible solution and giving Evolution the glory). Your parenthetical statement above suggests a kind of conspiracy theorizing that I see little support for. What motivation is there for scientists to lie? Even if evolutionary theory were proved wrong, that would still not prove the validity of Creationism or even the existence of God.
Basically, the message I'm getting here is that all biologists -- even Christian ones! -- are in some kind of atheistic global conspiracy that seeks to fool people into believing in evolution just to undermine faith in God. Is that not essentially what you're implying? Sorry, but I find the idea of such a conspiracy extremely far-fetched.
I do agree completely that Dr. Damadian got a raw deal as far as the Nobel Prize is concerned. However, he did win some other very prestigious awards, such as the National Medal of Technology, so even if the Nobel committee robbed him on account of his Creationist views, I wouldn't say that reflects on the scientific community as a whole.
Anyway, this whole line of debate reflects rather poorly on Evolution. That we're here debating, of all the things in the world, a little antibiotic resistance in bacteria that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that bacteria turned into fish and chimps into humans. If I can jump over a crack then I must be able to jump over the moon. But there's an awful lot more evidence for evolution than that. Did you read that piece by Prof. Miller I posted a link to? It's this one:
[url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/disclaimer.html[/url]
Note the following statements in particular:
...[T]here is great consistency in the sequence of fossils in the fossil record, with no major branch of the tree of life being out of order (fossils of mammals are not found in the Devonian age of fishes, for example). Another fact is that living species tend to be found where their fossil ancestors are also found.
...
Has macroevolution "never been observed?" A 1997 study by Reznick et al in the journal SCIENCE (Volume 275, 28 Mar 1997, pp. 1934-1937) evaluated the observed rates of evolutionary change in populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in the wild. These researchers observed rates of evolutionary change "up to seven orders of magnitude greater than rates inferred from the paleontological record." In other words, field studies of natural selection show rates of change that are more than large enough to account for the "macroevolutionary" changes documented in the fossil record. This is just one of many studies that cast serious doubt on the assertion that macroevolution has "never been observed."
...
The fossil record is, in fact, replete with splendid examples of transitional forms, as the National Academy of Sciences has taken pains to point out:
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
...
...[T]he genetic remnants of an ancient infection by an HIV-like virus...are found not only in humans, but in our closest primate relatives, indicating that these viral DNA sequences entered the genome roughly 30 million years ago. As the investigators who made this discovery pointed out, the existence of identical sequences in closely related species is "very good evidence" that we share a common ancestry with these other primates. As the National Academy has written: "compelling lines of evidence demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution occurred as a historical process and continues today."
Also, since you said you reject evolution on the basis of science and not religious preconceptions, I highly recommend you keep an open mind and read the following except from Prof. Miller's book about his experiences as a Christian who accepts evolution (Finding Darwin's God):
[url]http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html[/url]
Finally, you asked:
Do you think God has anything to do with Creation? If so, details?
I do believe that God must exist and that He probably created our visible universe by causing the "Big Bang." Even if the Big Bang was an inevitable result of certain physical laws that caused the universe to essentially create itself -- and there are some top physicists who believe that today -- that still doesn't explain how those physical laws came about. Space, time, dimension, quantity -- none of those things can be taken for granted. I believe a Supreme Being that transcends these and other fundamental aspects of our universe must have created them.
Of course, atheists will generally raise objections such as If you say you believe that God had no creator, then why couldn't physical laws or whatever natural phenomenon led to the Big Bang have existed from eternity? Of course a metaphysical question like that cannot be conclusively answered by human beings. However, when faced with such objections I generally respond that I find it more intuitive to believe in the infinite existence (or self-existence) of a supernatural Being that transcends the universe than in the infinite existence of any natural phenomenon -- even including physical laws.
Okay, so that's why I believe in some God. But why be a Christian specifically, then? That's harder for me to justify. The Bible in no way constitutes "proof" of the correctness of the Christian faith. However, I find certain aspects of the Bible to be so intellectually appealing, and so filled with apparently "hidden" interconnections that apparently even the authors of the various books weren't entirely aware of, that I tend to think that the overall scheme of things as described in the Bible is quite plausible. To go into detail, I'd probably have to write a book on the subject.
On the other hand, I do not believe in taking the entire Bible literally; I think many of the apparently "historical" narratives were written to teach certain moral and spiritual truths. In other words, I think it is entirely possible that parts of the Bible are fictional accounts -- but that does NOT necessarily imply that any part of the Bible is "false."
Of course, the question of Biblical inspiration has already been decided for us by a group of men many centuries ago, who simply took a vote on which books they thought were divinely inspired and which were not. The fact that many Protestants disagree about the inspiration of certain books (you know, the "Apocrypha") shows that such an electoral process can hardly be seen as definitive. Furthermore, many of the Scriptures were written long after the events they depict had taken place; thus, it is necessary to assume that God protected the early Church from error in the entire process. But if God was willing to do that, then why wasn't He willing to prevent the Catholic/Protestant schism from occurring? And what about the Bible verses that seem to clearly contradict each other (such as the one noted in an earlier post about children being punished for their parents' sins)? There are clearly a number of deep mysteries involved.
So, in a nutshell, I consider myself to still be a member of the Catholic faith that I was brought up into. There are still some serious doubts that cross my mind regarding some of its tenets and dogmas and those of Christianity in general. But I think that if an infinitely good God exists, He certainly won't fault human beings for using the brains He gave us.
This will probably be my last post on this thread, as I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject. I will read your final post if you post again, but I probably won't reply again. Thanks for the interesting and civil debate.
2003-11-20 17:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Your parenthetical statement above suggests a kind of conspiracy theorizing that I see little support for. [/QUOTE]
There's a saying that a bigot is someone winning an argument with a liberal. Likewise, when someone accuses another of suggesting a conspiracy, the accused is winning the argument.
2003-11-20 19:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]There's a saying that a bigot is someone winning an argument with a liberal. Likewise, when someone accuses another of suggesting a conspiracy, the accused is winning the argument.[/QUOTE]LOL...Well, so much for ending on a positive note. Forgive me if your statement that "It's a rule of Evolution that no one is allowed to point out a problem with Evolution unless they're pushing a possible solution and giving Evolution the glory" was not meant to imply a conspiracy.
Please, HH: read the articles I posted links to. You're not really arguing with me, you know; you're arguing with the overwhelming majority of biologists as well as all the major scientific professional organizations (e.g., the National Academy of Science). Nearly all experts in molecular biology and related fields say that "creation science" is nonsense and that the evidence for evolution is strong enough to remove all reasonable doubt that evolution occurred. Either all those experts are lying (i.e., are involved in a subtle "conspiracy" of sorts -- and you say you aren't suggesting this) or creationists are privvy to evolution-debunking scientific knowledge that no one else is smart enough to understand -- not even the people who are smart enough to have developed nearly all of the latest medications, high-tech medical treatments, rapid gene-sequencing techniques, etc.
Sorry, but the creationist viewpoint is wishful thinking, pure and simple. As the saying goes, facts are very stubborn things. Again, I urge you to read this brief chapter from Finding Darwin's God:
[url]http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html[/url]
2003-11-21 23:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]LOL...Well, so much for ending on a positive note. Forgive me if your statement that "It's a rule of Evolution that no one is allowed to point out a problem with Evolution unless they're pushing a possible solution and giving Evolution the glory" was not meant to imply a conspiracy.
That was a sarcastic criticism of the source I quoted for you. They couldn't discuss the degenerative nature of mutations that cause antibiotic resistance without repeatedly plugging Evolution. It was also a poke at the intolerant nature of many Evolutionists. For example, refer back to the Nobel prize example.
Nearly all experts in molecular biology and related fields say that "creation science" is nonsense and that the evidence for evolution is strong enough to remove all reasonable doubt that evolution occurred. Either all those experts are lying
There are a number of molecular biologists who disagree, such as Michael Behe. Is Behe suppose to change his scientific conclusions to match a hypothetical poll of molecular biologists? When Stephen Jay Gould (expert in all sciences, apparently, including social science) says an earth worm is as intelligent as a human being, do you think his claim is free from political and religious-esque bias? Why would a hypothetical poll of molecular biologists not reflect biases?
If you were alive in 1600-something, would you have joined the critics of Galileo and insist that he conform is scientific conclusions to the established views?
Besides, appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy.
Why do you even go down this road?
debunking scientific knowledge that no one else is smart enough to understand
You're intelligent enough to undestand the arguments I have presented to you. If you were the world's leading molecular biologist, you wouldn't have fared much better... not because I'm so smart or so qualified but because I'm right. I'm right because I chose to follow the evidence rather than devote my energies to building a web of reasoning to get around the evidence.
How much complexity do you think can be created by a single mutation (similiar to a change of a single bit in a computer program). It isn't a difficult concept at all to understand that in some circumstances something broken can work better than something not broken. And, once you accept this, which you already undersand, you can begin to see that nature simply lacks the creative ability required of Evolution.
Sorry, but the creationist viewpoint is wishful thinking, pure and simple.
There isn't a shred of wishful thinking in my argument about bacteria. All the wishful thinking is those who want to extrapolate a broken bacterium into a human being.
2003-11-22 04:42 | User Profile
Besides, appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy. That's true, but I don't think it applies in the present context. It's not like my arguments can be reduced to something like "So-and-so says that evolution is true, and so-and-so is an expert; therefore, evolution is true." The crux of my argument is that the correctness of evolution is supported by substantial physical evidence; in order to argue this I have no choice but to cite others who are more familiar with that evidence than I am. To put it another way, I wasn't simply asking you to take the authorities at their word, but to examine their arguments for yourself so that I don't have to paraphrase them here. That's very different from blindly appealing to authority -- it's more akin to citing the work of others in a bibliography.
If you were the world's leading molecular biologist, you wouldn't have fared much better... not because I'm so smart or so qualified but because I'm right. I'm right because I chose to follow the evidence rather than devote my energies to building a web of reasoning to get around the evidence. But you have yet to address the statements of Prof. Miller in which he explains the available evidence. Are you sure I'm the one who's dancing around the evidence here?
How much complexity do you think can be created by a single mutation (similiar to a change of a single bit in a computer program). It depends on whether or not the initial change in that single bit leads to a series of other changes, as in a domino effect. That is certainly conceivable in a corrupted computer program, although nowadays parity bits and error-correcting codes are used to reduce the likelihood of such events. As to the question of how much change can be induced in an organism by a change in a single DNA base pair, I really don't know the answer. That's a question for a molecular biologist; nevertheless, if the "computer program" analogy holds up, then I imagine that a great deal of change can result from a single mutation.
The National Academy of Sciences points out that the fossil record is remarkably complete, with transitional organisms having been found corresponding to nearly every stage of the game. Examination of the organisms' DNA often reveals where mutations occurred to cause the next life form to be created. Whether or not single mutations are responsible for any major changes is something that might have been determined from that evidence. I'll look for a source for this and will post it if I find it.
It isn't a difficult concept at all to understand that in some circumstances something broken can work better than something not broken. Very true.
And, once you accept this, which you already undersand, you can begin to see that nature simply lacks the creative ability required of Evolution. Even if that's true -- and I don't see how that follows from your last statement -- how do we know that God didn't guide the process of evolution in order to create man? You seem to be mistakenly assuming that evolutionary theory requires the absence of God.
I suspect that you didn't read the material I linked to. I strongly urge you to do so (the second of these in particular):
[url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/disclaimer.html[/url]
[url]http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html[/url]
2003-11-22 19:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]That's true, but I don't think it applies in the present context.
The fallacy of appeal to authority applies more so here because of the highly political and religious context of Evolution. Why don't you go back again and look at my reply to your Nobel Prize statement.
It would be fine if you appealed to authority to establish facts in evidence. It would be fine if you employed evidence and reason provided to you by experts in your own arguments. But, you're appealing to authority to establish conclusions. You're declaring this debate to be invalid and thus any reason or evidence I present is automatically irrelevant. You're refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
But you have yet to address the statements of Prof. Miller in which he explains the available evidence. Are you sure I'm the one who's dancing around the evidence here?
Sorry, his essay is a pile of nonsense. He doesn't use evidence so I couldn't even dance around his evidence even if I wanted to. It ought to tell you something that his inspiration appears to be the late Steven "smart as a worm" Gould, a militant Leftist and Atheist.
It depends on whether or not the initial change in that single bit leads to a series of other changes, as in a domino effect.
Right. So, where is any observed series of changes in the animal world? Where is just one example of a domino effect? Bacteria has given us enough time to witness transformations as profound as a chimp turning into a human yet all you can show me is a bacterium too sickly to eat poison.
As to the question of how much change can be induced in an organism by a change in a single DNA base pair, I really don't know the answer. That's a question for a molecular biologist; nevertheless, if the "computer program" analogy holds up, then I imagine that a great deal of change can result from a single mutation.
It is very simple to understand that the only thing that will result from a one-bit change in an extremely small change unless something is broken then it could be a big change because the one bit takes out the functioning of a number of other bits. There's no reason to believe life is any different. Do you think one mutation might be able to turn your arm into a wing?
If life is anything like computer programs, and there's no reason to think otherwise, then there is no such thing as viable transional states between structures with very different functions. Other than correcting bugs, no program can be signficantly improved one bit at a time.
For that matter, no one has ever been able to demonstrate the magic of random changes and environmental selection in a simulated environment on a computer, in spite of a computer's ability to create billions of generations with intense levels of selection. It's not for lack of trying.
Evolution is a totally bankrupt theory. But, reality is no match for the likes Miller and God-haters like Gould who simply declare Evolution is supported by the evidence.
The National Academy of Sciences points out that the fossil record is remarkably complete, with transitional organisms having been found corresponding to nearly every stage of the game.
It may be that Evolutionists have examples of transitionals corresponding to nearly every stage. Even if they're right in every case, it still needs explaning why there are still so few transitionals. For example, given that dinosuars turned into birds, why are there only a few examples of dinosaur-birds for a process that must have taken many millions of years and many thousands of species? But, the real problem is that any example they show, significant scientific objection can be raised. They're engaged in the same wishful thinking that declared ape men of a pig's tooth and an obvious fraud of a human skull attached to an ape jaw. The only difference now is that they've become a bit more sophisticated in their fabrications. But, those transitionals are no more compelling than your million generations of bacteria resulting in nothing more impressive that a bacterium too sickly to eat poison.
Even if that's true -- and I don't see how that follows from your last statement -- how do we know that God didn't guide the process of evolution in order to create man?
Sure, God could have guided Evolution. But, if God had to stick his nose into it, then you should expect that the evidence would not support the belief that Nature has sufficient creative ability to do it herself. Where is you evidence God helped Evolution along?
[url]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/disclaimer.html[/url]
Some: Being an unspecified number or quantity. That is accurate. "Some" does not imply few. Miller wants to turn the disclaimer into pro-Evolution propaganda. There's enough of that within the textbook.
The dislaimer uses "theory" and "fact" correctly. Miller is trying to mislead.
The rest of his response is of similar low quality.
2003-11-22 21:49 | User Profile
It may be that Evolutionists have examples of transitionals corresponding to nearly every stage. Even if they're right in every case, it still needs explaning why there are still so few transitionals. For example, given that dinosuars turned into birds, why are there only a few examples of dinosaur-birds for a process that must have taken many millions of years and many thousands of species? The explanation is simple: Most fossils consist of small fragments which must be pieced together after being discovered. It's a long, arduous process. Even finding one relatively complete fossil is a huge achievement that requires a lot of luck and educated guesswork. And it was only in fairly recent times that excavation for fossils began.
It is very simple to understand that the only thing that will result from a one-bit change in an extremely small change unless something is broken then it could be a big change because the one bit takes out the functioning of a number of other bits. There's no reason to believe life is any different. Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. A one-bit change can make a tremendous difference in the nature of encoded information. For example, take the binary number 100000001, which equals 257 in ordinary decimal notation. Now let's say a single mutation takes place in the first bit, changing it from a 1 into a 0. The new number is 000000001, which simply equals 1 in decimal notation. That's a pretty big change, is it not?
Do you think one mutation might be able to turn your arm into a wing? No, but it could cause my arm to be seriously deformed. Over millions of years, a series of mutations in a population faced with environmental pressure that favors wings over arms might very well cause a few organisms to develop with wings instead of arms.
The point is that for evolution to be correct, nature doesn't have to be "creative" in the sense that a long series of random mutations in and of themselves will add up to anything new. Environmental pressures are needed that will favor the survival of certain mutated genes over others. In time, the favored genes propagate through the population due to their greater survival rate. It's really just that simple: random mutations coupled with environmental pressures and lots of time will lead to changes in organisms. In fact, I imagine that this process could be simulated on a supercomputer using random number generators to simulate mutations. That would be a very complicated process, but it may have already been done to some extent.
For the time being, here's an abstract but very simple example that shows how selection pressure can bring order out of chaos. Let's say we have a population of 8-bit binary numbers, or bytes -- which need not be distinct -- "living" in a computer's memory. At the end of each second on the clock, all the bytes divide into pairs to produce offspring; this occurs by randomly copying four bits from each parent byte and combining those in random order into a new byte. For example, if one parent is 11111111 and the other is 00000000, then the child could look like 10011010. Further suppose that a "virus" lives among the bytes that gets a chance to eliminate them after each reproductive session, and let's say any given byte's chance of being killed off by the virus in any given iteration is equal to (zzz+1)/1000, where z is the number of 0's in the byte's code. So, a byte with no 0's would have only a 1-in-1000 chance of being eaten at the end of any given second, whereas a byte with all 0's would have slightly over a 50% chance of being removed from the "gene pool" with each iteration.
The above model could be simulated on a computer very easily for different size populations, etc. But we needn't even bother. Assuming a reasonably large population and a large enough number of iterations, would you be surprised at the end of it all to have a population dominated by bytes that were pretty close to 11111111? Sure, you'd probably still have the occasional 11011111 and so on here and there, but that wouldn't change the general outcome.
Finally, let's say that for some physical reason or another, bytes that have all 1's in them can join with other bytes to form 16-bit numbers, and that any one 16-bit number can mate with any other 16-bit number at mating time, but not with an 8-bit number. What you have there is an example of the creation of a new species. No "creative ability" is required on the part of nature -- only the right circumstances, random change, and lots of time.
Sure, God could have guided Evolution. But, if God had to stick his nose into it, then you should expect that the evidence would not support the belief that Nature has sufficient creative ability to do it herself. Where is you evidence God helped Evolution along? I'm not saying God had to get involved. I think evolution could have happened by perfectly random mutations coupled with selection pressures. However, the evidence that evolution happened by some means -- evidence from the fossil record, and the fact that DNA analysis shows how mutations occurred to produce the changes from one related fossil to the other -- is so strong that even if it were proved that nature didn't have what you call "sufficient creative ability" to cause evolution, evolution would still have had to occur, and therefore we would be forced to conclude that either God or something else caused evolution.
The disclaimer uses "theory" and "fact" correctly. Miller is trying to mislead. That's absolutely incorrect. Scientists do not use the term "theory" to refer to "speculation" or "hypothesizing." A scientific theory is a model that has been tested and found to agree well with available evidence. Take quantum theory as another example. It's a theory, yet it must predict the behavior of electrons in semiconductors fairly well -- otherwise we wouldn't have the computers we're using right now. Similarly, Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted that an atomic clock flown at a certain rapid speed around the earth would fall behind a previously-synchronized stationary clock on earth by a certain amount. His theory predicted the time lag correctly, just as it correctly predicts the behavior of relativistic particles in accelerators, etc.
No, science isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives, such as depending on ancient writings for modern scientific insights.
I'll close with a link to another good site that refutes Creationist arguments:
[url]http://www.evolutionpages.com/Writing.htm[/url]
2003-11-24 19:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]The explanation is simple: Most fossils consist of small fragments which must be pieced together after being discovered. It's a long, arduous process. Even finding one relatively complete fossil is a huge achievement that requires a lot of luck and educated guesswork. And it was only in fairly recent times that excavation for fossils began.
Yet, with all that difficulty, you think, only leads to evolutionists having trouble finding transitional fossils rather than giving them the oppertunity to imagine transitional fossils where there are none? pigs tooth
Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. A one-bit change can make a tremendous difference in the nature of encoded information. For example, take the binary number 100000001, which equals 257 in ordinary decimal notation. Now let's say a single mutation takes place in the first bit, changing it from a 1 into a 0. The new number is 000000001,>
I don't think DNA works like a counter. But, even still, there is no functional difference between 1 and 257. Both are just single points on a number line. The difference is no more signficant than the level of darkness of skin someone is born with.
Over millions of years, a series of mutations in a population faced with environmental pressure that favors wings over arms might very well cause a few organisms to develop with wings instead of arms.
Fine, but in millions of generations of bacteria, you're still stuck with nothing more impressive than a bacterium being too sickly to eat poison. I ask again, why do you think millions more generations would start to show an evolutionary trend? And, again, I know you have no answer.
The above model could be simulated on a computer very easily for different size populations, etc. But we needn't even bother. Assuming a reasonably large population and a large enough number of iterations, would you be surprised at the end of it all to have a population dominated by bytes that were pretty close to 11111111? Sure, you'd probably still have the occasional 11011111 and so on here and there, but that wouldn't change the general outcome.
You create a computer program that copies bytes with random bit changes, but numbers with fewer 1's are less likely to get copied. Eventually you end up with mostly 1's. And, you call that Evolution? Very good. You nuke diversity and then reach a dead-end, all without adding anything that wasn't there to start with.
Finally, let's say that for some physical reason or another, bytes that have all 1's in them can join with other bytes to form 16-bit numbers, and that any one 16-bit number can mate with any other 16-bit number at mating time, but not with an 8-bit number. What you have there is an example of the creation of a new species. No "creative ability" is required on the part of nature -- only the right circumstances, random change, and lots of time.
Some physical reason? You mean like a line of programming code that explicitly sets rules for bytes to join and form two-byte words. So, now you'll eventually end up with strings of 16 1's instead of 8 1's.
Your Evolution is deterministic, not creative. But, you say that creative ability is not required. Without creative ability, you end up with a pile of 1's, not diversity, complexity, and novelty.
That's absolutely incorrect. Scientists do not use the term "theory" to refer to "speculation" or "hypothesizing." A scientific theory is a model that has been tested and found to agree well with available evidence. >
How well the evidence agrees with the theory is subjective. And, in the case of Evolution, irrelevant. Theory, by definition, is something that is not known to be a fact, even if it is suspected of being a fact. You also might try your dictionary. The late Carl Sagan was wrong, but exhibited honesty uncommon to Evolutionists, "Evolution is a fact. It is not a theory."
But, then again, you have declared any criticism of Evolution to be invalid.