Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#1 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 04:41 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?

#2 Seth

Seth

    Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 07:31 AM

Welcome to the forum Mushy,

One quick and simple answer to your question is, there's no evidence for it. I know, sounds shocking doesn't it? What's even more shocking is that it's TRUE.

But let's just clarify a few things first. There are distinctions to evolution to which most evolutionists feel don't exist. In the Forum rules theres a line concerning "Microevolution ", which I encourage you to look at.

The reason that is important is because in that rule, we are discussing OBSERVABLE Science vs NON-observable Science. While Microevolution is CLEARLY observed, tested and repeated, Macro is not.

If you believe there are Macro examples that CAN be shown then I would EAGERLY look forward to seeing them. Micro is also referred to as Adaptation, which you might already know. The point is species DO change WITHIN. There is PLENTY of evidence of this. However, "evidence" of species changing OUTSIDE of their own kind, is not.

So it would take Empirical Evidence, that one can Observe, test and repeat (the Scientific Method) before I would accept evolution as fact.

#3 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 07:49 AM

Welcome to the forum Mushy,

One quick and simple answer to your question is, there's no evidence for it. I know, sounds shocking doesn't it? What's even more shocking is that it's TRUE.

But let's just clarify a few things first. There are distinctions to evolution to which most evolutionists feel don't exist. In the Forum rules theres a line concerning "Microevolution ", which I encourage you to look at.

The reason that is important is because in that rule, we are discussing OBSERVABLE Science vs NON-observable Science. While Microevolution is CLEARLY observed, tested and repeated, Macro is not.

If you believe there are Macro examples that CAN be shown then I would EAGERLY look forward to seeing them. Micro is also referred to as Adaptation, which you might already know. The point is species DO change WITHIN. There is PLENTY of evidence of this. However, "evidence" of species changing OUTSIDE of their own kind, is not.

So it would take Empirical Evidence, that one can Observe, test and repeat (the "laws" of Science) before I would accept evolution as fact.

View Post


Very good intresting answer, and thanks for the friendly reply. i'll break your post down and give my points of view on it. Firstly, i think its wrong to say there is no evidence for "macro" evolution. (I'll come back to this later).

I agree that micro evolution is alot easier to observe, however, the fact that macro evolution happens over such long times, it cannot be observed in large animals (i.e things other than bacteria) in a single lifetime. This does not mean its not scientific, its just a fact of nature, we cant see different animals evolve differently because it takes millions of years; unfortunatly we are not around for that long.

The reason most people who believe in evolution see micro and macro evolution as the same thing, is probably the reason we see a second and a century as a measurement of time. Seconds are easy to observe as they happen relatively quickly, however given enough time, all those seconds add up to become a century.


I also don't agree on your view that we need to be able to observe something in order for it to be scientific. We cannot observe an electron, yet we know they exist. We can use other methods to find out if the theory of evolution is true.

Fossils, i know you don't buy into them, but we have thousands of transitional fossils. Now granted they arnt a half frog / half sheep etc, but evolution does not say that they would be. In fact, according to evolution there cannot be.

Each time a baby is born in any animal, its a transitional, its the slight genetic differences that add up over time to create vast, amazing differences. There is no half this, half that. In evolution there cannot be.

I'm glad you want to see evidence, however, im not sure what you mean by "that you can observe". We already know, if evolution is true it takes millions of years for a species to change. So obviously we cannot observe that in our lifetime.

I don't want to guess at what you mean, so perhaps you could give me an example of a bit of evidence that would make you go, "aha i guess this is true."

Cheers :(

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 March 2011 - 09:12 AM

Very good intresting answer, and thanks for the friendly reply. i'll break your post down and give my points of view on it. Firstly, i think its wrong to say there is no evidence for "macro" evolution. (I'll come back to this later).

I agree that micro evolution is alot easier to observe, however, the fact that macro evolution happens over such long times, it cannot be observed in large animals (i.e things other than bacteria) in a single lifetime. This does not mean its not scientific, its just a fact of nature, we cant see different animals evolve differently because it takes millions of years; unfortunatly we are not around for that long.

The reason most people who believe in evolution see micro and macro evolution as the same thing, is probably the reason we see a second and a century as a measurement of time. Seconds are easy to observe as they happen relatively quickly, however given enough time, all those seconds add up to become a century.
I also don't agree on your view that we need to be able to observe something in order for it to be scientific. We cannot observe an electron, yet we know they exist. We can use other methods to find out if the theory of evolution is true.

Fossils, i know you don't buy into them, but we have thousands of transitional fossils. Now granted they arnt a half frog / half sheep etc, but evolution does not say that they would be. In fact, according to evolution there cannot be.

Each time a baby is born in any animal, its a transitional, its the slight genetic differences that add up over time to create vast, amazing differences. There is no half this, half that.  In evolution there cannot be.

I'm glad you want to see evidence, however, im not sure what you mean by "that you can observe". We already know, if evolution is true it takes millions of years for a species to change. So obviously we cannot observe that in our lifetime.

I don't want to guess at what you mean, so perhaps you could give me an example of a bit of evidence that would make you go, "aha i guess this is true."

Cheers :(

View Post


'that you can observe'? The fact is there isn't any because evolution does not exist. I never did. The only thing that one can observe is the variation within the kinds that God Almighty has decreed. There is nothing more than that between the various organisms in our world.

P.S. welcome to the board.

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 09:31 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 think you need to distinguish two questions here:
1.) Is evolution possible? Meaning is it possible that an organism via a process of mutation (copying errors in the genes) and reproductive changes in a way that new organic subsystems arise or that existing species population reproduce in a way that novel species arise.
2.) Is the diversity of life the result of evolution (as already descibed under 1. ) from single ancestral organisms. With other words is the tree (or single bushes) of a realistic reflections of how the different species of animals and plants came into being.


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

It's rather that many people do believe it, because it is taught as a fact and they aren't aware of the many problems that there are with Darwinian evolution. So any attempt to let people accept it as fact would have to deal with those problems. I guess many headings of discussions here are actually examples of those problems.

#6 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 09:39 AM

I think you need to distinguish two questions here:
1.) Is evolution possible? Meaning is it possible that an organism via a process of mutation (copying errors in the genes) and reproductive changes in a way that new organic subsystems arise or that existing species population reproduce in a way that novel species arise.
2.) Is the diversity of life the result of evolution (as already descibed under 1. ) from single ancestral organisms. With other words is the tree (or single bushes) of a realistic reflections of how the different species of animals and plants came into being. 
It's rather that many people do believe it, because it is taught as a fact and they aren't aware of the many problems that there are with Darwinian evolution. So any attempt to let people accept it as fact would have to deal with those problems. I guess many headings of discussions here are actually examples of those problems.

View Post



I don't want to get side tracked on the thread. Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you would find acceptable proof of macro evolution. Then maybe you could give me some examples of the problems you have with evolution. I'm not a scientist, but i'd like to hear your points.

Thanks.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 March 2011 - 09:51 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


Hi Mushy,

Nice to have a friendly Atheist on board. Creation and evolution make completely different predictions, so the evidence in support of one or the other should be the complete opposite. There is no way that we could say that it's all in the Interpretation of the evidence.

So, what we should see is one model having to constantly change it's hypothesis because the evidence doesn't match it's predictions.(e.g. Lamarkism -Darwinism - Neo Darwinism/ Gradualism - Punctuated Equillibrium).

Here's a hint: God still created in six literal days ~7,000 years ago and sent a global flood over the entire planet ~5,000 years ago and there has never been any evidence to force a change of that hypothesis. Clearly, the evidence is in favor of creation.



Enjoy.

#8 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:03 AM

Hi Mushy,

Nice to have a friendly Atheist on board. Creation and evolution make completely different predictions, so the evidence in support of one or the other should be the complete opposite. There is no way that we could say that it's all in the Interpretation of the evidence.

So, what we should see is one model having to constantly change it's hypothesis because the evidence doesn't match it's predictions.(e.g. Darwinism - Neo Darwinism/ Gradualism - Punctuated Equillibrium).

Here's a hint: God still created in six literal days ~7,000 years ago and sent a global flood over the entire planet ~5,000 years ago and there has never been any evidence to force a change of that hypothesis. Clearly the evidence is in favor of creation.
Enjoy.

View Post


I understand why the idea that science keeps changing its theories may make it seem like its wrong and constantly has to come up with a new theory. However, can you not see if from this point of view, Cars for example, when we look back now at the first cars developed, they were bad lets face it, so people changed and refined their ideas and over time by changing and trial and error we have been able to increase our understanding and build better cars.

Its my belief (and i hope i don't offend anyone), that because you have such faith in your religion, you are always going to reject any information that contradicts the bible. I understand faith is important to you. However, its got to a point now where you have to deny and reject so much areas of science that it must at least have you questioning yourself?

Look at everything we have achieved with science, the internet, computers, cars, aeroplanes, anti biotics, we know science works because of all the great things it has given us. Why do you think that all these science fields are suddenly wrong when they contradict the bible?

Astronomy, geology, biology etc why would they all be wrong on one topic and correct about everything else? Does that not seem a little strange?

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:26 AM

I understand why the idea that science keeps changing its theories may make it seem like its wrong and constantly has to come up with a new theory. However, can you not see if from this point of view, Cars for example, when we look back now at the first cars developed, they were bad lets face it, so people changed and refined their ideas and over time by changing and trial and error we have been able to increase our understanding and build better cars.


The first car worked fine. Technological evolution is something I don't deny. However, biological evolution didn't work out with it's original hypothesis and hundreds of years later, it still can't fit the data into it's model without ignoring huge amounts of it.

It would be akin to Ford trying to produce the first model A for 300 years and saying "I know automotive theory must be true and I'm going to prove it one day."



Its my belief (and i hope i don't offend anyone), that because you have such faith in your religion, you are always going to reject any information that contradicts the bible.


There is and always will be information that contracts the bible, but the evidence does not. In fact, if you have to keep changing a hypothesis because evidence contradicts it, then that is more of a faith statement in evolution than I have in the bible.


Astronomy, geology, biology etc why would they all be wrong on one topic and correct about everything else? Does that not seem a little strange?


Yes it would if it didn't support creation, but it does. The father of Geology, Paleontology, Genetics, Astronomy, etc. were all creationists and it all worked fine under that premise and still does.

When has a paleontologist said "If creation were true, then we should find a fossil record that shows abrupt appearance and stasis throughout the geologic column" and never found exactly that?

#10 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:35 AM

There is and always will be information that contracts the bible, but the evidence does not. In fact, if you have to keep changing a hypothesis because evidence contradicts it, then that is more of a faith statement in evolution than I have in the bible.
Yes it would if it didn't support creation, but it does. The father of Geology, Paleontology, Genetics, Astronomy, etc. were all creationists and it all worked fine under that premise and still does.

When has a paleontologist said "If creation were true, then we should find a fossil record that shows abrupt appearance and stasis throughout the geologic column" and never found exactly that?

View Post


I'm sorry, but to claim that science supports the bible isn't true. Science tells us the universe is 13.5 billion years old, it tells us there never was a global flood, it tells us that life evolved, it tells us that the big bang created the universe.

Now, i fully understand if you don't believe these scientific theories to be true, because of you faith. But to say science supports the bible is not true. The scientific information we have now contradicts the bible. I respect your right to disagree with the theories, thats fine, but you cannot say that science supports the bible.

#11 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 28 March 2011 - 11:30 AM

I'm sorry, but to claim that science supports the bible isn't true. Science tells us the universe is 13.5 billion years old, it tells us there never was a global flood, it tells us that life evolved, it tells us that the big bang created the universe.

Now, i fully understand if you don't believe these scientific theories to be true, because of you faith. But to say science supports the bible is not true. The scientific information we have now contradicts the bible. I respect your right to disagree with the theories, thats fine, but you cannot say that science supports the bible.

View Post

Greetings mushy;
History isn't directly repeatable. What happened for the origins of life before evolution?--How did the thing that evolve come to exist? Your right in that it has to do with faith/beliefs. We both have the same evidence, same earth. But we perceive things differently/have a different worldview.

#12 Seth

Seth

    Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 11:47 AM

When I (we) say "Observe" this doesn't necessary JUST mean to "See" something "physical" but includes observing the "Affects". For instance, we observe a magnet pulling on metal. We don't "See" some "physical" manifestation of the force that the magnet is exerting on the metal but we certainly observe its "affects" (influence) on the piece of metal, as in gravity. In gravity we don't "See" the force pulling matter but we certainly can observe the effects of the “force” of. So while observation most certainly includes SEEING, it is not limited by that.

However, where Evolution is concerned (Macro) we DO need to SEE as we do in Micro. Because in THIS case we aren’t just dealing with the "AFFECT" of FORCE, "energy" or "power", etc. The difference is SEEING the CAUSE verses just seeing the AFFECTS only. We need to see the “cause” or “mechanism” behind Macro.

We can SEE cells split. We can SEE DNA and how it's operating. We don’t just see the effects however of what is occurring we see the CAUSE of this physical change occurring. If we didn't, we would conclude that cells are just popping out of nowhere making duplicates of themselves. That being said there are still examples of AFFECTS that are also CONSISTENTLY observed as well. In other words we see the SAME RESULTS happening all the time, like gravity, magnetism or breeding. This “consistency” of observation is important to understand so we can contrast these REALITIES toward the theory of evolution. And there IS a HUGE Contrast between these REALITIES and what Macro is "trying" to "tell" us. Can we observe, in ANY way, Macro happening? No we can not.

The ONLY things we OBSERVE CONSISTENTLY is MICRO-evolution occurring. That's It! To "say" that we can't see Macro because it takes a "long" time begs the question, how do you KNOW it takes a "long" time, especially if we aren't around to OBSERVE this??? What is "proving" this to you, the fact that some Scientist is "telling" you this? There's got to be a "reason" why someone is saying Macro takes a long time, they must have "Observed" SOMETHING to tell them this. Otherwise how CAN they know? Hint: They don't! It's mere SPECULATION.

Think about that reasoning or argument.
I tell someone this is "how" such and such happened. Then they ask me, well can I observe it happening? I say, no you can't because it takes too long to see it happen. To which they reply, well then "How did you KNOW it takes a long time to happen if none of us can be around to observe it happening or lived long enough to say so? I say, because it happened. They say, yeah I know it happened but HOW do you know it took a long time TO happen? Can you follow that? :(

Science NEEDS to have "Something" that is telling them that Macro occurs but that it takes a "long" time to do so. What is that "something"? HOW do you know it takes a long time? Is this “Assumed”? Why yes, yes it is. Assumptions, however, are NOT Empirical Evidence!

The example you gave about seconds turning into a Century is not a fair or accurate analogy, where Micro and Macro evolution is concerned. Why? Because the MECHANISM of Micro does the OPPOSITE of what Macro NEEDS to occur.

Let me illustrate. (I've given this example before) It's the difference between DRIVING from San Fransisco to New York and FLYING or taking a BOAT from New York to London. Driving and Flying (or taking a boat) are two DIFFERENT mechanisms of travel. All the driving in the world will NEVER get you from New York to London. You NEED ANOTHER MECHANISM! Macro NEEDS another mechanism because Micro doesn't deal with "ADDING" but with "LOSING" or "MAINTAINING" genes within the species. If you can SHOW ANYWHERE a NEW gene being "somehow" ADDED to an existing species that would be BIG NEWS!!! It's NEVER been seen.

Since I've never seen (or read where Scientists have seen) a NEW gene "added" to a species and since I’ve never been provided the “evidence” for the argument or “reasoning” of how one knows Macro takes a long time, it gives me ANOTHER reason why I reject Macro-Evolution.

#13 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 11:49 AM

Greetings mushy;
History isn't directly repeatable.  What happened for the origins of life before evolution?--How did the thing that evolve come to exist?  Your right in that it has to do with faith/beliefs.  We both have the same evidence, same earth.  But we perceive things differently/have a different worldview.

View Post


Hi. :(
You are correct to a certain extent. However, you as a creationist, make a choice to reject some parts of science, that you believe to be incorrect because of your faith. Simply because, if you don't reject carbon dating for example, that would prove the idea of a 6000-10000 year old earth wrong.

Now, if carbon dating dated everything to under 6000 years old, im sure you would not reject it. My point being, your acceptance or dismissal of scientific theories is based on weather or not they agree with your faith. So no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

I understand why you cant accept these theories, if you believe the bible literally and that everything it says is true, you cannot accept anything that contradicts it, even if you see it has alot of evidence to back it up. Would that be accurate?

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 March 2011 - 11:51 AM

I'm sorry, but to claim that science supports the bible isn't true. Science tells us the universe is 13.5 billion years old, it tells us there never was a global flood, it tells us that life evolved, it tells us that the big bang created the universe.


Science doesn't say the universe is 13.5 billion years old; It's an assumption by some scientists. Science doesn't say there ever was a big bang. In fact, science says that a big bang and star formation isn't even possible.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt,"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Abraham Loeb, Harvard Center for Astrophysics, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." New Scientist, V.157, 2/7/1998, p.30 Derek Ward-Thompsom, Cardiff Univ. "Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, yet the processes by which they are formed are not understood." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577 Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."

GALAXIES "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, James Trefil, Physics, George Mason U., "It seems that the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, the more those laws seem to tell us that the visible matter–the stuff we can see–shouldn't be arranged the way it is. There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ...The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist...Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies..." Dark Side Of The Universe, 1988, pp.2, 55 Martin Rees, "The most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood. If galaxies didn't exist, we would have no problem explaining that fact.", Dallas Morning News, 8/15/1988

ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM, Sir H. Jeffries, Cambridge,"I think all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.", The Earth, 1970, p.359. Fred Whipple, Harvard "All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied." Orbiting The Sun, 1981, p.284. Ida, Canup, & Stewart, "Many models have been proposed for the formation of the Moon, but no one has succeeded in showing the formation satisfactorily." Nature, V.389, 9/25/1997, p. 353 Nafi Toksoz, M.I.T., "It's far easier to explain why the moon shouldn't be there than to explain its existence.", Science 81, 3/81, p.120. Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar and Planetary Institute, "The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure." Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective Cambridge University Press, p.53 "All in all, developing a theory of lunar origins that could make sense of data obtained from the Apollo lunar landing programme proved very difficult. So much so, in fact, that when I took a class on our planetary system from Irvin Shapiro two decades ago, he joked that the best explanation was observational error — the moon did not exist." Nature, V.389, 9/25/1997, p.327

Once again, it isn't my faith saying these things; it is science.



If God created the universe then we should find uniform background radiation in the universe. When it was found, evolutionary cosmologists had to change the theory to inflation theory to account for the evidence.

Doesn't that once again sound like a completely different model trying to explain why the evidence is in clear support of another model?

I understand why you cant accept these theories, if you believe the bible literally and that everything it says is true, you cannot accept anything that contradicts it, even if you see it has alot of evidence to back it up. Would that be accurate?


No. I only recently came to believe in the bible. I was a creationist like Cuvier;I had my own account of creation apart from the bible until I started to check data against the bible and the data confirmed the bible for me.

#15 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:01 PM

The ONLY things we OBSERVE CONSISTENTLY is MICRO-evolution occurring. That's It! To "say" that we can't see Macro because it takes a "long" time begs the question, how do you KNOW it takes a "long" time, especially if we aren't around to OBSERVE this??? What is "proving" this to you, the fact that some Scientist is "telling" you this? There's got to be a "reason" why someone is saying Macro takes a long time, they must have "Observed" SOMETHING to tell them this. Otherwise how CAN they know? Hint: They don't! It's mere SPECULATION.

Think about that reasoning or argument.
I tell someone this is "how" such and such happened. Then they ask me, well can I observe it happening? I say, no you can't because it takes too long to see it happen. To which they reply, well then "How did you KNOW it takes a long time to happen if none of us can be around to observe it happening or lived long enough to say so? I say, because it happened. They say, yeah I know it happened but HOW do you know it took a long time TO happen? Can you follow that? smile.gif

Science NEEDS to have "Something" that is telling them that Macro occurs but that it takes a "long" time to do so. What is that "something"? HOW do you know it takes a long time? Is this “Assumed”? Why yes, yes it is. Assumptions, however, are NOT Empirical Evidence!


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?

#16 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:15 PM

Science doesn't say the universe is 13.5 billion years old; It's an assumption by some scientists. Science doesn't say there ever was a big bang. In fact, science says that a big bang and star formation isn't even possible.


Science does not say that a star formation and a big bang is impossible. You have quoted from the 1% of people who don't agree with the 99% of other scientists. Why do you feel that the 1% is correct and the other 99% is wrong?





If God created the universe then we should find uniform background radiation in the universe. When it was found, evolutionary cosmologists had to change the theory to inflation theory to account for the evidence.

Doesn't that once again sound like a completely different model trying to explain why the evidence is in clear support of another model?


I might be stupid, but i cant see how a creator would mean that there would be background radiation? I'm not being funny i don't get your point. In fact, i think the background radiation is one of the key points for supporting the big bang.

You know we can measure how galaxys are moving further away using the doppler effect and looking at their redshift right? This is to do with wavelengths, red has a longer wavelength, therefore as a galaxy moves away its light waves become longer and therefore appear redshifted.

If you take that principle even further, and say the waves had been travelling away from us from the start of the big bang, those waves would be so long that they would no longer be light waves, but they would have become microwaves. Thats why we have the background radiation.

#17 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:36 PM

I don't want to get side tracked on the thread.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, just to pin down a point to start from. I guess it's clear before we can go to "evolution as an explanation for the existence of different species", we first have to demonstrate that "change from a lower to a higher species over generations" is even possible. Well, actually one would have to start with abiogenesis.

Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you would find acceptable proof of macro evolution.

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

Then maybe you could give me some examples of the problems you have with evolution.

For starters all observed reproduction has shown that the offspring is always the same then the parent generation. You only can mate parents from the same biological genus and there is even a barriere between different species hybridization. Minor, very, very tiny changes from one generations do (occur), but they are quite usually impairing the new generation. While one can imagine that positive mutations can occur, this for sure isn't common.
One can exclude that new complex functional structures in organism come into being via a process of random mutations.

I'm not a scientist, but i'd like to hear your points.

View Post

Most here aren't, some will have some science education or experience as part of their carreers. I'm sure you got at least some high school science and can grasp the concepts.

#18 Mushy

Mushy

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2011 - 01:17 PM

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

View Post


Do you mean at a genetic level or using fossils?

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 March 2011 - 01:32 PM

Science does not say that a star formation and a big bang is impossible. You have quoted from the 1% of people who don't agree with the 99% of other scientists. Why do you feel that the 1% is correct and the other 99% is wrong?


I'm not saying that most scientists agree or disagree; I'm asserting the fact that the physics don't agree. What the majority of scientists continue to be baffled by is an all together different thing.

I might be stupid, but i cant see how a creator would mean that there would be background radiation? I'm not being funny i don't get your point. In fact, i think the background radiation is one of the key points for supporting the big bang.


Your not stupid. God sees us all as having the same potential. All you need to do is figure out what that is and apply it.

All energy sources emit radiation. Stars being massive balls of energy just happen to produce massive amounts of radiation. It's like being suprised that God created fish, but why would they have gills?

You know we can measure how galaxys are moving further away using the doppler effect and looking at their redshift right? This is to do with wavelengths, red has a longer wavelength, therefore as a galaxy moves away its light waves become longer and therefore appear redshifted.


Light color is also a product of the chemical proportions of the star. What if a quasar and a galaxy were connected together, but had a discordant red shift? Would that prove that color spectrum is not a product of distance or motion?

http://www.answersin...1/i3/quasar.asp


Enjoy.

#20 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 28 March 2011 - 01:35 PM

Hi. :)
You are correct to a certain extent. However, you as a creationist, make a choice to reject some parts of science, that you believe to be incorrect because of your faith. Simply because, if you don't reject carbon dating for example, that would prove the idea of a 6000-10000 year old earth wrong.

Now, if carbon dating dated everything to under 6000 years old, im sure you would not reject it. My point being, your acceptance or dismissal of scientific theories is based on weather or not they agree with your faith. So no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

I understand why you cant accept these theories, if you believe the bible literally and that everything it says is true, you cannot accept anything that contradicts it, even if you see it has alot of evidence to back it up. Would that be accurate?

View Post


You understand what I meant - people interpret evidence based on their worldview, yes I understand you. Thank you for having this discussion.

In regards to your 1st example the Dragon/Dinosaur red blood cells that Mary S. found is an example of one area of disagreement. You can also look at "living fossils", dependancies of life in studying the 'evolutionary tree' vs. 'creation orchard' models. In regaurd to your second claim I believe the bible is the "Word of God" God's revelation to man.

For your accepting the theiries statement I believe that the bible is God's revealed revelation to man... I'll have to look up again why he uses fallable people to convey his message. For me evolution the way of some Naturalistic Atheists is like building a tower without a foundation. A building is evidence for a builder, a creation a creator. I need, depend on a Savior and Love. Thanks for coming here, you can share interests/talk in the general discussion. Carefull of the rules or the mods will be on you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users