Jump to content


Photo

How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God Of The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:44 AM

1. So life has always existed? You do see how taking that stance is illogical... (and taking no stance is just delaying the inevitable)


No I am not saying that. All I am saying is that you need life to begin with in order to have evolution.

2. Show the evidence now, instead of saying you will.... All too often we have people here claiming "mountains of evidence"... But then it isn't shown


If evolution is true, then humans evolved from earlier forms and has a common ancestor with every species we see today. Evolution also tells us that there is a correlation between the genetic and morphological simmilarities between any two given species and the distance in time at which the ancestor of these two species diverged from a last common ancestor.

Since humans are the most related to apes, it makes sense that it is most likely that apes are the most closely related to humans above of all other animals. If this is true, we should find transitional fossils which will probably have ape-like features and human-like features. Indeed we find this in a species called homo erectus which is older than humans and lived right before we start seeing humans.

Furthermore, a prediction used to uphold the evolution doctrine is that the earth has been around for "billions" of years... Yet we see fossilized trees that span the length of many "millions" of years of strata.. This is an observation that directly falsifies the "millions" of years of the strata.... Why hasn't this made a review of the "theory", or is this observable evidence ignored?


Trees can be burried where they are in volcanic blasts and also be slowly buried in swamps. The fact that the earth is billions of years old is cross verified by several dating techniques.

6. Do you know of the mechanism that takes these genes and gives them new functions? Can you give empirical evidence demonstrating this?


Mutations and natural selection.

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:24 AM

The theory of evolution is different than the different hypotheses of abiogenesis.

View Post


No, actually they are both nothing more than hypotheses (especially if you are attempting to argue “macro”). But, to further dismantle you argument on that point, materialistic needs an agreement like ‘abiogenesis’ as its origins, and without its origins materialistic evolution fails. Therefore, if you posit ‘abiogenesis’ in any way it (abiogenesis) is not different, nor is it separate, from evolution. Why? Because it begs the question “from what did evolution evolve?”… Or, to put it more succinctly “from what did the first molecule come, in order for it to replicate?”. And remember, unless you have empirical evidence, you are making a “faith statement”!

What are these lines of logic?

View Post


First of all the Laws of Logic themselves cannot be explained using the atheistic materialistic explanations. Why, because they, themselves are ‘metaphysical’! Further, man did not invent them, he discovered them. Additional lines of logic would be First Principles (basically the same as above), The Teleological Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, First Principles, The Transcendental Argument (etcetera… etcetera…)


It is not an ad hominem because I have not attacked any person in order to say that their arguments are false. 

View Post


No, it IS an ad hominem by inference, because you called the argument idiotic, so it follows that anyone who uses said argument is idiotic as well. Therefore you ARE attacking the person(s), and it will be exposed as such.

Use of words without substantiation has consequences that drape all over them like moldy clothing. The stench follows the argument. So, if you are going to attempt fallacious arguments (name calling, prevarication, quibbling, baseless accusations) you will receive a warning. But that might be all you receive. You may want to revisit the forum rules (and addendums/attachments).

Another point is that evolution is evidence-based, not faith-based and so is a scientific theory and not a religion or a mythology.

View Post


If you are going to attempt to argue ‘Macro’ you are arguing from a faith based stance. If you are going to attempt to argue ’micro’ you may as well say “adaptation within a kind/species” because that is all you are saying.


Actually you don't need that to prove the theory of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions about the natural world. 

View Post


If you are going to attempt to argue ‘Macro’ you are arguing from a faith based stance, not science. If you are going to attempt to argue ’micro’ you may as well say “adaptation within a kind/species” because that is all you are saying.


What you need for evidence is to first find specific predictions evolution makes, and then find subsequent discoveries that directly prove individual prediction.  Evolution does not need to be proven 100% without a doubt like a mathematical theorem in order to be considered a very very strong scientific theory. 

View Post

The problem is, the exact same evidence you are going to attempt to use for evolution can be viewed as creation evidence; unless you are going to attempt to argue “evolution of the gaps” (or punctuated equilibrium). And, as of yet, you have failed to provide any evidence for evolution here.


Actually atheism is at its core the lack of believe in any creator or mythology.  This requires much less faith then the belief in these. 

View Post


Actually, atheism attempts to posit the ‘No God” argument, but atheists cannot even mount a good defense for the foundations of atheism, or the origins of materialistic life, the cosmos (etc…) and therefore the atheist is living vicariously through theistic thought (the metaphysical)and attempting to deny it the whole time. Further, atheism itself is “Self-stultifying” in that it fails to meet its own standard.

Why?

Because despite all their bluster, the atheist cannot explain the metaphysical form a materialist standpoint.

Because the atheist cannot even prove that atheism is anything more than a philosophy, therefore the atheist must “presuppose” their world view.


I can tell attention to detail is your strong suit.  I made my profile months ago and was not active until now and my beliefs have changed since then.  I have updated my profile.  Thanks for the reminder.

View Post


You’re welcome.

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:40 AM

No I am not saying that.  All I am saying is that you need life to begin with in order to have evolution....

View Post

Thanks for confirming that. So a theory of Evolution does require some theory of how life came into being as well, right?

#24 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 13 April 2011 - 04:48 PM

If not abiogenesis, then what do you believe? I've have had several atheists tell me things like this, but then would find out that they were making such a statement to avoid bringing abiogenesis into an argument. Are you saying that you don't believe that life came from non living matter? Do you have any alternative beliefs to abiogenesis if you reject the theory?


Look, evolution CAN be true with abiogenesis being complete bogus, therefore proving the Theory of Evolution does not require abiogenesis being proven.

I really only have a general knowledge of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis and know that there is a little evidence to support then but they are nowhere near being solid explanations. This is why they are only hypotheses.

I am very skeptical of them and will not say that I believe them, but I will not say that I disbelieve them either. I suspect that life began naturally and not through design but this idea is not scientific, only philosophical, and I will hold myself back from making any assumptions about the origin of life.

That's fine, as long as you plan on showing me evidence for your claims.

Okay, looking forward to seeing it.


According to the theory of evolution, every species is related and has a last common ancestor with any other given species. It follows that there is a very strong correlation between the genetic and morphological differences between any two species and the time in the past at which these species diverged. It is a reasonable conclusion that the humans are most related to apes and diverged from them long ago.

The problem is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. The most likely thesis is that the last common ancestor had 24 pairs like the apes and the ancestors of humans eventually diverged with only 23 pairs. The best way this could happen would be a chomosome fusion. If this was true, then one pair of human chromosomes should almost perfectly resemble two pairs of fused ape chromosomes. Chromosomes have structures called telomeres on their ends and if two ape pairs fused, the resulting pair should have telomeres in the center as well as on the ends.

This is exactly what we find in human chromosome #2 and this almost perfectly resembles the appearance of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b stacked right on top of each other. We even know the exact point of fusion. This is a powerful example of the sheer predictive power of the theory of evolution.

Right, but anything that is found that contradicts evolution is ignored. Such as living fossils.


How do living fossils contradict evolution?


I can also make predictions about Creation and then show you validation for my predictions. I'd also like to add while you can make some predictions by evolution and prove validity, it doesn't disprove Creation the reason being that is that the Creation model includes evolution and natural selection, but rejects universal common desecent and the interpretation of the fossil record. You will hopefully notice that where Creation and secular evolution parts ways is when we start speculating.


If macroevolution has mountains of evidence, then it is very very likely that creationism is wrong. But anyway, I am very interested to hear about what evidence there is for creation.

The evidence for evolution actually weakened when the genetic code was discovered. As for information, I am talking about the coding in DNA. :)


Actually no. When DNA was discovered we at last had a rigorous scientific explanation for how evolution happens on the genetic level with knowledge of different kinds of mutations, and natural selection picking the good ones.

3. I reject abiogenesis.

4. I reject The Big Bang.


You already know my position on abiogenesis. I believe in the big bang because the evidence supports it but that is not what this debate is about.

5. I believe that any sort of information can only come from intelligence, and not  from an unguided premise.


Genetic information can also come from mutations. If we are assuming that creating more genetic code means an increase in information.

6. I believe that God exists and that The Bible is the 100% infallible Word of God.

View Post


Well, I would bring out some bible contraditions but I would be going way off topic.

#25 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:15 PM

I can also make predictions about Creation and then show you validation for my predictions. I'd also like to add while you can make some predictions by evolution and prove validity, it doesn't disprove Creation the reason being that is that the Creation model includes evolution and natural selection, but rejects universal common desecent and the interpretation of the fossil record. You will hopefully notice that where Creation and secular evolution parts ways is when we start speculating.

Yes this. Thank you.


Trees can be burried where they are in volcanic blasts and also be slowly buried in swamps.  The fact that the earth is billions of years old is cross verified by several dating techniques.

You may want to read the forum faq an rules to see the definition of evolution as acceptable use on this forum. Thanks in advance.

The fact that the earth is around 6,000 years old is also verified by several dating techniques! Imagine that.

Do we have real time evidence of trees being slowly buried in swamps in an upright position without the unburied parts rotting?

#26 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:25 PM

Look, evolution CAN be true with abiogenesis being complete bogus, therefore proving the Theory of Evolution does not require abiogenesis being proven.

I don't dispute that evolution occurs. I dispute Universal Common Descent. Evolution does not falsify the Creation model.

I really only have a general knowledge of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis and know that there is a little evidence to support then but they are nowhere near being solid explanations.  This is why they are only hypotheses.

That's fine, but MANY atheists claim that abiogenesis is supported by empirical science, I recommend that you communicate this to your peers.

I am very skeptical of them and will not say that I believe them, but I will not say that I disbelieve them either.  I suspect that life began naturally and not through design but this idea is not scientific, only philosophical, and I will hold myself back from making any assumptions about the origin of life.

Skepticism is a healthy virtue.

According to the theory of evolution, every species is related and has a last common ancestor with any other given species.  It follows that there is a very strong correlation between the genetic and morphological differences between any two species and the time in the past at which these species diverged.  It is a reasonable conclusion that the humans are most related to apes and diverged from them long ago.

DNA is a logical coding of information. I have not seen one instance where logical information comes about by an unguided premise. Any sort of logical information comes about by intelligent intervention.

We can look at DNA and notice that anything with similar DNA tends to share similar traits. For instance(I'll use your example to make my point more clear), we can look at the DNA of apes and humans and see similarities. We can also observe that we share many similar physical characteristics. This means that DNA is indeed a form of logical coding.

When you look at design whether it be in cars, computers, tv's, etc. We can see that similar parts are used that produce similar results. In artwork we can often identify an artist by their style. It's easy to infer that the world definitely looks to be designed. We know that intelligence can produce logical coding. Therefore, it is very reasonable to believe that we were designed. Similarities in DNA can also be viewed as evidence for design. Depending on what world view your are approaching the evidence from. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to empirically conclude that we have a common ancestor due to the vague fossil record. I'll get to this more when we talk about living fossils below.

The problem is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  The most likely thesis is that the last common ancestor had 24 pairs like the apes and the ancestors of humans eventually diverged with only 23 pairs.  The best way this could happen would be a chomosome fusion.  If this was true, then one pair of human chromosomes should almost perfectly resemble two pairs of fused ape chromosomes.  Chromosomes have structures called telomeres on their ends and if two ape pairs fused, the resulting pair should have telomeres in the center as well as on the ends.

I've seen lectures on this from Ken Miller, a Christian who accepts universal common descent. According to Miller, our Chromosome 2 corresponds to the apes' chromosome 12 and 13. I'll reserve my rebuttal for the next quotation.

This is exactly what we find in human chromosome #2 and this almost perfectly resembles the appearance of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b stacked right on top of each other.  We even know the exact point of fusion.  This is a powerful example of the sheer predictive power of the theory of evolution.

This particular claim that you are presenting is explained by the argument for design that I presented earlier in this post. I see it as more proof that DNA is a logical coding that produces consistent results rather than evidence for evolution from an unguided premise and universal common descent. It takes more than looking at things and saying "They look similar" to prove evolution to make a convincing case of evolution.

I will go further and state that you and Ken Miller appear to be downplaying the drastic difference between humans and chimps. They don't have the kind of coherent language that we have, they lack the anatomy to make such vocals. This is a staggering difference between humans and chimps that secular evolutionists have not yet addressed.

Regarding centric fusions, this idea that Miller has sounds like the old idea that speciation happens due to chromosomal variation. This was debunked in the somewhere between the 1980s and the 1990s. Here is a secular peer reviewed paper regarding it if you wish to read it: http://www.pnas.org/...6.full.pdf html

There is also a peer reviewed Creationist paper that you can read if you wish:

http://www.creationo...j20_3_14-15.pdf

We can also observe that centric fusions do not drive evolution to the extent that you may think it does. Scientists who study sheep breeding have found that chromosome fusions have nothing to do with speciation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Therefore, it is unreasonable to conclude that centric fusions are empirical proof for common descent.

How do living fossils contradict evolution?

It is evidence that animals always remain as the same kind. To define "Kind", hebrew scholars have the consensus that "kind" as defined in The Bible can be used on a species or even genus level. What I think is even more dangerous for common descent is that the fossil record is very incomplete.

#27 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:27 PM

If macroevolution has mountains of evidence, then it is very very likely that creationism is wrong.  But anyway, I am very interested to hear about what evidence there is for creation.

I made a strong case for a designer such as God earlier in this post. However I'd like to add a bit more.

While you have acknowledged that the validity of The Bible is off topic, I will use the validity of The Bible as my second piece of evidence for God. You say that you can quote Bible verses that you say contradict each other, but a simple google search for the contradiction will provide an answer to any contradiction that you can muster. All "contradictions" of The Bible have been addressed and The Bible remains infallible and is verified by historians and archeology. This is the most telling evidence for the Christian God.

I can tell more but I think I about matched the amount of content for the evidence of evolution that you provided so I will stop here for now.



Actually, no.  When DNA was discovered we at last had a rigorous scientific explanation for how evolution happens on the genetic level with knowledge of different kinds of mutations, and natural selection picking the good ones.

I disagree. The findings of DNA fits the Creationist model and leaves evolution with more questions.


You already know my position on abiogenesis.  I believe in the big bang because the evidence supports it but that is not what this debate is about.

I believe the evidence is contrary to The Big Bang, but you are right, it is off topic.

Genetic information can also come from mutations.  If we are assuming that creating more genetic code means an increase in information.
Well, I would bring out some bible contraditions but I would be going way off topic.

View Post

Genetic information is written via tinkering of DNA, activating/deactivating present genes, and deleting genes. If you are talking about gene duplication, it is a poor explanation for the variety of life. Especially if you believe that the variety of life came from a single replicating cell, gene, or what have you.

#28 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:01 PM

Actually no.  When DNA was discovered we at last had a rigorous scientific explanation for how evolution happens on the genetic level with knowledge of different kinds of mutations, and natural selection picking the good ones.

I have never seen evidence of evolution resulting in greater genetic diversity within a population... it is always the opposite.

http://creation.com/...-trains-a-comin

#29 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:06 PM

I have never seen evidence of evolution resulting in greater genetic diversity within a population... it is always the opposite.

http://creation.com/...-trains-a-comin

View Post

"The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)" I love the title. Haha.

#30 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:08 PM

"The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)" I love the title. Haha.

View Post

It is the best explanation I have come across. I love this part.

For instance, a challenger might say, ‘Mosquitoes have evolved resistance to DDT in just 40 years. If that’s not evolution happening before our eyes, what is?’ Most Christian responses focus on the amount of change. For instance, they will say, ‘Well, that’s just variation within a kind.’ Or they reply, ‘But the mosquito’s still a mosquito, isn’t it? It hasn’t turned into anything else.’

Both of these replies are true. But they are inadequate and seldom impress the challenger, who thinks, ‘Well, that’s just a copout for the Christians. Evolution takes millions of years, and here we have all this change in only 40 years. So, give it a million years and imagine what sort of change we’ll have then!’



#31 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 13 April 2011 - 11:56 PM

It is the best explanation I have come across. I love this part.

View Post


The millions of years excuse seems to be their best answer, with eons of time anything is possible.

#32 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 April 2011 - 01:00 AM

The millions of years excuse seems to be their best answer, with eons of time anything is possible.

View Post

Thus, science of the gaps.

#33 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 April 2011 - 02:06 AM

I don't see how these prove that God exists.

View Post

You might not see this because you are not as open minded as you think. It can be because you limit you knowledge to only what sciences can proof. But discussing it here will be off topic. I urge you to start an OP on this.

Well, I have my own contentions with the design argument, and I don't see how DNA points to design.  You can't assume that just because something is complicated that therefore it must be made by a person.  Sure design is ONE explanation for complexity but that doesn't mean it is the only one.

View Post

You also can’t dismiss the design argument, just because it requires n designer.

Have you ever consider that evolution maybe a smaller part of the design? I think the problem comes in when you force an either or situation.


Maybe it is, but there is no evidence for that.

View Post

View Post

I have asked you to consider it? Have you? Or did you just dismiss it because someone ells have not yet proof it. If every one waited for someone ells to proof something, will anything ever be proven?
The next question I want to ask you is: How much of your viewpoint regarding God, evolution and science is you own? How much of your thoughts is just a copy of someone else’s? If most of you thought is your own and you took this discussion searisly you most probably would have not made this statement.



The problem is that nearly all Christians used to take the genesis account as litteral until evolution came along.  Then many of them had to abandon the ideas that all humans came from just two ancestors, the first man came from dirt, and the first woman came from a rib.  Also the litteral 6-day creation thing had to be abandoned.  Evolution doesn't disprove the bible, but it did create quite a mess for the foundational concept of the bible (the creation). 

View Post

We can go back and forth for ever on this. I suggest you read this book.
Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong by Conor Cunningham
You will find that not most Christians believed in a literal historical account of Genesis.

The bible said he did.
The theory of evolution does not prove that the whole bible is metaphore.  It simply suggests the possibility that other parts of the bible which Christians still take litterally are actually not litterally true.

View Post

It just proof that you and who ever made this statement do not understand the Bible.
Please read this again: It still stands.

I have heard this flawed conclusions many times. If one part of the bible is metaphorical does not give us the write to consider the entire bible metaphorical. The Bible is a great deal more complicated than that. The bible is not one book but a compilation of books, written by many authors over a long period of time with different writing styles. It consists of poems, songs, prophecies and history...... You cannot limit it to only one writing style. Doing so will result in a misunderstanding of the word of God.

View Post



#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 April 2011 - 03:10 AM

1. No I am not saying that.  All I am saying is that you need life to begin with in order to have evolution.

2. If evolution is true, then humans evolved from earlier forms and has a common ancestor with every species we see today.  Evolution also tells us that there is a correlation between the genetic and morphological simmilarities between any two given species and the distance in time at which the ancestor of these two species diverged from a last common ancestor. 

3. Since humans are the most related to apes, it makes sense that it is most likely that apes are the most closely related to humans above of all other animals.  If this is true, we should find transitional fossils which will probably have ape-like features and human-like features.  Indeed we find this in a species called homo erectus which is older than humans and lived right before we start seeing humans.

4.Trees can be burried where they are in volcanic blasts and also be slowly buried in swamps. 

5.The fact that the earth is billions of years old is cross verified by several dating techniques.

6. Mutations and natural selection.

View Post

1. and where did this life come from? Naturalistic science has no idea, hence a supernatural means MUST be used as the null hypothesis.. ie- if naturalistic science doesn't know then it must be something outside of what it can test.

2. I believe you were going to show the mountains of evidence for evolution... All you said here was what you think evolution is. Words are not evidence... Experiments and observed data is

3. You do realise that your statement is based on assumption? Furthermore, there have been no conclusive transitional forms for humans... The ones that look closely human are too similar to humans to call a new species, and the ones similar to chimps / apes / etc are too similar to them to call a new species.

4. You haven't shown how fossil trees standing upright through supposed millions of years of strata came to be... Logically if the tree was there for millions of years it would have fallen over and decomposed... Go into a forest and look what happens to dead trees... Are they still there after dying 10 years ago let alone millions. (Thus there should be no fossil of it)... The fact that they pass through "millions of years" of strata yet it should not have occured is strong evidence against "millions of years"

5.Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are based on assumptions and CANNOT give a reliable age... For example, the half life (or rate of decay) of the radioactive substance is measured... Yet how do we know how old anything is based on the rate of decay alone??? There MUST be an initial amount with which to compare the rate of decay against and the existing amount to see how old it is...

However no-one knows this initial amount, it is assumed from nothing.

An analogy, you walk into a room with a burning candle... You can measure the amount of candle left, and you can measure the rate that the candle melts... But how do you know how long the candle has been burning, just from these two things? You can't... You need to know the initial height of the candle to work this out.

6. I was asking for empircial evidence.... Mutation and natural selection are not empirical..

Natural selection is a theoretical process invoked by evolution.. Hence it cannot be its own evidence.

Furthermore how are mutations evidence of evolution?? (Considering most are detrimental and cause loss of function, I find this to be counter-intuitive)

#35 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 April 2011 - 04:36 AM

My question was “How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God of the Bible?”
This was the most relevant answers I got.

It doesn't.  The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence. 

View Post

1.“It doesn't” Unless the only argument for the existents of God is the “design argument”
And the “design argument” is proven to be false. Proving that evolution is true, do not necessary proving the design argument false. This is because the design argument cover match more than the theory of evolution.

The Neodarwinian concepts would declare that higher kinds come from more primitive kinds. That's quite different to creation in Genesis.

View Post

2.Evolution contradicts the literal historic understanding of Genesis. Unless Genesis is not a literal historic account.

A.If you take Genesis as a literal historical account. Proving Evolution will proof that Genesis is false. That will lead to the conclusion that the Bible is false. And that will lead to no Biblical God. (We are all anxiously awaiting the undisputable empirical evidence) This is an argument that is fought in the sciences arena.

B.If you don’t take Genesis as a literal historical account. Evolution does not threaten the existents of God. This is an argument that is fought in the theological arena.

I know quite a few atheists and the mass majority don't consider the theory of evolution to prove that there is no God.  In fact many atheists don't even think that anyone can validly positively say that there is no God.

View Post

According to dan4reason evolution is not the reason that atheist do not believe in God. And that they themselves are not completely “positively’ convinced that that there is no God.

I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. Scientific theory’s change as we learn more every day. Some get proven false and some change. I know God live, I do not need a scientist to prove it. And even if evolution is true it does not challenge this fact. It only challenges the book of Genesis and my understanding of it.
P.S. I do challenge evolution on a scientific level. That is what science is all about testing and challenging scientific theories. The same goes for ID.

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 April 2011 - 05:07 AM

My question was “How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God of the Bible?”
This was the most relevant answers I got.
1.“It doesn't”  Unless the only argument for the existents  of God is the “design argument”
And the “design argument” is proven to be false. Proving that evolution is true, do not necessary proving the design argument false. This is because the design argument cover match more than the theory of evolution.
2.Evolution contradicts the literal historic understanding of Genesis. Unless Genesis is not a literal historic account.

A.If you take Genesis as a literal historical account. Proving Evolution will proof  that Genesis is false. That will lead to the conclusion that the Bible is false. And that will lead to no Biblical God.  (We are all anxiously awaiting the undisputable empirical evidence) This is an argument that is fought in the sciences arena.

B.If you don’t take Genesis as a literal historical account. Evolution does not threaten the existents of God. This is an argument that is fought in the theological arena.


According to dan4reason evolution is not the reason that atheist do not believe in God. And that they themselves are not completely “positively’ convinced that that there is no God.

I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. Scientific theory’s change as we learn more every day. Some get proven false and some change. I know God live, I do not need a scientist to prove it. And even if evolution is true it does not challenge this fact. It only challenges the book of Genesis and my understanding of it.
P.S. I do challenge evolution on a scientific level. That is what science is all about testing and challenging scientific theories. The same goes for ID.

View Post


Sorry, I get side tracked when replying to posts..

I believe that evolution attempts to prove there is no God... But fails to do so

#37 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 April 2011 - 05:27 AM

I believe that evolution attempts to prove there is no God... But fails to do so

View Post

May I change you statement slightly?
“I believe that atheists use evolution to Insinuate there is no God.” :)

#38 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 April 2011 - 07:58 AM

It is the best explanation I have come across. I love this part.

View Post

And here is my favorite:

What we need to be aware of, and focus on in our answers, I tell audiences, is not the amount of change, but the type or direction of change. It is not just that the train has not gone far enough, but that it is headed in the wrong direction. The types of changes observed today, though they can be accommodated within an evolutionary framework, are, we will see, precisely and demonstrably the opposite of the ones which evolutionists really need in order to give some semblance of credibility to their belief system.

I had a similar idea, recently. This small steps leading to a big jump argument is like just drawing a line longer, but that's not getting you area or space, which would be conceptual changes. Of course if the changes required required to achieve a really big one lead you through a number of changes that don't may actually be countre productive - like having eyes, but no equivalent sturctures in the brain for them.

It seems evolutionist think because some variables can changes , this can now go and change the equation itself (configuration versus concept).

Another analogy would be that by changing single letters of a text like Genesis each generation, you'd be able finally have changed the text to, let's say the Gospel of John, while maintaining a legible text all the way.

#39 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 April 2011 - 08:19 AM

And here is my favorite:
I had a similar idea, recently. This small steps leading to a big jump argument is like just drawing a line longer, but that's not getting you area or space, which would be conceptual changes. Of course if the changes required required to achieve a really big one lead you through a number of changes that don't may actually be countre productive - like having eyes, but no equivalent sturctures in the brain for them.

It seems evolutionist think because some variables can changes , this can now go and change the equation itself (configuration versus concept).

Another analogy would be that by changing single letters of a text like Genesis each generation, you'd be able finally have changed the text to, let's say the Gospel of John, while maintaining a legible text all the way.

View Post

Brilliant, I have to remember this. :)

#40 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 14 April 2011 - 01:23 PM

I don't dispute that evolution occurs. I dispute Universal Common Descent. Evolution does not falsify the Creation model.


Of course. What I meant was that even macroevolution to the point of universal common descent can still be true with abiogenesis being complete garbage.


DNA is a logical coding of information. I have not seen one instance where logical information comes about by an unguided premise. Any sort of logical information comes about by intelligent intervention.


Well, microevolution or evolution within a species is an example of natural selection and mutations doing some logical coding.

We can look at DNA and notice that anything with similar DNA tends to share similar traits. For instance(I'll use your example to make my point more clear), we can look at the DNA of apes and humans and see similarities. We can also observe that we share many similar physical characteristics. This means that DNA is indeed a form of logical coding.


That is one conclusion we can draw, and the existence of DNA does not contradict creationism.

When you look at design whether it be in cars, computers, tv's, etc. We can see that similar parts are used that produce similar results. In artwork we can often identify an artist by their style. It's easy to infer that the world definitely looks to be designed. We know that intelligence can produce logical coding. Therefore, it is very reasonable to believe that we were designed. Similarities in DNA can also be viewed as evidence for design. Depending on what world view your are approaching the evidence from. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to empirically conclude that we have a common ancestor due to the vague fossil record. I'll get to this more when we talk about living fossils below.


I think that the fossil record has very strong evidence for evolution but much evidence for evolution does not come from the fossil record.

I've seen lectures on this from Ken Miller, a Christian who accepts universal common descent. According to Miller, our Chromosome 2 corresponds to the apes' chromosome 12 and 13. I'll reserve my rebuttal for the next quotation.

This particular claim that you are presenting is explained by the argument for design that I presented earlier in this post. I see it as more proof that DNA is a logical coding that produces consistent results rather than evidence for evolution from an unguided premise and universal common descent. It takes more than looking at things and saying "They look similar" to prove evolution to make a convincing case of evolution.

I will go further and state that you and Ken Miller appear to be downplaying the drastic difference between humans and chimps. They don't have the kind of coherent language that we have, they lack the anatomy to make such vocals. This is a staggering difference between humans and chimps that secular evolutionists have not yet addressed.

Regarding centric fusions, this idea that Miller has sounds like the old idea that speciation happens due to chromosomal variation. This was debunked in the somewhere between the 1980s and the 1990s. Here is a secular peer reviewed paper regarding it if you wish to read it: http://www.pnas.org/...6.full.pdf html

There is also a peer reviewed Creationist paper that you can read if you wish:

http://www.creationo...j20_3_14-15.pdf

We can also observe that centric fusions do not drive evolution to the extent that you may think it does. Scientists who study sheep breeding have found that chromosome fusions have nothing to do with speciation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum 

Therefore, it is unreasonable to conclude that centric fusions are empirical proof for common descent.


The evidence from Ken Miller was presented in the Dover trial and shows how a precise prediction of evolution was supported by evidence. This is only one piece of data and much more is needed to make the theory believable. It is possible to have this data make sense from a creationist perspective but it does not back up creationism in any way.

Do you want more evidence for evolution?

It is evidence that animals always remain as the same kind. To define "Kind", hebrew scholars have the consensus that "kind" as defined in The Bible can be used on a species or even genus level. What I think is even more dangerous for common descent is that the fossil record is very incomplete.

View Post


You will have to give me an example to work with so we can have a more analytical debate. So, give me your best shot.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users