Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

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

Recommended Posts

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Skepticism is a healthy virtue.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Regarding centric fusions, this idea that Miller has sounds like the old idea that speciation happens due to chromosomal variation. This was debunked in the somewhere between the 1980s and the 1990s. Here is a secular peer reviewed paper regarding it if you wish to read it: http://www.pnas.org/content/86/17/6666.full.pdf+html

 

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

 

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdf...j20_3_14-15.pdf

 

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

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?D...Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

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

 

How do living fossils contradict evolution?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

70866[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

70878[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70879[/snapback]

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

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70881[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70883[/snapback]

Thus, science of the gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70847[/snapback]

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

 

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

70847[/snapback]

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

 

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

 

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

70847[/snapback]

70832[/snapback]

I have asked you to consider it? Have you? Or did you just dismiss it because someone ells have not yet proof it. If every one waited for someone ells to proof something, will anything ever be proven?

The next question I want to ask you is: How much of your viewpoint regarding God, evolution and science is you own? How much of your thoughts is just a copy of someone else’s? If most of you thought is your own and you took this discussion searisly you most probably would have not made this statement.

 

 

 

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

70847[/snapback]

We can go back and forth for ever on this. I suggest you read this book.

Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong by Conor Cunningham

You will find that not most Christians believed in a literal historical account of Genesis.

 

The bible said he did.

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

70847[/snapback]

It just proof that you and who ever made this statement do not understand the Bible.

Please read this again: It still stands.

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

70847[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6. Mutations and natural selection.

 

70851[/snapback]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was “How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God of the Bible?â€ÂÂ

This was the most relevant answers I got.

 

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

70818[/snapback]

1.“It doesn't†Unless the only argument for the existents of God is the “design argumentâ€ÂÂ

And the “design argument†is proven to be false. Proving that evolution is true, do not necessary proving the design argument false. This is because the design argument cover match more than the theory of evolution.

 

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

70835[/snapback]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

70847[/snapback]

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

 

I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. Scientific theory’s change as we learn more every day. Some get proven false and some change. I know God live, I do not need a scientist to prove it. And even if evolution is true it does not challenge this fact. It only challenges the book of Genesis and my understanding of it.

P.S. I do challenge evolution on a scientific level. That is what science is all about testing and challenging scientific theories. The same goes for ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was “How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God of the Bible?â€ÂÂ

This was the most relevant answers I got.

1.“It doesn't† Unless the only argument for the existents  of God is the “design argumentâ€ÂÂ

And the “design argument†is proven to be false. Proving that evolution is true, do not necessary proving the design argument false. This is because the design argument cover match more than the theory of evolution.

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution. Scientific theory’s change as we learn more every day. Some get proven false and some change. I know God live, I do not need a scientist to prove it. And even if evolution is true it does not challenge this fact. It only challenges the book of Genesis and my understanding of it.

P.S. I do challenge evolution on a scientific level. That is what science is all about testing and challenging scientific theories. The same goes for ID.

70888[/snapback]

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70889[/snapback]

May I change you statement slightly?

“I believe that atheists use evolution to Insinuate there is no God.†:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70881[/snapback]

And here is my favorite:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is my favorite:

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

 

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

 

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

70892[/snapback]

Brilliant, I have to remember this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regarding centric fusions, this idea that Miller has sounds like the old idea that speciation happens due to chromosomal variation. This was debunked in the somewhere between the 1980s and the 1990s. Here is a secular peer reviewed paper regarding it if you wish to read it: http://www.pnas.org/content/86/17/6666.full.pdf+html

 

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

 

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdf...j20_3_14-15.pdf

 

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

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?D...Pubmed_RVDocSum 

 

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

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

 

Do you want more evidence for evolution?

 

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

70874[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

I am aware that rebuttals have been made to arguments that the bible has flaws, but many of them are not very convincing although some explain things perfectly. Since you are using the bible as evidence of creation, then I will have to address its claims. First I will give you my position of the bible. I positively believe that the bible is not divine. Many atheists think that the bible is all forgery and evil and then many theists think it is divine. In find these positions to be extreme and I try to have a balanced view of the book.

 

The old testament is a collection of the religious writings of the Hebrew people that has many good things in it but is also just as fallible as the people who wrote it. The old testament contains Hebrew history, poetry, laws, moral philosophy, and mythology. In many places these are quite intertwined. The new testament contains the gospels which were written about Jesus decades after his death that probably contain an exaggerated version of his life. Subsequent books in the New Testament contains the various moral writings, history of the Christian churches, and philosophy of the followers of Jesus.

 

The bible has been translated and retranslated several times and many of the books were probably written well after the events they describe. The bible contains the documents that were approved by Roman Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nicea and many religious documents were left out of the bible. The bible contains factual and moral imperfections because its writers were imperfect.

 

 

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

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

 

Of course, just like subsequent findings in atomic theory give atomic theory more to explain. This still does not displace the tons of evidence of in favor of atomic theory as long as new data does not disprove the theory. Usually new data disproves minor points of the theory that has to be tweaked and added to.

 

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

70875[/snapback]

Addition is a situation in which mutations add genes to the genome. Individual genes can be added or entire sequences or chromosomes. Usually additions that have very little effect on the body are the best. Mutations are an integral idea in microevolution or the evolution within speces.

 

Before we talk about information to much, I would like you to define it.

Which of the below options is information?

Increased genetic variety in a population.

Increased genetic material.

Novel genetic material.

Novel genetically-regulated abilities.

Something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL the books of our New Testament were considered Biblical Scripture long before the “First Council of Nicaeaâ€ÂÂ. Christians in different countries and different councils all chose the same canon. I also have a book that goes over the canon and one way that the books are determined genuine is if other Bible writers or people in the Bible books (Jesus does on many occasions) quote them.

 

One way to know that a copy is accurate is to compare it to an older copy and see what has or hasn't been changed. They have found older and older copies and these confirm that the later manuscripts are accurate.

 

Translators compare the earliest translated versions of the scriptures. For the Hebrew scriptures we have The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Aramaic Targums, and the Greek Septuagint. For the Greek scriptures we have the Latin Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian and Syriac versions.

 

If you compare the New Testament to other writings, no other ancient works come close to the accuracy, number of copies, and short time span between the original writing and the earliest surviving copy.

 

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/the_b...cient_books.htm

 

In addition, there have been many attempts to wipe out the people who wrote and kept copies of the Bible and many attempts to destroy the Bible itself. The survival of the Bible throughout the years is remarkable, and on top of survival it is readily available in many places and languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Do you think that all life originated from a single replicating cell after life was somehow conceived? I agree that evolution happens regardless of abiogenesis, but starting at abiogenesis is a great way to test the validity of evolution by an unguided premise. I'm leaving abiogenesis out of it though since you don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.

 

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

I'm talking about the conception of the first replicating cell or gene. We can create programs on computers to do automated task. It is apparent that the designer did the very same thing. Don't worry about micro/macro evolution. I only reject common descent. There is no need for us to talk about those terminologies. We can just call it evolution if you'd like. Micro/macro evolution is a misleading term for both sides. If you have ever seen a creationist and an evolutionist get in a discussion using those terms you'll see that it gets confusing pretty fast.

 

That is one conclusion we can draw, and the existence of DNA does not contradict creationism. I think that the fossil record has very strong evidence for evolution but much evidence for evolution does not come from the fossil record.

If we are to look at the fossil record for evolution, it is very fragmented. Theoretically we should see gradual changes in animals in the geologic column, changes that would point to common descent, but we don't see that. We see animals appear in one strata, completely disappear for a few stratas, then reappear. That isn't a solid record for common descent. Does it disprove common descent? No, but it is a problem for the advocates of common descent. One that is downplayed on a regular basis, it doesn't make the problem go away however.

 

By your statement, are you reconsidering the statement you made earlier that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis? I hope so. :P

 

 

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

The issue that I have is that evolution via chromosome variation has been debunked. Anyone who believes that we were designed would also expect similarities in organisms, because that is the nature of any creator. This is repeatedly demonstrable. How you interpret similarities in DNA depends on the world view that you are approaching it with.

Do you want more evidence for evolution?

You can throw as much evidence at me as you'd like. It doesn't bother me. I'm just here to debate. :P

 

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

70900[/snapback]

About kinds? What manner of an example are you looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that rebuttals have been made to arguments that the bible has flaws, but many of them are not very convincing although some explain things perfectly.  Since you are using the bible as evidence of creation, then I will have to address its claims.  First I will give you my position of the bible.  I positively believe that the bible is not divine.  Many atheists think that the bible is all forgery and evil and then many theists think it is divine.  In find these positions to be extreme and I try to have a balanced view of the book.

The thing about reading any book is that there is a lot of ways to read the same sentence. Have you ever had someone tell you something but you weren't sure of what they meant because you could take it several ways? I think this is the issue that both atheists and Christians have with The Bible at times. You could ask "Well, how do we know if we have a good interpretation?" When you are doing intellectual gymnastics, then it probably means that you have a bad interpretation.

 

The old testament is a collection of the religious writings of the Hebrew people that has many good things in it but is also just as fallible as the people who wrote it.  The old testament contains Hebrew history, poetry, laws, moral philosophy, and mythology.  In many places these are quite intertwined.  The new testament contains the gospels which were written about Jesus decades after his death that probably contain an exaggerated version of his life.  Subsequent books in the New Testament contains the various moral writings, history of the Christian churches, and philosophy of the followers of Jesus.

Well, when you argue morality, you are really talking philosophy. The ten commandments is God's standard for morality. Are you referring to Israeli Law in the old testament?

 

As for stating that Jesus' life is exaggerated, that is really just an opinion of what you believe really happened. However, there were letters to roman leaders with concern about the rise of Christianity shortly after Jesus's death.

 

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

 

 

The Bible has been translated and retranslated several times and many of the books were probably written well after the events they describe.  The bible contains the documents that were approved by Roman Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nicea and many religious documents were left out of the bible.  The bible contains factual and moral imperfections because its writers were imperfect.

There is really no evidence to substantiate this statement. The Hebrew Bible has been translated into different languages. That is it really. Yes, there are different English versions, but all versions that were translated has remained unchanged and point to the same presumed truth.

 

 

Of course, just like subsequent findings in atomic theory give atomic theory more to explain.  This still does not displace the tons of evidence of in favor of atomic theory as long as new data does not disprove the theory.  Usually new data disproves minor points of the theory that has to be tweaked and added to.

You are correct, but I'm pointing out that DNA is a hinderance for naturalistic evolution when you consider the diversity of life originating for a single duplicating gene, cell, or whathaveyou.(Depending on which story you are telling.)

 

Addition is a situation in which mutations add genes to the genome.  Individual genes can be added or entire sequences or chromosomes.  Usually additions that have very little effect on the body are the best.  Mutations are an integral idea in microevolution or the evolution within speces.

All information produced on a genome is derived from coding that was already there. What I am looking for is a mutation that did not utilize information that was already on the genome, which would have to be the case at some point if you were arguing that life came from a single replicating cell. That is as clear as I can tell you as to what I am looking for.

 

Before we talk about information to much, I would like you to define it.  
Which of the below options is information?
Increased genetic variety in a population.
Increased genetic material.
Novel genetic material.
Novel genetically-regulated abilities.
Something else.
[right][snapback]70903[/snapback][/right]
I define genetic information as coding in DNA. See above if you are asking what I am looking for as far as genetic evidence for evolution is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I change you statement slightly?

“I believe that atheists use evolution to Insinuate  there is no God.†:P

70890[/snapback]

No probs, I like the changes :P

 

 

@Dan4

 

Yes I agree that DNA is (potential) information on the genome, however in order for this information to be realised there needs to be a mechanism of de-coding / translating the information. This is not just relegated to the processes of translation and transcription... It goes beyond that, whereby what enabled the ribosomes to correlate their information with DNA... for example how does the ribosomes "know" which amino acids go to what codon sequence??

 

Looking at the codon sequences and you see a PATTERN to most times an amino acid will have many codons coding for it, and the first two bases will be the same whereas the third will be different.. This is to ensure that the mechanism of tRNA wobble doesn't upset what amino acid is used.. (Since the wobble means that the third base used can change, due to the ribosome)

 

Such things cannot be logically concluded as coincidence, hence since naturalistic science cannot find an answer a supernatural one must be invoked as the null hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs, I like the changes :P

@Dan4

 

Yes I agree that DNA is (potential) information on the genome, however in order for this information to be realised there needs to be a mechanism of de-coding / translating the information. This is not just relegated to the processes of translation and transcription... It goes beyond that, whereby what enabled the ribosomes to correlate their information with DNA... for example how does the ribosomes "know" which amino acids go to what codon sequence??

 

Looking at the codon sequences and you see a PATTERN to most times an amino acid will have many codons coding for it, and the first two bases will be the same whereas the third will be different.. This is to ensure that the mechanism of tRNA wobble doesn't upset what amino acid is used.. (Since the wobble means that the third base used can change, due to the ribosome)

 

Such things cannot be logically concluded as coincidence, hence since naturalistic science cannot find an answer a supernatural one must be invoked as the null hypothesis.

70914[/snapback]

You just hit on my point before I even stated it. Thanks for ruining the surprise. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys can I please ask you to get back on topic!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

70926[/snapback]

I can see why you went on this route. And I do understand your frustration.

My original question was.

“How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?â€ÂÂ

I also made it clear that in this OP I’m not interested in why an atheist does not believe in God.

What I challenging is atheist like Richard Dawkins who use evolution as a tool against the existents of God.

In Post #35 I point out the two effects that evolution have on the existent of God. You will find that Dan has not responded on this. Atheist like Dan will argue the literal historical account of Genesis vs. Evolution. But I did give an alternative (a non literal genesis). They also argue design vs evolution. Then I give another alternative.

I think most atheist don’t believe in God because of evolution. They do not what to believe in God and use evolution as an excuse.

By arguing DNA you are defending the design argument. Focus has shifted. From “evolution prove there is no God†to “is there a designâ€ÂÂ.

 

Here is my challenge. Lets from here on consider evolution as an empirical proven fact. Atheists like Dan do not need to defend evolution anymore. All they have to do is to defend the notion that evolution prove there is no God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

70926[/snapback]

I know your frustration, however this IS off topic, whereby the topic was the Original post..(and thus the actual title of the thread)

 

I apologized in post 36 for this as it is quite frustrating when a persons thread goes off the rails and doesn't achieve the intended discussion that the original poster made the thread for.

 

 

Claims of "how the bible is incorrect" and "how evolution is incorrect" have no relevance to the original post... (Dan is as guilty of this as any of us)

 

 

As Crous said before, (in correcting my post :P ), that evolution perhaps insinuates that there is no God...

 

Perhaps by showing that everything can be explained via a naturalistic conclusion that shows how there is no "room" for the supernatural... However this idea fails because science cannot explain ALL such things, (the beginnings of the universe / life), let alone the philosophical questions of purpose and meaning... Hence what I believe is that evolutionary belief does attempt to insinuate that there is no God, however it fails to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms