Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

quote:

---

why would a contradicting scientific theory prove to be so popular?

---

Because the "creation theory" only gave an answer to the question "where do species come from?" but failed to explain many of the questions posed by the naturists at the time. For example "Why do we find so many fossils of species of which where are no living representatives ?" , "Why do we find such different species in similar habitats on different continents and islands?", "Why can we improve the quality of a herd of cattle or a breed of dog by selective breeding?". The times of Darwin were a time of exploration and scientific observation.

yes, I am aware of the bacteria evidence. I am thinking more on the lines of larger organisms that could control the rate of mutation through a simple switching {mechamism\protein concentration}.I also know foraminifera that there was an observed increase in differentiation of {species\forms} after the K\T boundary extinction asteroid event: Geology Dept article 3 Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm currently a scientist but I've been through a whole bunch of religious belief systems.I used to be a creationist. I thought that my hypotheses were suggested to me by either the Christian God, the Muslim God, or Odin. One or the other - I wasn't sure which.Given recent theoretical advances in Intelligent Design theory, it seems likely that my hypotheses are suggested to me by either the Christian God, the Muslim God, Odin, or by superintelligent space aliens, or by superintelligent time travellers from the future.As a scientist, I thought that my hypotheses were suggested to me by the nobility of the human spirit as manifest either in conscious thought or by dreams.But nowadays, I take my orders directly from this guy: He's actually a very good supervisor; you wouldn't guess it but he knows how to do a t-test properly and is willing to put up money to buy new PCR machines, etc. And he hosts a summer party for all of his graduate student on a biannual basis. Actually he's quite a nice guy. He just bought a new Liqor and basically he's saying anybody can fiddle with it as long as they get novel stuff that we can publish on genbank, even without an article.I mean, it's okay but we have this lab tech who's always on our arse, here's a picture: and that's annoying cos he's a pretty righwing guy, very pro-Bush, very pro-Blair, and he's always saying "You have to get the phylogenies of human populations so the working class are a different species to the upper class" so we have all this rigmaroll of faking the genetic data, faking the data with supposedly "heroic" taxa like lions and bears, and faking the data on supposedly "inferior" taxa like raccoons and the African Shitmouse, so these groups are proven genetically differentiated when they're not really, everybody knows the shitmouse is just a European variety of Homo sapiens. And that winds everybody up, despite the new PCR machine. It winds the up BIGTIME! God I hate working for Satan.MickSorry, that just turned into a rant there.This message has been edited by mick, 11-24-2005 07:26 PM

quote:

---

How can you say that science is a "worthless pursuit"?

---

The study of the observable world becomes a hinderance to one's destiny.

---

these walls are paper thin
and everyone hears every little sound.

Only if one's destiny is to commit intellectual suicide.

Whirlwind asks, "Do Creationists believe that the ToE is the result of scientists wishing to further science, some rogue scientists trying to get attention, or the work of Satan trying to steer us away from the teachings of the Bible (or some other reason)?"...to which extent mike_the_wiz at one point replies, "YEC's in particular, like Mckay the YEC, seem to take the position that Charles Lyell was determined to get rid of Moses pertaining to Geology. His own theory is that Lyell wanted uniformatarianism validated in order to rid Moses from the Geological record so to speak. These are the more extreme views in regard to the premise that Scientists are out to get atheism validated. Infact I never heard McKay even mention James Hutton once, during his rants about the apparent conspiracies in scientific history."The only Creationist answer I've heard so far goes along the lines of Mike's response, in that it stemmed from uniformitarian catastrophism. John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris deals with this subject in their book, "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications" (Copyright 1961; 14th printing, August 1971; Chapter IV: "Uniformitarianism and the Flood: A Study of Attempted Harmonizations".But, on the other hand, it's always good to have some website to go to:The Biblical Flood and the Ice EpochThis site isn't as well versed as the book mentioned, but gives an overall idea.This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-06-2005 11:10 AM

The site you linked to is but one of many such sites that attempt to place a veneer of reason on something totally devoid of same, sites that imply that there was a world-wide flood within recent (the last 600,000 years or so) times. One is example is found in the fourth paragraph. At one, possibly two, of the assertions would have left easily discovered evidence, and the third is simply a nonsense statement.Let's look at them. That's just a nonsense statement. What quantity is "much"? What does tidal upheaval mean? Within our oceans? It just babble. Again, mainly just nonsense phrases strung together, such as spasms or tides of lava. But if this were true, then we should be able to find a whole series of lava beds, located all over the world, all dating to about 4000 years ago. So to support this assertion, all a Classical Creationist would need to do is provaide the locations of all or a large number of such lava flows, all having been laid down within a one year period. This too is simply a nonsense phrase. What does "discharges of an electrical nature" mean?While Classic Biblical Creationists may well believe such stuff, it cannot be supported by any evidence yet provided.When a link to a source begins with what should be obvious nonsense statements as a basic premise, how can anyone even consider anything that follows as worth of consideration?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, jar. Good, good. Back to the topic at hand. What are your thought on their views on the origins of evolution in relation to uniformitarian catastrophism?

I have absolutely no idea of what it is you're asking. Who's views?What origins of evolution?What does that have to do with "uniformitarian catastrophism" and what exactly does that me?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, Jar, for the confusion. I'm simply trying to make sure we stay on topic, which is "Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?""Who views?"Creationists: John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris & Donald W. Patten."What origins of evolution?"The origins of evolution within the book... ""The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications" (Copyright 1961; 14th printing, August 1971; Chapter IV: "Uniformitarianism and the Flood: A Study of Attempted Harmonizations"... and on the site mentioned previously:The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch...moreso specifically starting with the paragraph that says... "It should be noted that uniformitarian proponents do recognize local catastrophes on a minor scale; to this limited extent, uniformitarians do acknowledge catastrophism. Similarly, while catastrophists view the sculpturing of our sphere as having been achieved primarily by global catastrophes, they nevertheless recognize serene interludes during which the processes of climatic erosion function."... and following the rest of the article to the bottom of the page. Everything above this paragraph is the author talking about his personal views on catastrophe in relation to the flood, which is off topic to our particular discussion."What does that have to do with 'uniformitarian catastrophism' and what exactly does that mean?"The website answers both of those questions.I hope this helped...This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-12-2005 01:47 PM

Well, that book is such a collection of absolutely nonsensical babble that it's really hard to make any statements at all.consider, What a collection of absolute nonsense, sheer babble and unsupported assertion.In addition, is simply a lie. The whole function of geology is just that, explaining what happened in a given instance. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the TOE.Further, the reference you linked to shows clearly a misrepresentation of what uniformitarians say. The uniform stance is that the processes we se now are the same processes that have happened in the past. It says nothing out rates of change or their scale.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The Biblical record is about one third prophecy, much of which can be empirically substantiated as either fulfilled or in the process of being fulfilled. With that corroborative track record, I go with the Biblical record on origins. Without going to it for reference, Philip's quote from Romans is prophetic of the latter days of apostacy and the secularist godless mindset of latter day humanity. Having said the above, I think TOE is an end time diabolical antichristian drive to erase all accountability of moral responsibility from the minds of mankind so as to absolve the world from any moral inhibitions devoid of any higher power. The moral decline and all the social problems it brings is one byproduct of this trend. It is as diabolical as every false doctrine and that includes unsubstantiated religious doctrines.Don't ask me to elaborate on anything here to any significant extent as it would lead off topic. I'm offering my 2 cents worth and that's about all you're getting here is the 2 cents worth.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Once again, the argument is :"Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?"We must also remember when this book, "The Biblical Flood & The Ice Epoch" was written (1966). Just as modern Darwinists don't believe and quote every nook and cranny from "The Origin of Species", the same is such with Don Patten's book by modern creationists.You said, "Further, the reference you linked to shows clearly a misrepresentation of what uniformitarians say. The uniform stance is that the processes we see now are the same processes that have happened in the past." In Patten's book, he says... (a little after paragraph 7), "Uniformitarianism: The doctrine that existing processes, acting as at present, are sufficient to account for all geological changes." Clicking on the small #1 at the upper right hand corner of this quote, we find his reference mentioned on a new pop-up page (just so we make sure there is no more confusion in the matter), "Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1946, 'Catastrophism,' p. 169; 'Uniformitarianism,' p. 1093." How is it that Patten is disagreeing?"The whole function of geology is just that, explaining what happened in a given instance. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the TOE."According to John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris & Donald W. Patten, if it wasn't for the foundation started by those such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell, the theory of biological evolution would have never really gotten off the ground. So, if they are correct, it has a lot to do with it.I can't believe I had forgotten about it until now, but there was also a book by Jonathon Wells titled, "Icons Of Evolution: Science Or Myth?: Why Much Of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong" by Jonathon Wells (2000). He goes through the book trying to show what he thinks to be plotholes in evolutionary thinking, such as the Miller-Urey experiment, for example. At the following site from the "National Center For Science Education", the book is debunked:http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/This message has been edited by bibbo, 12-17-2005 10:35 AM

How do you empirically substantiate that a prophecy is in the process of being fulfilled?Also, 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy? That's news to me. That would be news to Faith, and she knows a LOT more about the Bible than me. Which books of the old testament are about the future instead of the past? Which of the accounts of Jesus is about the future?It's not "Jesus will be crucified", it's "Jesus was cruicified".Additionally, where do you get this "much of which" bit. How much is much? It's more than some and less than most. Well, most would be 51%+, I'd think that some would be 25% or less. So "Much" should come in somewhere between 25-50%.Give us some examples of empirically proven prophecies. What track record? You haven't established one.Also, if someone is good at predicting the future, that doesn't make them good at predicting the past. But let's say that they are equally good at predicting the past.By your own account, the Bible only get's it right 25-50% of the time. So Noah either built and arc or he didn't. It's a coin toss. And we think that the Church is a harbor for pediphiles, sado-masocists and murderers.Only difference between our beliefs is that ours is based on history, yours is based on magic forces. What moral decline? Are we less moral today than during the 1920s? How about during slavery? How about during Conquest?And what are these "unsubstantiate religious doctrines"? If the Bible only get's it right 1/4 the time, that's pretty damn unsubstantiated. Not even close to being worth 2 cents.

While this quote may be technically correct, in that it represents what Whitcomb et al stated, I disagree with the sentiment.Darwin was not the only one working on Evolutionary theory at the time. Huxley could have just as easily published the theory - and to less controversy (since he was focused mainly on beetles as opposed to the entire field of biology).Evolution was a paradigmatic shift. It would have happened even if Darwin had never set sail. Maybe it would have been a year later. Maybe 10. But, it was an idea who's time had come