Evolutionary theory in crisis?

[Audacity]

Audacity, the mere mention of Creationism almost always brings out "God of the Gaps" comments, along with condescending, extended pedantic lectures about the supposed truths of evolution, and the insinuation that Creationist are all scientifically clueless. And, it makes sense, IF there is no God, one must explain how what exists, does. But instead of explain the ultimate question - which I try hard to bring people's attention to - those who attack Creationism almost always go on some harangue about evolution.

To be fair, almost every argument I've seen for creationism has involved attacking some aspect of evolution. I have almost never seen an argument for creationism that didn't bring evolution, or implications of evolution, into the mix for criticism.

So, Google around - it's not hard to find what I am saying is true. If you'd like, just start here with an article ("15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense") from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eationist/ The article can't go two words without mentioning Charles Darwin, haha.

Not at all sure what your "what I am saying is true" refers to because looking over the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" there's quite a variety of subjects to pour over, and I failed to make any immediate connections between the two. Sorry, maybe I missed it/them. Perhaps you could point out one or two.

BTW, Audacity, do you understand the Progressive Creationism belief?

Yes I do.

[Philip]

Audacity: I have almost never seen an argument for creationism that didn't bring evolution, or implications of evolution, into the mix for criticism.

Well, as the really the only non-theist mechanism as an answer to how life might be possible, I can see why it brings so much scrutiny and skepticism. But the reality is, evolution is a secondary issue. Even if it was life's mechanism, it's still long after the fact and secondary to what must most be explained - the Big Bang event. Random-ism not only cannot explain it, but what occurred, on a massive scale and with unimaginable power, IMMEDIATELY exhibited, in massive detail, design, and functionality, and within moments of this event's beginning, the polar opposite of what anyone could even remotely call random things. There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe random things can result in precision beyond our wildest dreams. That is a fantasy in the possibilities of metaphysics - in something or Being that is beyond what we can understand, that or Whom is eternal, and of amazing intelligence and power.

So many people don't understand what occurred at the Big Bang's start - thinking it to be a massive, chaotic explosion of all matter, etc. It began and expanded with extraordinary precision and functionality. So many complex elements that it "just happened to include," were ALL necessary to creating the universe and earth we now have. Anyway, the Big Bang is why I see arguments over evolution as, interesting, yet silly. And I do know of many reasons to doubt it. But those hold little interest for me now. The back and forth between theist and non-theists over evolution is like chasing evermore litters of rabbits down their expanding networks of holes.

[abelcainsbrother]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Gap Creationism I believe in is so much more believable of a theory once all of the evidence is laid out,but I am not even bringing it into it and do not have to. But Gap Creationism which is based on much of the very same evidence evolution uses except to come to a different conclusion and theory,is so much more believable based on the evidence.

But I'm not even going to bring it into this debate. I'll deal wth evolution based on its own evidence and explain why it is so weak. You'd believe me less anyway probably if I brought creationism into it. But if we got up in front of a large group debating evolution vs Gap creationism once all of the evidence is laid out and it is pointed out why the evidence for evolution is so weak,Gap Creationism will be much more believable based on the evidence in the earth,even if you reject it comes from the bible too. But I won't go there for now.

[Audacity]

Well, as the really the only non-theist mechanism as an answer to how life might be possible, I can see why it brings so much scrutiny and skepticism.

Err. . . . Just to be clear here, evolution does not explain why life exists or how, but why there's a diversity of life on earth.

But the reality is, evolution is a secondary issue.

If one wished. However, many people, scientists in particular, often see it as the main issue in explaining the diversity of life on earth. What may be primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. all comes down to one's goals.

[Philip]

Audacity: Err. . . . Just to be clear here, evolution does not explain why life exists or how, but why there's a diversity of life on earth.

To be fair, that is true. But as soon as there was the first cell - which could not evolve, btw, we're told, evolution's processes began.

[neo-x]

Let me just say this once, and then I'll leave you guys to carry on...

THE ONLY WAY TO DISAPPROVE EVOLUTION IS TO SHOW DISCRPENCIES BETWEEN WHAT THE THEORY PREDICTS AND WHAT WE FIND IN ACTUAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

So anyone wanting to challenge the theory would have to cite inconsistency in the theory and the model and its predictions and the evidence we find to say that the evolutionary theory is wrong.

E.g. Find a bunny in the cretaceous period and yes that would seriously undermine, and I mean literally screwup, the ToE. It would question its legitimacy, authenticity and everything in between. The problem is we haven't found any evidence that does that. In fact, all species have been found exactly as the theory predicted. The fossil and DNA evidence lines up beautifully with the timelines.

That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.

And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

People may be dogmatic about ToE but the discipline of science isn't. Whether someone likes it or not, if there is such an evidence it will rewrite history. It is not a matter of public opinion at all.

And to be honest, no one here, can even put a dent in the ToE without said evidence and no one has such evidence here on this forum or anywhere else in the world.

P.S. Don't mind the caps, only added for emphasis, since if it's too long to read, just read that.

[Audacity]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.


And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

That's absolutely false Neo. I've told you at least two times that Hugh Ross' book More Than a Theory, does posit predictions and is open to corrections.

I think you really need to read the book, so you'll stop making these false assertions.

[Audacity]

Audacity: Err. . . . Just to be clear here, evolution does not explain why life exists or how, but why there's a diversity of life on earth.

To be fair, that is true. But as soon as there was the first cell - which could not evolve, btw, we're told, evolution's processes began.

Not really. We're told that the first instance of cellular evolution took place long after the first cells had appeared on earth. HERE'S a good, although rather lengthy, explanation of the origin and evolution of cells.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me just say this once, and then I'll leave you guys to carry on...

THE ONLY WAY TO DISAPPROVE EVOLUTION IS TO SHOW DISCRPENCIES BETWEEN WHAT THE THEORY PREDICTS AND WHAT WE FIND IN ACTUAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

So anyone wanting to challenge the theory would have to cite inconsistency in the theory and the model and its predictions and the evidence we find to say that the evolutionary theory is wrong.

E.g. Find a bunny in the cretaceous period and yes that would seriously undermine, and I mean literally, the ToE. It would question its legitimacy, authenticity and everything in between. The problem is we haven't found any evidence that does that. In fact, all species have been found exactly as the theory predicted. The fossil and DNA evidence lines up beautifully with the timelines.

That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.

And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

People may be dogmatic about ToE but the discipline of science isn't. Whether someone likes it or not, if there is such an evidence it will rewrite history. It is not a matter of public opinion at all.

And to be honest, no one here, can even put a dent in the ToE without said evidence and no one has such evidence here on this forum or anywhere else in the world.

P.S. Don't mind the caps, only added for emphasis, since if it's too long to read, just read that.

Hi,neo but you said THE ONLY WAY TO DISAPPROVE EVOLUTION IS TO SHOW DISCRPENCIES BETWEEN WHAT THE THEORY PREDICTS AND WHAT WE FIND IN ACTUAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

Charles Darwin predicted many transitional fossils would be found if his theory was true and I know all about the evolution tree that was built based on "cladistics" but cladistics is a joke and requires the assumption that evolution is already true. Meanwhile despite the evolution tree no transitional fossils have been found. You can look at any fossil you want to and in every example you will see a fully formed creature that was fully functional as it was millions of years ago until itdied and was fossilzed preserved for us to see. So the fact that no transitional fossils were found is a prediction that was never fulfilled for Darwin and we have grounds to reject evolution,because Darwin said if they were not found,we could reject his theory,therefore we can.

You should take the time to look into cladistics how they came up with the evolution tree because cladistics is based on which physical characteristics such as the number of legs,possession of a tail,fins,or fur and depending on which characteristics they use,we have different common ancestors. For example if matabolism is used,birds and mammals are close cousins and crocodiles unrelated to each.If skull and heart structure is used,birds and crocodiles are close cousins,and mammals unrelated to each.An example of cladistics at work is Pakicetus which is described as an early ancestor to modern whales,although they were land mammals and they are related to whales and dolphins based on the ear structure and hearing.
Pakicetus - http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/ ... -pakicetus

[abelcainsbrother]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came down to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

[Audacity]

Neo wrote:
That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.


And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

That's absolutely false Neo. I've told you at least two times that Hugh Ross' book More Than a Theory, does posit predictions and is open to corrections.

I think you really need to read the book, so you'll stop making these false assertions.

I won't argue your selection More Than a Theory because I haven't read it, but you might want to take a look at THIS, and THIS, and just for kickers, THIS

[Audacity]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came own to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

Interesting, and thanks for your explanation.

[Kenny]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came down to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

Doesn't the Gap theory contradict what is written in the Bible?

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came down to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

Doesn't the Gap theory contradict what is written in the Bible?

Ken

Not to me because evidence in nature that makes it more believable than evolution.It is more believable of a theory based on the evidence even if you think it contradicts what is written in the bible.I'm not getting into it in this thread though.