Evidence for theistic evolution

[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.

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

First off nobody denies adaptation,I want to male it clear life can adapt,we can see and observe this around us like plants that adapt to survive weed killer,yet when this happens it is assumed it is evolving but the evidence only shows life adapts,it never evolves like they assume happens,and this is true with viruses,bacteria,weeds,Eskimo's,etc and in every case where life has adapted,it has never evolved in every case of evidence too,what they believe is happening doesn't based on their own evidence,it always just adapts and never evolves.

[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

First off nobody denies adaptation,I want to male it clear life can adapt,we can see and observe this around us like plants that adapt to survive weed killer,yet when this happens it is assumed it is evolving but the evidence only shows life adapts,it never evolves like they assume happens,and this is true with viruses,bacteria,weeds,Eskimo's,etc and in every case where life has adapted,it has never evolved in every case of evidence too,what they believe is happening doesn't based on their own evidence,it always just adapts and never evolves.

You are not going to answer my question are you! Again; How do you know it never evolved? Were you there during the experiment?

Ken

[Byblos]

You are not going to answer my question are you! Again; How do you know it never evolved? Were you there during the experiment?

Not for nothin' but you do know the burden of proof is on you to show that it did evolve, right?

[Audie]

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.

The thing about "atheists and agnostics believe' was of course, despite some bystanders denial, about all, or the great majority of same. if I'd said "Christians think that the excess water from the "flood" was taken by a wind to Neptune, where it sines to this day as a beacon against incoming rogue angels" and then gone on at some length about how stupid that is / they are, the point about whether the reference to christians, or atheists was about them as a group of only about a couple of idiots might be more clear.

Why be disinterested in the origin of the universe? What an odd question.
Of course it is of interest. Id like to know.

To me, tho the lack of interest is manifest in the conclusion that it must have been a god that did it. There! All questions answered. You could have asked an Eskimo, a Hottentot or an Oz Abo the same question on the origin of the universe, gotten the same answer.


Why is (would be, as you put it) the origin of the universe beyond our grasp? how would I know? So far it is. So is a cure for the common cold. Why is that?

I will say this, tho, whatever the reason is, its not any of your "just because'..' reasons.

Perhaps the earth is not ancient. Ok, vanishingly small chance. Nothing, I suppsoe, should be utterly ruled out and not considered, (esp if it ever has evidence!) but last thursdayism or other young earth ideas are not worth much thought.

Im of course aware that you and some others have convinced yourselves of the
air tight case for god. The reasoning may even be air tight.

Doesnt make it true. One can use math, for example, to prove things that are not true. I think your god created universe philosophy thing is resting on sand.

[Kurieuo]

You know, I never started out in philosophy.
When I did philosophy subjects, a lot of what I learnt at the time I considered common sense -- rules of logic and the like.
I do recall asking myself, why do I need to do this, but that's all I ponder here...

I'm wondering, in light of many perhaps like yourself who thing philosophy is just "sand" or like Hawkings who said it was dead, and all that.
There seems to be a clear distinction between what you and such see as philosophy and what I do.

So, let's throw out philosophy out, it's a useless term.
A distraction if you will, however rich thought many belly button rubbers off the past may have provided.

I'll just state my belief in God creating the universe is based upon solid reason.
Very strongly justified reasoning and also our current scientific knowledge.
Akin to the "vanishing small chance" that the earth is not ancient imo.

But, people today I notice whether in work or what have you just like surface level responses.
If something can't be quickly grasped at the surface to such then it mustn't be important.
People are shallow. They don't like to think deeply on things, hate problem solving.
Want to be provided with the answers. Be told by "authorities" what is right or wrong.

I don't know where that leaves you in relation to my words... but just speaking my mind.

[RickD]

K,

I never really studied philosophy, but the more I look into it, philosophy is just how we use logic and reason to understand reality and existence.

And since Audie likes to label people, like Creo this, or creo that, I've come up with a new term. This is a term describing both atheists and agnostics who are slow to accept reality. It's called "Atheiotard". A combination of atheist, agnostic, and retard. Retard in the sense of being slow to understand.

[Storyteller]

You know, I never started out in philosophy.
When I did philosophy subjects, a lot of what I learnt at the time I considered common sense -- rules of logic and the like.
I do recall asking myself, why do I need to do this, but that's all I ponder here...

I'm wondering, in light of many perhaps like yourself who thing philosophy is just "sand" or like Hawkings who said it was dead, and all that.
There seems to be a clear distinction between what you and such see as philosophy and what I do.

So, let's throw out philosophy out, it's a useless term.
A distraction if you will, however rich thought many belly button rubbers off the past may have provided.

I'll just state my belief in God creating the universe is based upon solid reason.
Very strongly justified reasoning and also our current scientific knowledge.
Akin to the "vanishing small chance" that the earth is not ancient imo.

But, people today I notice whether in work or what have you just like surface level responses.
If something can't be quickly grasped at the surface to such then it mustn't be important.
People are shallow. They don't like to think deeply on things, hate problem solving.
Want to be provided with the answers. Be told by "authorities" what is right or wrong.

I don't know where that leaves you in relation to my words... but just speaking my mind.

You have just summed up, for me, what is so fascinating about God in your last paragraph. The very fact that it is not a subject that is quickly understood, it takes a lot of thought and there is a lot to figure out.
I love asking questions, discovering things and coming to my own conclusions.

Sure, I may be totally wrong in my belief but as yet, I have no reason to think so.

[Audie]

You know, I never started out in philosophy.
When I did philosophy subjects, a lot of what I learnt at the time I considered common sense -- rules of logic and the like.
I do recall asking myself, why do I need to do this, but that's all I ponder here...

I'm wondering, in light of many perhaps like yourself who thing philosophy is just "sand" or like Hawkings who said it was dead, and all that.
There seems to be a clear distinction between what you and such see as philosophy and what I do.

So, let's throw out philosophy out, it's a useless term.
A distraction if you will, however rich thought many belly button rubbers off the past may have provided.

I'll just state my belief in God creating the universe is based upon solid reason.
Very strongly justified reasoning and also our current scientific knowledge.
Akin to the "vanishing small chance" that the earth is not ancient imo.

But, people today I notice whether in work or what have you just like surface level responses.
If something can't be quickly grasped at the surface to such then it mustn't be important.
People are shallow. They don't like to think deeply on things, hate problem solving.
Want to be provided with the answers. Be told by "authorities" what is right or wrong.

I don't know where that leaves you in relation to my words... but just speaking my mind.

You have just summed up, for me, what is so fascinating about God in your last paragraph. The very fact that it is not a subject that is quickly understood, it takes a lot of thought and there is a lot to figure out.
I love asking questions, discovering things and coming to my own conclusions.

Sure, I may be totally wrong in my belief but as yet, I have no reason to think so.

Its a bit like historical geology and evolution that way.. not something understood at a glance.

The sciences do of course have the advantage of being able to provide some data to work with.

[Kenny]

You are not going to answer my question are you! Again; How do you know it never evolved? Were you there during the experiment?

Not for nothin' but you do know the burden of proof is on you to show that it did evolve, right?

No. I'm not the one making the claim; he is. I was not there when the experiment took place. (neither was he) He is claiming the scientist said they evolved when in was actually adaption. I explained the difference between adaption and evolution and asked him how does he know it was adaption instead of evolution; and he refuses to answer that question. .

Ken

[Storyteller]

You know, I never started out in philosophy.
When I did philosophy subjects, a lot of what I learnt at the time I considered common sense -- rules of logic and the like.
I do recall asking myself, why do I need to do this, but that's all I ponder here...

I'm wondering, in light of many perhaps like yourself who thing philosophy is just "sand" or like Hawkings who said it was dead, and all that.
There seems to be a clear distinction between what you and such see as philosophy and what I do.

So, let's throw out philosophy out, it's a useless term.
A distraction if you will, however rich thought many belly button rubbers off the past may have provided.

I'll just state my belief in God creating the universe is based upon solid reason.
Very strongly justified reasoning and also our current scientific knowledge.
Akin to the "vanishing small chance" that the earth is not ancient imo.

But, people today I notice whether in work or what have you just like surface level responses.
If something can't be quickly grasped at the surface to such then it mustn't be important.
People are shallow. They don't like to think deeply on things, hate problem solving.
Want to be provided with the answers. Be told by "authorities" what is right or wrong.

I don't know where that leaves you in relation to my words... but just speaking my mind.

You have just summed up, for me, what is so fascinating about God in your last paragraph. The very fact that it is not a subject that is quickly understood, it takes a lot of thought and there is a lot to figure out.
I love asking questions, discovering things and coming to my own conclusions.

Sure, I may be totally wrong in my belief but as yet, I have no reason to think so.

Its a bit like historical geology and evolution that way.. not something understood at a glance.

The sciences do of course have the advantage of being able to provide some data to work with.

We have data too, it's caled the Bible

[Kurieuo]

You know, I never started out in philosophy.
When I did philosophy subjects, a lot of what I learnt at the time I considered common sense -- rules of logic and the like.
I do recall asking myself, why do I need to do this, but that's all I ponder here...

I'm wondering, in light of many perhaps like yourself who thing philosophy is just "sand" or like Hawkings who said it was dead, and all that.
There seems to be a clear distinction between what you and such see as philosophy and what I do.

So, let's throw out philosophy out, it's a useless term.
A distraction if you will, however rich thought many belly button rubbers off the past may have provided.

I'll just state my belief in God creating the universe is based upon solid reason.
Very strongly justified reasoning and also our current scientific knowledge.
Akin to the "vanishing small chance" that the earth is not ancient imo.

But, people today I notice whether in work or what have you just like surface level responses.
If something can't be quickly grasped at the surface to such then it mustn't be important.
People are shallow. They don't like to think deeply on things, hate problem solving.
Want to be provided with the answers. Be told by "authorities" what is right or wrong.

I don't know where that leaves you in relation to my words... but just speaking my mind.

You have just summed up, for me, what is so fascinating about God in your last paragraph. The very fact that it is not a subject that is quickly understood, it takes a lot of thought and there is a lot to figure out.
I love asking questions, discovering things and coming to my own conclusions.

Sure, I may be totally wrong in my belief but as yet, I have no reason to think so.

Its a bit like historical geology and evolution that way.. not something understood at a glance.

The sciences do of course have the advantage of being able to provide some data to work with.

We have data too, it's caled the Bible

And Nature, and reason, and experience, and tradition.

Here's an old paper I wrote about sources of theology.

[Kurieuo]

Its a bit like historical geology and evolution that way.. not something understood at a glance.

The sciences do of course have the advantage of being able to provide some data to work with.

[Philip]

Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:

1) A God or gods created, began and designed it; 2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it; 3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc; 4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.

So, I would say that ANY theist, despite how their theories about the details of how some god, gods or GOD created might differ with ones I hold, are at least on a plane of reasonable conjecture and basic logic as to the core ORIGIN behind such unfolding of created things, their functions and mechanisms. Because logic shows nothing could eternally exist of great intelligence that is not akin to a thinking and intelligent being, beings or Being. And NOTHINGNESS does not create and design an awesome universe. EVERYTHING has an origin. Time and chance does not produce unguided, unacquired and immense intelligence. Time and chance have no power. Those scientific laws there at the Big Bang's beginning? They didn't CAUSE anything, as LAWS are only detailed observations about how things actually work. Laws don't explain the design or functionality of WHY things work or what causes them, they only are detailed observations of HOW things work.

So, despite the nuances of what Audie or any unbeliever might personally think, the parameters of what they might or must entertain can be found ONLY within the four possibilities above. And all except #1 above are totally illogical, unscientific and inexplicable. To see anyone believing premise numbers 2-4 as even possibilities or that perhaps assert premise #1 to be impossible while they make fun of those believing somewhere within the parameters of premise #1, are not to be taken seriously. Premises numbers 2-4 are not only impossible, unscientific, and illogical, but to even entertain that their parameters might contain the answers takes extraordinary faith in "pop metaphysics." Can you get a Ph.D in that?

Norman Geisler loves to rhetorically ask: "Do you know what 'nothing' is? It's what ROCKS dream about!"

[Kurieuo]

K,

I never really studied philosophy, but the more I look into it, philosophy is just how we use logic and reason to understand reality and existence.

That's a really good way to describe it.
Humans like to categorise things, but the good 'ol science of philosophy I agree is using "logic and reason to understand reality and existence."

People do it whether they call it philosophy or not.
Kids do it when they always ask "why" in searching for a satisfying response.
Scientists do it when they hypothesize, develop tests and proofs. The scientific method depends upon depends upon one accepting certain philosophies.

I recall hearing that philosophy asks and attempts to answer "why" questions, and physical science attempts to answer "how" question.
None of these questions are asked without an inquirer however. And we humans always use and mix them together. It doesn't make sense therefore to really dichotomise the two.
That is, I do not believe rational inquiry is really meant to be this way or that way only, with one form better than another.

So then, there are no real "scientists" better backed by data and no real "philosophers" have a corner on all reasoning.
Such stupid issues arise because people try to divide and side with groupings that they feel more comfortable with. Inquirers feel uncomfortable by their weaknesses.
If you're generally interested in answering "how" questions, then you're not really going to like "why" questions, and the same can be said vice-versa.

THIS, I think is at the heart of today's apparent conflict between modern "Science" and "Philosophy".
Just people, not rational inquiry itself. At the end of the day, a real Inquirer's questions have no particular flavour, limits or boundaries.
And as such, you may as well throw Theology into the mix too.

[Kenny]

Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:

1) A God or gods created, began and designed it; 2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it; 3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc; 4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.

You forgot one:
5) That nothing just popped into existence, that nothing was ever created without using existing materials, that there was never a point in history when nothing existed, and that matter has always existed in one form or another; and just evolved into what we have now.

Ken