The Evolutionist Error

[moses2792796]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge. Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine, to disprove the existence of the latter. This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times, many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance. It is now that I shall use the example of man as promised, those who know of the realm of being would never assume man to be a purely physical being, just as they would never assume reality to exist only as a manifestation without essence. Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine. This is inherent in animals, although this is the key difference between man and animal. Man is capable of an awareness of this, while animals (with a small degree of doubt) are not.

To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself. This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature. The divine consciousness is eternal and unaffected by how it manifests, in this case, evolution. Evolution was not the cause of man, as many evolutionists would have you believe, man preceded evolution.

[Goat]

Many do not contest the issue of micro evolution.

However, how many can produce many examples of Macro evolution occurring today?

Convince me that this is a meaningful question first. Evolution by natural selection is a description of an autonomous process that shapes phenotypes through incremental changes. Change over time is both predicted and observed. No qualitative shortfall is encountered if the rate of this process happens to be too slow for it to be studied on your particular terms.

It isn't. "Macro' evolution is merely many little incidences of 'Micro' evolution building up over time. The 'anti-evolutionist' viewpoint is sort of like looking at the first few cell divisions of an embryo, saying 'well , cell divisions exist, but you can't show it develops into an individual'. and refusing to look further.

[Jose]

Many do not contest the issue of micro evolution.

However, how many can produce many examples of Macro evolution occurring today?

I agree with QED. Macroevolution is what results when microevolution goes on for millions of years.

Birds and mammals may look different today, so that we can say "ooooh--macroevolution!" But when ordinary microevolution of their common ancestor produced one population that gave rise to birds and another population that gave rise to mammals, those two populations were hardly different at all. You'd have said "no macroevolution here."

Just be patient. Give it a couple of hundred million years, and then check again.

[Revelations won]

QED, I think I get the jist of your answer. You are OK with Micro evolution, but the bottom line is that I am supposed to wait for 200 million years before you will answer and fully address the issue of Macro evolution.

Can you promise to give me an answer in 200 million years that will verify beyond doubt that Macro evolution is a proven science?

I've already waited for your clear answer to clearly show examples of this for the past 500 billion years. So what will 200 more billion years prove?

The bottom line is that you have no answer for the past 500 billion years, nor will you have an answer for the next 200 billion years.

[Jose]

Y'know, Rev, I'm not sure you've listened carefully to what QED said, or to the two cents I added to it. You don't really expect to see a frog turn into a bat, do you? Evolutionarily, they are related--but many generations ago. You seem to be asking for someone to show you a many-generation process in a single leap.

Would you actually be interested in discussing the evidence?

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are OK with Micro evolution, but ...

What constrains "Micro evolution"?

[QED]

QED, I think I get the jist of your answer. You are OK with Micro evolution, but the bottom line is that I am supposed to wait for 200 million years before you will answer and fully address the issue of Macro evolution.

I asked you to convince me that there could be a meaningful answer to a question along the lines of "how many examples of Macro Evolution have we to-date". I asked because every living thing is an example -- as far as science is concerned. But you might have reasons for disagreeing with this. Science has identified a process which generates incremental changes in genomes therefore you must believe that there is some limit on the amount of change -- if you subscribe to Micro but not Macro Evolution. So what is this limiting principle?

Every revolution of your car tyre will move your car a short distance and while we can come up with numerous principles of limitation that will prevent you going around the world indefinitely, they will all be readily identifiable mechanical and thermodynamic reasons. Notice that presenting philosophical limitations would be an act of folly. Any incremental process can be assumed to continue adding until a reason is given for it to terminate.

[QED]

What constrains "Micro evolution"?

That's amusing -- you've said in four words what it took a couple of hundred of mine to say Well done -- I didn't see your post until after I submitted mine.

[Jose]

What constrains "Micro evolution"?

Why, obviously the 6000 year barrier. The data are all nicely interpreted as we traditionally do, going back in time for 6000 years. Then, anything that suggests events prior to Oct. 26 4004 BC isn't valid by definition, even if it's the identical type of data as makes sense for younger dates. You take the Tree of Life and you bury it in deposits from a flood, leaving only the tips of the branches sticking out. The tips of the branches are fine, even if they have forks in them. You just can't look at what's beneath the surface. If you do, it gives you a headache.

[QED]

I don't see us getting back on topic here until moses2792796 (or anyone else for that matter) picks up on some of the earlier replies on pages 1 and 2. Clearly it is very debatable if there are any "higher forms of knowledge" beyond that gained through scientific investigation. I want to know how such knowledge could override lower forms when they align with the concrete reality of the world.

[Openmind]

Many do not contest the issue of micro evolution.

However, how many can produce many examples of Macro evolution occurring today?

I just love it when Christians trap themselves with their own arguments. I just love the looks on their faces when you say "there is no difference between micro and macroevolution", and they've already conceded that microevolution occurs!

I read in Scientific American the other day that some researchers are on the verge of observing a speciation event in some kind of dragonfly. Would that help convince our skeptic?