RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Audie]

Fact is humans are conscious beings, and if we're talking evolution, then such should be a gradual transition.

you've not defined "conscious" nor addressed that human beings must gradually emerge into consciousness as they develop from a fertilized egg.

Yet, what archaeology reveals is that a lot just seems to burst onto the scene with modern humanity.

Oh? Like, some few hundred thousand years ago when your ancestors were making stone tools and controlling fire, they were not conscious?

I'll save you some time, not that you were looking. There is no real evolutionary model for consciousness. There isn't even something specific we can point to physically to say this is why humans possess so much intelligence that no other life form comes close to.

Are you equating consciousness with intelligence? Like, I am more conscious than you?

Lets turn that "no model' thing around a bit. No model for what? What is consciousness, that you might know it is something only humans have, and only lately, at that?

Anything less is really half picture of certain life that is comprised of both matter and is consciously aware

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

[Byblos]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

[RickD]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Byblos,

That's not fair. You know Audie doesn't like to veer out of her comfort zone, into philosophy.

[Audie]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

[RickD]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

Audie,

That's just ignorant. Sorry to have to sugar-coat it. "Ignorant" is about as nice of a word to use for such a ridiculous statement.

With statements like that, I see why you don't veer out of your comfort zone.

[hughfarey]

Is there a more tiresome all-purpose- meaningless term than "paradigm"?

I think that for my comment above, the word paradigm expresses exactly what I want to say. It is neither all-purpose not meaningless, unless improperly used, and certainly not tiresome. Weltanschaaung is a little too comprehensive, pattern or model a little too specific, idea or point of view a little too vague. What would you suggest as an alternative?

[Audie]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

Audie,

That's just ignorant. Sorry to have to sugar-coat it. "Ignorant" is about as nice of a word to use for such a ridiculous statement.

With statements like that, I see why you don't veer out of your comfort zone.

You dont identify what is "ignorant", just go for a couple of cheap shots. Tsk.

What are you attempting to say, that religion is based on evidence and reason, and science is not?

That "faith" in "god" is just the same as "faith' that science has been solving mysteries at an accelerating pace, and probably wont stop today?

And, "comfort zone"? Seriously? So play book. You shouldda hyphenated
"paradigm" in there too.

'Course, I am left to try to guess what any of your ambiguous and content-free
posts might mean. Did you have something in mind?

[Byblos]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

Audie,

That's just ignorant. Sorry to have to sugar-coat it. "Ignorant" is about as nice of a word to use for such a ridiculous statement.

With statements like that, I see why you don't veer out of your comfort zone.

You dont identify what is "ignorant", just go for a couple of cheap shots. Tsk.

I'll let Rick answer to what pertains to him but since you highlighted the word 'that' in my quote I will assume you were responding to me so let me state flat out I have no clue why you thought I was equivocating with the word faith or that I meant something I did not clearly state. I meant what I said, no more and no less (more below).

What are you attempting to say, that religion is based on evidence and reason, and science is not?

No attempts, what I clearly stated was that 'that' is not our faith and the 'that' was referring to the statements directly above it, i.e. god of the gaps and science of the gaps. Our faith rests on neither, that is what I was referring to.

That "faith" in "god" is just the same as "faith' that science has been solving mysteries at an accelerating pace, and probably wont stop today?

Now who's equivocating? What I said was god of the gaps is the same principle as science of the gaps. In fact I don't thing faith in God is anywhere close to being the same as faith in science. Considering science is not in the business of offering proofs and faith in God is grounded in metaphysical proofs I'd say there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the two.

[RickD]

Id agree that we've but a fractional understanding of many things. Intelligence and consciousness are mysterious things. Religion all really just comes down to "mystery, therefore god" doesnt it?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

Audie,

That's just ignorant. Sorry to have to sugar-coat it. "Ignorant" is about as nice of a word to use for such a ridiculous statement.

With statements like that, I see why you don't veer out of your comfort zone.

You dont identify what is "ignorant", just go for a couple of cheap shots. Tsk.

What are you attempting to say, that religion is based on evidence and reason, and science is not?

That "faith" in "god" is just the same as "faith' that science has been solving mysteries at an accelerating pace, and probably wont stop today?

And, "comfort zone"? Seriously? So play book. You shouldda hyphenated
"paradigm" in there too.

'Course, I am left to try to guess what any of your ambiguous and content-free
posts might mean. Did you have something in mind?

Of course I don't need to identify what is ignorant. It's the last thing that was quoted. When you use quotes properly, the conversation addresses the last thing posted. Maybe if you start quoting properly, you'd start to see how normal conversation works.

"Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Ig-no-rant!

[Audie]

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

Cute equivocation on "faith' but i do have to agree, yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence.

Audie,

That's just ignorant. Sorry to have to sugar-coat it. "Ignorant" is about as nice of a word to use for such a ridiculous statement.

With statements like that, I see why you don't veer out of your comfort zone.

You dont identify what is "ignorant", just go for a couple of cheap shots. Tsk.

What are you attempting to say, that religion is based on evidence and reason, and science is not?

That "faith" in "god" is just the same as "faith' that science has been solving mysteries at an accelerating pace, and probably wont stop today?

And, "comfort zone"? Seriously? So play book. You shouldda hyphenated
"paradigm" in there too.

'Course, I am left to try to guess what any of your ambiguous and content-free
posts might mean. Did you have something in mind?

Of course I don't need to identify what is ignorant. It's the last thing that was quoted. When you use quotes properly, the conversation addresses the last thing posted. Maybe if you start quoting properly, you'd start to see how normal conversation works.

"Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Ig-no-rant!

Suture self, down is up to you.

[Byblos]

"Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Ig-no-rant!

Suture self, down is up to you.

I said our faith is grounded in reason and rooted in evidence, to which you responded "Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Who's up and who's down Audie?

[abelcainsbrother]

All ya'll are doing is choosing to continue to look at the evidence in and on the earth from an evolution perspective overlooking that lack of evidence life evolves. Nothing I can do to change your mind as long as you choose to do it. I refuse to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective because there is no evidence that shows life evolves,therefore no need to. It comes down to the point I've been making the whole time,it matters what perspective we choose to look at the evidence from.You should really ask yourself how you can choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective having to use imagination and assumption to do it based on no evidence life evolves. Ya'll ignore it and still choose to anyway.What's wrong? Can't have the bible being confirmed true when it tells us a former world existed that perished and we have the evidence for it in the earth if you don't look at it from an evolution perspective but a former world that perished perspective? I can't help it ya'll choose to look at it from the wrong perspective and worse choose to trust scientists who don't even know if life evolves yet continue to pile more so-called evidence up based on an unconfirmed theory.

No, ACB, you are not reading my posts. You seem to be doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la" so as not to hear what I'm saying. Why do you think there is nothing you can do to change my mind? You haven't even tried! You go on and on about perspective (again), when it is clear that that that's an approach that won't get anywhere. I won't indulge in a mere 'yes-you-do-no-I-don't' bicker, so let's move on. Present some evidence for your point of view, as I suggested you might a few posts back, and we'll consider it. Have you, in fact, got any?

Hate to surprise you so.

The point is not whether there are any objections at all, but whether there are any serious objections, and whether alternative explanations are any better. The 12 problems you present are in many cases details of mechanisms rather than serious objections to the overall theory. Several of them are of the "I can't see how this could happen, therefore it didn't happen" variety, which is neither logical not scientific. Problem 1, for instance, claims that there is 'No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup,' from which life could have arisen. This is a statement of belief, not of fact, and rather wide of the mark: there are several possible mechanisms currently being investigated, and the fact that none has yet been demonstrated successful does not mean that it won't be, or that there aren't any. The fact that the source of the river Nile had not been discovered in the early 19th century did not stop people looking for it, nor did anybody say there wasn't one. Problems 2 and 3 are in a similar vein.

Other 'serious problems' relate not to Evolution as a paradigm, but to the specific ideas developed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago. Because "On the Origin of Species" got something wrong, goes the supposition, then therefore the entire paradigm collapses. This too is simply incorrect. In every case, where Darwin (or any other evolutionary scientist) got something wrong, correcting the error has resulted in the strengthening, not the weakening, of the principal idea, that every organism on the earth today is related by descent to every other.

Your last idea: "Why is there male and female wouldn't it be better for more species to be asexual," is not a problem. it is a question, and the answer is no it wouldn't. Different methods of reproduction suit different environments, and both sexual and asexual reproduction are elegant solutions to the production of descent with modification according to the environment. Asexual reproduction is particularly suited to a food-abundant, disease-free environment - wherein we find asexual reproduction prevalent, and sexual reproduction to a more variant environment - where it actually occurs, as it happens.

If "intelligent design" encompasses an evolutionary process from a 'primordial soup' towards the interrelatedness of every organism on the earth today, then I could agree that evidence from nature does indeed point towards it. If, however, "intelligent design" is merely a synonym for spontaneous creation ex nihilo, then I don't.

Nope! You choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective and then deny you do it,while continuing to defend evolution. But this is also what you're doing and it is typical with evolutionists and no pun intended but they play dumb about the evidence in the earth that has been used as evidence in evolution science. Because I'm asking evolutionists to remove from your mind everything you've heard about evolution and instead look at the evidence in the earth from a former world that perished perspective instead of looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective. It is not hard to do if you know about evolution then you know about the evidence in the earth also. Look at it as evidence for a lost world and based on the evidence you should be able to tell based on the evidence it was a different world than what we live in now,with different life in it than this world,different trees and plant life also than this world. Also believe the bible when Peter tells us that all things have not gone on continually from the beginning of the creation like evolutionists like yourself believe so that life can evolve.2nd Peter 3:4.

[hughfarey]

Nope! You choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective and then deny you do it

This is untrue. Please go back over as many posts as you like and try to support this absurdity by quoting what I have actually said, rather than what you imagine I do.

They play dumb about the evidence in the earth that has been used as evidence in evolution science.

This doesn't mean anything, does it? Why would evolutionists play dumb about evidence which supports their cause? Do you mean the opposite?

Because I'm asking evolutionists to remove from your mind everything you've heard about evolution..."

Right. I've done that.

...and instead look at the evidence in the earth from a former world that perished perspective instead of looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.

Fine. Please present some.

It is not hard to do if you know about evolution then you know about the evidence in the earth also.

If we are looking at the same evidence, then my wholly unbiased consideration concludes that evolution is a much better explanation for the evidence than the 'lost world' hypothesis. Did you have any specific evidence in mind that might lead to a different conclusion?

Look at it as evidence for a lost world and based on the evidence you should be able to tell based on the evidence it was a different world than what we live in now,with different life in it than this world,different trees and plant life also than this world.

OK. To suit you, I have tried to look at the evidence entirely attempting to squeeze it into a 'lost world' hypothesis. Sadly, the evidence refuses to support such an argument. Can you explain how it does?

Also believe the bible when Peter tells us that all things have not gone on continually from the beginning of the creation like evolutionists like yourself believe so that life can evolve.2nd Peter 3:4.

That is a distortion of what 2 Peter actually says: "omnia sic perseverant ab initio creaturae". The word 'omnia' clearly refers to processes, not to materials. Animals do not live for ever, as Peter well knew, so when he said "all things continue for ever", he was referring to the process of procreation - which implies evolution. This passage, in fact, specifically precludes spontaneous creation or the lost world hypothesis, and embraces evolution.

[Audie]

"Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Ig-no-rant!

Suture self, down is up to you.

I said our faith is grounded in reason and rooted in evidence, to which you responded "Yours is not a faith based on reason or evidence."

Who's up and who's down Audie?

Some certainly do employ god of the gaps as do others equally employ science of the gaps (i.e. mystery but science will one day figure it out).

But that is not our faith Audie. It is a faith grounded in reason and rooted in evidence.

I suppose your first sentence there is correct,, there being "some" who will do nearly anything.

It did seem to me there was a distinct element of "mystery therefore god", but if you could show me that was not the case, i'd be glad to see that
there is more to it.

You speak of "our" faith. I've no "faith" that science can do everything.
So there is an agreement.

Who do you speak of in "our" faith? We have some, nominal, perhaps, Christians here who are very very far from rooting anything in reason or evidence.

how do you distinguish such Christians who do like evidence and reason?

The quality and significance of evidence is of interest too.

[Audie]

Nope! You choose to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective and then deny you do it

This is untrue. Please go back over as many posts as you like and try to support this absurdity by quoting what I have actually said, rather than what you imagine I do.

They play dumb about the evidence in the earth that has been used as evidence in evolution science.

This doesn't mean anything, does it? Why would evolutionists play dumb about evidence which supports their cause? Do you mean the opposite?

Because I'm asking evolutionists to remove from your mind everything you've heard about evolution..."

Right. I've done that.

...and instead look at the evidence in the earth from a former world that perished perspective instead of looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.

Fine. Please present some.

It is not hard to do if you know about evolution then you know about the evidence in the earth also.

If we are looking at the same evidence, then my wholly unbiased consideration concludes that evolution is a much better explanation for the evidence than the 'lost world' hypothesis. Did you have any specific evidence in mind that might lead to a different conclusion?

Look at it as evidence for a lost world and based on the evidence you should be able to tell based on the evidence it was a different world than what we live in now,with different life in it than this world,different trees and plant life also than this world.

OK. To suit you, I have tried to look at the evidence entirely attempting to squeeze it into a 'lost world' hypothesis. Sadly, the evidence refuses to support such an argument. Can you explain how it does?

Also believe the bible when Peter tells us that all things have not gone on continually from the beginning of the creation like evolutionists like yourself believe so that life can evolve.2nd Peter 3:4.

That is a distortion of what 2 Peter actually says: "omnia sic perseverant ab initio creaturae". The word 'omnia' clearly refers to processes, not to materials. Animals do not live for ever, as Peter well knew, so when he said "all things continue for ever", he was referring to the process of procreation - which implies evolution. This passage, in fact, specifically precludes spontaneous creation or the lost world hypothesis, and embraces evolution.

Find the smallest and most insignificant error he has made, with the clearest
demonstration that it is an error, and see if he can concede that much.