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

#1 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 April 2011 - 01:43 AM

How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?

This is mainly a question for the atheists.
I want to determine the effect that evolution have on that lack of believe in God. I am not asking why you don’t believe in God. I’m asking how evolution is proof that there is no God.

#2 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 April 2011 - 04:12 PM

How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?

This is mainly a question for the atheists.
I want to determine the effect that evolution have on that lack of believe in God. I am not asking why you don’t believe in God. I’m asking how evolution is proof that there is no God.

View Post


It doesn't. The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence. It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation.

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth. What else in the bible is metaphorical? The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

#3 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 12 April 2011 - 06:24 PM

All I see from you is conjecture without evidence to substantiate your claims. Unfortunately when you start trying to show evidence your argument will inevitably further fall on its face. Nevertheless, let's begin your path to enlightenment.

It doesn't.  The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence.  It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation.

But it is perfectly fine to use science of the gaps right? It is perfectly fine to assume the conditions of abiogenesis and to look at fossils that "look alike" and then say that they have a common ancestor and then develop the a priori assumption that it is all true. That is perfectly logical right? You appear to be affirming the consequent and I predict that if this discussion continues you will end up doing this numerous times within the next few posts.

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth.  What else in the bible is metaphorical?  The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

View Post

So because we can observe natural phenomena, God is not real. Is this really what you are saying? We have observed evolution, but nothing that accounts for the variety of life that we see today. It is obvious that the information for any mutation has always been there and that any concept of a bottom-up evolutionary process is absolutely absurd. It goes to show what people are willing to believe in order to dismiss any sort of authority in their life. The following Bible verses describes this nonsensical argument pretty well:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23

#4 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 April 2011 - 08:18 PM

But it is perfectly fine to use science of the gaps right?


What? Science is not even used to fill gaps because it is not even a theory at all. It is only a structure for discovering the truths in nature.

It is perfectly fine to assume the conditions of abiogenesis and to look at fossils that "look alike" and then say that they have a common ancestor and then develop the a priori assumption that it is all true. That is perfectly logical right?


I didn't see abiogenesis mentioned in the OP and I never mentioned it myself so I don't know why you are bringing it up. The only reason we say that fossils have common ancestors is because we have already independently proven evolution, so yes that would be logical for any two fossils.

So because we can observe natural phenomena, God is not real. Is this really what you are saying?


Nope.

We have observed evolution, but nothing that accounts for the variety of life that we see today.


Actually macroevolution accounts for most of the variety of life we see today.

It is obvious that the information for any mutation has always been there and that any concept of a bottom-up evolutionary process is absolutely absurd.


How do you know that?

It goes to show what people are willing to believe in order to dismiss any sort of authority in their life. The following Bible verses describes this nonsensical argument pretty well:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23

View Post


Well, I don't happen to believe in hebrew mythology and this verse just demonstrates the intolerant and intellectually blind nature that religion can in many cases have.

#5 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 12 April 2011 - 08:22 PM

It doesn't.  The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence.  It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation well I don't believe that for a second. 

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by *Claiming showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth.  What else in the bible is metaphorical?  The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

View Post

I agree that these are the effects of the theory of evolution. I wasn't expecting a non-creationist to say those things.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 April 2011 - 09:11 PM

You guys still cannot tell us how something comes from nothing naturally without invoking the supernatural. And if you can, you be the first to do it.

You also cannot tell us how the current laws came into being all balanced and ready to work together without total chaos or annihilation.

So if evolution and all it's support mechanism trounce on design, then you would have a working theory and a observable process for these things. But you have ZIP! Which makes your point above mute and more of an opinion than fact. And if you think otherwise, then solve the 2 simple problems above naturally.

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth.  What else in the bible is metaphorical?  The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

View Post


This is because science will not ponder other dimensions that have different laws. Creation was done before sin which happened on the end of the 6th day. According to the Bible, time minus sin = eternity time. So the six days of creation were done under eternal laws instead of non-eternal laws which is what we observe now. So when you try to explain something done under other laws, with laws that did not exist yet, it is not going to make any sense. So instead of trying to make it work, you guys cop out by accusing the creation as being metaphorical.

Example: Do you think a experiment will have the same results here as in a Black Hole? Does water boil at the same temperature here as in space?

So if you try to explain how things happen where laws or conditions are different, would you expect it to make sense? Of course not.

I have studied this and have come to one conclusion as to what makes eternity different from what we observe. Everything is the same accept one thing. Aging does not happen. You see here time an aging are two parallel processes that work together. In eternity, time passes but age stays the same.

No aging means:
1) No death.
2) No decay.
3) Nothing can be born because it would never grow up. Hence the very reason creation is needed.
4) And because nothing ages, and nothing can be born. Creation itself has age already added.

Example: Adam and Eve were created old enough to go forth and multiply. All of the animals were created the same way. So to create a new earth with no age added, would mean the laws that exist would make it a molten ball which would kill everything created. So creating the earth with age like Adam and Eve solves the problem. Just as the whole universe was created the same way.

So age becomes part of the equation. God would have to know how old a star would have to be to be stable enough to support life on this planet. God would have to know how old the earth needs to be so it's cool enough, has mainly stable plates, has a magnetic field strong enough to deflect the solar wind from stripping away our atmosphere, and then place the earth in the Habitable Zone.

Posted Image

As you study the pic above, notice how the "blue" Habitable zone changes as the type of star changes. Having control over the age of everything created means one can make a system like this work.

Then you have the Galactic Habitable zone. Which places our solar system in just the right place:

Posted Image

But that's not all. The earth, moon and sun are specific distances and sizes to create this on the surface of the earth.

Posted Image

And to give a better prospective, here is a view of what has to happen.

Posted Image

And about the geological column. Living fossils disprove that it is a record of time for living and extinct animals. One example of many is the Coelacanth fish. It is found about halfway down the column, but in no layer above that proving that it existed until present times. In fact every living fossil found has this problem. No living fossil has been found above it's original layer. So for a fossil record to be accurate for being evidence for evolution, these living fossils have to be found in other layers showing they survived and did not change.

Another example of a living fossil disproving the fossil record supporting evolution is the sea pen. The sea pen fossil can be found in the very bottom lay of the column, yet in no layer above that proving it survived until present time.

Also, if the fossil record supports evolution, there should not be any complexity in the lowest layer. Yet the trilobite has fully formed organs.

Posted ImagePosted Image

And so does the nautilus which is also found in the lowest layer and is a living fossil.

Posted Image

Being found in the lowest layer means there is no evolution tree going to these sea creatures. So the question of how they evolved complex, can never be answered. But if you use deductive logic, creation is the only answer. How?

The flood would not be sorting according to complexity. And since complexity in the lowest layer is unexplainable, it fits. Also the Bible says the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means the burying started with bottom dwellers and worked it's way up. And that's exactly how the column works. Which also means the land animals were last, and that's what we see.

The flood also would not sort by how a living thing survived (it's time-line). Living fossils prove this by not being found in any other layer (time-line broken) than what it was buried in. Showing by column record standards that it should not be alive today.

#7 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 12 April 2011 - 09:53 PM

Unfortunately we haven't gotten as far as I'd like to, so far, you have only provided rhetoric. Let's have a look at what you wrote.

What?  Science is not even used to fill gaps because it is not even a theory at all.  It is only a structure for discovering the truths in nature.

Science of the gaps is basically an excuse that is used when questions can't be answered. You can google it if you are unfamiliar with the term.


I didn't see abiogenesis mentioned in the OP and I never mentioned it myself so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

To examine the plausibility of evolution explaining the variety of life that we see today, we have to look at how evolution would proceed after abiogenesis. Atheists hate this approach though because it exposes their fallacious arguments. If you have to resort to sidestepping the question, then you don't have a solid theory.

The only reason we say that fossils have common ancestors is because we have already independently proven evolution, so yes that would be logical for any two fossils.

Evidence please. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Nope.

:lol:

Actually macroevolution accounts for most of the variety of life we see today.

See my above comment about why we need to talk about abiogenesis. I avoid micro/macro evolution terms because it sets up the ability for you to begin equivocating. If you want to prove that evolution could happen from a single replicating cell from abiogenesis, you should provide examples of an increase of information on the genome. I submit to you that the necessary information to facilitate the mutations that we see has always been there.

How do you know that?

Observed instances of evolution do not yield an increase of information on the genome. In order to create a variety of life, we should be able to see novel information arising on a genome without losing information. So far we only observe tinkering, fusions, and deletion of genes. Based on these observations, a single replicating cell is not sufficient to produce the variety of life that we see today.

Well,, I don't happen to believe in hebrew mythology and this verse just demonstrates the intolerant and intellectually blind nature that religion can in many cases have.

View Post

I just find it funny that The Bible speaks of evolution before the theory was conceived. You can pretend that you have no doubt that The Bible is false, but we all know why you are really here. :blink:

#8 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 12:50 AM

It doesn't.

View Post


I agree. But still so many atheist us evolution to disproof God. And this is my point to this OP.

The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence.

View Post


No, the Bible and the Holy Ghost and sin are the strongest arguments for God.

Only scientifically the design argument supports God. What about DNA, the more we learn about it the more it point to a design.

It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation.

View Post


I will agree with this. This argument does not help the creation argument.

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.

Newton's theory of gravitation is still relevant to our planet. But it only makes out a small part of what we know today. Can’t this be true when it comes to evolution and design?

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth.

View Post


Not all Christians take the creation story in the bible as the literal historical account. Even long before Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Did God create all? Yes
Did He do it in 6 days? Maybe, maybe not

(Please guys list not make this a YEC vs. TE argument)

What else in the bible is metaphorical?

View Post


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.

If you want to persist in this conclusion. I suggest you go study the bible in depth.


The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

View Post


Yet again I agree. An atheist will us any excuse not to believe in God. Anything that will make it “easier” to ignore God.

*Your profile says that you’re an Agnostic. Does this mean you are not completely convinced that there is no design?

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 April 2011 - 04:20 AM

How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?

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

This is mainly a question for the atheists.
I want to determine the effect that evolution have on that lack of believe in God. I am not asking why you don’t believe in God. I’m asking how evolution is proof that there is no God.

View Post

Evolution may not prove the non-existence of God. But it would allow for an alternative view to creation. I think Dawkins said something in the sense of Darwin making evolution intellectually respectable. Ahh, I got a quote in that direction:

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6


The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence.

And it still is. Saying it is/was the strongest would however require to do a comparison.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 07:31 AM

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

The model of evolution hasn’t ‘trounced’ anything. At best, it is just an opinion and faith based set of presuppositions used to claim that man is descendant from pond goo (with which there is absolutely no evidence by-the-way). In fact the lines of logic that support a Creator/God/Initial Causer is far more plausible than the “something from nothing/ abiogenesis/ life from non-life” illogical, non-rational and unscientific position of the materialistic atheist.

Further, the agnostic really has no dog in the fight because “Agnostic” basically means “I don’t know”, or “I am ignorant on that subject”.

It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation.

View Post


This ad Hominem (of the circumstantial kind) of yours, by calling something “idiotic” is itself idiotic due to its attempt at a smear via bait and switch due to your lack of refutation. Further, it is not the Christian that used the “God of the Gaps” argument, but the atheist (and so-called agnostic). I would further submit that you are proceeding on an “Evolution of the Gaps” mythology, due to your many evidentiary gaps in the evolutionistic religion.

Until you have sufficient graduating transitional information (i.e. ever gradual transitional fossils showing a fin to a wing, a fin to an arm/leg, a fish to reptile etc…) instead of these huge leaps of seemingly spontaneous appearances of animal kind/species, you are dealing with “evolution of the gaps”. Therefore, the accusations you make are mirrored upon your own religion.

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth.  What else in the bible is metaphorical?  The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.

View Post


Actually ALL the evidence adduced makes it harder to be a materialistic atheist. The atheist, like the agnostic, proceeds on greater faith than any theist (no matter the religion). If you are having a hard time grasping this concept, I suggest you attempt to answer the questions at this thread:
http://www.evolution...topic=3001&st=0

I would also wonder why you (being listed as an ‘agnostic’ (meaning one who does not know), is arguing so hard for ‘atheistic’ thought… If you actually searched out the evidences, you’d be attempting to be more neutral (but that is a whole different argument).

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 07:32 AM

Actually macroevolution accounts for most of the variety of life we see today.

View Post


Actually, macroevolution accounts for absolutely nothing at all, as macroevolution is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis (i.e. there are absolutely no empirical facts to tie macroevolution to anything).

Further, I would require you to provide evidence for your assertions, and that is your responsibility. Unless you are going to merely say “this is what I believe” or “this is where I place my faith”.

I would further suggest that you read the forum rules (the ones you agreed to prior to coming here) concerning “macroevolution” prior to making such fallacious and wide sweeping assertions.

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 07:33 AM

How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?

View Post


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

View Post


I need to point out here that Crous used the word “prove”, and you replied with the word “declare”. I’m hoping you realize this, and are simply making the congruent point.

#13 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 07:51 AM

To examine the plausibility of evolution explaining the variety of life that we see today, we have to look at how evolution would proceed after abiogenesis. Atheists hate this approach though because it exposes their fallacious arguments. If you have to resort to sidestepping the question, then you don't have a solid theory.


Well, I don't actually believe in any abiogenesis hypothesis and am not obligated to support any of them. Evolution does not require abiogenesis specifically, all it needs is life already existing.

Evidence please. Saying it doesn't make it true.


I would love to present you with some and will do this in future posts. However we need to make sure we are on the same page when it comes to what is evidence for evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory or in other words an explanation of phenomena we see in nature. Theories require evidence and I am claiming that evolution has tons of it. Theories make predictions about the natural world and future discoveries should validate those predictions. Future evidence must not disprove the theory. That would count as a piece of evidence against evolution and would require that it be revised.

If I can show you a very specific prediction that evolution makes and then show you a discovery we found which validates this prediction, then this is a single piece of evidence for evolution.

If you want to prove that evolution could happen from a single replicating cell from abiogenesis, you should provide examples of an increase of information on the genome. I submit to you that the necessary information to facilitate the mutations that we see has always been there.  Observed instances of evolution do not yield an increase of information on the genome. In order to create a variety of life, we should be able to see novel information arising on a genome without losing information. So far we only observe tinkering, fusions, and deletion of genes. Based on these observations, a single replicating cell is not sufficient to produce the variety of life that we see today.


That is not necessarily a requirement. Evolution had strong evidence even before we knew the genetic code even existed but I will try to answer this part of your post anyway. But first, I will have to ask what you mean by information in the genome. I mean, many mutations do make the genome bigger and others take already existing genes and give them new functions.

#14 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 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 - 08:28 AM

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.

Posted Image


The model of evolution hasn’t ‘trounced’ anything. At best, it is just an opinion and faith based set of presuppositions used to claim that man is descendant from pond goo (with which there is absolutely no evidence by-the-way).  If you actually searched out the evidences, you’d be attempting to be more neutral (but that is a whole different argument).

Posted Image

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:30 AM

1. Well, I don't actually believe in any abiogenesis hypothesis and am not obligated to support any of them.  Evolution does not require abiogenesis specifically, all it needs is life already existing. 

2. I would love to present you with some and will do this in future posts.  However we need to make sure we are on the same page when it comes to what is evidence for evolution.

3. Evolution is a scientific theory or in other words an explanation of phenomena we see in nature.  Theories require evidence and I am claiming that evolution has tons of it.  Theories make predictions about the natural world and future discoveries should validate those predictions.  Future evidence must not disprove the theory.  That would count as a piece of evidence against evolution and would require that it be revised.

4. If I can show you a very specific prediction that evolution makes and then show you a discovery we found which validates this prediction, then this is a single piece of evidence for evolution. 

5. That is not necessarily a requirement.  Evolution had strong evidence even before we knew the genetic code even existed but I will try to answer this part of your post anyway. 

6. But first, I will have to ask what you mean by information in the genome.  I mean, many mutations do make the genome bigger and others take already existing genes and give them new functions.

View Post


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

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

3. IMO evolution is not scientific, since it requires EMPIRICAL evidence to be claimed as scientific... Empirical evidence is testable, repeatable, observable... Can you show evidence that are all these things that directly shows evolution? If you can't then you must admit that it doesn't qualify for "scientific" status.

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?

4. Go on, do it don't say you'll do it :blink:

5. What is this "strong evidence"?

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

Are these new functions totally novel, or are they just a variant of the old function?
An analogy- how does a blank piece of paper get the words on it for a story? I say blank as the initial information needs to get there somehow, rather than pre-existing in the form of plasmids etc.

Also what happens to the signal pathway systems in a cell... It is "set up" for the old function yet when this function changes, how does the signal system adapt to this?

#16 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:40 AM

The model of evolution hasn’t ‘trounced’ anything. At best, it is just an opinion and faith based set of presuppositions used to claim that man is descendant from pond goo (with which there is absolutely no evidence by-the-way).


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

In fact the lines of logic that support a Creator/God/Initial Causer is far more plausible than the “something from nothing/ abiogenesis/ life from non-life” illogical, non-rational and unscientific position of the materialistic atheist.


What are these lines of logic?


This ad Hominem (of the circumstantial kind) of yours, by calling something “idiotic” is itself idiotic due to its attempt at a smear via bait and switch due to your lack of refutation. Further, it is not the Christian that used the “God of the Gaps” argument, but the atheist (and so-called agnostic). I would further submit that you are proceeding on an “Evolution of the Gaps” mythology, due to your many evidentiary gaps in the evolutionistic religion.


It is not an ad hominem because I have not attacked any person in order to say that their arguments are false. Another point is that evolution is evidence-based, not faith-based and so is a scientific theory and not a religion or a mythology.

Until you have sufficient graduating transitional information (i.e. ever gradual transitional fossils showing a fin to a wing, a fin to an arm/leg, a fish to reptile etc…) instead of these huge leaps of seemingly spontaneous appearances of animal kind/species, you are dealing with “evolution of the gaps”. Therefore, the accusations you make are mirrored upon your own religion. 


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

Actually ALL the evidence adduced makes it harder to be a materialistic atheist. The atheist, like the agnostic, proceeds on greater faith than any theist (no matter the religion). If you are having a hard time grasping this concept, I suggest you attempt to answer the questions at this thread.


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.

I would also wonder why you (being listed as an ‘agnostic’ (meaning one who does not know), is arguing so hard for ‘atheistic’ thought… If you actually searched out the evidences, you’d be attempting to be more neutral (but that is a whole different argument).

View Post


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.

#17 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:17 AM

I agree. But still so many atheist us evolution to disproof God. And this is my point to this OP.


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.

No, the Bible and the Holy Ghost and sin are the strongest arguments for God.


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

Only scientifically the design argument supports God. What about DNA, the more we learn about it the more it point to a design.
I will agree with this. This argument does not help the creation argument.


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.

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.

Newton's theory of gravitation is still relevant to our planet. But it only makes out a small part of what we know today. Can’t this be true when it comes to evolution and design?
Not all Christians take the creation story in the bible as the literal historical account. Even long before Darwin and the theory of evolution.


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).

Did God create all? Yes
Did He do it in 6 days? Maybe, maybe not


The bible said he did.

(Please guys list not make this a YEC vs. TE argument)
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.

If you want to persist in this conclusion. I suggest you go study the bible in depth.
Yet again I agree. An atheist will us any excuse not to believe in God. Anything that will make it “easier” to ignore God.


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.

*Your profile says that you’re an Agnostic. Does this mean you are not completely convinced that there is no design?

View Post


I just changed my profile because of my discussion with Ron. I am more accurately an atheist agnostic. In many cases as in the complexity of life I am completely convinced there is no design. In other cases like abiogenesis I see the evidence as lacking so I am not going to positively say that there is no design. That does not mean I think the origin of life came about through creation.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:31 AM

The theory of evolution is different than the different hypotheses of abiogenesis.
What are these lines of logic?
It is not an ad hominem because I have not attacked any person in order to say that their arguments are false.  Another point is that evolution is evidence-based, not faith-based and so is a scientific theory and not a religion or a mythology.
Actually you don't need that to prove the theory of evolution.  Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions about the natural world.  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. 
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. 
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

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.

Actually it does!! In order to be considered a strong scientific theory.. Without empirical evidence, all what is being said is assumption based words, words are not evidence to base anything on.....
(If you think otherwise, then when I say I have super powers and can fly, then you must believe me because I say that my words are my evidence)


Furthermore, if what you said is true, then why do evos proclaim that evolution is a "fact"... A fact, is truth pertaining to reality hence if evolution isn't 100% proven then how can it pertain to reality?

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:34 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)

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

3. IMO evolution is not scientific, since it requires EMPIRICAL evidence to be claimed as scientific... Empirical evidence is testable, repeatable, observable... Can you show evidence that are all these things that directly shows evolution? If you can't then you must admit that it doesn't qualify for "scientific" status.

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?

4. Go on, do it don't say you'll do it :blink:

5. What is this "strong evidence"?

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

Are these new functions totally novel, or are they just a variant of the old function?
An analogy- how does a blank piece of paper get the words on it for a story? I say blank as the initial information needs to get there somehow, rather than pre-existing in the form of plasmids etc.

Also what happens to the signal pathway systems in a cell... It is "set up" for the old  function yet when this function changes, how does the signal system adapt to this?

View Post


Waiting for a reply to the above :lol:

#20 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:36 AM

Well, I don't actually believe in any abiogenesis hypothesis and am not obligated to support any of them.  Evolution does not require abiogenesis specifically, all it needs is life already existing.

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?

I would love to present you with some and will do this in future posts.  However we need to make sure we are on the same page when it comes to what is evidence for evolution.

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

Evolution is a scientific theory or in other words an explanation of phenomena we see in nature.  Theories require evidence and I am claiming that evolution has tons of it.

Okay, looking forward to seeing it.

Theories make predictions about the natural world and future discoveries should validate those predictions.  Future evidence must not disprove the theory.  That would count as a piece of evidence against evolution and would require that it be revised.

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

If I can show you a very specific prediction that evolution makes and then show you a discovery we found which validates this prediction, then this is a single piece of evidence for 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.

That is not necessarily a requirement.  Evolution had strong evidence even before we knew the genetic code even existed but I will try to answer this part of your post anyway.  But first, I will have to ask what you mean by information in the genome.  I mean, many mutations do make the genome bigger and others take already existing genes and give them new functions.

View Post

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

In summary this is where you and I likely differ:

1. I reject common descent.

2. I reject the secular interpretation of the fossil record.

3. I reject abiogenesis.

4. I reject The Big Bang.

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

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users