Origins of Life

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:35 pm

What is all your opinions on this website my friend that insists everything about evolution is FACT - http://www.becominghuman.org?

Is it reffutable? Tell me what you think. His college professors are twisting his mind into this evolution c.rap as FACT. I need your help to get him back on track.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:17 pm

One needs not discard Evolution to believe in God.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:29 pm

True, true.

However, one cannot assume evolution is a fact.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:38 am

'Fact' is a subjective call of judgement. What is more important scientifically is to state evidence for or against a hypothesis. ToE has a lot of evidence to support its hypotheses. If ToE is to be rejected scientifically, there must be contradictory evidence to make this claim (and not just lack of specific types of evidence). If ID and creationism are to be justified scientifically, one must show affirmative and objective evidence to support their hypotheses.

Your friend is being taught science. Science sometimes leads us to places we don't want to be; forces us to believe things we'd rather not believe. If you think your friend is being taught incorrect science, then you may wish to state your evidence--either to the contrary of his teachings, or to the support of your beliefs--and see where the discussion leads.

Frank2005 · Post by **Frank2005** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:49 am

Mastermind wrote:One needs not discard Evolution to believe in God.

I agree with this statement.

According to the definition of Merriam-Webster dictionary, "evolution" is "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state".

By looking at the history of life on earth, there was indeed an evolution from simple life to more complex life. However, this does NOT rule out a designer behind this evolution. If we look at the history of automobiles, there was also an evolution from simple cars to more complex cars. Did automobiles evolve by themselves?

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:40 pm

Frank, this is right on target! I have never understood why some Christians find it necessary to disbelieve evolution. In my mind, this is a form of religious and spiritual arrogance; to say that any of us knows how God should have created nature, and to say to others that their concept of God's way is wrong. The world is what it is, and this is God's creation. Science is merely a tool and set of institutions to discover this wonder. We should be humble.

I have said this before, but I think this attitude reflects an underlying faith which is not firmly held; true believers do not fear new discoveries.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:45 pm

Kelly wrote:Frank, this is right on target! I have never understood why some Christians find it necessary to disbelieve evolution. In my mind, this is a form of religious and spiritual arrogance; to say that any of us knows how God should have created nature, and to say to others that their concept of God's way is wrong. The world is what it is, and this is God's creation. Science is merely a tool and set of institutions to discover this wonder. We should be humble.

I have said this before, but I think this attitude reflects an underlying faith which is not firmly held; true believers do not fear new discoveries.

And the Bible supports your opinion. Christians who reject new things in fear are not really christians, the greatest part of the faith is... faith. Though many people here aren't like that, they reject evolution by what they believe to be hard evidence against it, which is fine by me.

Personally? I don't care. It doesn't matter, all the matters is that it happened.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:56 am

Well, I agree that it is not Christian to reject empiric evidence of the nature of the world around us, but I have yet to see hard evidence *against* ToE here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Mostly what I see are questions regarding missing evidence or mechanisms, neither of which is actual evidence against ToE.

It is hard to believe that such unscientific arguments are based solely on a Christian search for truth; rather easier to believe that these doubts are only an attempt to preserve one's own personal views of religion and the world about us. As I said before, ToE is at best a threat to one's ego, nothing more.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:59 pm

Kelly wrote:Well, I agree that it is not Christian to reject empiric evidence of the nature of the world around us, but I have yet to see hard evidence *against* ToE here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Mostly what I see are questions regarding missing evidence or mechanisms, neither of which is actual evidence against ToE.

It is hard to believe that such unscientific arguments are based solely on a Christian search for truth; rather easier to believe that these doubts are only an attempt to preserve one's own personal views of religion and the world about us. As I said before, ToE is at best a threat to one's ego, nothing more.

Some people are just skeptical, and the lack of evidence to them makes it unconvincing.

Whatever, all I know is there are many, many, zealots on the theory of evolution's side, as many, if not more, than there are against it. I'm afraid it is turning into the second geocentric model, which was also grounded in observations (look up at the night sky, does it look like you're revolving around the sun?) and was held as truth and heliocentrism advocates were ridiculed and insulted. It's turning up the same way, people see observations, fit it to evolution, and disregard anything else as stupidity.

There has to be more skepticism, creationists are censored in periodicals, not because of bad evidence, but because they're creationists. Evolution is being held as truth, that's not how science works. There are professors and scientists being fired because they do not believe in evolution.

This is dangerous.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:20 pm

Kelly wrote:Well, I agree that it is not Christian to reject empiric evidence of the nature of the world around us, but I have yet to see hard evidence *against* ToE here (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Ok, well I don't want to get into them here, but one evidence against ToE is that the fossil record indicates long periods of stagnation followed by very short periods of rapid change; ToE would predict gradual and progressive change. That is a simple observation that does not fit the theory. Further evidences surround irreducibly complex systems - a number of system are thought to be irriducibly complex and if proven so, would render ToE as untrue.

So I'd say it's biased and untrue to say that there is no evidence against ToE... There is no irrefutable proof that it's false, but there is evidence.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:25 pm

“There has to be more skepticism, creationists are censored in periodicals, not because of bad evidence, but because they're creationists.”

This is BS. Creationists are censored, like astrologers and tea-leaf readers, because they have no scientific evidence; they do not know the difference between a scientific argument and an emotional appeal to those who may feel the same as they do. As I have asked many times before, where is the evidence that supports *any* theory other than ToE?

“Ok, well I don't want to get into them here, but one evidence against ToE is that the fossil record indicates long periods of stagnation followed by very short periods of rapid change; ToE would predict gradual and progressive change.”

Again, this is based on ignorance. Many scientific theories are valid in the absence of a mechanistic understanding. Where does ToE state that the changes have to be gradual? (Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?) Anyone who has studied the effect of mutations on the gestating fetus knows that a relatively small change in the genome can create huge changes in the phenotype. (think uniparental disomy, thalidomide, etc…)

Evolutionary biology is a work in progress. There are many unanswered questions. I have no doubt that that ToE in a hundred years will look quite different than how it is portrayed now. However, those who press forward in this understanding do so at the resistance of those who give up and (often without any real attempt to make progress on their own, but just denigrate those who keep up the quest) state that God must be the cause of all that is not understood in the year of our Lord 2005. This is a chicken sh*t attitude!

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:25 pm

Kelly wrote:ToE has a lot of evidence to support its hypotheses.

Like what? I've yet to see any "evidence" for the ToE that hasn't been subsequently shot down. The ToE currently has no evidence to support its hypotheses. It's lacking a lot, and quite a bit actually contradicts it. As Felgar mentioned -- the fossil records themselves fly in the face of the ToE's most basic concepts.

true believers do not fear new discoveries.

True, and I don't. However, discoveries have been made already that make the ToE a laughable hypothesis at best. It seems to me that you ignore all of the evidence against the ToE that you find invonvenient to your beliefs. You state something blatantly false -- there is no evidence against the ToE. The evidence against the ToE actually goes much deeper than simply "It lacks certain proofs."

"The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel would do you good. I've heard people call the chapther on "human reason" somewhat weak, but the chapters on biology, cosmology, and the fossil record are awesome.

--
Evolutionists can't find any evidence against the Theory of Evolution for the same reason a thief can't find a cop.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:30 pm

OK, li'l shepard, tell me the evidence *against* ToE.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:31 pm

..and I want specifics, not simply the statement that "the fossil recond flies in the face of ToE".

jerickson314 · Post by **jerickson314** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:40 pm

Kelly wrote:OK, li'l shepard, tell me the evidence *against* ToE.

I'm not LittleShepherd, but you can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Here you can find the evidence, complete with the standard evolutionist objections.

Oh, BTW, the purpose of that list is to defend evolution against creationism, not the other way around. I just think it is useful for the opposite purpose.

Some of the evidences are really bad, though. These can be identified easily because they have decent objections.