The theory of Evolution

[Philip]

Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?

[abelcainsbrother]

I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.You can believe it all you want to and nobody can change your mind but if you believe life evolves there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and this is true even if you reject God because you say there is no evidence to show,prove or demonstrate he exists.I'm not even talking about naturalism but evidence life evolves,for those of you who believe it you are not being intellectually honest with yourself when you reject God because of a lack of evidence yet believe life evolves.

[Philip]

for those of you who believe it (evolution), you are not being intellectually honest with yourself when you reject God because of a lack of evidence yet believe life evolves.

Yes, because the same unfathomable and necessary complexities and guiding mechanisms must come into to being upon their own, uncreated, have the necessary programmed information and critical designs, even at basic levels of which are MASSIVELY complex. Every beginning and sustaining hurdle is the same and of the same mathematically impossible probabilities.

[Kenny]

I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.

It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K

[Kurieuo]

Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?

A response often put forward it that "science" just hasn't yet uncovered how it happened.
And that, is perhaps a reasonable statement given only in the past century we have perhaps started understanding more about the universe than ever before.
Our knowledge is therefore still developing. And similarly, one might claim the same thing about origins of life.

So, the arguments need to be positive for why a natural accounting is not possible. Most of these boil down to probabilistic arguments.
And then no matter how impossible something seems, it is doubtful whether someone set in their Atheism is likely to be impacted much at all.
The fact we're here demonstrates life unfolded naturally in their eyes. Debate won.
No amount of improbability or evidence to the contrary will change that.

BUT, similarly I think Theists like us need to be careful not to feed this mentality.
Arguments should not be framed in a manner of "show me the scientific evidence" or "science hasn't proven."
This is perhaps akin to Atheists asking us to show them God's existence.
Well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

Much better to form positive arguments as to way life couldn't naturally happen.
Or why our universe couldn't be naturally caused. And with a positive argument form, the Naturalist now carries the burden of proof.

For example, with origin of life (and clearly we're not discussing biological evolution), it's not a matter of having lots of water and certain chemicals as someone said.
Rather, how does homochirality happen? There is no explanation that describes how homochirality could have arisen through completely naturalistic processes.
It's not just an unknown, it isn't possible through completely naturalistic processes.
So burden of proof is now in whose corner on this particular argument...?

Then there are RNA replicators. Nature "would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions", says agnostic Paul Davies.
So again, we have strong evidence for Design over and against Naturalism.

RickD is right. It is not just science not having the answers, but that science positively shows such is so greatly improbable as to be impossible.
BUT, again I'll say, no matter how seemingly impossible to Atheists such might be, the fact we're here is evidence to them that life must have naturally unfolded.

[abelcainsbrother]

Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?

A response often put forward it that "science" just hasn't yet uncovered how it happened.
And that, is perhaps a reasonable statement given only in the past century we have perhaps started understanding more about the universe than ever before.
Our knowledge is therefore still developing. And similarly, one might claim the same thing about origins of life.

So, the arguments need to be positive for why a natural accounting is not possible. Most of these boil down to probabilistic arguments.
And then no matter how impossible something seems, it is unlikely someone set in their Atheism is likely to be impacted much at all.
The fact we're here demonstrates life unfolded naturally in their eyes. Debate won.
No amount of improbability or evidence to the contrary will change that.

BUT, similarly I think Theists like us need to be careful not to feed this mentality.
Arguments should not be framed in a manner of "show me the scientific evidence" or "science hasn't proven."
This is perhaps akin to Atheists asking us to show them God's existence.
Well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

Much better to form positive arguments as to way life couldn't naturally happen.
Or why our universe couldn't be naturally caused. And with a positive argument form, the Naturalist now carries the burden of proof.

For example, with origin of life (and clearly we're not discussing biological evolution), it's not a matter of having lots of water and certain chemicals as someone said.
Rather, how does homochirality happen? There is no explanation that describes how homochirality could have arisen through completely naturalistic processes.
It's not just an unknown, it isn't possible through completely naturalistic processes.
So burden of proof is now in whose corner on this particular argument...?

Then there are RNA replicators. Nature "would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions", says agnostic Paul Davies.
So again, we have strong evidence for Design over and against Naturalism.

RickD is right. It is not just science not having the answers, but that science positively shows such is so greatly improbable as to be impossible.
BUT, again I'll say, no matter how seemingly impossible to Atheists such might be, the fact we're here is evidence to them that life must have naturally unfolded.

I agree with much of what you are saying but I think we already know our bible cannot be proven 100% true because it is revealed over time however there is much more biblical evidence than people realize.Now for some people it will not matter how much evidence you put out on the table they just refuse to accept but I am not afraid at all to put the biblical evidence we already know about up against any other,religion,evolution,philosophy, etc and doubt I could not destroy them when it comes to evidence in what you believe.

I know we cannot make God come down here and tell atheists themselves he is real but unlike some I am quite confident in the biblical evidence we already know about.I sense some who doubt it but I don't and despite all of the rhetoric evidence is really the only thing we can go on to find the truth.

Christians may not realize or know how much biblical evidence there is but it is so much that it would take a lot of time to go through all of it.Christianity is and has always been evidence based for the apostles would not have been willing to go out and preach about Jesus rising from the dead like they did while being constantly persecuted unless it truly happened and so it is evidence based from the start I do not agree or buy into the idea that our faith is blind. I believe the bible when it tells us "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen." You cannot read this and believe somehow our faith is blind and the only things that are based on blind faith are things believed that are not true.

Take gravity for example you cannot see it at all but you can pick up a rock(substance) drop it and see it is pulled down to the ground(evidence) and so we know by substance and evidence gravity is real eventhough we cannot see it and this principle applies to any other things in our world not just spiritual matters but physical matters also.

I also know that more is going to be revealed in the future that is going to be even more evidence for our faith and I do not fear science at all,the only thing science is going to discover are things that confirm even more of our bible true,there will be no surprise evidence or a discovery that disproves our bible and there has not been any so far that has,for science has mostly confirmed the bible true and it is going to continue however we do have to be on the look out for deception because Jesus warned about it in the last days,there is going to be deception and it is going to increase but the truth will be verified still regardless of the deception underneath the deception there the truth will still be shining.

Evolution is already one of many deceptions for it was prophecied 2000 years ago what evolution would be teaching in the last days and that is "Since our fathers died all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." There is not anything else you can point to that teaches this except evolution and so the fact this is being taught in these last days is just another example of how God foretells the future in his word and it is even more evidence our bible is true.

Evolutionists can mock us all they want to but we already know they are wrong about life evolving and this is why it is believed by blind faith for those that accept it because there is no evidence in science anywhere that demonstrates life evolves.

[bippy123]

Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?

Philip it is the specified complex info within DNA that basically de converted me from an evolutionist to an ID advocate .
The burden of proof isn't on the intelligent design advocate to explain this away , it is on the evolutionist to do so because throughout our experience on this planet as human beings specified complex information has only been shown to arise from a mind and most of the believers of evolution on this thread can't sustain the burden of proof to explain this away by any known evolutionary mechanism .

It was when I saw this explanation by doctor stephen meyer in his video that the light bulb went on in my mind and I had an ah ha moment . It was the one most significant video that shattered my belief in evolution

http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8

I've posted this a billion times here fir believers of evolution . Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 8

[bippy123]

I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.

It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K

Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.

To me this isn't enough proof to validate this to be believed as scientific fact . It's more religious then scientific .
And just waving ones hands in the air doesn't magically make it correct .

[bippy123]

I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.You can believe it all you want to and nobody can change your mind but if you believe life evolves there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and this is true even if you reject God because you say there is no evidence to show,prove or demonstrate he exists.I'm not even talking about naturalism but evidence life evolves,for those of you who believe it you are not being intellectually honest with yourself when you reject God because of a lack of evidence yet believe life evolves.

Abel I think we need to define what they mean by evolve ? If we are talking about adaptation or microevolution yes the evidence is strong , but Macroevolution or the changing from one kind to another, the evidence just isn't there .

It is Macroevolution that the theory of evolution stands on and it is this area that the evidence just doesn't support or warrant the belief that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact . To me it is more philosophy then science .

[Audie]

Getting back to the original topic.

What I'm seeing here is not much to do with the validity of ToE, whatever one means by that...
but rather the validity of Naturalism over and against Creation or vice-versa.

People standing on one philosophical worldview (Naturalism) against people on the opposite side (Theism) and vice-versa.

Little to do with science on both sides imho. More a war of worldviews.

I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and RD taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.

[RickD]

Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?

Philip it is the specified complex info within DNA that basically de converted me from an evolutionist to an ID advocate .
The burden of proof isn't on the intelligent design advocate to explain this away , it is on the evolutionist to do so because throughout our experience on this planet as human beings specified complex information has only been shown to arise from a mind and most of the believers of evolution on this thread can't sustain the burden of proof to explain this away by any known evolutionary mechanism .

It was when I saw this explanation by doctor stephen meyer in his video that the light bulb went on in my mind and I had an ah ha moment . It was the one most significant video that shattered my belief in evolution

http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8

I've posted this a billion times here fir believers of evolution . Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 8

Bippy,

That was a good video. Perhaps you could explain why this changed your mind about evolution. I can see how naturalistic evolution would have problems. But why would you have a problem with theistic evolution, or God-guided evolution. God would still be the designer under TE, as He would under ID.

Thanks

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and jac taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.

Audie,

I couldn't find in this thread where Jac bolded anything about a scientific law having been proven. Could you post the quote?

Thanks

And FYI,

Abe hasn't only been arguing from the bible. His argument comes also from how he interprets scientific evidence. So your assertion that creationists argue without regard for science is misleading.

***Edit

And, Bippy just posted a video with scientists, who are discussing science.

[MrSpock]

Would someone mind reading this and tell me if these arguments are still valid or not. Thanks.

http://www.changinglives.org.au/evolution.html

[Kenny]

I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.

It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K

Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.

I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken

[MrSpock]

No, life cannot come from non-life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8

Now, perhaps there are some who hold to abiogenesis among us know more about biology than a professor of biology like Dean Kenyon or any of the other PhD scientists featured in the film. I happen to doubt it. If those guys are that highly educated in the matter -- particularly Kenyon, who has taught the subject for years -- and they come to the conclusions they do, then I'm content holding to what I consider to be obvious: that something cannot give what it does not have, and therefore, life cannot come from non-life.

Pretty good presentation, too. For those who haven't seen it (I hope most have), it's certainly worth the hour.

I agree. I have argued Behe's works to atheists and they shove some article cited on Talkorigins that refutes his work. It always comes down to your experts Vs. My experts. What is interesting to me is when they say, your expert is biased because he promotes ID. Well, I wonder what their experts "promote?" No God!

I don't know why I even get involved in online discussions, but I suppose open seeking lurkers need to at least know there are two sides to every coin. So, I link my web sites and You Tube videos and I trust The seeds are effectively being planted to those being drawn.