Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kurieuo]

Finally the notion that I or all atheists find it necessary to "believe something".

...

Hard as it may be for some here to grasp, I dont
"believe in" anything regarding the origin of the universe.

I dont find it necessary or desirable to "pick a belief". I dont know how it all got here,
and I am not going to obsess over trying to unlock mysteries that are beyond anyone's grasp.

Excellent point Audie! Excellent point.

Ken

I saw the mistake when reading the posts in this thread, where Atheists were accused of believing something regarding the origin of the universe.
For me, I understand that many Atheists are content to affirm a position of no belief/non-belief. That is after all what A-theism is -- no God belief.
This extends easily to other areas of knowledge (e.g., universe origins with "we just don't know", life's origins and the like).

For me, it is not that "you guys" must believe something.
BUT, why be disinterested with the origin of universe?

Modern science and reasoning ability provides us with lots of interesting knowledge about the world we live within.
Why would the origin of the universe be beyond anyone's grasp, when other things are not?

I pick a belief based upon what I reason to be the most logical determination, both from current scientific knowledge and logical conclusions.
This reasoning can be quite air tight, even if some prefer to not listen to it.

For example, take your YECs who may refuse to listen to the scientific evidence for an older Earth and universe.
BUT, we don't say that such is beyond anyone's grasp simply because there is disagreement or we can't directly observe Earth over all that time.
Equally, I do not believe the origin of the universe is beyond our grasp.

So what if I am wrong WRONG in my knowledge?

An old Earth and universe might be wrong.
For example, perhaps our whole world and existence is some super-awesome software being run.
Perhaps our "universe" was loaded from 10,000 years ago, meaning all previous didn't ACTUALLY happen. Right?
Can we rule this possibility out? No, we cannot. Should we withhold belief then in the true actual age of our world?

To the best of my reasoning ability and what I know, I'm making the best possible conclusion. Right?
Just like Newtonian physics ended up being replaced by relativistic ones, knowledge is a kind of progression.

Current knowledge about the world I believe makes it highly reasonable to believe in God's creating.
Without this, there are what I consider to be very strong, air-tight reasoning for why our universe could not have always existed in some form or another.

Beyond our grasp, because some disagree? I don't think so.
Not beyond our grasp any more than believing the Earth is billions of years old.
Indeed, to me, the reasoning is more air tight that everything must have been created.

[Kenny]

Finally the notion that I or all atheists find it necessary to "believe something".

...

Hard as it may be for some here to grasp, I dont
"believe in" anything regarding the origin of the universe.

I dont find it necessary or desirable to "pick a belief". I dont know how it all got here,
and I am not going to obsess over trying to unlock mysteries that are beyond anyone's grasp.

Excellent point Audie! Excellent point.

Ken

I saw the mistake when reading the posts in this thread, where Atheists were accused of believing something regarding the origin of the universe.
For me, I understand that many Atheists are content to affirm a position of no belief/non-belief. That is after all what A-theism is -- no God belief.
This extends easily to other areas of knowledge (e.g., universe origins with "we just don't know", life's origins and the like).

For me, it is not that "you guys" must believe something.
BUT, why be disinterested with the origin of universe?

Modern science and reasoning ability provides us with lots of interesting knowledge about the world we live within.
Why would the origin of the universe be beyond anyone's grasp, when other things are not?

I pick a belief based upon what I reason to be the most logical determination, both from current scientific knowledge and logical conclusions.
This reasoning can be quite air tight, even if some prefer to not listen to it.

For example, take your YECs who may refuse to listen to the scientific evidence for an older Earth and universe.
BUT, we don't say that such is beyond anyone's grasp simply because there is disagreement or we can't directly observe Earth over all that time.
Equally, I do not believe the origin of the universe is beyond our grasp.

So what if I am wrong WRONG in my knowledge?

An old Earth and universe might be wrong.
For example, perhaps our whole world and existence is some super-awesome software being run.
Perhaps our "universe" was loaded from 10,000 years ago, meaning all previous didn't ACTUALLY happen. Right?
Can we rule this possibility out? No, we cannot. Should we withhold belief then in the true actual age of our world?

To the best of my reasoning ability and what I know, I'm making the best possible conclusion. Right?
Just like Newtonian physics ended up being replaced by relativistic ones, knowledge is a kind of progression.

Current knowledge about the world I believe makes it highly reasonable to believe in God's creating.
Without this, there are what I consider to be very strong, air-tight reasoning for why our universe could not have always existed in some form or another.

Beyond our grasp, because some disagree? I don't think so.
Not beyond our grasp any more than believing the Earth is billions of years old.
Indeed, to me, the reasoning is more air tight that everything must have been created.

When Audie said “beyond anyone’s grasp” (and you can correct me if I am wrong here Audie) I don’t think she meant disinterested in the origins of the Universe, I think she is simply acknowledging (as science does) that science does not have all the answers. In order for something to be within the grasp of science, there must be evidence that leads them to that conclusion. Currently there is no evidence that answers many of the questions concerning the origins of the Universe; if matter has always existed, what existed before the singular that led to the big bang, etc. etc. it isn’t that nobody is interested in answers; there are plenty of scientists working on answers, it’s just that until someone finds evidence that leads to answers to these questions, those questions will remain beyond anyone’s grasp.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

"Kind" is a creo weasel word that cannot be defined. Go ahead and try; make up something.

A pesticide resistant weed has not become a new species.

If you are claiming that evolution has not taken place unless a new species you are again demonstrating
you do not know anything about evolution. Your repeated claims of "no evidence" us of course, simply false.

When did adaptation or reproduction become evidence life evolves?And it is you who believe life evolves but using reproduction or adaptation as evidence does not prove or demonstrate life evolves,no matter how much you believe it evolves,the evidence shows it does' nt evolve like you believe.Bacteria adapted to grow and thrive in Chernobyl in radiation but no evolution has happened only adaptation it is still bacteria and has not evolved at all there is no natural selection either.Stop using adaptation or reproduction to prove or show life evolves.Nobody denies reproduction or adaptation but we want evidence a dinosaur can evolve into a bird or a common ancestor evolve into apes,monkeys,man,etc.You don't even know if life evolves and the evidence shows it doesn't even if you don't know what kinds producing after their kind means.

[Kurieuo]

Finally the notion that I or all atheists find it necessary to "believe something".

...

Hard as it may be for some here to grasp, I dont
"believe in" anything regarding the origin of the universe.

I dont find it necessary or desirable to "pick a belief". I dont know how it all got here,
and I am not going to obsess over trying to unlock mysteries that are beyond anyone's grasp.

Excellent point Audie! Excellent point.

Ken

I saw the mistake when reading the posts in this thread, where Atheists were accused of believing something regarding the origin of the universe.
For me, I understand that many Atheists are content to affirm a position of no belief/non-belief. That is after all what A-theism is -- no God belief.
This extends easily to other areas of knowledge (e.g., universe origins with "we just don't know", life's origins and the like).

For me, it is not that "you guys" must believe something.
BUT, why be disinterested with the origin of universe?

Modern science and reasoning ability provides us with lots of interesting knowledge about the world we live within.
Why would the origin of the universe be beyond anyone's grasp, when other things are not?

I pick a belief based upon what I reason to be the most logical determination, both from current scientific knowledge and logical conclusions.
This reasoning can be quite air tight, even if some prefer to not listen to it.

For example, take your YECs who may refuse to listen to the scientific evidence for an older Earth and universe.
BUT, we don't say that such is beyond anyone's grasp simply because there is disagreement or we can't directly observe Earth over all that time.
Equally, I do not believe the origin of the universe is beyond our grasp.

So what if I am wrong WRONG in my knowledge?

An old Earth and universe might be wrong.
For example, perhaps our whole world and existence is some super-awesome software being run.
Perhaps our "universe" was loaded from 10,000 years ago, meaning all previous didn't ACTUALLY happen. Right?
Can we rule this possibility out? No, we cannot. Should we withhold belief then in the true actual age of our world?

To the best of my reasoning ability and what I know, I'm making the best possible conclusion. Right?
Just like Newtonian physics ended up being replaced by relativistic ones, knowledge is a kind of progression.

Current knowledge about the world I believe makes it highly reasonable to believe in God's creating.
Without this, there are what I consider to be very strong, air-tight reasoning for why our universe could not have always existed in some form or another.

Beyond our grasp, because some disagree? I don't think so.
Not beyond our grasp any more than believing the Earth is billions of years old.
Indeed, to me, the reasoning is more air tight that everything must have been created.

When Audie said “beyond anyone’s grasp” (and you can correct me if I am wrong here Audie) I don’t think she meant disinterested in the origins of the Universe, I think she is simply acknowledging (as science does) that science does not have all the answers. In order for something to be within the grasp of science, there must be evidence that leads them to that conclusion. Currently there is no evidence that answers many of the questions concerning the origins of the Universe; if matter has always existed, what existed before the singular that led to the big bang, etc. etc. it isn’t that nobody is interested in answers; there are plenty of scientists working on answers, it’s just that until someone finds evidence that leads to answers to these questions, those questions will remain beyond anyone’s grasp.

Ken

Fair observation.

I guess there is often a feeling on the Theistic side of the fence, that when Atheists say they have no belief on this or that, that such is just as easy way out to not have to deal with a sticky situation. For example, when it comes to the origin of the universe as predicted by "big bang" cosmology, and then used in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument, well the position for an Atheist looks rather uncomfortable.

The only answer possible is really a plea from ignorance that "we really don't know what caused the universe to exist." It's not a matter of obsessing, but just where does the evidence point when discussing God. That our universe had a beginning is only a modern 20th century view. If it were found that the universe for example was actually stable and in a steady state rather than expanding, then well, the Theist might be left in a sticky situation. Right?

Anyway, perhaps Audie (and yourself?) are interested in the origin of the universe etc.
However, choose to withhold any belief until and unless such can be scientifically explained in physical terms?

BUT, if there is no physical explanation to be had however,
then would this just register as a "error" or "unexpected exception" or something in your way of thinking?
Because there must be a physical explanation?

If there is some sort of pre-commitment here to certain explanations of the world, then I guess why?

I'm not trying to say that anything above is the case for you guys.
It is easy to accidentally insert words into another person's mouth, so hopefully I haven't done that.
Really, I'm more interested in a discussion and thoughts on my questions above.

[Kenny]

My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

"Kind" is a creo weasel word that cannot be defined. Go ahead and try; make up something.

A pesticide resistant weed has not become a new species.

If you are claiming that evolution has not taken place unless a new species you are again demonstrating
you do not know anything about evolution. Your repeated claims of "no evidence" us of course, simply false.

When did adaptation or reproduction become evidence life evolves?And it is you who believe life evolves but using reproduction or adaptation as evidence does not prove or demonstrate life evolves,

Nobody is claiming adaption or reproduction is evidence life evolves. As I mentioned previously; evolution is totally different than adaption or reproduction. It is YOU who are taking examples of evolution and claiming it was adaption or reproduction; yet you provide no evidence that there is any merit to your claim.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Man, I hate just jumping in to this conversation, but if I don't ask my question now I may not get another good chance...

I know nothing about evolution ( I know exactly how Audie feels about the Shroud post mine's evolution) other than what i have read here, and some about Darwin. This post made me finally go and find what it is all about... which is pretty darn funny considering all there is to know, and, basically, I found 3 types of evolution:

Atheistic evolution
Theistic evolution
Special evolution

I found myself, considering what I just read and my previous thoughts on evolution as a combination of Theistic and Special... my question is ... is that possible, because all I have is a very cursory view of the three and I'm not sure if you can mix and drive...

[Kenny]

When Audie said “beyond anyone’s grasp” (and you can correct me if I am wrong here Audie) I don’t think she meant disinterested in the origins of the Universe, I think she is simply acknowledging (as science does) that science does not have all the answers. In order for something to be within the grasp of science, there must be evidence that leads them to that conclusion. Currently there is no evidence that answers many of the questions concerning the origins of the Universe; if matter has always existed, what existed before the singular that led to the big bang, etc. etc. it isn’t that nobody is interested in answers; there are plenty of scientists working on answers, it’s just that until someone finds evidence that leads to answers to these questions, those questions will remain beyond anyone’s grasp.

Ken

Fair observation.

I guess there is often a feeling on the Theistic side of the fence, that when Atheists say they have no belief on this or that, that such is just as easy way out to not have to deal with a sticky situation. For example, when it comes to the origin of the universe as predicted by "big bang" cosmology, and then used in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument, well the position for an Atheist looks rather uncomfortable.

I suspect various atheists will have various POV on the Kalam argument. I suspect most will disagree, but for different reasons.

The only answer possible is really a plea from ignorance that "we really don't know what caused the universe to exist."

I agree! I don’t think that is a bad thing.

It's not a matter of obsessing, but just where does the evidence point when discussing God. That our universe had a beginning is only a modern 20th century view. If it were found that the universe for example was actually stable and in a steady state rather than expanding, then well, the Theist might be left in a sticky situation. Right?

I don’t think so; theist weren’t in a sticky situation before we found out the Universe was expanding… I suspect they will always have a way of explaining things that includes God.

Anyway, perhaps Audie (and yourself?) are interested in the origin of the universe etc.
However, choose to withhold any belief until and unless such can be scientifically explained in physical terms?

I agree.

BUT, if there is no physical explanation to be had however,
then would this just register as a "error" or "unexpected exception" or something in your way of thinking?
Because there must be a physical explanation?

For me it would only register as an unsubstantiated belief held by others.

If there is some sort of pre-commitment here to certain explanations of the world, then I guess why?

I'm not trying to say that anything above is the case for you guys.
It is easy to accidentally insert words into another person's mouth, so hopefully I haven't done that.
Really, I'm more interested in a discussion and thoughts on my questions above.

Good question. I think it is the result of people wanting easy answers to complicated questions that fit into their (as you might call it) world view.

Ken

[Kenny]

Man, I hate just jumping in to this conversation, but if I don't ask my question now I may not get another good chance...

I know nothing about evolution ( I know exactly how Audie feels about the Shroud post mine's evolution) other than what i have read here, and some about Darwin. This post made me finally go and find what it is all about... which is pretty darn funny considering all there is to know, and, basically, I found 3 types of evolution:

Atheistic evolution
Theistic evolution
Special evolution

I found myself, considering what I just read and my previous thoughts on evolution as a combination of Theistic and Special... my question is ... is that possible, because all I have is a very cursory view of the three and I'm not sure if you can mix and drive...

This is new to me. I have heard of "Theistic Evolution" (something akin to what the Pope claims) but I've never heard of Atheistic evolution or Special Evolution. Perhaps you can give a brief about those two for those of us who might not know what you are talking about.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

"Kenny"]

My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?



Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

"Kind" is a creo weasel word that cannot be defined. Go ahead and try; make up something.

A pesticide resistant weed has not become a new species.

If you are claiming that evolution has not taken place unless a new species you are again demonstrating
you do not know anything about evolution. Your repeated claims of "no evidence" us of course, simply false.

When did adaptation or reproduction become evidence life evolves?And it is you who believe life evolves but using reproduction or adaptation as evidence does not prove or demonstrate life evolves,

Nobody is claiming adaption or reproduction is evidence life evolves. As I mentioned previously; evolution is totally different than adaption or reproduction. It is YOU who are taking examples of evolution and claiming it was adaption or reproduction; yet you provide no evidence that there is any merit to your claim.

Ken

Kenny this is what kind of evidence is used as evidence life evolves.Stop denying it,you asked if I had any examples to back up what I said earlier and I have given you examples and explained it is either reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence by scientists life evolves.What good does it do you for you to ask for examples and I give them and you ignore it and think I'm making it up?I am not making it up.

[abelcainsbrother]

Do I need to actually post links that show that scientists use viruses,bacteria,finches,frogs,salamanders,etc as evidence life evolves?Because I can but I'm assuming everybody already knows this and my point is this evidence used as evidence life evolves is only reproduction or adaptation.Is reproduction or adaptation evidence life evolves?No it is'nt but this is the evidence scientists use as evidence life evolves.

You who accept evolution are only believing scientists tell you life evolves but as I have shown the evidence they use does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but if you want to put your faith in scientists telling you life evolves? You can but there is no evidence that proves or confirms life evolves based on their own evidence,not my opinion.

[Kenny]

Kenny this is what kind of evidence is used as evidence life evolves.Stop denying it,you asked if I had any examples to back up what I said earlier and I have given you examples and explained it is either reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence by scientists life evolves.What good does it do you for you to ask for examples and I give them and you ignore it and think I'm making it up?I am not making it up.

You gave me no evidence at all. You didn't even attempt to answer my question! All you did was claim they took examples of adaption and called it Evolution. I specifically asked you how do you know they did this? You weren't there during the experiment; so how do you know? You still haven't answered that question, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Ken

[Kenny]

Do I need to actually post links that show that scientists use viruses,bacteria,finches,frogs,salamanders,etc as evidence life evolves?.

No! You need to post links or provide some type of evidence that when scientists claim life evolves, the life was actually adapting as you claimed.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny this is what kind of evidence is used as evidence life evolves.Stop denying it,you asked if I had any examples to back up what I said earlier and I have given you examples and explained it is either reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence by scientists life evolves.What good does it do you for you to ask for examples and I give them and you ignore it and think I'm making it up?I am not making it up.

You gave me no evidence at all. You didn't even attempt to answer my question! All you did was claim they took examples of adaption and called it Evolution. I specifically asked you how do you know they did this? You weren't there during the experiment; so how do you know? You still haven't answered that question, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Ken

Yes I did.Yes,I am saying they are using either reproduction or adaptation for evidence life evolves.I have answered you just refuse to acknowledge it.You know they use what I said as evidence life evolves and it is either reproduction or adaptation,why don't you look instead of just believing it?It is adaptation when a plant adapts to weed killer and it remains the same plant after it adapted,there is no evolution happening,it is just adaptation.Now how does this prove to you dinosaurs evolved into birds? It doesn't so how do you know life evolves because it can adapt?

[Kenny]

Kenny this is what kind of evidence is used as evidence life evolves.Stop denying it,you asked if I had any examples to back up what I said earlier and I have given you examples and explained it is either reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence by scientists life evolves.What good does it do you for you to ask for examples and I give them and you ignore it and think I'm making it up?I am not making it up.

You gave me no evidence at all. You didn't even attempt to answer my question! All you did was claim they took examples of adaption and called it Evolution. I specifically asked you how do you know they did this? You weren't there during the experiment; so how do you know? You still haven't answered that question, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Ken

Yes I did.Yes,I am saying they are using either reproduction or adaptation for evidence life evolves.I have answered you just refuse to acknowledge it.

What I am asking you is how do you know the genetic structure of the plant, insect, or animal hasn’t changed? If the genetic structure has changed that is no longer adaption; that by definition is evolution. Again; how do you know the experiment did not indicate the genetic structure changed? You weren't even there!

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Do I need to actually post links that show that scientists use viruses,bacteria,finches,frogs,salamanders,etc as evidence life evolves?.

No! You need to post links or provide some type of evidence that when scientists claim life evolves, the life was actually adapting as you claimed.

Ken

Why? You cannot tell the difference between life evolving and life adapting?Because I can when you start out with bacteria and you still have bacteria after it adapted how can they claim this is evidence life evolves? They have a definition for evolution and it is different than adaptation.

Evolution is change of heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Adaptation is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.

And yet a plant that adapts to weed killer has not evolved like the definition of evolution states.In biology they think of adaptation as evolution but the problem is that there evidence does not confirm or show life evolving like they claim is happening,in other wards they have not demonstrated life evolves because it adapts,it is a trick tieing adaptation in with evolution but adaptation does not prove or show that life evolves,it is assumed and believed but the evidence does not bear it out.If life evolves then why does there evidence only show adaptation?nobody denies adaptation but where is evolution?