For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

Buzsaw definition of evolution:1. Evolution is an explanation, compatible with the limits of the human natural mind for observed life and order, to satisfy those who cannot accept the notion that there is, in the universe a dimension of understanding and power above the ability of finite man to comprehend, known as the supernatural.2. Evolution is a theory contrived by one and believed by most which attempts to explain the observed existence of life and order solely by billions of random/chance happenings and interactions involving things pre-existing for no explicable reason.

quote:

---

It's a well-known fact that many (possibly a majority) of those who support the theory of evolution believe in or accept the existence of the supernatural, myself and many others here included. This alone invalidates definition #1. Some day you will have to accept that evolution was not invented to take the place of a god.

---

Methinks the need to explain away the supernaturalness of the supernatural, miracle, if you will, spawned the idea in the first place. When you really deeply think about it, what is observed necessitates inteligent design all the way. The odds of random natural selection is simply too impossible to explain it all. To think a supreme supernatural being would be so impotent as to have the need to progressively create a being such as man all the way from rock to slime to wigglers to creeper, to walker to grunter to intelligent praying communicating being, is imo, nonsense. Leaving it all to chancy collisions of this's n thats, bumping into one another at precise occasions so rare that the odds are nigh unto impossible, says little to the supernatural ability of any being.It would be interesting to hear what sort of supernatural you believe in and what sort of supernatural happenings you accept as bonafide. Can you name a few, Zephyr?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-07-2003]

quote:

---

Actually, it was the inability of the Genesis creation account to harmonize with factual observations that first caused scientists to question its accuracy.

---

It all depends on how you interpret what you observe. This's a classic example of how so called creationists who believe in evolution
discount the supernatural factor we fundamentalistic Biblicalists consider. Imo, as the Bible puts it they are "denying the power of god," if you will, the supernaturalness of the supposedly supernatural.

quote:

---

Only when one is conditioned or persuaded to enter such a mindset as requires that interpretation.

---

..........or how much common sense one exercises in that interpretation.

quote:

---

Natural selection is not random. It is determined by environmental factors which may change over time, but in a particular population it can be expected to favor the same traits for many generations.

---

In my dictionary random definition includes "without aim or purpose." In this sense it is random, imo. Without intelligence, there is no driving reason/purpose/aim. For example, after a species of bird would evolve wings, there is no driving reason or cause for those wings to evolve feathers. Common sense demands there be a driving reason or cause for the feathers to evolve. In the first place, I would surmise the bird brain must preceed the evolution of anything pertaining to the bird and the assemblage of even a bird brain would require sooooo many improbabilities without intelligence to make it happen.

quote:

---

Now we're back to the calculations of probability after the fact. Have you ever asked a statistician how useful that is?

---

\In determining the interpretation of what is observed as to origins, one must always do so after the fact. Any unbiased statistician calculating even the probabilities of a living human cell with dna and all would have to conclude that all that is required for it to formulate without intelligence, as observed, is nigh unto impossible.

quote:

---

The validity of a theory isn't determined by how it makes you feel or how it causes you to perceive a supposed higher power. You seem to be objecting to evolution because of its lack of purpose and imprecise means, which doesn't affect the evidence that many, many fields of science have provided in its favor.

---

Did I leave the impression I was going on feeling and supposition here? I believe this is more about probabilities and common sense based on what is observed than about emotional things like feelings.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-10-2003]

quote:

---

You're off topic.

---

It's tough to keep on keeping on defining an ideology that somehow magically does things like turning pumpkins into coaches at precisely 12 midnight as in Cinderella. Imo, this subject requires some digression as to reasons why this's scientifically impossible.

quote:

---

Or, say, turning water into wine? Raising the dead? Parting the Red Sea? That does sound hard to defend. Best of luck with that.

---

But Evolution is not suppose to be magic or miracle, though it's odds would require magic or miracle as in Cinderella. It's suppose to be scientific and natural. On the other hand, The things you cite from the Bible are suppose to involve the supernatural and miracle.

quote:

---

This was a topic for Mike the Wiz and others to pose honest questions about the modern theory of evolution and what it claims, not for wiseguys to shoot their mouths off.

---

.But I'm not being frivolus here. I'm dead serious. You need to reread and think a bit about what I posted if you think what I said is foolishness.

quote:

---

You don't have to believe the theory to post in this topic; just be genuinely interested in what the theory actually claims.

---

Lighten up a bit, Crashfrog. It appears from the response that my little pithy post apprised a point for providence.

quote:

---

Do you know how unlikely it was that you, exactly, would be produced from the hundreds of eggs your mother will have released in her lifetime and the hundreds of millions of sperm put into her on each of (probably) hundreds of occasions? You do the math and there it is, "nigh unto impossible.

---

Oh c/mon, Zephyr. Comparing me personally among human eggs to the likelyhood of life, cells and dna errupting from inorganic mass is as apples and oranges as you can get. We know the likelyhood of human eggs producing a human, don't we?

quote:

---

The likelihood that you will win the lottery is remote enough that you can safely say it will never happen. The likelihood that someone will win the lottery is very different.

---

But then compare the likelihood of someone winning the lottery to someone eventually emerging from inorganic particles. No matter how much time you calculate in and how many this's n thats bumping together you calculate in, the latter ainta gonna happen. Me personally winning the biggest lottery ever is a far, far greater likelihood.

How can you make any probability calculations about a process that very little is known about?
When you assume a large number of atoms, that have to react purely randomly (all possible combinations are equally likely) and have to produce just one specific output (only one pattern in a protein for example) you arrive at a tiny probability that is a good enough representation of zero.OK, so to steer back to topic, How about this definition of ToE.
Evolution is a little known process taught in most educational institutions to the extent that it has become believed by most. This process is theorized to have proceeded over billions of years beginning with the original big bang after which large numbers of atoms reacting randomly proceeded to produce billions of timely combinations so as to eventually produce randomly all that is observed. This natural process is believed to have eventually produced the wonderful and marvelous results we see on planet earth, but alas, seems to have done little to nothing for all other observable planets and celestial bodies.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

---

It had to start somewhere. Right?? When you begin with inorganic chunks floating about in space and end up with life on planet earth as we see it, aside from intelligent intervention, you've got evolution all the way, don't you?Most evolutionists I know or have read about believe in the BB, including Christians.

quote:

---

So, to answer your question, that's a terrible definition of the Theory of Evolution. It might be a great definition of a certain philosophy but it's pretty clear you don't know what constitutes scientific theory.

---

What is observed provides more evidence for the supernatural than it does for ToE. The fossil record, as well as human history supports more evidence for sudden creation of living species than it does for evolution of the species. So that makes my definition more scientific than yours. A number of scientists would rate both of my definitions on this thread higher than that of the evolutionists. It's all how you read and interpret what is observed.

quote:

---

Could you explain why you have such trouble separating these areas of inquiry?

---

Thanks NN, for the breakdown on the various inquiries. I guess my problem with this is that it seems the strategy is to divide and conquer since the whole is so hard for evolutionists to reconcile. It is my understanding that nearly all evolutionists believe in the BB and getting from there to the simplest life is the first high hurdle where the bar comes down. Then you have literally billions of unattainable hurdles getting from there to here. So my problem is that unlike Genesis creation, you have no foundation under your nice looking house.

quote:

---

Hrm, interesting - what would evidence for the supernatural look like? How would we tell the difference between what we can't yet explain and what we'll never be able to explain?

---

It looks like scores of nicely detailed specific fulfilled Biblical prophecies. It looks like Ballard's recent discovery of man made things deep in the Black Sea. It looks like the extinction of the dinosaurs. It looks like man made articles found in coal beds. It looks like sea fossils high in the mountain ranges. It looks like modern extreme weather patterns, the industrial revolution and so on. Like I say, it's all in how you interpret what you see.

quote:

---

Interesting - in what way? How does the clearly preserved sorting of the fossil record, combined with relative inferred age, support sudden universal creation? It doesn't seem to, to me.

---

Imo, the dating methods are flawed, failing to factor the flood.

quote:

---

Wheras, an astronomically larger number of scientists would agree with my criticisms of your definition. So what's your point? I have way more scientists on my side.

---

True, but only since modern schools have indoctrinated the students in it for so long without substantial documentation. Begin with theory in your search and you can promote anything with enough backing........anything from religion to medical quakery to so called science.The fact that there are more and more bonafide creationist scientists who are taking notice of new archeological and scientific discoveries to support sudden creation of life gives credence to the need for science to acknowledge that what is observed supports the possibility of the supernatural as much as your views, depending on the interpretation of the data.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

quote:

---

Now I don't understand. You think sea fossils in uplifted mountains (plate tectonics - heard of it?) and the industrial revolution are supernatural?

---

I didn't explain too much as I didn't know how far to stray from difinition here.
This unique creationist (me) does not necessarily follow the thinking of many prominent creationists on some things.
Imo, the mountain ranges were pushed up by the flood waters which sank the oceans to their present depths, the pre-flood earth being relatively smooth surfaced.2. The industrial revolution is prophecied for what the Bible calls the "end of the age" and the end of the present world orders. That mankind will destroy himself, life and the world via this revolution unchecked, is undisputed by many.

quote:

---

That still doesn't address the fossil sorting aspect. Fossils are even sorted by criteria that wouldn't affect flood survivability, such as complexity of shell suture. Why would more complex sutures appear higher in the record than less complex one? I don't see how a flood would cause that.

---

1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?
2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.
3. The walking and flying creatures were able to survive the longest time as they all likely went to high ground during the eommencement of the flood. Likely their bodies rotted, etc and were the least likely to be suddenly burried as were the tiny things. Man being the most intelligent would be the longest survivor of the flood as they would've known the highest places and were the most able to find floating debris to keep afloat the longest.

quote:

---

Where do you suppose indoctrination is more likely to occur? Honestly: a science classroom or a church? Creationism's church connections make it a much more likely place for "indoctrination" to occr. That's why churches call it "doctrine".

---

Doctrine is simply a belief/ideology or teaching and both have that.
So both indoctrinate. The Bible was taught in our public schools for many years in nations early days. Since there is a Satan and the existence of evil countering truth, it is logical that it would not be widely believed. It is prophecied in it that the vast majority would not believe it. It has inspired the creation of the most prosperous, free and blessed culture ever on the planet. Look at history and see what athiestic communism and the various other religions have accomplished.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone questions that you could explain the data with supernatural explanations. The question is, is it good for science to accept those explanations over naturalistic ones? I don't think so; naturalistic models have served us very will throughout the history of science. But it's a methodology issue.

---

I'm open minded and willing to change my mind if and when the Bible record is sucessfully refuted. I've looked at both sides for over 50 years and so far the Biblical record wins hands down.

quote:

---

Personally, I don't think any lack of evidence is sufficient to prompt science to seek supernatural explanations - and evidence for the supernatural would make it natural. I think that's a view shared by the majority of scientific philosophers.

---

But there's a reason the Bible is outlawed in public schools. The forces of evil against truth can't deal with it's competition.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 45 by buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 12:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

I'm getting tired of hearing this claim over and over again. If you would keep up with more threads, you would know that the complete column is found in over 20 locations. In the last 2 months, I've seen your claim refuted in this very forum multiple times.

---

I have a full time business and simply don't have time to do a lot here. Sorry about that, but I appreciate all I'm learning here as to how you all think and will continue to learn all I have time for. It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.BTW, how many things have you observed sitting around to become fossils for folks in the next millionth generation to observe?? Time doesn't seem to be of the essence in the process so much as how they die. Right?

quote:

---

2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.
Describe these discrepancies and you will get a good explanation for them.

---

The descrepencies are the geolocical column. Why don't you take the time to watch his video and critique it here? Also his Mt. St. Hellens video and the sudden sedimentation of the new canyon it formed is very inlightening.

quote:

---

Now you're avoiding specific evidence and repeating a generalized claim that does not explain the sorting. Address the sorting of similar bodies by features unrelated to intelligence, mobility, ecological niche, size, or shape: the shell sutures. Explain "flood" strata both below and above desert strata. Explain a stratum representing the gradual evaporation of a sea - with "flood" strata above and below. Until you can explain the complexity of the geologic record, in detail from top to bottom, you are clutching at straws.

---

I've read the arguments both of Morris and of his critics on this. He calls it "hydraulic" sorting, similar to what I alluded to. There are arguments for and against both. There are different creatures within the same species that naturally act differently. Some of the critique is assumption. And again you folks have this huge problem of things sitting around to be fossilized somehow magically. That, imo is not scientific.

quote:

---

Which has the higher density, seawater or rock?

---

Rock is about three times more dense than water, but 70% of the earth's surface is ocean. My understanding is that the average thickness of the earth's crust is about three miles whereas the average thickness of the continents is about twenty miles. When the flood came, the thin crust would've sank into the molten core of the earth by the huge volumn of water, pushing up the continents from the displacement of the molten core which would rise forming the mountain ranges and cooling. The volumn of the water would overcome the density of the rock, imo.