Do Creationists Understand The Theory Of Evolution?

[Booko]

How so? You don't have to look hard to find articles that are about artifacts proving the world to be much older than the 6 to 10 thousand year old creationism earth. Also, the effects of the Ice Age are also obvious. Especially if you live in Indian, where the northern and central parts where flattened by the Ice Age, while the southern part still has many mountains where the ice did not cover.

Yes, I enjoyed one of the aftereffects of the Ice Age this summer on a beautiful day at Lake Michigan.

As I child I found Petosky stones (Michigan's state rock) on the beach. The fossils in them are what make them distinctive. Later on in life we did a goodly bit of work in physical analytical chemistry doing rock dating.

I regret to inform Creationists that Petosky stones are older than 6000-10000 years old. MUCH older.

So apparently I'm to choose between a blind faith in Creationism and get to keep God along with that, or I can deny the evidence God has put before my eyes and think of him as a liar.

Well, that's an interesting place to find oneself.

As for the OP (which it would be nice to refer to, eh?) yes there are proponents of evolution who use the same tactics proponents of creationism do -- cite liberally from other sources without really understanding what they say or the broader context.

I'm not sure there's any area of human inquiry that doesn't have its occasional problem with intellectual laziness, though some seem to have a worse problem.

 

[UnTheist]

Yeah, all the creationists I know of, including myself understand the theory of evolution to be be hogwash.

Which means you don't understand Evolution.

 

[almifkhar]

i may be wrong, so don't jump all over me, please.......
but i thought the theory of evolution has been getting picked apart and much of the theory is outdated and outmoted.

 

[gnostic]

In your experience, do most of the creationists you encounter understand the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?

Most of the creation literalists - absolutely not.

Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationists - absolutely not.

They have no concept of "evidence". And worse of all, they have absolutely no concept whatsoever of "time".

Trying explaining the concept of light in astronomy, how the further back in space you see, the older the it is, because light takes time to travel through space. You can actually estimate how old this light is, and many of them are millions if not billions of light year away. That itself should explain that the universe is older than 12 to 13 billion years, so this should have discredit the creationist theory that the universe is only 6000 years old (or 13000 years for YECs).

But no. Some of them believed that God put the lights there so that it would only seem that older than it really is. This sounds so ridiculous that I sometimes wondered if it would not better off for these creationists to live in the Dark Ages. That way they can feel secured in their ignorance.

Some people just can't deal with the realities of science, that they must make all sort of excuses to discredit evolution and the evidences of age of our earth or our universe. Some people are just more comfortable in living a lie.

 

[joeboonda]

Anyone know the Law of Biogenesis?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i may be wrong, so don't jump all over me, please.......
but i thought the theory of evolution has been getting picked apart and much of the theory is outdated and outmoted.

No, it's not. Any controversy around it is based on religious beliefs and not science. Darwin's original ideas have been refined and updated just like all scientific theories are, but evolutionary theory is very much alive and well.

Anyone know the Law of Biogenesis?

I assume you're talking about the comment by Pasteur that the theory in his day called "biogenesis", which claimed thing like that maggots are spontanously created by rotting meat and mice are created by decaying hay, was utter hooey, and which is sometimes taken out of context by creationists to make it seem like Pasteur was talking about the idea of life beginning on Earth from simple origins.

Is that the one?

 

[Booko]

Anyone know the Law of Biogenesis?

You mean <<La generation spontanee est une chimere>>?

Yes, I know it. And the fact that you're even asking this question in the context of a discussion on Creationism and Evolution pretty much proves that you don't know it.

Penguin's statement is factual.

 

[joeboonda]

No, it's not. Any controversy around it is based on religious beliefs and not science. Darwin's original ideas have been refined and updated just like all scientific theories are, but evolutionary theory is very much alive and well.


I assume you're talking about the comment by Pasteur that the theory in his day called "biogenesis", which claimed thing like that maggots are spontanously created by rotting meat and mice are created by decaying hay, was utter hooey, and which is sometimes taken out of context by creationists to make it seem like Pasteur was talking about the idea of life beginning on Earth from simple origins.

Is that the one?

Not just Pasteur, but also Redi, Spallanzani, and Virchow. The Law of Biogenesis, (Law, not theory) is that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind. This completely disproves spontaneous generation which is the evolutionary mechanism by which life arose. On the other hand it fits right in with, "In the beginning, God created..."

 

[Booko]

Not just Pasteur, but also Redi, Spallanzani, and Virchow. The Law of Biogenesis, (Law, not theory) is that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind. This completely disproves spontaneous generation which is the evolutionary mechanism by which life arose. On the other hand it fits right in with, "In the beginning, God created..."

Cite one reliable source, Joe. Out of curiousity I Googled "Law of Biogenesis" just now and what turned up was:

1. A Wiki article that points out how Creationists misuse the term
2. A bunch of Creationist sites (these are most of the hits)
3. Other sites that give good descriptions of Creationist misuse of the term, such as Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
4. Some actual biology-relelvant sites that define this law in terms that deny Creationist use of it.

For instance, I don't see how this applies to Creationism at all:

law of biogenesis -->

recapitulation theory

The theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel that individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages similar in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; more technically phrased, the theory that ontogeny is an abbreviated recapitulation of phylogeny.

Synonym: biogenetic law, law of biogenesis, Haeckel's law, law of recapitulation.



From: Definition: recapitulation theory from Online Medical Dictionary

I've certainly run across descriptions of the development of the human fetus that seems to indicate its "ontogeny is an abbreviated recapituation of phylogeny" but I'm darned if I can see how that supports Creationism.



Can you give a nice detailed explanation of how it does?

Or if that's not the definition you're using, can you please direct me to a *scientific* source that you're using for your definition?

Oh, btw, don't make a big deal out of "Law" as scientists use it, Joe. All a "Law" is is a "theory" that we're very very confident about. Should some evidence come to light that requires us to look at a "Law" again, it'll be revised just as any theory would be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not just Pasteur, but also Redi, Spallanzani, and Virchow.

Again, you're mischaracterizing things.

On Redi:

Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation for large organisms by showing that maggots arose from meat only when flies laid eggs in the meat.

On Spallanzani:

The concept and the debate were revived in 1745 by the experiments of John Needham. It was known at the time that heat was lethal to living organisms. Needham theorized that if he took chicken broth and heated it, all living things in it would die. After heating some broth, he let a flask cool and sit at a constant temperature. The development of a thick turbid solution of microorganisms in the flask was strong proof to Needham of the existence of spontaneous generation. Lazzaro Spallanzani later repeated the experiments of Needham, but removed air from the flask, suspecting that the air was providing a source of contamination. No growth occurred in Spallanzani's flasks and he took this as evidence that Needham was wrong. Proponents of spontaneous generation discounted the experiment by asserting that air was required for the vital force to work.

Source for Redi and Spallanzani quotes here.

The only one you were even close on is Virchow (source):

German pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821 - 1902) altered the thought of cellular biology with his statement that "every cell comes from a cell". Not even twenty years after this statement, processes of cell reproduction were being described--Virchow had completed the thought behind the basic cell theory.

While this theory is generally true for ongoing life, it says nothing about how the "ball got rolling", so to speak.

The Law of Biogenesis, (Law, not theory) is that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind.

Hang on... what does whether something is called a "law" or "theory" matter to you? If you actually thought that edicts from scientists determined what is true and false, then you wouldn't be arguing that evolutionary theory is wrong to begin with.

However, the so-called "Law of Biogenesis" is not held as a law outside Creationist circles. Mischaracterizing the denunciation of the idea that meat creates maggots as a statement supposedly proving that life could not have arose without the direct intervention of God is flat-out dishonest.

This completely disproves spontaneous generation which is the evolutionary mechanism by which life arose. On the other hand it fits right in with, "In the beginning, God created..."

It disproves nothing. What does prove and disprove things is evidence, not you putting words into the mouth of the scientific community.

 

[joeboonda]

A Law has been proven, a theory has not. Life cannot come from non-life, hence we have peanut-butter sealed in jars at every grocery store.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A Law has been proven, a theory has not.

Then please indulge us and show us the "proof" for the "law" of biogenesis.

Life cannot come from non-life, hence we have peanut-butter sealed in jars at every grocery store.

Mix in some oxygen and methane into the jar with some occasional lightning and you just might if you wait long enough.

Also, the "peanut butter jar" that is the Earth does have life... which would seem to indicate that your "law" has at least one exception.

 

[joeboonda]

Then please indulge us and show us the "proof" for the "law" of biogenesis.


Mix in some oxygen and methane into the jar with some occasional lightning and you just might if you wait long enough.

Also, the "peanut butter jar" that is the Earth does have life... which would seem to indicate that your "law" has at least one exception.

I don't need to prove a Law that has already been proven. Life cannot come from non-life. It is true, the Earth does have life. Since life cannot come from non-life, then life came from God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't need to prove a Law that has already been proven.

No, but if you want to demonstrate that something has been proven, the proof in question might be good for you let us in on... if you're actually concerned with changing people's minds, that is.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just point us to where we can find this proof so we can examine it for ourselves.

Life cannot come from non-life. It is true, the Earth does have life. Since life cannot come from non-life, then life came from God.

Or your initial assumption is false.

Edit: Joe, is God alive?

 

[joeboonda]

No, but if you want to demonstrate that something has been proven, the proof in question might be good for you let us in on... if you're actually concerned with changing people's minds, that is.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just point us to where we can find this proof so we can examine it for ourselves.


Or your initial assumption is false.

Edit: Joe, is God alive?

Throughout my schooling I was always shown the disproofs of spontanteous generation. Yet this is the mechanism by which life arose, according to evolutionists. Life simply does not come from non-life. As far as God is concerned, I believe he has always existed, he is eternal, outside time and does not need to have been "created" as he has always been. The creation had a beginning and thus needed a creator. It is nonsense to me to observe all the wonders of creation and believe they just happened. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Throughout my schooling I was always shown the disproofs of spontanteous generation.

Then please, share them with us.

We covered spontaneous generation at my school, too, but they also taught us that it was a very specific term dealing with a specific belief: that large, complex organisms can and do arise directly from everyday physical and chemical processes.

Holding up the refutations of that idea as some sort of disproof that life could arise from the "primordial soup" is intellectually dishonest and only takes advantage of the fact that different theories have had the same name.

It would make as much sense to use statements against the original, archaic definition of "evolution" (i.e. "unfolding": that every child a woman will ever have lies complete within the egg, and within that egg lies a womb with its own eggs, which contain more complete children, and so on, and so on) and use them as the basis of a stance against the modern definition of the term.

Yet this is the mechanism by which life arose, according to evolutionists.

First: there is no such thing as an "evolutionist".

Second: the theory of evolution itself says nothing about how life arose. It only deals with the propagation of life after that initial event, however it occurred. Natural selection and random mutation do not occur until there is life to be mutated and selected; until that time, evolution does not exist.

Life simply does not come from non-life.

As far as God is concerned, I believe he has always existed, he is eternal, outside time and does not need to have been "created" as he has always been. The creation had a beginning and thus needed a creator.

Ah... special pleading. I take this as your way of conceding that yes, God is alive, but no, He is not subject to the "law" that you claim all living things are subject to.

Not much of a law, is it?

It is nonsense to me to observe all the wonders of creation and believe they just happened. But whatever floats your boat.

What "floats my boat" is evidence. If you want others to share your views, provide some.

 

[camanintx]

I don't need to prove a Law that has already been proven. Life cannot come from non-life. It is true, the Earth does have life. Since life cannot come from non-life, then life came from God.

Before we accept your claim that life cannot come from non-life, you will have to define what exactly "life" is and what distinguishes it from "non-life". Please try to include references too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Before we accept your claim that life cannot come from non-life, you will have to define what exactly "life" is and what distinguishes it from "non-life". Please try to include references too.

Some rationale for why God would be included in both the mutually exclusive categories of "life" (since otherwise, life coming from God would violate your "law") and "non-life" (since otherwise, God would also require "life" to come from) would be helpful as well.

 

[meogi]

Throughout my schooling I was always shown the disproofs of spontanteous generation. Yet this is the mechanism by which life arose, according to evolutionists.

Not that you would, but look into metabolism-first instead of replicator-first mechanisms for the 'spontaneous' generation of life.

 

[Willamena]

A Law has been proven, a theory has not. Life cannot come from non-life, hence we have peanut-butter sealed in jars at every grocery store.

Which laws have been "proven"? Do you mean laws like the Theory of Gravity?