Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:26 PM

I've read a lot on this forum and I find it full of great information. Yet I don't see any evidence for evolution.

I have yet to see one fully formed transitional fossil. I've seen drawings, pictures, and some bones that claim to be transitional. Yet, I have not seen evidence of a fully formed transitional fossil. Can someone provide a link to some?

However there appears to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over 'millions of years'. Why is this?

http://nwcreation.ne...silsliving.html

http://www.icr.org/article/774/

The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right".

http://www.icr.org/article/7059/

We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?

Birds that can fly 1000s and 1000s of miles to migrate without landing, turtles that can navigate under the ocean, and the many other amazing creatures in this world of ours... just happen to have this ability? How do they know to use these abilities?

What in this universe cries 'old earth', 'evolution', 'no design', 'no God'?

The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?

An interesting article on 'before the big bang' is here: http://creation.com/...re-the-big-bang

I find it ironic that many atheists find creationists to be loony because we have our faith in God. Yet, in a way, atheists have MORE faith than us because of what they believe!

We can observe biogenesis daily. Life comes from life. Abiogenesis on the other hand... any examples?

How do organs know what functions to perform? Does evolution explain that?

If you've read the above links, I challenge you to read: http://www.bestbible...e.org/quest.htm

Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution?

I honestly hope that any evolutionist reading this ponders these things.

I'll close by asking this... To the evolutionist, if there was one, just ONE thing that you disagree with concerning creation, what is it?


Jason



Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
  • goldliger likes this

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

I've read a lot on this forum and I find it full of great information. Yet I don't see any evidence for evolution.

I have yet to see one fully formed transitional fossil. I've seen drawings, pictures, and some bones that claim to be transitional. Yet, I have not seen evidence of a fully formed transitional fossil. Can someone provide a link to some?

However there appears to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over 'millions of years'. Why is this?

http://nwcreation.ne...silsliving.html

http://www.icr.org/article/774/

The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right".

http://www.icr.org/article/7059/

We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?

Birds that can fly 1000s and 1000s of miles to migrate without landing, turtles that can navigate under the ocean, and the many other amazing creatures in this world of ours... just happen to have this ability? How do they know to use these abilities?

What in this universe cries 'old earth', 'evolution', 'no design', 'no God'?

The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?

An interesting article on 'before the big bang' is here: http://creation.com/...re-the-big-bang

I find it ironic that many atheists find creationists to be loony because we have our faith in God. Yet, in a way, atheists have MORE faith than us because of what they believe!

We can observe biogenesis daily. Life comes from life. Abiogenesis on the other hand... any examples?

How do organs know what functions to perform? Does evolution explain that?

If you've read the above links, I challenge you to read: http://www.bestbible...e.org/quest.htm

Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution?

I honestly hope that any evolutionist reading this ponders these things.

I'll close by asking this... To the evolutionist, if there was one, just ONE thing that you disagree with concerning creation, what is it?


Jason



Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


I am still waiting to see if any skeptics will answer this.

Thanks for your thoughts.

#3 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 07:31 AM

I've read a lot on this forum and I find it full of great information. Yet I don't see any evidence for evolution.

I have yet to see one fully formed transitional fossil. I've seen drawings, pictures, and some bones that claim to be transitional. Yet, I have not seen evidence of a fully formed transitional fossil. Can someone provide a link to some?

However there appears to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over 'millions of years'. Why is this?

http://nwcreation.ne...silsliving.html

Scientists that study fossils state that there are transitional fossils. See http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

The "virtually unchanged" animals have changed however, they have change some.

What are the traits required of a fossil in order to classify it as a transitional fossil?


The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right".

http://www.icr.org/article/7059/

We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?

Birds that can fly 1000s and 1000s of miles to migrate without landing, turtles that can navigate under the ocean, and the many other amazing creatures in this world of ours... just happen to have this ability? How do they know to use these abilities?

What in this universe cries 'old earth', 'evolution', 'no design', 'no God'?

Evolution, and old earth do not exclude any gods. "No design" means that the laws of the physical universe allow evolution to occur without outside interferrence.

The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?

It was not an "explosion". However, I am willing to admit that the possibility exists that the cause of the Big Bang was a god or even your God. That does not eliminate the Big Bang or old earth or evolution. An omniscient God could start things off and have designed it so we (humans) would be the result of that chain of events. The scientific evidence points ot that chain of events occurring.

I'll close by asking this... To the evolutionist, if there was one, just ONE thing that you disagree with concerning creation, what is it?

I disagree with the idea that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. The light from the stars say different.

Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Throwing my personal beliefs aside, this just says it is obvious God made the universe, the design of which leaves people without a reason to not believe in God. It says nothing about how God made the design so it is not an indictment against evolution or old earth.

#4 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:00 AM

Scientists that study fossils state that there are transitional fossils. See http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

The "virtually unchanged" animals have changed however, they have change some.

What are the traits required of a fossil in order to classify it as a transitional fossil?


Scientists (not all) also claim that evolution is why we are all here on this earth.
I’m looking for photographic evidence of a fully formed transitional animal, creature, etc.
The changes in the living fossils are miniscule. Would you consider the fossil record more in favor of creation or evolution and why? I don't know what is classified a transitional fossil, yet I hear they have been found, they exist, but I would like to see them. From the Wiki link you provided, the majority of those photos are recreations. Diagram A., afarensis, is only about 2% 'real' bone as the rest was created by scientists.

According to creation.com, the archaeopteryx, also on your Wiki link, is a true bird, not a missing link.

See this short article on archaeopteryx: http://creation.com/...-a-missing-link


Evolution, and old earth do not exclude any gods. "No design" means that the laws of the physical universe allow evolution to occur without outside interferrence.


You missed the part about the moon, the sun, gravity, etc. Everything in the known universe happens to be in just the right place and work the way it should so life can exist. How did evolution create gravity and make it the perfect balance so we don't float away or be so strong that we are crushed? Also, how do evolutionists explain instinct and/or adaption? They are such simple words for something that is so amazingly complex, it truly boggles the mind.

Evolution does indeed exclude God. Atheists believe in evolution, evolution excludes God. Granted, theistic evolutionists believe in God but that’s not for appropriate for this topic.

It was not an "explosion". However, I am willing to admit that the possibility exists that the cause of the Big Bang was a god or even your God. That does not eliminate the Big Bang or old earth or evolution. An omniscient God could start things off and have designed it so we (humans) would be the result of that chain of events. The scientific evidence points ot that chain of events occurring


The idea that God was the cause of the big bang because this discredits God and His Word. From a creationist point of view, it does eliminate the big bang and evolution. I think you’ve read enough on this board to know what creationists believe.

You say that The scientific evidence points of that chain of events occurring. Please show me this scientific evidence that show this chain of events. Scientific evidence is empirically proven, observed, tested, and repeated. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time!

I disagree with the idea that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. The light from the stars say different.


I found this article that might be helpful to you regarding starlight. What are your thoughts?

http://www.answersin...starlight-prove


Throwing my personal beliefs aside, this just says it is obvious God made the universe, the design of which leaves people without a reason to not believe in God. It says nothing about how God made the design so it is not an indictment against evolution or old earth.


Indeed, but even if it DID, would it truly matter to someone that doesn’t believe in God? Even if it said word for word on how God created the earth and how long it took Him, would that change your mind? Would it change anyone’s mind? Perhaps. But again, that’s not the purpose of the verse. As you said, ‘it is obvious God made the universe, the design of which leaves people without a reason to not believe in God’.

#5 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:08 AM

Scientists (not all) also claim that evolution is why we are all here on this earth.
I’m looking for photographic evidence of a fully formed transitional animal, creature, etc.
The changes in the living fossils are miniscule. Would you consider the fossil record more in favor of creation or evolution and why? I don't know what is classified a transitional fossil, yet I hear they have been found, they exist, but I would like to see them. From the Wiki link you provided, the majority of those photos are recreations. Diagram A., afarensis, is only about 2% 'real' bone as the rest was created by scientists.

According to creation.com, the archaeopteryx, also on your Wiki link, is a true bird, not a missing link.
See this short article on archaeopteryx: http://creation.com/...-a-missing-link

A photograph of a "fully formed transitional animal" that you would accept is not possible without some definition of what you expect a transitional fossil to be. What is the accepted creationist definition of a transitional fossil? What should it look like. Since you reject archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik as transitional fossils, you must have a defined set of physical parameters for a transitional fossil that these fossils do not contain. What are those physical parameters?

Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and a transitional. See http://www.talkorigi...teryx/info.html. The paleo-taxonomists had to classify it somehow. Since it had true flight feathers it was placed in the bird family. It still contained theropod features so it is not a "modern" bird. This is a side argument which takes away from the main issue you raised about transitional fossils. The properties of a transitional fossil must be defined in order to determine if any particular fossil can be classified as a transitional.



You missed the part about the moon, the sun, gravity, etc. Everything in the known universe happens to be in just the right place and work the way it should so life can exist. How did evolution create gravity and make it the perfect balance so we don't float away or be so strong that we are crushed? Also, how do evolutionists explain instinct and/or adaption? They are such simple words for something that is so amazingly complex, it truly boggles the mind.


Did you want to discuss the fine tuning argument also? This looks like part of that but I am not too sure.

Gravity is determined by the mass of the object. Even you have gravity because you have a mass that is greater than zero. Are you saying that the Earth's gravity is designed to be perfect for life? How so?

The theory of evolution does discuss instinct and adaptation. In fact, adaptation is the crux of the theory. If an adaptation works, that individual gets to live and have more offspring than an individual that does not have that adaptation. Because the adapted individual had more offspring, it is more likely that the progeny of that individual will have the adaptation also and will survive to have more offspring than the progeny of the individual that did not have that adaptation.

Evolution does indeed exclude God. Atheists believe in evolution, evolution excludes God. Granted, theistic evolutionists believe in God but that’s not for appropriate for this topic.

Not following your logic here. Are you saying that because atheists "believe" in evolution, that means that the theory states that there is no God? Atheists "believe" in the theory of gravitational attraction too. Does that mean the theory of gravitational attraction excludes God?

OR...

Are you saying that the theory of evolution excludes God, therfore atheists "believe" in evolution. Where in any iteration of the theory of evolution does it say there is no God? Does it say there is no God more explicitly than the theory of gravitional attraction says there is no God?

The idea that God was the cause of the big bang because this discredits God and His Word. From a creationist point of view, it does eliminate the big bang and evolution. I think you’ve read enough on this board to know what creationists believe.

I have read enough to know that young earth creationists don't have a cohesive theory beyond what is written in Genesis. Is that all that is needed?

You say that The scientific evidence points of that chain of events occurring. Please show me this scientific evidence that show this chain of events. Scientific evidence is empirically proven, observed, tested, and repeated. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time!

There is evidence but maybe not evidence that you agree with. This one sentence of yours is a topic all its own. Would you like to start it in another thread? Things to address would be:
1. How do you define "empirically proven" as it applies to scientific evidence? Do you mean that the evidence is shown to be factual or that the conclusions drawn from that evidence is actually supported by the evidence?
2. With regard to evolution, how do you define "observed". Do you mean that the evidence is observed or that evolution is observed?
3. Tested: What is required for testing to support evolution? Do we have to observed a dinosaur turning into a bird? What level of testing will provide evidence that you will agree supports evolution?
4. Repeated: Must the Big Bang be repeated in order for you to agree that it happened. Must we form a star out of hydrogen clouds in order for you to believe that stars formed that way? Should we have to evolve whales from wolves in the lab? What do you mean by repeated as it applies to the theory of evolution?

I found this article that might be helpful to you regarding starlight. What are your thoughts?

http://www.answersin...starlight-prove

Not helpful because I have read it before. Do you feel I should critique each possibility that Dr Lisle presented. He did not seem to actually subscribe to any particular theory.

Indeed, but even if it DID, would it truly matter to someone that doesn’t believe in God? Even if it said word for word on how God created the earth and how long it took Him, would that change your mind? Would it change anyone’s mind? Perhaps. But again, that’s not the purpose of the verse. As you said, ‘it is obvious God made the universe, the design of which leaves people without a reason to not believe in God’.

I agree that was the purpose of the verse. I just thought that since you quoted it, you were using it to support young earth creationism.

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

A photograph of a "fully formed transitional animal" that you would accept is not possible without some definition of what you expect a transitional fossil to be. What is the accepted creationist definition of a transitional fossil? What should it look like. Since you reject archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik as transitional fossils, you must have a defined set of physical parameters for a transitional fossil that these fossils do not contain. What are those physical parameters?

Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and a transitional. See http://www.talkorigi...teryx/info.html. The paleo-taxonomists had to classify it somehow. Since it had true flight feathers it was placed in the bird family. It still contained theropod features so it is not a "modern" bird. This is a side argument which takes away from the main issue you raised about transitional fossils. The properties of a transitional fossil must be defined in order to determine if any particular fossil can be classified as a transitional.





Did you want to discuss the fine tuning argument also? This looks like part of that but I am not too sure.

Gravity is determined by the mass of the object. Even you have gravity because you have a mass that is greater than zero. Are you saying that the Earth's gravity is designed to be perfect for life? How so?

The theory of evolution does discuss instinct and adaptation. In fact, adaptation is the crux of the theory. If an adaptation works, that individual gets to live and have more offspring than an individual that does not have that adaptation. Because the adapted individual had more offspring, it is more likely that the progeny of that individual will have the adaptation also and will survive to have more offspring than the progeny of the individual that did not have that adaptation.


Not following your logic here. Are you saying that because atheists "believe" in evolution, that means that the theory states that there is no God? Atheists "believe" in the theory of gravitational attraction too. Does that mean the theory of gravitational attraction excludes God?

OR...

Are you saying that the theory of evolution excludes God, therfore atheists "believe" in evolution. Where in any iteration of the theory of evolution does it say there is no God? Does it say there is no God more explicitly than the theory of gravitional attraction says there is no God?


I have read enough to know that young earth creationists don't have a cohesive theory beyond what is written in Genesis. Is that all that is needed?


There is evidence but maybe not evidence that you agree with. This one sentence of yours is a topic all its own. Would you like to start it in another thread? Things to address would be:
1. How do you define "empirically proven" as it applies to scientific evidence? Do you mean that the evidence is shown to be factual or that the conclusions drawn from that evidence is actually supported by the evidence?
2. With regard to evolution, how do you define "observed". Do you mean that the evidence is observed or that evolution is observed?
3. Tested: What is required for testing to support evolution? Do we have to observed a dinosaur turning into a bird? What level of testing will provide evidence that you will agree supports evolution?
4. Repeated: Must the Big Bang be repeated in order for you to agree that it happened. Must we form a star out of hydrogen clouds in order for you to believe that stars formed that way? Should we have to evolve whales from wolves in the lab? What do you mean by repeated as it applies to the theory of evolution?


Not helpful because I have read it before. Do you feel I should critique each possibility that Dr Lisle presented. He did not seem to actually subscribe to any particular theory.

I agree that was the purpose of the verse. I just thought that since you quoted it, you were using it to support young earth creationism.


Actually to the actual scientists Archeopteryx is considered a bird, in first year uni our evolution-loving lecturer was going on about Archeopteryx but in the last lecture we had a scientist who works specifically with birds and he claimed that recent evidence has confirmed Archeopteryx as a bird and not a transitional form, he called it an off-shoot. The looks on peoples faces was priceless! Therefore your talkorigins link is using old data and is not being intellectually honest by not updating their pages with the proper info. This seems to be a reoccuring thing where talkorigins is using outdated info where its already been debunked and they "forget" to correct it.

Tiktaalik has been debunked for ages now. Fosil footprints in Poland were dated as older than Tiktaalik and seemed reptilian in stance, this pushes the evolutionary timeline way out-of-whack, in that none of the fossils of the proposed "transition" sequence actually line up to the times they should live at. Therefore the entire fish to amphibian sequence is (as far as the current evidence is concerned) debunked.


I have read enough of evolution to see that its merely smoke and mirrors in terms of actual science, though there is a truckload of assumption, ad hoc hypothesises etc.


Lets play ask for the definition game! Seriously if you knew anything about science you'd know what empirical means.

An empirical experiment is one that is observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable. Being falsifiable is the main one as if an experiment cannot be falsified then how can you confirm if it fails or succeeds?

Observing evolution, should be done as in the same way we observe any other piece of scientific data... However for some reason the rules do not apply to evolution so ad hoc imagination is allowed to replace actual observations.

You'd need a way to directly demonstrate that evolution was the cause of the similarities, rather than mere assumptions.

An induced BB-like event would go a long way to demonstrate the possibility... However I find this ironic since a scientist is meant to be skeptical yet its obvious here that you're not skeptical of the ideas that support your own view... Why else would you believe in the naturalistic BB from nothing even when there is no empirical evidence to confirm such a thing can occur (additionally since it defies natural laws which would automatically prevent it form occuring anyway).

#7 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

A photograph of a "fully formed transitional animal" that you would accept is not possible without some definition of what you expect a transitional fossil to be. What is the accepted creationist definition of a transitional fossil? What should it look like. Since you reject archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik as transitional fossils, you must have a defined set of physical parameters for a transitional fossil that these fossils do not contain. What are those physical parameters?

Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and a transitional. See http://www.talkorigi...teryx/info.html. The paleo-taxonomists had to classify it somehow. Since it had true flight feathers it was placed in the bird family. It still contained theropod features so it is not a "modern" bird. This is a side argument which takes away from the main issue you raised about transitional fossils. The properties of a transitional fossil must be defined in order to determine if any particular fossil can be classified as a transitional.


I honestly think we can go back and forth with archaeopteryx and tiktaalik as there many articles that explain both the creation and evolution aspect.
Back to my original question in my first post. I’ve modified it slightly, and that part has been bolded.

There appear to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over ‘millions of years’. Why is this? Where are the missing link fossils? What in the fossil record proves evolution as scientific fact? What in the fossil record says 'evolution'?

Did you want to discuss the fine tuning argument also? This looks like part of that but I am not too sure.

Gravity is determined by the mass of the object. Even you have gravity because you have a mass that is greater than zero. Are you saying that the Earth's gravity is designed to be perfect for life? How so?

The theory of evolution does discuss instinct and adaptation. In fact, adaptation is the crux of the theory. If an adaptation works, that individual gets to live and have more offspring than an individual that does not have that adaptation. Because the adapted individual had more offspring, it is more likely that the progeny of that individual will have the adaptation also and will survive to have more offspring than the progeny of the individual that did not have that adaptation.


Let me try to clarify. If our gravity was that of the moon, we would float away. If our temperatures were that of the sun, we would not survive. How did evolution ‘know’ to ‘create’ so we would evolve? How did it know what was needed for survival?

But HOW does adaption work? HOW does instinct work. HOW does, for example, the godwit know where to fly to migrate? How does it navigate? How did it develop this adaption/instinct?

(On a side note, if you want to read about this bird, it flew to New Zealand from Alaska (11,500 KM). This particular bird also flew nonstop for 10,200 km. How does it do it without rest or food?
The article is here, if interested: http://creation.com/...-pacific-flight)

Not following your logic here. Are you saying that because atheists "believe" in evolution, that means that the theory states that there is no God? Atheists "believe" in the theory of gravitational attraction too. Does that mean the theory of gravitational attraction excludes God?

OR...

Are you saying that the theory of evolution excludes God, therfore atheists "believe" in evolution. Where in any iteration of the theory of evolution does it say there is no God? Does it say there is no God more explicitly than the theory of gravitional attraction says there is no God?


I’d prefer to drop this portion of the conversation as I don’t believe it pertains to my OP. This could be a separate topic if you wish.

I have read enough to know that young earth creationists don't have a cohesive theory beyond what is written in Genesis. Is that all that is needed?


Care to expand?

There is evidence but maybe not evidence that you agree with. This one sentence of yours is a topic all its own. Would you like to start it in another thread? Things to address would be:
1. How do you define "empirically proven" as it applies to scientific evidence? Do you mean that the evidence is shown to be factual or that the conclusions drawn from that evidence is actually supported by the evidence?
2. With regard to evolution, how do you define "observed". Do you mean that the evidence is observed or that evolution is observed?
3. Tested: What is required for testing to support evolution? Do we have to observed a dinosaur turning into a bird? What level of testing will provide evidence that you will agree supports evolution?
4. Repeated: Must the Big Bang be repeated in order for you to agree that it happened. Must we form a star out of hydrogen clouds in order for you to believe that stars formed that way? Should we have to evolve whales from wolves in the lab? What do you mean by repeated as it applies to the theory of evolution?


Perhaps a different thread would be good, but let’s focus on your, and I quote, The scientific evidence points of that chain of events occurring What chain of events are you referring to and what scientific evidence can you provide?
Show me just one thing in evolution that is empirically proven. For example, biogenesis is a fact; we can observe life coming from life. Is abiogenesis a fact? If so, please provide the proof. Give me one irrefutable fact for evolution that has been proven.

Not helpful because I have read it before. Do you feel I should critique each possibility that Dr Lisle presented. He did not seem to actually subscribe to any particular theory.


Fair enough, feel free to critique. Perhaps someone else will jump in this and provide their thoughts as I will be happy to admit I’m not well versed in star light travel. I did read several different articles though on both the creation and evolution side.

I agree that was the purpose of the verse. I just thought that since you quoted it, you were using it to support young earth creationism.


Nope, not at all, just a verse I happen to appreciate.

#8 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:43 AM

I honestly think we can go back and forth with archaeopteryx and tiktaalik as there many articles that explain both the creation and evolution aspect.
Back to my original question in my first post. I’ve modified it slightly, and that part has been bolded.

There appear to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over ‘millions of years’. Why is this? Where are the missing link fossils? What in the fossil record proves evolution as scientific fact? What in the fossil record says 'evolution'?

I was afraid that mentioning any particular fossil species would be a distraction.

The thing is, paleobiologists classify a large number of species as transitional fossils but creationists say they are not. I could provide a number of examples but you could find some reason that the species should not be considered transitional.

Here are two sites that describe the scientific "definition" of transitional species. http://evolution-101...al-species.html and http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

By the description of transitional fossil given by paleobiologists, I can provide numerous examples of "missing links". However, those examples, which are easily found by Google, obviously don't satisfy you since you say you have never seen a transitional fossil. The conclusion I have come to is that these fossils do not meet the creationist definition of a transitional fossil. So, I ask again, what is the creationist definition of transitional fossil? If I don't know what you are looking for, I cannot provide it nor can I determine that it does not exist.

If you provide the creationist definition of a transitional fossil and I provide an example that meets that criteria, will you accept that it is a transitional fossil?


Let me try to clarify. If our gravity was that of the moon, we would float away. If our temperatures were that of the sun, we would not survive. How did evolution ‘know’ to ‘create’ so we would evolve? How did it know what was needed for survival?

But HOW does adaption work? HOW does instinct work. HOW does, for example, the godwit know where to fly to migrate? How does it navigate? How did it develop this adaption/instinct?

(On a side note, if you want to read about this bird, it flew to New Zealand from Alaska (11,500 KM). This particular bird also flew nonstop for 10,200 km. How does it do it without rest or food?
The article is here, if interested: http://creation.com/...-pacific-flight)

Neil Armstrong did not float away after landing on the Moon. In fact, it took quite a bit of fuel to get him off of it and back to the command module. The pieces of spacecraft that we left on the Moon are still there.

Why do you feel that evolution is supposed to know anything? How does the water in the ocean "know" to collect in the ocean basins? Simple answer, it doesn't know anything, it just follows the laws of physics. The "knowing" of the needs for survival was obtained through lots of living things dying. I don't know exactly how the godwit knows how to migrate. What is your creationist answer? Why did God feel it was necessary to have migration at all? Why not make each species able to survive where He put it?

How does adaptation work? Through changes in the DNA between one generation and the next. Each generation has changes in the DNA that were not present in either parent (or the parent in the case of species that make clones of themselves). An analogy is like using a copy machine. The copy is not exactly like the original but is like it enough to to usually meet our needs. However, if the criteria for keeping a copy is a level of detail that shows up once in every 450 copies, then you select the copies that you keep and the rest are "killed".

Instinct is something that randomly occurred and helped with survival of individuals in that species. Those individuals had more babies before dying than the others of their species. Those babies received that instinct and also survived longer, having more babies than the babies of the individuals that didn't have the instinct. That cycle repeats and the instinct becomes dominant in that species through attrition of the individuals without the instinct.

I’d prefer to drop this portion of the conversation as I don’t believe it pertains to my OP. This could be a separate topic if you wish.

Dropped.

Care to expand?

Most of creationism is actually criticism of evolution, which for some reason most creationists believe is some sort of proof of young earth creationism.

For instance, is there any agreement within creationism about what animals went on the Ark? What form were those animals...modern forms....kinds that diverged into modern forms after the Flood? What was the mechanism whereby those animals returned to the habitats that they currently reside in. Why is it we don't find fossil of the ancestors of current animals except in the areas that they live in now? What does creationism say about the Flood, the mechanisms by which the Flood occurred and what evidence supports the mechanisms proported by the Theory of Creationism?


Perhaps a different thread would be good, but let’s focus on your, and I quote, The scientific evidence points of that chain of events occurring What chain of events are you referring to and what scientific evidence can you provide?
Show me just one thing in evolution that is empirically proven. For example, biogenesis is a fact; we can observe life coming from life. Is abiogenesis a fact? If so, please provide the proof. Give me one irrefutable fact for evolution that has been proven.

Irrefutable fact: Your DNA contains mutations that are not contained in the DNA of either one of your parents.
Irrefutable fact: Variation between individuals in the same species means that individuals have differing capability to survive particular stresses placed on them by the environment.

Fair enough, feel free to critique. Perhaps someone else will jump in this and provide their thoughts as I will be happy to admit I’m not well versed in star light travel. I did read several different articles though on both the creation and evolution side.

I would prefer to drop it. I could discuss it in a different thread but is is too distracting here and we have enough diverse topics as it is.

#9 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

I was afraid that mentioning any particular fossil species would be a distraction.

The thing is, paleobiologists classify a large number of species as transitional fossils but creationists say they are not. I could provide a number of examples but you could find some reason that the species should not be considered transitional.

Here are two sites that describe the scientific "definition" of transitional species. http://evolution-101...al-species.html and http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

By the description of transitional fossil given by paleobiologists, I can provide numerous examples of "missing links". However, those examples, which are easily found by Google, obviously don't satisfy you since you say you have never seen a transitional fossil. The conclusion I have come to is that these fossils do not meet the creationist definition of a transitional fossil. So, I ask again, what is the creationist definition of transitional fossil? If I don't know what you are looking for, I cannot provide it nor can I determine that it does not exist.

If you provide the creationist definition of a transitional fossil and I provide an example that meets that criteria, will you accept that it is a transitional fossil?


Let’s go with this definition:
“A transitional form is a living or fossilized organism that is believed to be an evolutionary link between two distinct groups”

Do you agree or disagree that the fossil dating method is accurate?

Yes, please do provide a link. One will do, with a fully formed transitional fossil. If ‘A’, is turning into ‘B’, I would like to clearly see that stage in between A and B. In other words, a living fossil should make anyone see it and be able to say, “Wow, that is indeed a strong case, if not proof for evolution’.

Are the living fossils found today more in favor of creation or evolution and why?

Neil Armstrong did not float away after landing on the Moon. In fact, it took quite a bit of fuel to get him off of it and back to the command module. The pieces of spacecraft that we left on the Moon are still there.

Why do you feel that evolution is supposed to know anything? How does the water in the ocean "know" to collect in the ocean basins? Simple answer, it doesn't know anything, it just follows the laws of physics. The "knowing" of the needs for survival was obtained through lots of living things dying. I don't know exactly how the godwit knows how to migrate. What is your creationist answer? Why did God feel it was necessary to have migration at all? Why not make each species able to survive where He put it?

How does adaptation work? Through changes in the DNA between one generation and the next. Each generation has changes in the DNA that were not present in either parent (or the parent in the case of species that make clones of themselves). An analogy is like using a copy machine. The copy is not exactly like the original but is like it enough to to usually meet our needs. However, if the criteria for keeping a copy is a level of detail that shows up once in every 450 copies, then you select the copies that you keep and the rest are "killed".

Instinct is something that randomly occurred and helped with survival of individuals in that species. Those individuals had more babies before dying than the others of their species. Those babies received that instinct and also survived longer, having more babies than the babies of the individuals that didn't have the instinct. That cycle repeats and the instinct becomes dominant in that species through attrition of the individuals without the instinct.


The creationist answer? God created the animal so it has this ability. Why you ask? Could it be to have possible conversations like we are doing right now? Perhaps, to make one ponder the 100s of 1000s of amazing creatures in this world of ours that have these abilities, some with a brain no larger the size of a pea and to have humans realize, “Wow, that really is something else! How did this bird get this ability? How does it know how to store its energy? How does it know where to fly? How does it know to use this ability to ward off its prey? Maybe to think that perhaps, just perhaps, these amazing creatures are NOT a product of chance due to their extreme complexity, and that there is indeed a God out there that did create them?
I guess I need to be clearer on asking about adaption and instinct. I am looking for the ‘why’. Why does it work? Evolution doesn’t explain this and I understand that. Yet when evolution does explain anything, it’s without solid, irrefutable, empirically proven fact.

Irrefutable fact: Your DNA contains mutations that are not contained in the DNA of either one of your parents.
Irrefutable fact: Variation between individuals in the same species means that individuals have differing capability to survive particular stresses placed on them by the environment.


Are these irrefutable facts proof of evolution? Does this prove that God does not exist? I’m looking for irrefutable facts that support evolution that should make any creationist on this board say, “Hmm, this is indeed an irrefutable, scientific, empirically proven fact! Evolution wins!”
You may ask why I am asking these things. I see you are in the U.S. as well. As you are well aware, evolution is taught in our schools. Kids start learning evolution in elementary school with basic biology, then more so in High School, and perhaps even in college. Kids will never even hear the words of ‘Intelligent Design’ in the classroom. Do creationists have the irrefutable facts? Well, we have biogenesis and abiogenesis, which I’ve brought up earlier that still hasn’t been touched. We have eyewitness accounts from the bible that have been passed down generation to generation. We have living fossils and plenty of studies that show carbon dating for fossils is highly inaccurate. We have what we see and witness now regarding life and the creation of it. We have seen some of the same formations in land occur in a short amount of time that supposedly took millions of years to form according to evolution. Yet we will gladly tell young Billy that, “Yes Billy, your great great great (times a billion give or take) grandpa was something like a rock in space 15 billion years ago. Something happened to that rock and here you are today in your little glory!
Unfortunately, Billy will just accept this as fact because this is all he will hear for the next 6, 7 or maybe 8 years of his life. By this time, all those big scientific words will be all jumbled together and sound accurate and true.
Once again, before you challenge creation facts, what are the irrefutable, empirically proven facts supporting evolution? Since it is ‘science’ there must be something you can give me and anyone reading this that will satisfy this request.

Most of creationism is actually criticism of evolution, which for some reason most creationists believe is some sort of proof of young earth creationism.

For instance, is there any agreement within creationism about what animals went on the Ark? What form were those animals...modern forms....kinds that diverged into modern forms after the Flood? What was the mechanism whereby those animals returned to the habitats that they currently reside in. Why is it we don't find fossil of the ancestors of current animals except in the areas that they live in now? What does creationism say about the Flood, the mechanisms by which the Flood occurred and what evidence supports the mechanisms proported by the Theory of Creationism?

We are criticizing and rightly so. That’s not called proof. Evolutionists are on this board, posting questions, comments, which are answered and rebutted but not accepted. Okay, fair enough. We can’t expect everyone to have that light switch come on to understand creation just like that. Yet evolution/atheism is indeed an attack against creation as they cry out “No God, no purpose, no salvation, do whatever, die”. This is contrary to Christian belief.

Proof in young earth creationism is abundant. Whether you or others choose to open your eyes and see it is another story.

A good article on young earth is here:

http://creation.com/biologos-age-earth

A quick excerpt from that article is a question from someone that asked the following:

How do we know the earth is old?
There are several reliable ways to accurately estimate the age of materials on earth. Some methods measure radioactive atoms that decay at steady and predictable rates; others count layers that grow or are deposited in recognizable yearly patterns.


The response from the article says:

The first mistake is in the first sentence. There is only one way to reliably know the age of anything and that is by eyewitness testimony, on the basis of their written records. That is how we know that the Gettysburg Address was delivered on the afternoon of Thursday, 19 November 1863, and that the Battle of Hastings began at about 9am on 14 October 1066. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the truth of a matter is to be established on the basis of eyewitnesses (e.g. Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1). BioLogos here claims that ages can be accurately estimated without eyewitnesses. So how are the ages established? They are assumed, as we will explain. That is what the poster does not say, that all such ages rely on unprovable assumptions about the past. The fact is that a person can obtain any age that they like depending on the assumptions that they make.

Read the reset of the article if you wish and comment. I believe this pertains to the young/old earth portion of this discussion.

I did a little digging regarding Noah’s Ark and found this article:

http://www.christian...n/edn-c013.html

It doesn’t answer all of your questions but it talks about the dimensions of the ark and how many animals it could hold.
I don’t know the rest of the answers regarding the flood but I believe there is a separate topic on here dedicated specifically to that topic.

#10 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:47 AM

There are some things that the atheist community (Note i call them atheists not scientist because science in its pure form is neutral) have not bothered to think about is "what is life".
Evolution tries to explain the origins physical form of living things but is that 'life'?
we know that all life dies and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. if it was a matter of mixing chemicals and bam! we have life, how come even if we give scientists preformed raw materials they still cant make anything live? Give them a dead animal they cant give it 'life'. so life is not just chemicals coming together to create complex systems that can interact with the environment. They is something that gives life to life and that cannot be explained by evolution.
what i am trying to get at is all life forms have a life force that science cant explain.
evolution cant explain emotion, love, faith, moral objectivity etc. i know this they have tried to explain through brain waves, chemical messengers etc. though there is a physiological basis for these things which is undeniable we still cant explain these things from a purely biological point of view. Am just curious to know how atheist try to explain death.
At the end of the day the bible account makes sense. It tells us the physical form of Adam was made from the earth, i.e things physical, then God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. That makes sense! the physical form was still lifeless until the life force came. And by the way the bible was not written as an answer to atheist arguments. it was written as the truth there was.
Now to those who say we cant use the bible as evidence beacause its not a scientific book, well you need to think again. the bible was the first book to mention plate tectonics, how the earth used to be one landmass and then separated. Gen 10:25..and the name of one was Peleg, for in his day the earth was separated.
Many other e.gs in the bible tell us the bible is not the dumb book many think it is

#11 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:18 AM

Let’s go with this definition:
“A transitional form is a living or fossilized organism that is believed to be an evolutionary link between two distinct groups”

Do you agree or disagree that the fossil dating method is accurate?

Yes, please do provide a link. One will do, with a fully formed transitional fossil. If ‘A’, is turning into ‘B’, I would like to clearly see that stage in between A and B. In other words, a living fossil should make anyone see it and be able to say, “Wow, that is indeed a strong case, if not proof for evolution’.

Are the living fossils found today more in favor of creation or evolution and why?

Your definition is a bit fuzzy. "...is believed to be an evolutionary link...."? Is believed by whom? Paleobiologists already consider tiktaalik to be a transitional fossil between sea and land dwelling animals but creationists do not. So should that be modified to be "...is believed by young earth creationists to be an evolutionary link..."? However, creationists don't believe there are evolutionary transitional fossils so that definition would automatically exclude any fossil as being a transitional.

What would be the point in my providing a photo of any fossil that is classified as a transitional if the definition you provide allows you the room to exclude any fossil based on your belief.

The creationist answer? God created the animal so it has this ability. Why you ask? Could it be to have possible conversations like we are doing right now? Perhaps, to make one ponder the 100s of 1000s of amazing creatures in this world of ours that have these abilities, some with a brain no larger the size of a pea and to have humans realize, “Wow, that really is something else! How did this bird get this ability? How does it know how to store its energy? How does it know where to fly? How does it know to use this ability to ward off its prey? Maybe to think that perhaps, just perhaps, these amazing creatures are NOT a product of chance due to their extreme complexity, and that there is indeed a God out there that did create them?
I guess I need to be clearer on asking about adaption and instinct. I am looking for the ‘why’. Why does it work? Evolution doesn’t explain this and I understand that. Yet when evolution does explain anything, it’s without solid, irrefutable, empirically proven fact.

I ask because the answer "God wanted to" is rather hollow. Did he do it to make us amazed by animals? Wouldn't we be just as amazed by birds that could withstand the cold or have babies in the winter? Saying "God did it" does very little to answer the question "How did this bird get this ability?". You might understand the mechanism that the bird uses...detection of magnitism...reading the stars...etc, but you won't really know how the ability occurred except that God arbitrarily decided that this bird species will migrate and that bird species will not. I guess you can answer all questions the same. Why do humans have trouble concentrating when in the presence of high pitched beeping sounds? God did it. Why do humans have thumbs? God did it. Why don't chipmunks fly to get away from predators? God did it.

But I told you how the birds got that ability, according to evolution theory. Lots of birds died because they didn't have those abilities. The ones that flew a little bit south survived longer than those that didn't, passed that ability on to their offspring through their genes. The ones that flew further south because they could store more energy, survived longer than those that only flew short distances. That's the how.

You want "solid irrefutable fact" but are willing to accept "God did it" from your team.

Are these irrefutable facts proof of evolution? Does this prove that God does not exist? I’m looking for irrefutable facts that support evolution that should make any creationist on this board say, “Hmm, this is indeed an irrefutable, scientific, empirically proven fact! Evolution wins!”
You may ask why I am asking these things. I see you are in the U.S. as well. As you are well aware, evolution is taught in our schools. Kids start learning evolution in elementary school with basic biology, then more so in High School, and perhaps even in college. Kids will never even hear the words of ‘Intelligent Design’ in the classroom. Do creationists have the irrefutable facts? Well, we have biogenesis and abiogenesis, which I’ve brought up earlier that still hasn’t been touched. We have eyewitness accounts from the bible that have been passed down generation to generation. We have living fossils and plenty of studies that show carbon dating for fossils is highly inaccurate. We have what we see and witness now regarding life and the creation of it. We have seen some of the same formations in land occur in a short amount of time that supposedly took millions of years to form according to evolution. Yet we will gladly tell young Billy that, “Yes Billy, your great great great (times a billion give or take) grandpa was something like a rock in space 15 billion years ago. Something happened to that rock and here you are today in your little glory!
Unfortunately, Billy will just accept this as fact because this is all he will hear for the next 6, 7 or maybe 8 years of his life. By this time, all those big scientific words will be all jumbled together and sound accurate and true.
Once again, before you challenge creation facts, what are the irrefutable, empirically proven facts supporting evolution? Since it is ‘science’ there must be something you can give me and anyone reading this that will satisfy this request.

You said you wanted to drop this subject but you brought it up again. This entire paragraph was about the fact that our schools teach evolution without saying "God did it". Well, the theory of evolution doesn't say "God didn't do it" either. It is your creationist team that says evolution teaches that there is no God. The theory doesn't mention God but neither does the Germ Theory of Disease. Should we fight to have that theory struck down? Do you agree or disagree that microbes (germs) cause disease? What about the Theory of Gravitational Attraction? Where does that theory mention that God created gravity?

Again, I am willing to drop any discussion of this if you are.

We are criticizing and rightly so. That’s not called proof. Evolutionists are on this board, posting questions, comments, which are answered and rebutted but not accepted. Okay, fair enough. We can’t expect everyone to have that light switch come on to understand creation just like that. Yet evolution/atheism is indeed an attack against creation as they cry out “No God, no purpose, no salvation, do whatever, die”. This is contrary to Christian belief.

Proof in young earth creationism is abundant. Whether you or others choose to open your eyes and see it is another story.

A good article on young earth is here:

http://creation.com/biologos-age-earth

A quick excerpt from that article is a question from someone that asked the following:

How do we know the earth is old?
There are several reliable ways to accurately estimate the age of materials on earth. Some methods measure radioactive atoms that decay at steady and predictable rates; others count layers that grow or are deposited in recognizable yearly patterns.


The response from the article says:

The first mistake is in the first sentence. There is only one way to reliably know the age of anything and that is by eyewitness testimony, on the basis of their written records. That is how we know that the Gettysburg Address was delivered on the afternoon of Thursday, 19 November 1863, and that the Battle of Hastings began at about 9am on 14 October 1066. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the truth of a matter is to be established on the basis of eyewitnesses (e.g. Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1). BioLogos here claims that ages can be accurately estimated without eyewitnesses. So how are the ages established? They are assumed, as we will explain. That is what the poster does not say, that all such ages rely on unprovable assumptions about the past. The fact is that a person can obtain any age that they like depending on the assumptions that they make.

Read the reset of the article if you wish and comment. I believe this pertains to the young/old earth portion of this discussion.

Did I miss something? Where in the article does it provide proof of a young earth except to say that there was eyewitness testimony (ie...the Bible says it). Strangely, that is not true either. Moses, if he wrote Genesis, was not there. He only wrote what he believed God told him.

Almost all of the article is exactly what I said...criticism of the science that indicates the earth and universe is extremely old. Where is the scientific evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

I did a little digging regarding Noah’s Ark and found this article:

http://www.christian...n/edn-c013.html

It doesn’t answer all of your questions but it talks about the dimensions of the ark and how many animals it could hold.
I don’t know the rest of the answers regarding the flood but I believe there is a separate topic on here dedicated specifically to that topic.

It actually only tried to answer one of the questions. How did we get all the land species in the world into the Ark? John Woodmorappe's answer....we didn't have as many species back then, they were created "kinds"...and after they left the Ark and, somehow, traversed the new mountain ranges and open oceans to their new habitats, they evolved into the many species we have today. How can he say that evolution is not possible and then say that a particular "kind" can evolve into multiple species?

#12 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:32 AM

There are some things that the atheist community (Note i call them atheists not scientist because science in its pure form is neutral) have not bothered to think about is "what is life". Evolution tries to explain the origins physical form of living things but is that 'life'? we know that all life dies and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. if it was a matter of mixing chemicals and bam! we have life, how come even if we give scientists preformed raw materials they still cant make anything live? Give them a dead animal they cant give it 'life'. so life is not just chemicals coming together to create complex systems that can interact with the environment. They is something that gives life to life and that cannot be explained by evolution. what i am trying to get at is all life forms have a life force that science cant explain. evolution cant explain emotion, love, faith, moral objectivity etc. i know this they have tried to explain through brain waves, chemical messengers etc. though there is a physiological basis for these things which is undeniable we still cant explain these things from a purely biological point of view. Am just curious to know how atheist try to explain death. At the end of the day the bible account makes sense. It tells us the physical form of Adam was made from the earth, i.e things physical, then God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. That makes sense! the physical form was still lifeless until the life force came. And by the way the bible was not written as an answer to atheist arguments. it was written as the truth there was. Now to those who say we cant use the bible as evidence beacause its not a scientific book, well you need to think again. the bible was the first book to mention plate tectonics, how the earth used to be one landmass and then separated. Gen 10:25..and the name of one was Peleg, for in his day the earth was separated. Many other e.gs in the bible tell us the bible is not the dumb book many think it is

Ok...I'll bite. What is life? What is the Biblical definition of life...the verses that tell us that or point to an implied definition would be helpful. Using that definition, are plants alive? Are bacteria alive? What about viruses? Please explain how the Biblical definition of life is used to make your determination in each of these cases.

If the requirement for "life" is that God breathed it into the nostrils then does that mean no other species besides humans are Biblically alive? I thought God was giving Adam a soul.

You might be surprised what evolution can explain. Have you ever Googled the evolutionary explanation of love or faith? What is it that you find wanting in those explanations?

#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:57 AM

...There is evidence but maybe not evidence that you agree with. This one sentence of yours is a topic all its own. Would you like to start it in another thread? Things to address would be:
1. How do you define "empirically proven" as it applies to scientific evidence? Do you mean that the evidence is shown to be factual or that the conclusions drawn from that evidence is actually supported by the evidence?

Empirically proven is either showing it in the lab or observing it in nature via ones senses. Showing items to exists is one thing. Deducting what they mean is the other. There is a bit of a semantic problem about what evidence means. is it just the objects or is it the objects and some interpretation of it. This can create quite some confusion.

2. With regard to evolution, how do you define "observed". Do you mean that the evidence is observed or that evolution is observed?

Observing evolution would mean that have to show new, meaningful, genetic information to be rising. I think this is extensively discussed elsewhere on this forum.

3. Tested: What is required for testing to support evolution? Do we have to observed a dinosaur turning into a bird? What level of testing will provide evidence that you will agree supports evolution?

To give it the status of proven hypothesis, you'd actually have to do that. Keep some dinos in the lab and then watch them turn into birds over a couple of generations. Otherwise this would just be speculation and innuendo done with some objects that can be said to fit the plot to some extent.

4. Repeated: Must the Big Bang be repeated in order for you to agree that it happened. Must we form a star out of hydrogen clouds in order for you to believe that stars formed that way? Should we have to evolve whales from wolves in the lab? What do you mean by repeated as it applies to the theory of evolution?

If you'd really like to sell it as scientific fact like, for instance, gravity, yes that's what you would have to do. Perhaps one should start with smaller, easier examples. Let's for instance turn the fruit fly into something like locust. Once you can do that with Darwinian like mechanisms in the lab it may be time move to something more complicated. But, if they'd really done already, don't you think this would have been cited and published over and over again. Yet, we never have heard anything about it. All we are shown is mutant fruit flies.
BTW. one can play the same game with creation. Or is this a priori excluded as a valid explanation for diversity of species on earth?

#14 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Empirically proven is either showing it in the lab or observing it in nature via ones senses. Showing items to exists is one thing. Deducting what they mean is the other. There is a bit of a semantic problem about what evidence means. is it just the objects or is it the objects and some interpretation of it. This can create quite some confusion.
Observing evolution would mean that have to show new, meaningful, genetic information to be rising. I think this is extensively discussed elsewhere on this forum.
To give it the status of proven hypothesis, you'd actually have to do that. Keep some dinos in the lab and then watch them turn into birds over a couple of generations. Otherwise this would just be speculation and innuendo done with some objects that can be said to fit the plot to some extent.
If you'd really like to sell it as scientific fact like, for instance, gravity, yes that's what you would have to do. Perhaps one should start with smaller, easier examples. Let's for instance turn the fruit fly into something like locust. Once you can do that with Darwinian like mechanisms in the lab it may be time move to something more complicated. But, if they'd really done already, don't you think this would have been cited and published over and over again. Yet, we never have heard anything about it. All we are shown is mutant fruit flies.
BTW. one can play the same game with creation. Or is this a priori excluded as a valid explanation for diversity of species on earth?

Ok...let's play that game.
What is the empirically proven evidence that creation occurred according to the Genesis account? Is there something outside the Bible that supports the making of birds from the ocean in less than one day? Maybe there is some trace evidence of day and night occurring without there being a Sun, Moon or stars.

How was that evidence observed? What were the constraints of the observation? How do we know the account of that observation is accurate seeing as it differs from other creation accounts that are also claimed to be observed.

Tested: Has anyone tested the creation of birds from the ocean in one 24 hour period. How about a man from dirt?

Repeated: Has anyone made day and night without the Sun, Moon and stars or even observed it?

It looks like we're in the same boat if I use the same standards for proving creationism that you wish to use for proving Big Bang Cosmology, star formation, and evolution. By your standards of proof, what makes the Genesis account more valid than the currently accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

Ok...let's play that game.
What is the empirically proven evidence that creation occurred according to the Genesis account? Is there something outside the Bible that supports the making of birds from the ocean in less than one day? Maybe there is some trace evidence of day and night occurring without there being a Sun, Moon or stars.

How was that evidence observed? What were the constraints of the observation? How do we know the account of that observation is accurate seeing as it differs from other creation accounts that are also claimed to be observed.

Tested: Has anyone tested the creation of birds from the ocean in one 24 hour period. How about a man from dirt?

Repeated: Has anyone made day and night without the Sun, Moon and stars or even observed it?

It looks like we're in the same boat if I use the same standards for proving creationism that you wish to use for proving Big Bang Cosmology, star formation, and evolution. By your standards of proof, what makes the Genesis account more valid than the currently accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?


You're attempting to change the subject, which is not a valid nor logical response. If you wish to discuss the empriical validity (or lack thereof) of Creation then I suggest you create a new thread.

However I will say that Creationists generally do not purport their claims as scientific therefore there is no requirement of empirical validity, yet the evolutionist claims that their ideas are scientific which therefore forces the requirement of empirical validity onto them. As I have said in the past, I don't mind id an evolutionist wants to believe in evolution with no evidence whatsoever, I do mind however when evolution is claimed to be a science when it doesn't even adhere to the rules we place on science or doesn't follow the scientific method. If you admit that evolution is merely a belief based on faith, then I won't be asking for empirical validity of that belief...

As you said yourself we ARE in the same boat, except that one belief admits that it is based on faith, whereas the other falsely pretends to be something its not in order to garner support.
  • Nash likes this

#16 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:56 AM

Ok...I'll bite. What is life? What is the Biblical definition of life...the verses that tell us that or point to an implied definition would be helpful. Using that definition, are plants alive? Are bacteria alive? What about viruses? Please explain how the Biblical definition of life is used to make your determination in each of these cases.

If the requirement for "life" is that God breathed it into the nostrils then does that mean no other species besides humans are Biblically alive? I thought God was giving Adam a soul.

You might be surprised what evolution can explain. Have you ever Googled the evolutionary explanation of love or faith? What is it that you find wanting in those explanations?


I will chose to be simplistic. We KNOW that man has not been able to give 'life' to anything biological, i.e to the physical form. Its is simply impossible. In other words there is something that makes biological beings 'alive' that is beyond the scope of science. that we cant dispute.
In that light it becomes irrational to think that inanimate chemicals can come together and make themselves alive.
Let me just pose something else. even if we take the theory of evolution as a fact, what part of it says there CANT BE or SHOULD'NT BE a creater? The argument against a creater is purely philosophical and is based on personal preference not scientific evidence.
I worked for more than a year without any observable interaction or influence from my boss. Is it then logical for an observer to conclude that there is NO BOSS or CANT BE A BOSS or SHOULDNT BE A BOSS?
Deny it though you may but the argument against a creator is a matter of faith, not science. You BELIEVE in 'no creator'

#17 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:04 AM

What makes us think that a God who can't be seen should leave us with evidence of what He does? I mean is that His modus operandi? Am just thinking allowed in the light of questions like 'is there any evidence of the biblical account of Genesis'. We invented science but does God have to subscribe to its laws? Should He be governed by the same principles as the creation?

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:19 AM

What makes us think that a God who can't be seen should leave us with evidence of what He does? I mean is that His modus operandi? Am just thinking allowed in the light of questions like 'is there any evidence of the biblical account of Genesis'. We invented science but does God have to subscribe to its laws? Should He be governed by the same principles as the creation?


I can make a car that doesn't mean that my "engine" will be governed my the laws of combustion ;)

#19 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:13 AM

I will chose to be simplistic. We KNOW that man has not been able to give 'life' to anything biological, i.e to the physical form. Its is simply impossible. In other words there is something that makes biological beings 'alive' that is beyond the scope of science. that we cant dispute.
In that light it becomes irrational to think that inanimate chemicals can come together and make themselves alive.
Let me just pose something else. even if we take the theory of evolution as a fact, what part of it says there CANT BE or SHOULD'NT BE a creater? The argument against a creater is purely philosophical and is based on personal preference not scientific evidence.
I worked for more than a year without any observable interaction or influence from my boss. Is it then logical for an observer to conclude that there is NO BOSS or CANT BE A BOSS or SHOULDNT BE A BOSS?
Deny it though you may but the argument against a creator is a matter of faith, not science. You BELIEVE in 'no creator'

I am not arguing against a creator here, regardless of what I believe about the possibility of God. Your bringing it up is a non-sequitur. I hope you are not trying to devalue what I say by bringing up the possibility that I don't believe in your God. I will admit that I don't believe in any particular God but don't discount the possibilty that there is a God. I could accept that God caused the diversity of life here and used evolution to do it.

Your claim was that life has some sort of "God breathed" essence such that scientists cannot create life. However, they have built lifeforms from component parts (proteins, DNA strands...etc) see http://www.guardian....hetic-life-form. Would you say that the parts those scientists used were living or not? Did those parts contain the essence of life or were they just chemicals?

#20 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:20 AM

What makes us think that a God who can't be seen should leave us with evidence of what He does? I mean is that His modus operandi? Am just thinking allowed in the light of questions like 'is there any evidence of the biblical account of Genesis'. We invented science but does God have to subscribe to its laws? Should He be governed by the same principles as the creation?

I never said He should leave us with evidence of what He does. If He wants to remain hidden then so be it. I do find it strange that if His building of the universe is exactly as Genesis describes, that the evidence He leaves behind makes it look like the universe and earth are very old, and life evolved over a very long period of time. Why would he go to that kind of trouble? Why not have all the fossils be organism that are in existence today instead of organisms that are extinct with no modern organisms in the same geological stratum? Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users