Why TOE is not accepted

Do not answer the points in this thread! It is too far off topic and/or mixing too many topics. These may be taken by any interested parties to the appriate threads.Ned, more deception from you. Why?You guys are making a claim, and I am asking you to back it up. Where are the peer-reviewed studies showing the only reason people reject evolution is because they have a lust for political power?You are just, in hypocritical fashion, being unreasonable and demanding of me and other creationist/IDers/Skeptics demands that you yourself don't live by, and don't demand of evolutionists. Been listing them for weeks now, can you not read, or are you going to dismiss any evidence you don't want to me to mention such as the false use of depictions?1. Stasis in the fossil record.
2. Lack of greater complexity since the Cambrian explosion.
3. Lack of gradual transitions seen to document evolution in the fossil record.
4. No phylotypic stage; no human gill slits (as evolutionists claim).
5. Faked drawings such as Haeckel's and excessively ape-like depictions of Neanderthals, thus showing evolution presented not with truthful and factual information.
6. Apparent design.
7. No observation of plausible explanation for how the first life form came about via abiogenesis. If, for example, there was a non-natural causal agent involved in that, then why exclude this possibility with evolution.
8. Irreducible complexity.
9. The underlying principles of physical existence exhibiting design and potential mechanism for ID.
10. Similar traits arising not through common ancestry thus illustrating, even within evolutionist dogma, how assumptions of common ancestry are just assumptions.Those are some off the top of my head. No, but I am going to keep bringing it up, especially as you guys keep defending it. The fact evolutionists kept using these faked drawings when, as a college student, I learned they were fake, and yet the Phds involved in evolution teaching kept them in the textbooks is indicative of how evolutionism is not purely science.Regardless of how many excused you guys make, there is no excuse for it.Anyone that looked into the data for themselves, just compared photos that were easily available, could see these were gross distortions.Critics of evolution were loud and vocal that they were distortions, but evolutionists perpetuated the fraud.Why?Simply dismissing it as a mistake does not cut it.Clearly, evolutionists had either not looked into the evidence they were using to see if it was indeed factual, and not even a cursory critical self-examination, or they deliberately perpetuated a fraud. I guess it breaks down on an individual basis, but what I cannot accept is that somehow a college student like myself could look into this objectively, as an evolutionist, and easily see it was faked, and that all these Phds looked into it for over 100 years and just made a mistake.No, they just never bothered to see if what they taught and believed was true, or at least I hope that's the case, and not they deliberately lied to the public all this time.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-02-2005 01:00 AM

It is hard to keep all the different creationists straight.I'm sorry if I underestimated your intelligence.It is generally a bad idea to ascribe malice to what might be a simple oversite. It is a characteristic bit of behavior of yours.I suggest that you take your defence of the ordering to a bible accuracy thread. There are interested parties who would love to discuss that with you.Meanwhile there is the content of Message 260ABE
Ah, a beginning attempt to answer, thanks
Now take each of those in your chosen order to an appropriate thread. Thanks.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-02-2005 12:57 AM

I forgot one thing that was very persuasive when first shown to me during a presentation by a botanist, polystrate trees.It strains the imagination to hear evolutionist explanations for this. I don't know if YECers are right, but they do seem to have some well-substantiated ideas on Flood geology and rapid sedimentation, and thought I should throw that out here as another piece of evidence against ToE scenarios.Polystrate Trees
Mount St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophism
Human Artifactsin the Fossil Record

This is the last time!EVERYONE! (but most particulary randman)This thread is not a catch all to discuss every single issue. Post them ONLY to the appropriate threads.You were doing pretty well too and getting things going where they belonged.You might want to search for this topic, rand, it has been hashed over pretty darn thoughly. You would do well to actually look at the evidence instead of being mislead by the sources you pick.

But of COURSE. There are MANY plausible imaginative scenarios possible. There just isn't any PROOF.Ooops. Probably off topic. Didn't see your warning until now, Nosy.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 02:39 AM

I believe you have missed the sequence here. This is all Jazzns complaint about my original post giving my reasons for rejecting the ToE, Message 28 which should be an unassailably legitimate post on this thread. You might want to chastize him for challenging it. The sequence from message 28 is Message 43 to Message 84 to your warning to me which this answers.Thank you.AND my assertions were WELL supported by the argument in which they were couched.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 03:04 AM

I thought they were couched in nonsense and crackly asides - but that's just me.

---

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of GodSt. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)

I'm not sure what "mega-toe" is, but from what you've said, it seems to be some idea of "evolution" from Big Bang on. I think this is a misuse of the term "evolution" amd is definitely a misuse of the term Theory of Evolution, which is about how life forms evolved on earth and nothing more. It doesn't include the idea of how life evolved from non-life and has nothing to do with the development of stars and planets and such, which are not life forms. If you start turning all that into a TOE, you just confuse the issue. I know nothing about such ideas, and in any case it is a totally different topic than the Biological Theory of Evolution. One can accept the Biological Theory of Evolution without accepting that. One can believe in natural selection and believe in God at the same time. One can believe that God created the first life form and at the same time one can also believe in the Biological Theory of Evolution. One can believe that life came from non-life and still believe in God. One can believe in Big Bang and "inflationary theory" (whatever that is) and still believe in God. And Christ for that matter.There's only one belief you would have to drop: a literal belief in the Biblical Genesis. I know of this Jewish friend of mine who has an elaborate idea about interpreting Genesis such that "day" equals some vast number of years (there's a lot more to it than that, but I forget). Well, that's fine. You can interpret it non-literally in that fashion, in which case the story of Genesis is a general overview told in pre-scientific terms of what in fact actually happened.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference is in whether you are claiming something scientific. My claim is that creationists engage in political style argument, consisting of shouting-down matches, obfuscation, and name calling. This is what, under a guise of sophistication, politicians do. Where do I come up with this idea? The EVC forum.I don't see any difference between "brainwashing" and "indoctrination," except that the latter is a more polite term.

Thanks for your response, Yaro.While *nature* doesn't seem to care, I'd rather not sear my conscience and *metaphysical nature* to give free-reign to my natural lusts (a desperately wretched).In sum both my *conscience* and *stream of consciousness* cause me to worry that my metaphysical being is far more accountable and responsible than nature, not to mention biblical prophecies and *natures excellencies* (if you will) abounding toward me (i.e., food, raimenent, a wife) that *seem ordered from God*.

quote:

---

First off, you can be a biologist and not accept ToE, and acceptance of universal common descent (ToE) does not mean you "pretty much" reject all of modern biology.

---

The ToE is the underpinning of all Biology, randman.You might get a Biology degree without accepting it, but I'm not sure how you remain a practicing Biologist, performing experiments and developing theory, without using the ToE.Maybe that's why there are more scientists named Steve who accept the ToE than there are total scientists who reject it and who are Creationists. Project Steve

quote:

---

your question concerning "Biology". The truth is you can accept micro-evolution and thus population genetics, and reject universal common descent and thus ToE, and still have a fine and complete understanding of Biology.

---

Randman, the field of Population Genetics is nothing less than the practical application of Evolutionary Theory. Wikipedia

quote:

---

Evolutionists like to pretend that ToE equated Biology in general and thus suggest anyone that rejects ToE cannot, for example, "population genetics."

---

Please explain to me how one can reject the ToE and still operate within the field of Population Genetics.

quote:

---

Evolution in the broader sense is not denied by anyone. YECers accept speciation, for example, but evolutionists in trying to convince people, will define "evolution" as speciation, and then claim victory because speciation occurs and say it is a fact, but "evolution" in that sense is not the ToE.

---

Of course it is. Evolution, states in the most simple terms, is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.How does this exclude speciation?I might add here that Creationists currently accept speciation. A few decades ago Henry Morris and others vehemently denied that speciation happened and that the so-called created "kinds" were immutable. Now that the evidence is so overwhelming that speciation does occur, most creationists have had to retreat to acceptance of it. They still persist in their denial of longer-term evolution, however, even though they can produce no plausible evidence of any barrier to it.Will you be the first?

quote:

---

As far as within the paradigm of evolutionism does real science go on, I have no doubt that it does, but these faked and overstated claims are a crucial ingredient in how evolution is taught and believed, especially early on, and part of the indoctrination process.

---

Please provide evidence that the work currently done by Evolutionary Biologists does not at any time adhere to the same tenets of science used by any other field of science.For example, you could provide some examples of peer-reviewed Evolutionary Biology papers which should not be trusted because they are based upon falsehoods and lies, or the scientists who reviewd them are so poor at doing science or so blinded by their indoctrination and religious need to accept the ToE that they were easily misled by faulty methodology.You forgot to answer this part of my last message: This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 03:31 PM

Absolutely NONE of that requires a belief in "macro" evolution. Every bit of it is compatible with creationism. I've mentioned the "evolutionary forces" or "mechanisms of evolution" in my own posts about the natural limits to evolution, as all ultimately tending to lead away from the possibility of evolution beyond a certain point.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 04:32 PM

quote:

---

Absolutely NONE of that requires a belief in "macro" evolution.

---

Sure it does.Otherwise, all Creationists would accept all the evidence for evolution.I've got some news for you. If you accept population Genetics, then you are an Evolutionist.

quote:

---

Every bit of it is compatible with creationism.

---

Really? All Creationists accept all evolutionary mechanisms as the origin of all species on Earth?Then why all this "kind" nonsense?

quote:

---

I've mentioned the "evolutionary forces" or "mechanisms of evolution" in my own posts about the natural limits to evolution, as all ultimately tending to lead away from the possibility of evolution beyond a certain point.

---

Well, then you reject population genetics, and really all of Biology.There is no observed barrier to evolution. Can you show me one?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 06:17 PM

Robin, you (thoughtfully) stated:One can believe in natural selection and believe in God at the same time. One can believe that God created the first life form and at the same time one can also believe in the Biological Theory of Evolution. One can believe that life came from non-life and still believe in God. One can believe in Big Bang and "inflationary theory" (whatever that is) and still believe in God. And Christ for that matter.Actually, I have no right to refute the above statement since faith in any gospel seems to transcend all naturalistic logic (I think) and might even allow for *miraculous additions of new genetic information via beneficial mutations* (which I view the macro-bio-ToE subtly camouflages under a guise of NS).But, if quarks, sub-quarkian matter (if there be such a thing), and/or *first-life-form(s)* *empirically* evolved into Christ, I perceive that as enormous mockery by the devil.Finally you stated: There's only one belief you would have to drop: a literal belief in the Biblical Genesis. I’d ask you, Robin:Would I be able to keep a literal belief in:
1) Exodus’s cosmic plagues?
2) Jonah’s fish story: being buried 3 days and 3 nights in a fish?
3) Christ being buried 3 days and 3 nights, risen, ascended (etc.) ?
4) Christ’s (and NT) apocalyptic and gospel references to Genesis, Adam, the Flood, Jonah, etc.?So my stumbling-block remains thus:
1) The macro-biological ToE subtly but effectively debunks Christ’s sayings concerning Genesis.
2) The ToE seems diametrically opposed to faith in Christ as the cornerstone of *life*.
3) Faith in the Resurrection and the Life makes it all too *easy* to believe in a literal Genesis vs. the ToE (i.e., As per Heb 11:3 KJV, which plainly declares: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear).(Note: I spent way too much time on this. You don’t have to respond your time is precious. Anyone who has time is welcome to provide feedback)

Are you trying to get me suspended again? I risk that when I dare to talk about these things. And I already answered you about all this on this very thread yesterday. Funny but I accept all that but I remain a creationist and I don't accept (macro)evolution. What is considered to be evidence for evoluton is as most creationists keep trying to get across to you guys, just as well explained by creationism, and often better. All those things happen all the time. They produce varieties or breeds of animals, only done by nature rather than people. No way can any of them produce anything other than a variation of the species. Certainly it's never HAPPENED. All that has happened by way of "speciation" is that you get way out in a genetically depleted overbred or inbred highly selected type and it loses the ability to breed with the parent species -- AS WELL AS to be the basis for any further variations either. Funny, cause I've argued from population genetics on this very board in favor of creationist interpretations. Except we know they aren't new species, simply variations on the parent species, simply possibilities of combinations of the genome for the kind. All kinds of dogs, all kinds of cats, all kinds of bacteria, but never something OTHER than dogs, cats and the particular bacterium. And "evolutionary mechanisms" is a bit of wishful thinking. True they are the mechanisms of change from one type to another, but all that means is that they are mechnisms for the shuffling of the given genetic possibilities into new combinations, and when selection is part of the picture it always leads to a reduction in the very genetic variability that is necessary for developing new adaptations, a direction that is decidedly against the basic premise of evolution. This is affirmed in discussion of the plight of the highly inbred types, such as the cheetah, and some even had the grace to agree with me about this basic fact when I argued it a few months ago here. Selection at least is misnamed a mechanism of evolution as it can't possibly lead to evolution. It leads only to reduction of variability and therefore away from new adaptive possibilities. Because the terminology is unclear as currently used. If we say species, that suggests to evolutionists something new coming out of the old rather than a fixed species which is what we mean by it, that has the genetic potential of varying into many types while always remaining the same species. "Kind" simply avoids confusion. No, population genetics is absolutely true, and so is biology on the level of the daily work biologists do, even if they do it in pursuit of the validation of some evolutionary principle or other. It's still all biology, still valid science. No creationist rejects any of this. I answered this yesterday. The barrier is in the fact that there is no observed transcendance of a species either. What there is is simply variations on the kind/species that are artificially defined as "speciation" which obscures the reality of what is really going on. What are called new species are at least in some cases actually severely genetically depleted breeds, so depleted that they have lost the capacity to interbreed with the parent species, but also so depleted that they have no genetic capacity for further adaptation. It is a very strange idea that a new "species" would be exactly the genetic result that has the LEAST capacity to evolve beyond its current adaptation, or in some cases, such as the cheetah, that can't evolve in any direction whatever.But this is only to address the "evolutionary mechanism" of selection. The other processes are a little more roundabout but the situation still ends up in the same place. The overall tendency is always toward extinction, not evolution in the macro sense, only evolution in the sense of change from type to type.The only process of all the supposed evolutionary processes, the only one that appears to add something, is mutation. And this I need to understand a lot better. But the others do nothing but mix and shuffle or deplete the genetic picture. As soon as selection begins, decrease in genetic variability begins, the opposite of what evolution needs in order to be true.That's all I'm going to say because AdminNosy hates me for ever saying it. There's nothing unscientific about any of it. It describes what in fact occurs, and it's acknowledged too. Only the obvious conclusion is never drawn from it.Some time if I'm still posting here I'll start a new thread on it. Read up on some more genetics and muster my evidence. But this is all I'll say for now.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 07:53 PM