Just out of curiosity, what would you say are the most important things you have learned from Genesis?
how does that affect the way you live your life?
Well I trudged through the video I found here on this website explaining a theory on how flight became a thing in the evolutionary world and it was so agonizingly unscientific and illogical. a baby bird flapping its wings without functioning wings and running up a slanted tree branch while flapping them to avoid danger being the undergirding principle to explain how a four legged animal develops the capability of flight? Would not partially feathered arms on a four legged animal be the factor to make the animal more suseptable to danger and thus get the shaft in the process of selection? Evolution disproves evolution. Not to mention that the partial feathering with feathers just so happen to be really really well designed for flying animals nonetheless?? All by chance and by time and by energy by the way. Ugh and ugh and ugh and ugh. Deserving of a Chris Carter’s “Common Man!” So I really could not bear yet another video that attempted to explain how mindless evolution came up with male and female gender and all of the intracacies needed for design in the sexes in procreation…
And I honestly cannot believe that someone would make a computer program designed after such a far fetched theory and hint that this suggests that this bolsters the theory as fact.
I am honestly beginning to believe that there have been so many years of the religious belief of evolution indoctrinated into the minds of folks from the bountiful sources of philosophical naturalists in this day in age that to try to circumvent this thinking even with statistical logic falls on def ears. I am very sorry…I love people and all and am learning that belief is powerful and difficult to overcome. Belief in the truth is so important and God creating fully functioning plants and animals to be placed in time make more sense logically and is more in line with the Bible than explaining complexity from energy. That is what we should be feeding our minds with! I don’t know what else to say. Stop clapping 
It sounds like there would not be much further point in showing you resources or evidence at the current time, then, I guess. I’m sorry because I, too, agree that “belief in the truth is so important” and I’m saddened that there are so many true things you can’t believe.
Just to set the record straight on your first paragraph, it would be one of many two-legged dinosaurs running around flapping its arms, not four-legged, and if it’s plain that flying fish and flying squirrels successfully evade predators without full flight, and many non-flying dinosaurs are now known to have had feathers, I think that takes care of your objections. Although it would never occur to me to look for a really solid scientific case in a video; videos are supposed to be entertaining.
1 Like
You have obviously never chased a chicken around a large barnyard, Greg.
Go try to catch a half dozen hens in a meadow and tell us how it goes.
Greg, you are constantly making appeals to “common sense”…
About those chickens you tried to catch, but couldn’t: did they fly above the trees to escape you?
[quote=“grog, post:250, topic:35076”]
what they are suggesting is what is absolutely and astoundingly asinine logically and statistically.[/quote]
You still love to make statistical proofs without presenting any math. Did you even read what I wrote earlier?
Those are good questions, Greg. I’m just trying to figure out how deeply I need to go in answering them, considering your lack of experience with thinking in terms of statistical inference. I’ll get back to you in a day or two, God willing.
1 Like
kinda silly to suggest anything to do with chickens has anything to prove about the validity of evolution of birds don’t you think? There are many non flying birds and this does not mean that they are in the process of evolving or devolving or if they were just designed that way. Right?
I did read it and my comment back to you in my line of questioning was purposeful toward the end of determining how much work i have to accomplish to determine the probability of an event of development via evolution to complexity according to your views.
And I am really surprised that you are not able to just rattle off the theistic evolutionary terms that you believe in in response to my question. That should have been easy. That is highly confusing to me. I have asked others of the same and they have delayed response to me as well. As the neck vein popping responses I have gotten from you all in retaliation to my views and support of yours, I would have expected nothing less than an easy quick response to a well thought out worldview in this area from a simple question…it appears that this is not the case.
If you were to ask my beliefs, my answers would be rattled back to you in an instant because I know what I believe and I have thought through it deeply for about 2 decades now! And I am not alone in this. There are brilliant men and women who love our Lord and are creationists who are like me who see evolution only as a belief system that is more the naturalist feet that the philosophy of naturalism walks upon that gets indoctrinated into the minds of science students from kindergarten through phd programs in college and less objective science. I see the science for adaptation and just don’t see it anywhere for development of complexity of life we have today. Many like minded to myself feel in fact that life complexity from energy so statistically unreasonable that we applaud those few honest scientists who admit that they adhere to it only because they can’t allow God into the science laboratory. I wonder how much mainstream theistic evolutionists and biologos allow God in the lab of discovering how life came to be.
.
Hi Greg,
I am sharing a link to a post I made a couple of weeks ago describing a certain class of evidence for common descent. The bottom line result is that the probability that common descent does not explain the evidence is about 1 in 10e168. In other words, the odds in favor of common descent are 10e168 to 1.
How big is 10e168? There are about 10e11 stars in the Milky Way galaxy, our cosmic home. Suppose there were a million million million million million universes and each one had a million million million million Milky Ways. The result is 10e65 stars. Let’s call that truly mind-staggering number the “Greg number,” because my friend Greg is such a big-hearted fellow.
So how many Greg numbers would it take to reach 10e168? 10e168 is equal to ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million Greg numbers.
10e168 to 1 is the odds that common descent is the best scientific explanation for the consistency index data in that post.
Best,
Chris Falter
You already made a claim about statistics, Greg. In a universe where words have meaning and people say what the mean, I as your reader could rely on your words to conclude that you had calculated a probability.
Now perhaps you are really saying that you did not think the issue through in a mathematical way, and you are not even sure how to do so. There’s no shame in that. Most folks without deep math background don’t understand statistical inference. For good reason, too: who would build the houses if everyone was focused on statistical methods? 
Assuming that’s where you are at, I refer you to my last post.
Not at all. The only silly claim made about feathers in this thread was when a certain individual claimed that feathers would slow down any unfortunate animals that had them but couldn’t use them for flight. Chickens prove that that silly claim is without merit. Feathers don’t slow down chickens.
1 Like
In other words, you think that God and his creation are limited by your failure to understand the science. You constantly place your fallible sense of “common sense” above reality.
(And for the record, I was guilty of the exact same logical failure for many years before I actually learned how evolution works.)
Yet another straw man argument. You need to learn what evolution is!
Exactly! Dependence upon straw man arguments is always intellectual suicide.
Grog, until you learn what evolution is and how evolutionary processes operate, you will keep posting these non-sensical arguments.
You are ignoring everything we are posting to try and instruct you on the basics.
I don’t think I can help you. But I do appreciate your posting your viewpoints. Readers can learn from this exchange.
2 Likes
You cannot belief that—but those of us who have actually written such programs and seen them solve problems far beyond our own ability to device solutions to a wide variety of problems, even those unrelated to biology “believe” in such programs because they work! OF COURSE it bolsters the theory because it demonstrates that the mathematics are sound!
You’ve been asked to show the math behind your claims—but like every other argument and evidence refuting your claims, you simply ignore them!
Your entire denialist argument comes down to “I consider these ideas evil and I can’t believe them!” That’s not an argument. That’s not contrary evidence. It is just an expression of your personal stubbornness and defiance.
Do you have any SUBSTANTIVE arguments? Or do you make decisions entirely on the basis of your emotions and “common sense”? I don’t think you understand that other people don’t make decisions as you do.
Most of all I’m amazed at how defiant you are of the wisdom and power of God. Your entire argument comes down to “No, I don’t think God would do things that way because I wouldn’t do things that way!”
Why would it be “silly”? Evidence is far from silly. However, at least your calling it silly reminds readers of why you don’t understand scientific evidence.
Wrong. Why would that refute evolution? And why do you pretend that feathers only have one purpose? For example, they are often very useful for retaining body heat.
What is “devolving”? I’ve never seen it in a science textbook. Perhaps you could define it for us and how you made that determination.
By the way, ALL POPULATIONS of organisms are evolving. (The only exception would be when a population is in its last gasps of dying out because reproduction has stopped. Evolution depends upon reproduction.)
Where there is reproduction, evolution is at work. Nothing stops evolution except extinction. (Of course, other living populations evolve in response to another population’s extinction.)
Grog, do you have arguments that are based on anything except denial of things you don’t understand?
And wouldn’t your arguments be stronger if you bothered to learn what evolution is? That would help you to avoid making more of your straw man arguments.
4 Likes
My substantive argument is taking a step back from the decades of detailed and layered attempts to prove only a theory that now we are using those layers themselves to prove it.
I have the luxury of taking that step back from the picture you describe to see exactly what you are saying. For example flight. you are saying that one can possibly describe a statistical probability that flight came by chance through evolution when the very idea of a 4 legged creature happening upon feather like appendages from no where that happen to be beneficial and seemingly designed for flying but absolutely useless and really a wind drag for escaping prey thus the quality would be more likely selected out instead of in…that the compounding details in just this one idea are so deep that it is impossible to even assign probability to it and not blush! One has to consider the feathers themselves…how does this feather even become a reality on the four legged animal? How does one assign a probability to even this? Evolutionist make guesses and that is it…guesses. I don’t care to hear about ones guesses to prove their guess that evolution from common decent is reality. One cannot assign a probability. Scales would be better for fending off prey. And how would they learn how to fly? The natural reaction from a 4 legged animal is that they run with 4 feet on the ground not flap. Flapping and not running means getting eaten and means it would be selected out from the realm of adaptation.
We cannot even assign probability to this incredulously complex item at hand where the details of such an event are such anyone’s guess. And we develop computer programs that try to mimic the guessing? This is even more ludicrous to my God given common sense than anything to date.
I am certainly no expert, but my limited knowledge is that feathers are probably derived from scales, that may have developed feathery edges, which then was beneficial in protection from cold and sun protection, may have provided coloration changes beneficial for mating or for camouflage, and only later became adapted for flight. In flightless birds like emus and penquins, feathers still play important roles in adapting them to survive in their environment.
2 Likes
One more time: proofs and proving belong in mathematics. Determining probabilities in science is something else entirely.
Once again you remind us of the Kruger-Dunning Effect. You actually believe that ignorance of a topic gives one a natural advantage. That is hardly a luxury.
Why don’t you bother reading some scientific papers which describe exactly how statistics are used by evolutionary biologists? Don’t you think that might be wise—instead of reminding us of your total ignorance of what it is that you are denying?
Tell us, Greg. Have you EVER made any effort to determine HOW scientists go about such investigations? Is your answer “No.”?
How do you know that?
Why? How do you know that?
More straw man arguments. You appear to believe that evolution takes place when some individual animal wants to do some particularly thing or tries to some particular action.
So what? Why do you assume that the only time an animal flaps its wing is when in immediate danger.
Greg, have you EVER tried to read a book explaining evolution in a very simple way. I could even recommend some videos for you.
Until you know what evolution is, you will continue these inane straw man arguments.
You say “we” as if you are a scientist and know what you are talking about. You aren’t and you don’t.
Another demonstration that you have no clue as to how genetic algorithms solve problems in a wide variety of fields. They work quite well—and that destroys your argument.
So you believe God gave you “common sense.” How do you know that? Does the Bible say that our “common sense” is infallible? Or does it say that our “common sense” is fallen and carnal? Usually those who deny evolution keep telling us that scientists are wrong because their analysis is corrupted by the fall. So is YOUR “common sense” uncorrupted by the fall.
I used to deny evolution by citing my “common sense.” But once I educated myself on the science and the evidence, I found my “common sense” changing. Indeed, genetic algorithms (aka evolutionary algorithms) totally revised my sense of “common sense.”
Lots of people’s “common sense” tells them that if they flip a coin 10 times and get all heads, the chances of a tail on the next flip is very high!
They are wrong. It is a famous fallacy. Did their God-given “common sense” mislead them.
And why is your “common sense” opposite of mine? Does God only give YOU correct common sense but the rest of us got a flawed version? It sounds like yet again you assume yourself special. You put a lot of stock in your EMOTIONS and sense of COMMON SENSE and even think you have a LUXURIOUS ADVANTAGE because you are uninformed in the basics of science. Really?
The Book of Proverbs describes your mind-set—but I don’t think you would find it a laudable assessment of your wisdom.
All of your arguments are Arguments from Ignorance fallacies and Arguments from Personal Incredulity fallacies. I don’t think you will ever be appointed to a university science faculty.
1 Like
This argument is so fragile! The assumptions that layer the argument are what base the math. Of course the observance of adapted creatures will tend toward wanting to be acceptable proofs that species evolve from common decent and we can determine artificial indexes all day long to make us feel better about this!
We have never witnessed bacteria become non bacteria yet we can define an index that proves common decent?
the much better way to accomplish results from this whole discussion would for someone in Biologos to answer the question I posed towards you and others in a simple and honest way.
To set this stage for developing this answer, I give you a precept in Hebrews 12. We are surrounded by witnesses in this endeavor of deciding how life came to be on earth. I take the Bible really really seriously so let me name some of those witnesses according to Hebrews 11: Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samson, David, Samuel and all of the prophets. These are folks according to the end of Hebrews who were willing to be flogged, jeered at, stoned, sawed in two and killed for what they believed. These folks, according to the precious Word of God are watching the answer to the question I ask of you and Biologos to give that will help us understand this situation.
Of course, no pressure to say that the other witness is God. He knows exactly what He did in creation and the precept in the beginning of this very same Hebrews chapter, “that the universe was formed at God’s command” is defining this real and true God, a God of of such transcendence to be able to bring to life something out of NOTHING that His ways may not be traceable.
So no more politicking around the subject. Let’s take one step at a time starting with a simple simple question I provide. I know it is one that is confounding but you are the one who chose to mesh the supernatural God with the philosophy of naturalism, not me.
According to the Bible, ignorance can be beneficial…a childlike faith. I am amazed about how human being adults who have lived a lot of years and worked for companies etc become so layered that they essentially miss the forest for the trees. That is the exact argument with Paul not bothering to focus ministry on those religious types because convincing such a layered individual of truth is uphill.
Ask a child if a book was written by someone they laugh. Ask an adult if the earth came by chance, they give an artificial algorithm that makes them feel better about such nonsense.
How many times will you repeat this straw man argument? If ever we witnessed a bacteria produce a “non-bacteria” it would be a powerful argument against the Theory of Evolution!
Greg, do you even read our replies to your posts? Aren’t you at all curious why a bacteria producing a non-bacteria would refute the Theory of Evolution?
Greg, have you ever considered that every time you repeat a mindless arguments that we’ve told you is a straw-man, it presents yet another stumbling block to non-Christians considering the Gospel? Many non-Christians see such behavior and tell me, “I could never become a Christian because it requires dishonesty and ignorance.” They confuse the foolishness of the cross with just plain foolishness.
Greg, a question for you:
Did a Latin-speaking couple give birth to the first child who spoke Spanish? Or did the Spanish language gradually evolve from Latin-speaking populations?
1 Like
No. A “child-like” faith is not the same thing as being “child-ish”.
The Bible says that we are to be ignorant in matters of evil. Not ignorant in general.
1 Like
Wow. You have horribly misunderstood Hebrews 11 and 12. I scarcely know where to start. However, unfortunately, many exegetically-ignorant preachers have helped foster that mental image of “the stadium bleachers filled with past witnesses” watching currently-living Christians on the field still playing the game.
No. Abraham and Noah aren’t watching our debate and they didn’t watch the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate. Origins issues were not what they were bearing witness to.
I must admit that you have discouraged me greatly.
3 Likes
Greg, based on your refusal to address my arguments and evidence, I don’t think there is much to be gained from my posting any further. With one last attempt, I will remind you of a previous question to you:
If you refuse to engage it, I’ll take that to mean that you have no answer and have no intention of staking your position on anything but your emotions and elevated sense of your “God-given common sense.” (Needless to say, I consider the “common sense” of even committed Christ-followers to be no more “sensical” than the evidence and logic supporting it. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that our “common sense” is inerrant or even reliable.)
Greg, it took me many years to become aware of my own ignorance of many the topics on which I used to pontificate as a young professor. Because I had an academic position and pastors always gave me gushing introductions when I spoke in their churches----purely because I was a professor at a respected secular university, despite the fact that it was in a field irrelevant to evolution—I thought myself an authority on every possible topic. Now I realize how little I understood of my own ignorance. There is no shortcut to knowledge other than actually learning the material! The Holy Spirit doesn’t give us superior knowledge of every topic just because we are personally acquainted with the Creator! Thus, I do hope you will come to this understanding more quickly than I did.
Like you, I was heavily driven by fear of science. I was afraid that science denied my religious beliefs. Now I realize that science posed a far greater threat to my favorite man-made traditions learned in my church, not to my salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that you will some day reach the same conclusion.
2 Likes
Ten hours later…
This is why it is frustrating to try to increase your knowledge of the world. Am I supposed to provide a whole thesis to back up my statement before you will believe it or correct your argument? Would you read it if I did? You seem to need information presented in a particular way, not too technical, nor too brief, maybe simplified and reemphasized like a children’s Bible study recital, before you are willing to do the world the immense favor of believing the simplest facts you are presented with. When I am uncertain of details, I google them. It’s not that hard! But I don’t want to say untrue things carelessly because I didn’t bother to check. You seem to expect others to do this checking for everything you say. You are doing yourself the biggest disservice with this attitude.
On the other hand, it means we can talk specific details rather than make vague vague big-picture claims about how unbelievable all this seems.
So here goes again. Let me know if I hit the tone right.
Lots of dinosaurs ran on two legs! The ‘baseline’ or ancestral form of all dinosaurs was, in fact, two-legged. All of the theropods, the meat-eating dinosaurs like T-rex and Velociraptor, ran on two legs! The theropods were the group which eventually evolved into birds, and they walked and ran on two legs! Nobody who knows anything about dinosaurs claims that an obligate quadruped evolved to fly. The evolution of bipedalism so vastly predates the evolution of flight, it’s like saying an egg-laying creature evolved into a seal! It’s only true if you completely ignore a heck of a lot of intermediate steps.
Where did you get this notion that four-legged dinosaurs evolved into birds?
Here is a link you can use to confirm what I just said. Dinosaurs: Two legs or four? | Dinosaurs | The Guardian
2 Likes
Hi Greg,
I see you decided not to even look at the post I linked to. If you had looked at it, you would realize that a well-structured mathematical analysis of consistency index empirical research leads to a very strong conclusion in favor of common descent.
This explains a lot. You don’t enjoy working through the details so you can understand the analysis. I thought that might be the case.
No problem with that, though. You enjoy working with your hands (when they’re not injured) and building things. That’s a different gift than scientists have. The world’s a big place, Greg, and God has given everyone something to contribute. I’m glad you have your niche and are doing well in it.
But consider this: scientists want to use their gifts–which are very different than yours–to make an important contribution, too. Be careful lest your attitude run afoul of Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:
The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
A Christian scientist is a servant of God even as they do their scientific work, Greg. You don’t have to understand their service in order to please the Lord. Just like I don’t need to understand carpentry to please the Lord. We all just have to understand–and practice–Romans 14:4.
Godspeed on your journey, Greg. May the Lord bless the work of your hands and give you, and yours, an abundant life in Christ.
Chris
2 Likes