Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#21 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:06 PM

I think this is a good question. Ok, so we both agree, macro evolution as set out in darwins theory of evolution would take such a long time to occur that we can not see it in a human lifetime. Your main problem is, well if no one has observed it how do we know it takes so long?

Well have you ever thought about the various methods of dating fossils? Again im not a scientist so without googling, i cannot name you any fossils off hand, but say we have an early ancestor of us humans. We have the ability to date that fossil, I think there was one called lucy, that was a common ancestor to humans that dated 6,000,000 years ago. So we know at least roughly, how long it took that step to occur.

I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with a better example, but isnt that proof enough that it takes a long time?

View Post


We both agree that the theory "says" that, but I certainly don't agree that (macroevolution) is happening in ANY length of time. It doesn't happen at all! It's a fairytale. I know this is a shocking thing to hear but it is true.

The reason we call it that (a fairytale) is because almost any article, youtube video or lecture you hear in support of evolution is full of SPECULATION, PERSONAL reasoning or Extrapolations of observable micro into un-observable macro. For example let's look at your fossil argument.

Fossil dating is filled with it's own set of problems, but let's just say "for arguments sake" that those dates are correct. You argue that that would be a good example showing that macro takes a long time so I have to ask. How does that provide evidence or "proof" that it takes a long time? You see, you've just done what MANY Scientists who support evolution do. They look at old bones and "MAKE UP" their "OWN" conclusions. These conclusions are NOT the result of any empirical evidence they are the result of a BELIEF (yes a FAITH) that evolution is true.

#22 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:11 PM

Attached File  Skull_Evolution_NOT.jpg   131.43KB   2 downloadsTake a look at these bones. How does this prove macro evolution?

#23 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ireland

Posted 29 March 2011 - 01:25 AM

Hi guys, I think its best if we dont get dragged of course, i mean you are all asking me things that have been answered by scientists alot smarter than me, many times before. I have read their theories and the proof of them and accept it. Its clear you dont. Again thats fine, i really didnt want to get into a debate about weather or not you think evolution is true, because its clear i would never be able to change your mind. Its my opinion that the evidence is there, you don't accept it, thats your choice.

Thats the reason for my original question and hopefully we can get back to it, because the path we are going down now, will probably lead to alot of frustration and pettyness. I actually think telling someone they are wrong which i have started to do on here, is wrong! You are entitled to your faith and i respect that you have faith, and i don't want to question that.

Perhaps we can start again and get back to the original question. Just to keep it simple, off hand would any of you have a specific example of what a scientist would have to present to you in order for you to believe in evolution?

I'm not doing this to mock you or anything, i just want to see what it would take to make you realise it as fact and accept it?

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 29 March 2011 - 02:42 AM

Hi guys,  I think its best if we dont get dragged of course, i mean you are all asking me things that have been answered by scientists alot smarter than me, many times before. I have read their theories and the proof of them and accept it. Its clear you dont. Again thats fine, i really didnt want to get into a debate about weather or not you think evolution is true, because its clear i would never be able to change your mind. Its my opinion that the evidence is there, you don't accept it, thats your choice.

Thats the reason for my original question and hopefully we can get back to it, because the path we are going down now, will probably lead to alot of frustration and pettyness. I actually think telling someone they are wrong which i have started to do on here, is wrong! You are entitled to your faith and i respect that you have faith, and i don't want to question that.

Perhaps we can start again and get back to the original question. Just to keep it simple, off hand would any of you have a specific example of what a scientist would have to present to you in order for you to believe in evolution?

I'm not doing this to mock you or anything, i just want to see what it would take to make you realise it as fact and accept it?

View Post


For me to believe in evolution.

1. A line of progression of traits... No leaps or jumps, (I am lenient and will not mind if only a few species are accounted for, however the ones used as evidence must show pretty much all the changes from one to the other, as evidence doesn't utilise assumption)

2. A mathematical equation for "natural selection" or "evolution"... Since pretty much everything in life is derived from maths, so should evolution "science"

3. An observable, testable repeatable / demonstratable mechanism for the evolution of the following features...

glycolysis + citric acid cycle + electron transport chain

interdependant body systems (could be hard)

the formation of the first cell wall (in the prehistoric "soup")

how chromosome numbers increase in animals with no ill effects (as according to Mendels first Law, which evolution defies)

DNA self repair mechanisms, (and how life survived without them before)


All three things will make evolution an actual scientific theory, and thus worthy of my appreciation.

#25 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ireland

Posted 29 March 2011 - 03:25 AM

For me to believe in evolution.

1. A line of progression of traits... No leaps or jumps, (I am lenient and will not mind if only a few species are accounted for, however the ones used as evidence must show pretty much all the changes from one to the other, as evidence doesn't utilise assumption)

2. A mathematical equation for "natural selection" or "evolution"... Since pretty much everything in life is derived from maths, so should evolution "science"

3. An observable, testable repeatable / demonstratable mechanism for the evolution of the following features...

glycolysis + citric acid cycle + electron transport chain

interdependant body systems (could be hard)

the formation of the first cell wall (in the prehistoric "soup")

how chromosome numbers increase in animals with no ill effects (as according to Mendels first Law, which evolution defies)

DNA self repair mechanisms, (and how life survived without them before)
All three things will make evolution an actual scientific theory, and thus worthy of my appreciation.

View Post


1) I don't have them to hand. But ive seen numerous times pictures of all the different transitional fossils from a common ancestor to humans. In fact i saw a picture the other day of 12 or so skulls side by side. Just as a test, i compared the first skull with the second and could see very little difference. Then i waited a while and compared the second to the third and again could see very little difference. Then the third to the fourth and so on. By the time i got to the 12th i could see little to no difference in each step i looked at individualy. However, when i compared the 12th to the 1st skull they looked majorly different, and i think thats a good but very basic way of looking at evolution.

2) I don't know if you could create and equation for how life would evolve, i imagine if life had to evolve again from scratch, it would probably be quite different, it was just a lucky random mutation that worked, that made us evolve this way. I don't know how you could account for that in maths.

3) I don't know much about genomics, so im not even sure of what you are saying makes any sense. I'll leave it for someone else to hopefully answer, ill do a bit of googling and see if i can see any scientific response to the claims when i get a bit of spare time.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 29 March 2011 - 03:32 AM

1) I don't have them to hand. But ive seen numerous times pictures of all the different transitional fossils from a common ancestor to humans. In fact i saw a picture the other day of 12 or so skulls side by side. Just as a test, i compared the first skull with the second and could see very little difference. Then i waited a while and compared the second to the third and again could see very little difference. Then the third to the fourth and so on. By the time i got to the 12th i could see little to no difference in each step i looked at individualy. However, when i compared the 12th to the 1st skull they looked majorly different, and i think thats a good but very basic way of looking at evolution.

2) I don't know if you could create and equation for how life would evolve, i imagine if life had to evolve again from scratch, it would probably be quite different, it was just a lucky random mutation that worked, that made us evolve this way. I don't know how you could account for that in maths.

3) I don't know much about genomics, so im not even sure of what you are saying makes any sense. I'll leave it for someone else to hopefully answer, ill do a bit of googling and see if i can see any scientific response to the claims when i get a bit of spare time.

View Post


1) I have seen many examples, but they do not suit the criteria I have asked for.. No Jumps.. No assumption needed

2) Biology is applied Chemistry, Chemistry is applied Physics, Physics is applied Maths.... Hence pretty much everything can be derived to a mathematical equation..

Much of what occurs in a cell can be regarded in an engineering (mathematical) concept... I find it hard to believe that evolution must be outside of this, and thus remain ambiguous... (smoke and mirrors perhaps? :) )

3) Feel free to have a look :) I have asked these questions to my lecturers and other evolutionists, I have not recieved a satisfactory scientific answer yet... Perhaps you can be the first?

#27 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 March 2011 - 03:53 AM

Proof for possibility would be to demonstrate a "change from a lower to a higher species over generations".

Do you mean at a genetic level or using fossils?

View Post

No, I'm talking about doing experimental test runs of did, like i.e. Gregror Mendel did to find laws of heredity.
On a genetic/genome level you won't be able to prove this, while one would include it in the generational Analysis, of course. To find some commonalities in the DNA sequences isn't really prove for common ancestry, it could be hint to common design as well. And the fossils, what are they supposed to prove? You can't prove they had any kids or ancestors of a lower/higher species. What the "fossil record" however does is to prove one or more major catastrophic events in the past (rapid burial) and demonstrate that there is a absence of transition between differing species. Animals appear in the layers suddenly and fully functional.

#28 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ireland

Posted 29 March 2011 - 04:37 AM

1) I have seen many examples, but they do not suit the criteria I have asked for.. No Jumps.. No assumption needed

2) Biology is applied Chemistry, Chemistry is applied Physics, Physics is applied Maths.... Hence pretty much everything can be derived to a mathematical equation..

Much of what occurs in a cell can be regarded in an engineering (mathematical) concept... I find it hard to believe that evolution must be outside of this, and thus remain ambiguous... (smoke and mirrors perhaps? :) )

3) Feel free to have a look :) I have asked these questions to my lecturers and other evolutionists, I have not recieved a satisfactory scientific answer yet... Perhaps you can be the first?

View Post


1) So you need every generation fossilised between two species? so hundreds of thousands of fossils, thats alot to ask for :P

2) if everything can be derived from a mathmatical equation, then i assume we can come up with an equation to explain what way a bird is going to move throughout its life, but if we cant, birds arnt real? :)

3) I'm no scientist, just have an interest in the subject and hate seeing other arrogant athiests. No need to be rude, even though it can be frustrating. No wonder you guys see us as some sort of evil doers lol.




No, I'm talking about doing experimental test runs of did, like i.e. Gregror Mendel did to find laws of heredity.
On a genetic/genome level you won't be able to prove this, while one would include it in the generational Analysis, of course. To find some commonalities in the DNA sequences isn't really prove for common ancestry, it could be hint to common design as well. And the fossils, what are they supposed to prove? You can't prove they had any kids or ancestors of a lower/higher species. What the "fossil record" however does is to prove one or more major catastrophic events in the past (rapid burial) and demonstrate that there is a absence of transition between differing species. Animals appear in the layers suddenly and fully functional.


If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

The different layers we find the rocks prove that there could not have been a global flood. Hydrological sorting would not form the layers of rock we see now, in hydrological sorting the heavier rocks and sediment would sink first into a layer and each layer would be lighter and finer than the one before. Thats not what we see in the different layers.

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 29 March 2011 - 05:10 AM

1) So you need every generation fossilised between two species? so hundreds of thousands of fossils, thats alot to ask for  :)

2) if everything can be derived from a mathmatical equation, then i assume we can come up with an equation to explain what way a bird is going to move throughout its life, but if we cant, birds arnt real?  :)

3) I'm no scientist, just have an interest in the subject and hate seeing other arrogant athiests. No need to be rude, even though it can be frustrating. No wonder you guys see us as some sort of evil doers lol.

If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

View Post

1)No not every generation... (I never said this, you did).. since in modern species we do not see major morphological changes in each generation, (there is variation, but this is not evolution). All I ask is for a progress of transition from one to the other.. (Darwin also said that we should see this...).. More fossil proof will be to find the "failed" attempts at the production of a new design.. Since evolution is random, and "natural selection" weeds out those that do not adapt. Where are the ones that were weeded out? OR do you guys assume that evolution got the design right, first time every time?

2) The way a bird goes has no relevance to Biology as a science. Hence your reply has no relevance to my question.

3) Never said you were evil... I am agnostic, (theistic agnostic).

The same "base" is DNA..

Geologists have found VAST amounts of water inside the magma under the earths crust. It is either bonded to the minerals, or as pockets of super heated water... (the pressure ensures it is still liquid)

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 March 2011 - 06:28 AM

...If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

DNA-structure can be considered to be of the same base for all organisms. All utilize proteins and certain mechanism in the cell are common. Many subsystems of organisms are so complex they infer design instead of a path of gradual changes via mutations.

The different layers we find the rocks prove that there could not have been a global flood. Hydrological sorting would not form the layers of rock we see now, in hydrological sorting the heavier rocks and sediment would sink first  into a layer and each layer would be lighter and finer than the one before. Thats not what we see in the different layers.

Most layers are that big and distributed, they can only have come from a global flood event. Layers are hydrologically internally and this is often visible even for a leaks eye. And there is nothing that prevents the layers from having come from more then one mud flow, which would easily explain having heavier materials in higher layers.

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

View Post

Actually no extra water is needed, if you level the earth surface as it is today, you'd get one big ocean deeper then a mile. The mountains as we know them today are a result of tectonic movements after the flood or why do you think one finds fossils there of marine creatures? Another issue would be coral reefs in depth where no light can reach them indicating that the sea has sunk deeply at these places.
As for the distribution of animals, they could easily have migrated to many places, when the sea levels were lower (due to trapped inland water, ice age glaciation, etc.). Humans could have introduced them at other remote places and many animals can actually swim and drive on wood.

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 March 2011 - 06:53 AM

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post


I was going to respond to this post right after you posted it, and provide for the many presuppositions and erroneous prejudices you built within your OP. But I waited, and I’m glad I did so, because there have been many sound and reasonable refutations to your assertions (that you haven’t answered yet I might add).

First – Let me say that I too was once an atheist that had the same faith based worldview that you currently espouse. But after many years of study and reflection, I have found absolutely NO empirical evidence to back up “macro-evolution”. If you could provide said evidences, I would greatly appreciate it.

Secondly – When you say that you have very “little doubt that the theory of evolution is true”, you proceed on faith and not fact. But, if you could provide said evidences, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thirdly – To assert that “the main reason people don't believe in it (macro-evolution), is because they don't understand it.” is a large assumption on your part, and a very prejudicial and arrogant statement on your part as well.

Fourthly – What would it take for me to accept macro-evolution as a fact? Evidence would be a start. Why? Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence what-so-ever for macroevolution yet adduced. Just presuppositions and "a priori" reasoning.

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 March 2011 - 09:46 AM

1) I don't have them to hand. But ive seen numerous times pictures of all the different transitional fossils from a common ancestor to humans. In fact i saw a picture the other day of 12 or so skulls side by side.



Mushy,

The problem your having is believing that this is evidence of evolution and assuming that we haven't investigated this evidence - just ignoring it because we believe the bible instead.

I can tell you what everyone of those skulls are and can tell you that there isn't a single one that shared a common ancestor with humans and chimps.

Once again, it isn't my faith seeing the evidence the way I percieve it, but secular science that has proven it.

A. aferensis is aligned with Gorillas

Humans related to Oranutans, not Chimps

Let's take this quote by William Thompson when testing hypothesis.

'I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.' William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907)

Now let's put it in numbers.

The DNA in Y chromosome in humans and chimps only share ~70% similarity. That isn't just small scale differences, but entire gene groups.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

If we give evolution every benefit of the doubt and give it 10 million years to accomplish the split from a common ancestor, then we would only be able to account for 1,667 beneficial mutations in that time.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=32706


Now can you express "In Numbers" the reason why we reject evolution?





Enjoy.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 March 2011 - 11:49 AM

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post


Boy, where to start.

1) If evolutionists would actually allow something to challenge it. Instead of this protection game that includes character assassination. Because when you have to go out of the bounds of science to prove what you believe, then it also proves that your claims are weak and will not hold up. If not, then why is it done all the time?

2) If science through the theory of evolution was not about conformism. All evidence, all remarks, and everyone has to conform to this theory, If this theory were such a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence, conformism and character assassination would not be needed. In fact a true proven fact would be so convincing that no one could even come up with an argument against it, But that is not what we see is it?

3) If science would not add more to the evidence then what is there (Exaggerate). Example: Saying that Lucy walked up right when Lucy had the hips of an Ape like animal that does not. Also presenting Lucy as having fully formed human feet when there was "zero" evidence showing this.
Posted Image
Posted Image

Doing whatever it takes (conformism) to make evidence like Lucy walk upright as shown in the video below.

Ef8aAfWbpjc

4) If science would quit using animation as evidence for processes that cannot be observed to convince people that it actually happened. Like the video below that's named: How evolution happens. It's ironic that it only happens to the point claimed in animation only.

yVqJ_mQazik

I work with animation (flash animation). Animation is virtual fantasy unless you are animating a real observable process. No one saw that fish in the animation evolve, did they? So the animation is based on imagination.

5) If evolutionists would admit to the problems with the so called fossil record. Ones where "all" living fossils prove that it is wrong. How?

Posted Image

Every living fossil is found in one layer and alive today. Yet not in any layer above that showing that it lived and it did not change. Example: The coelacanth fish is found in the Devonian layer. And there are 7 layers above that, that it does not show up proving that it survived. The Sea Pen is found in the lowest layer and found alive today. Yet no one is found in the layers above that. A actual record of something would keep accurate records, not gaps. And if this were a fluke for a couple of living fossils then they could be a explanation. But it applies to every living fossil known. They are "never" found in any layer above it, proving the the column is not accurate and was not laid over time.

The Bible says that the flood first started by breaking up the fountains of the deep. Which means the sentiments from that would have buried what was on the bottom of the sea first. Then work it's way up to higher swimming animals and then land animals. And if that is the way it was done, then the proof would be that some complex bottom dwellers got buried in the lowest layer, and the sorting would not show how living fossils survived. And guess what? There is evidence of this. The trilobite is very complex for the lower layer.

Posted ImagePosted Image
And there is no evolution tree to it, or from it, showing how it evolved this complexity, or what it should have evolved into. And I already mentioned the problem with living fossils. But as with every evolutionists, this will be ignored, or excused away, because a challenge to evolution means that it would be shown for what it is.

6) That evolution is really a pagan religion more based on a pagan belief that started back in Egyptian times. The pagan Egyptian religions at that time believed that humans can from animals (macro-evolution). This is why they painted humans on their walls that were half animal, and their pagan gods were also part animal. They also believed that all life came from the slime around the Nile River (abiogenesis). And lived in water, then on land. Sound familiar?

Now why would Darwin's idea sound so similar? Because his only degree was in theology, and to get a theology degree you have to learn about other religious beliefs. So Darwin took ideas from a pagan religion and made it sound scientific. Just like he took ideas from his grandfather's book called Zoonomia, and wrote them in his own book and never gave his grandfather credit (plagiarism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonomia

So if he took ideas from his grandfather's book, why not also take ideas from a pagan religion?

I can make a much longer list if you like, but I figure this is enough for now. What do you think?

#34 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:17 PM

=Mushy,Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM]
As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post


Mushy,

I would believe it if, and this is a big if, evolution were possible. If you can overcome the mathematical improbability of evolution happening, I would consider it. I can give you other reasons, but I will let you respond to this one first.

Laws of Probability or Large Numbers.

Ten to the fiftieth power: If the chances of something happening is greater than this number, then this event will never happen. Mathematicians calculate the probability of a single protein coming by random chance to be ten to the one hundredth and ninety-first power. Here we have proven Romans 1:19-20, “… because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 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.” Evolutionists agree:

The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance. Johnyoo McFadden (Evolutionist and professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Foundation, 2000, p. 85. Note. This atheist professor knows the truth of God but still rejects Him.

The origin of life is also a stubborn problem with no solution in sight… Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Colorado State U, “The Way of the Cell,” 2001, p. 235

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it is without foundation. Why should I accept evolution when atheists can’t produce the evidence? It’s logical and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events, created life.

Teejay

#35 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 March 2011 - 06:06 PM

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post

The best understanding may or may not be truth though. Because I find a bunch of soft bodied marine ichnofossils on the dside of a mountain, collect hypotheses of how it got there, and decide for myself which one "sounds" the best--does not make it truth.

THe ichnofossils can not speak. However, the God that I serve and believe in is alive. He speaks. He acts. He fulfills his word. But he will do nothing for someone who does not believe in Him. But he loves you and sent his Son to die for you. I hope that's not a cliche to you. He does affect me and many others. Jesus said, If any man does the will of my father, he will know that my words are TRUE.

#36 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 April 2011 - 06:20 AM

=Mushy,Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM]
As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post


Mushy,

I challenge you to present this "evidence" that has led you to accept evolution as fact and creation as false.

So as not to overwhelm you, let's take one category of evidence at a time and we can discuss. For example, can you present me evidence from the fossil record.

We need only concern ourselves with the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. If evolution where true, we would find all the transitional forms between Cambrian and Precambrian. But what we find in the fossil record are very complex creatures with zero transitions. I will not settle for a few questionable transitions. There should be millions. Great claims require great evidence. Four-inch knobs on a 70-foot whale are pimples and not legs. Theorizing that these pimples became legs or wings is an arbitrary belief and not science.

Given the fact of evolution, one could expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in just about all phyletic series.

Ernst Mayr (Darwin’s Twentieth Century defender) – Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, “What Evolution Is” 2001, p. 14
Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing. If they have no foundation, they have no starting point.

Also, you wrote that "People don't believe it [evolution] because they don't understand it." For I or you to understand how something happened, we would first have to have some evidence that it happened and then evidence of how it happened. I submit that you can't possibly know how evolution happened. Absent evidence in the fossil, what evidence could you use to explain or believe this?

Teejay

#37 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 April 2011 - 04:41 AM

Mushy,

I challenge you to present this "evidence" that has led you to accept evolution as fact and creation as false.

So as not to overwhelm you, let's take one category of evidence at a time and we can discuss.  For example, can you present me evidence from the fossil record.

We need only concern ourselves with the Cambrian and Precambrian periods.  If evolution where true, we would find all the transitional forms between Cambrian and Precambrian.  But what we find in the fossil record are very complex creatures with zero transitions.  I will not settle for a few questionable transitions.  There should be millions.  Great claims require great evidence.  Four-inch knobs on a 70-foot whale are pimples and not legs.  Theorizing that these pimples became legs or wings is an arbitrary belief and not science.

Given the fact of evolution, one could expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.  But this is not what the paleontologist  finds.  Instead he or she finds gaps in just about all phyletic series.

Ernst Mayr (Darwin’s Twentieth Century defender) – Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, “What Evolution Is” 2001, p. 14
Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing.  If they have no foundation, they have no starting point.

Also, you wrote that "People don't believe it [evolution] because they don't understand it."  For I or you to understand how something happened, we would first have to have some evidence that it happened and then evidence of how it happened.  I submit that you can't possibly know how evolution happened.  Absent evidence in the fossil, what evidence could you use to explain or believe this?

Teejay

View Post

Teejay has given you a worthy challenge. Here is a quote from Stephen J Gould on the fossil record. No one is saying he is acknowledging falsification of evolution. But he has acknowledged the fossil record as it sits.

"When we investigate natural history, we find not living things "evolving into different anatomical structures," but ones that have remained unchanged, even over the course of hundreds of millions of years. This lack of change is referred to by scientists as "stasis." Living fossils and organisms that have not survived down to the present day, but which have left their fossils behind in various strata of the Earth's history are concrete proof of stasis in the fossil record. And this stasis shows that no gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

Stasis and the sudden appearance of fully formed, similar to modern animals, fauna are evidence that forces evos to spin by infererence on other facts. Facts like more diversity in one fossil group (in a geological member or group) than in another. But the fact remains that stasis is found between the different fossil groups that are found together in the Earth.

Posted Image
Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, then became extinct 65 million years ago. But during the intervening 300 million years, the structure seen in the fossils never changed.

Posted Image
Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.

Courtesy of http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 April 2011 - 04:56 AM

I doubt you guys have to worry much about any responses, as Mushy was (self admittedly) only here for stir the pot, troll and attempt to cause Christians to "look the fool". And, as you can tell by his lack of evidential responses to his assertions, or even post rational replies, his plan back fired.

At best, all he could muster was straw man arguments, goal post shifting, non sequitur fallacies and name calling.

If you go back through his posts, you'll find excellent examples of the above, as well as bait and switch tactics. He's been caught in his tactics, and since they were exposed, he refused to come back and answer for his assertions.

#39 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 May 2011 - 01:32 AM

I doubt you guys have to worry much about any responses, as Mushy was (self admittedly) only here for stir the pot, troll and attempt to cause Christians to "look the fool". And, as you can tell by his lack of evidential responses to his assertions, or even post rational replies, his plan back fired.

At best, all he could muster was straw man arguments, goal post shifting, non sequitur fallacies and name calling.



Could you please provide an example? I'v just gone through the thread and found him almost overly cautious.

Would anyone be interested in starting a new thread and going through your problems with evolution one by one?

I dont wont to seem like a troll and if you find me offensive feel free to warn me.

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 May 2011 - 03:11 AM

Could you please provide an example?

View Post

Absolutely... I'll provide numerous: simply click on Mushy's name in his avatar, then click on "find members post". The common thread you'll see is that of time wasting, because his time wasting is not contained within this thread alone.

Further, his entire OP is framed in speculation and belief statements.

I'v just gone through the thread and found him almost overly cautious.

View Post


The underlying premise at the outset is false, and a common evolutionist tactic.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it.

View Post


It is obvious by this thread alone that his premise is incorrect, as most of the posters here who disagree with his premise provide more than enough understanding of evolution to refute his premise.

He further fails to supply anything other than opinion and faith statements in attempts to support his initial premises. It doesn’t take much to notice that he totally ignores the facts presented in opposition of his initial premises, as he continues to counter with more opinion and faith statements instead of providing facts to support his assertions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users