Nils wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:24 pm
DBowling wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:20 pm
Natural selection doesn't "produce" anything.
Natural selection determines which organisms will survive and propagate and which will die.
The sole causal agent in evolution is "mutation" and the problem with your position is that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the outcomes that you assert.
There are two components operating in biological evolution, mutation and natural selection. Without any of these there will be no long term evolution.
Those who understand evolution know the basics
Mutations are the causal agent for changes in a biological organism.
Natural selection determines which changes to a biological organism are perpetuated.
According to Wikipedia, 50% of the scientists in USA think that The evolution theory without any intervention of any God is the correct world view. That includes the scientist of all kinds. For scientists in biology the figure is far higher. In Western Europe the figures are still higher. The conclusion is that there are no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.
For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact yor numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.
In my last post i wrote:
"We have discussed the evolution theory before and I have no hope to be able to persuade you, but this thread is not about persuading each other but what I say is that there is no clear evidence that the evolution if false.
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection are false.
I'm not even claiming that common descent is false (which might annoy some people here).
What I am claiming is that the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the observed rate and scope of "random" mutation at the genetic level is incapable of producing the changes necessary to explain the scope and rate of information that has been infused into the the DNA of life on our planet.
Behe clearly demonstrates this in his genetic analysis of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.
I have seen absolutely zero empirical evidence that the observed scope rate of "random" mutation is capable. I've seen plenty of speculation with no basis in empirically observed reality, but Behe has actually done the detailed analysis of how "random" mutation behaves at the genetic level. So as an engineer I will take observed empirical data over unverified speculation any day.
So if we conclude that mutation and natural selection are indeed true.
And since empirical observed data at the genetic level demonstrates that "random" mutation is incapable of producing the observed changes.
Then the logical conclusion is that some sort of "guided" mutation is required.
Which brings us back to a very familiar place regarding the implications of the scientific evidence.
Guidance requires some sort of Guide.
There is plenty of extraBiblical evidence concerning the death of Jesus of Nazareth, including Jewish and Roman sources that were not friendly to either Jesus or Christianity. Why would you dismiss non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources that testify to the life and death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans?"
If Jesus didn't die when he was crucified how could any person that wasn't there get to know.
This is where the historical evidence comes in.
The gospels give us contemporary eyewitness reports of Jesus' death and resurrection.
And we even have some nonbiblical historical accounts that I have pointed out.
I am unaware of any contemporary historical data that says that Jesus didn't really die when he was crucified.
So again you just dismiss evidence that contradicts your personal paradigm.
When the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was crucified by the Romans
And when the historical evidence indicates that Jesus rose from the dead.
What is your rebuttal?
"it is useless to ask historians"