Page 7 of 9

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:39 am
by zoegirl
Banky wrote:From
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/obvious.html
_____________________________

"Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

1.) Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
2.) Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced. "
______________________________

Why is it that anti-evolutionists consistently use the strawman argument to attempt to debunk evolution? #2 does not remotely desribe the evolutionary process. The individual MUTATIONS are random, no the final product. The final product is achieved through a process of *natural selection* in which the most advantageous mutations survive and the least ones cease to exist. This is a process that has taken over many billion years.

The process of natural selection would be better described by taking a simple computer and randomly changing ONE part over the course of thousands of years until a better computer is achieved and makes the lesser ones obsolete. Then repeating this process many times over.....which, frankly, isn't to differnt from how computers have evolved to what they are today. Look at the "fossil" record and you will see a very distinct trend.......lest you want me to believe you are reading this on your TRS80 COLOR computer.
I am simply agreeing with the above with regards to the non-randomness of selection and the randomness of mutations. My point, though, is that the mutations are what are required to produce novel structures/processes. Selection merely operates on what phentotypes exist, it in itself does not large scale changes, mutations (either gene or chromosomal) are required for these new phenotypes.

And your analogy with the computers requires the hardware and software engineers to modify the part (and this modification is NOT random, thus your analogy cannot really be applied here). So your analogy not only has a designer (designers) but also DIRECTED changes, not random at all.


To REALLY apply your analogy (from an evolutionary view), you must change it so that the one part changes without ANY thought from the engineers.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:52 pm
by Banky
Okay. Thanks. I thought you were responding to my previous post.

I try not to get too hung up on analogies because they are meant to illustrate a point of something that is more difficult to undersatnd by relating it to something that is easier to understand.

We can use the computer analogy and disect it all day to the point where I have to simply admit that, yes, no matter how you look at it.....computers have a designer. This, however, in no way offers evidence contrary to that of evolution. It would be just as disingenous to use an alalogy stating that all tangible living things come from other tangible living things, thus there is no God.

Back to the original point, I consistently see the strawman argument built to try to debunk evolution. "Random computer parts are put into a box and soldered randomly" does not remotely describe the evolutionary process, so it is disengenuous to try to debunk it with such an analogy. Sticking with the analogy that the author chose, it would be far more accurate to describe the process of having a computer evolve through the process of randomly making small changes and only keeping the improvements.

Is there a designer even in the second case? Yes.......but that's because we limited the analogy to something that is designed. I've heard this over and over again with watches and 747s. Okay, so what? Just beacuse people use their brains to build stuff does not mean that all stuff is built by people with brains. If you want to *believe* that, that is fine, but the analogy is not an accurate depiction of enolution and it is misleading people who buy into it.
zoegirl wrote:To REALLY apply your analogy (from an evolutionary view), you must change it so that the one part changes without ANY thought from the engineers.
I agree, and this is actually not to dissimilar to what computer engineers are working on today....robots that build themselves.

Again, the problem that any analogy that you use that shows evidence of something being created by a designer is going to lead one to a conclusion that....well.....it must have needed a designer.

However, I can make a baby and have absolutely no control over what this baby will come out like. Neither I nor my wife take part in designing the baby. There is an example of something that is not designed. In fact all of biology, chemsitry, and physics are examples of things that are not designed.

The follow up is, of course, "but everything is designed." Okay, then who designed God? "Well, he's the exception." No.....you just said EVERYTHING. Now all of the sudden we are assigning certain things as NEEDING a designer and other things as not needing a designer....almost at random, but then claiming that it is a logical conclusion.

Do we accept that planets float in space, or is God holding the planet up? Do we accept gravity or must we ascribe it to "inteligent falling?" Do opposite poles of a magnet always attract, or is there an intelligent yet invisible being who is just waiting for a free willed person to put them near each other and the he force them together giving us th eillusion of magnetic attraction?

The belief in a supernatural designer is perfectly fine, but we call it a belief and faith for a reason. The same logic that leads one to believe in God can just be just as easily used to disprove his existence.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:16 pm
by zoegirl
Respectfully, if you cannot even come up with a good analogy of a system that ultimatley did not have a designer, then I think that is significant.

Even the example of robots with computers that "adjust" and learn and program ultimately had a designer. Some creationists believe that God created a system whereby the creation, once set-up, had the natural laws to progress to some degree. I know plenty do not necessarily believe this, but some do.

The example where people say "everything was designed" is simply a badly worded arguement. What they mean is that everything in the creation was designed. By definition, Yahweh, God, the Almighty, "I am who I am", Jehovah...is above His creation. He sustains it. Surely our intelligence can envision an entity so powerful that it is above all natural means (whether you accept it or not) MOst people's idea of a God is still really limiting to what an infinite, all powerful God would be.
banky wrote: However, I can make a baby and have absolutely no control over what this baby will come out like. Neither I nor my wife take part in designing the baby. There is an example of something that is not designed. In fact all of biology, chemsitry, and physics are examples of things that are not designed.
As to the baby, sure, we aren't given that capability, not really sure how this applies, however. I can throw paint onto a canvas and not really know what it will look like (indeed, some people make millions!! :lol: )

As to the rest ,No, respectfully disagree, but I'm sure we could argue that till the cows come home. Plenty of science texts wax poetic over the amazing harmony between structure and function, whether that harmony exists at the level of valence electrons and bonding patterns, the shape of water and the implications of this shape, the shape of proteins and their function...whether you want to attribute the basic shapes of non-living molecules to random forces or to a grand designer....


banky wrote:Do we accept that planets float in space, or is God holding the planet up? Do we accept gravity or must we ascribe it to "inteligent falling?" Do opposite poles of a magnet always attract, or is there an intelligent yet invisible being who is just waiting for a free willed person to put them near each other and the he force them together giving us th eillusion of magnetic attraction?
Why must the idea of a God suddenly mean that we think all natural laws are suspended? Wouldn't a God have created a world in which He creates natural laws for His creation? These laws would be predictable, steady, governed by patterns that we can observe and measure and repeat.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:49 pm
by godslanguage
"just beacuse people use their brains to build stuff does not mean..."

Brains really have no bearing, its the intelligence that enables this ability to design. As George Gilder points out, evolutionists like to dumb down the evidence equally to a building made of lego blocks in atttempt to map the world trade center, the parts are too crude to map anything specific. Dumbing down intelligence to the physical sense or allude it to a physical structure is essentially the equivelent line of reasoning.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:07 am
by madscientist
zoegirl wrote:Even the example of robots with computers that "adjust" and learn and program ultimately had a designer. Some creationists believe that God created a system whereby the creation, once set-up, had the natural laws to progress to some degree. I know plenty do not necessarily believe this, but some do.
Exactly what i was saying in the posts before! - that God made laws and things to his ultimate will, and yhen the laws guide it. i also said that God made organized things so that at certian time, this and this happens. althought there is RANDOMNESS, God guides it to be what He wants it to be. As he foreknew our prayers for example, He is able to make this world as sometimes we ask Him for - thats also how i explain prayrs and free will, what i mention i some previous post - these "gaps" in randomness make FW possible. the more higher and complex the being, the more FW it has.
OK but how about God and beings with no physical body - how do THEY have FW?

And with that ADJUSTMENT, is natural selection and all that, for example., as well aso some or all natural laws, icnluding biological ones.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:50 am
by Banky
zoegirl wrote:Respectfully, if you cannot even come up with a good analogy of a system that ultimatley did not have a designer, then I think that is significant.
But every analogy that leads to proof of a designer (God) always contradicts its own conclusions by the implication that the designer is not subject to the same conclusion drawn by the analogy.

IOW, computers don't randomly build themselves, they must need designers....and they do. However, instead of accepting that the designers (people) came by a natural physical process (biology), we conlcude that THEY require a designer as well.

Well, if that is the conclusion that MUST be drawn, then one also must conclude that our desinger(s) was designed as well.

The logic typically follows "we are much more complex than computers, so we must have been designed," except that the source of our design is something even MORE complicated than ourselves (invisible, superpowers, eternal, etc.).

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:59 pm
by Banky
zoegirl wrote:Why must the idea of a God suddenly mean that we think all natural laws are suspended? Wouldn't a God have created a world in which He creates natural laws for His creation? These laws would be predictable, steady, governed by patterns that we can observe and measure and repeat.
So then God does make it so that the world floats in space? So who designed such a powerful being....one that can not only design man, but create the natural laws?

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:04 pm
by jady
I am new to this discussion, but this post was so ridiculous that I had to stop and comment on it. I am an actual biologist, and will be receiving my Ph. D this year. I thought I should comment on as many of these points as I could:
1. to state the obvious, the Bible does not use or refer to the evolutionary process. all references are point to God as creator and a six day creation.
True.
2. there are no ancient records, myths, stories or scientific studies which refer or mention the process we now know as evolution. all records talk of creation, nothing else. thus evolution has no historical foundation.
Probably true, but then again there is probably also no ancient account of quantum physics, germ theory of disease, or the earth not being the center of the universe.
3. the fossil record can only reveal that a species lived at a certain point in time. it cannot reveal or prove the process of evolution nor can it show which is or isn't the mother/daughter species. conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks to make the process seem real.
True, but simple logic helps us deduce that if an older species looks like a later species then the later probably came from the earlier. Can it be "proven" to the extent that Christians want (i.e. beyond any reasonable possible doubt)? Maybe not, but lving to this standard would make us all look like idiots. If I went outside my front door one day and saw a small wasp's nest in one corner of my door, and the did the same a week later and saw a large wasp nest, would I seem reasonable to suggest that the first wasps most likely went away and then the new, larger colony moved in?
there is no way of knowing if the one fossil was a mutation, injured in a fight, or accident , fossilized in a position which does not reveal everything about it and so on. what the fossil record does prove is that there was an event which destroyed the majority of the animals.
Well, there is if you found more than one; but in a sense you are disproving your own thesis. Evolution states that ALL fossils are mutants, as are we. But again just going back to reality leads us to conclude that while we have all seen single mutants with two heads, an extra limb, etc., that are usually deletarious (sp?), we have never seen a chance single mutation that leads to a huge new functional unit, like four limbs, a through-gut, etc. So much of this Creationist nonsense can be disproven not by deep philosophical argument but by restraining your logic to your everyday life.
there is no way to prove the 5-6 mass extinctions scientists claim took place. these are nothing more than an excuse to avoid dealing with the reality of the flood.
This is just conjecture. I am not a geologist or palentologist so I am not familiar with the science behind it. But just saying "there is no way to prove it" doesn't satisfy, because as I have stated your requirements for "proof" go so far beyond what is feasible then you can never be disproven. However since the Bible states that ALL animals were taken on the ark, yet there are clearly animals that no longer exist, you seem to be in a pickle.
3. the dating systems are not reliable. in my work and studies i have found that these systems are very subjective, prone to corruption {way to easily}, manipulable{sp} and unverifiable. the half-life for almost all of them are too long to prove true or even accurate. at best, c-14 if limited to 11,000 +/- has a chance but its assumptions leave it too vulnerable.
Again, I'm not a palentologist so I don't know. Please provide citations for the publication and peer review of your work.
4. the time frame for evolution to work is a very exaggerated figure and unprovable. it is too convenient and allows ecolutionists an ecuse for violating the very scientific principles they love to force creationists to adhere.
Again with the "unprovable". Physicists have proven pretty well the age of the universe. They will acknowledge that they are probably off by some margin, but there is a huge difference between 7 billion years and 6000 years. The scientific principle that we "force you to adhere to" is: PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE!!! A man in a dinosaur's stomach. A good method of dating. Anything. That is PEER REVIEWED, and not by guys who want you to be right. Just sitting back and trying (badly) to poke holes is not evidence.
we cannot say that a modern day mutation is evolution at work because no one knows how the process really works or if it would even proceed as stated by darwin and subsequent supporters. at best they are guessing.


Well, you've got us there. Scientists do not know every miniscule detail of everything that that has ever happened. I guess we should give up. But just because you are not sure how something got from A to B does not mean that it didn't get there. Humans have changed a lot just since the beginning of history; we have observed this. Just because we don't know EXACTLY how, does this mean it didn't happen?
we have no scientific research from anytime in the past, who would have opportunity to observe the process in action thus there is nothing to indicate what is truly the process at work. we know there were scientists alive long before the greeks as the babylonians had the pythagorum theory long before the greek 'discovered' it.
We don't need the past to prove evolution. Do you ever wonder why you need to get a flu shot every year? Why penicillin is rarely prescribed anymore? Why there is no AIDS vaccine? It is because the influenza virus mutates constantly, many of the bacteria that penicillin treated have become immune to it, and HIV has no proof-reading mechanism, thus throwing its evolution into overdrive. Evolution is apparent always in organisms with a short enough generation time. This is beyond all of the fossil evidence and genome analysis evidence that we have nowadays.
they would most certainly observe life and make note of anything that was different than what creation stated and investigate.
Huh? They would note the differences in since creation? How on Earth would they do that? Do you go out and say "yep, that dog looks exactly like the dogs at creation" (side note: dogs actually make a great example of evolution. All dogs came from wolves: they can still interbreed, but they are not wolves. They arose most likely as a symbiotic relationship with humans. But who today would say that a Chiuahua and a timber wolf are the same? This change, since it occurred DIRECTLY DUE to humans, is really good evidence of selective pressure AND has occured during human history.)
5. as stated in the last point, evolution and the theory violate the the two main principles of science. there has been no real observation of species changing or for it is impossible due to the manner in which this theory is structured.
Revist: Dogs. Revist: HIV and influenza. Revist: bacteria. Revist: humans. Revist: Well, any other species you can think of.

[qoute] also the theory cannot be testable. again, one limitation is the time factor declared needed to see evolution at work. one scientist claimed in a lecture that dna is testable and proves evolution. sorry but it doesn't. all dna can prove is the similarity in number of dna molecules. at no time can testing dna prove the process at work or demonstrate how different species ended up with different counts.[/quote]

Again, your standard of "proof" is ridiculously high. We know how DNA replicates. We know the enzymes involved. We know how genes are inherited. We know that, for instance, the animal most genetically similar to man is the chimpanzee. Now, the theory that chimps are humans' closests relatives has been around for much longer than our ability to determine genetic sequence. What were the odds that, once that technology became available, that that particular species WOULD be our closest genetic relative, and not, say, a fruit fly? And that then next closest would be another ape? And so on, and so on. And yet that is exactly what happened. The phylogeny has been proved again and again. What you are saying is really the equivalent of saying that a paternity test doesn't prove that someone is you father, because there is that one in 100 billion chance that this random man has the same DNA as your real father. Come on. Be a least a LITTLE realistic. Furthermore, getting away from man for a moment, we can trace genetic changes, again, in organisms with fast enough generation times. Actual changes have been DOCUMENTED in organisms like influenza and HIV and, yes, humans (not everyone has sickle-cell anemia, do they?)
the process and how it did its work is still a mystery. similar dna counts do not prove evolution at work.
A: no, it's not B: Yes, they do (see above)
another limitation is that all species follow the creation edict, which we can observe and test. the hybrid experiments have shown that animals cannot mate outside of their kind, if they want offspring. even if the females are fertile, it does not do any good if the males are sterile.


This is just plain wrong. Recently a hammerhead shark was shown to reproduce assexually in an aqarium in Omaha, even though this species normally reproduces sexually. There is a lizard species (don't remember the name, look it up) that reproduces ENTIRELY assexually. All are females. HOWEVER, in order for reproduction to occur, a female must simulate mating on another female. No exchange of genetic info takes place. Why on earth would they do this? For fun? Maybe.
6. elements of life today, why would evolution need death, since there is nothing waiting for anyone when they die, death is a useless function. why would evolution conceive of such an act? also, with its ability to evolve speices, why would evolution need a reproduction system which sets its species free from its control? there is no need for any species to be able to reproduce for the process should continue replicating them at will. there is no reason nor logic as to why evolution would change its process mid-stream?
What? Why would anybody choose to die? It is not something that evolution can defeat; it can't stop time or gravity, either. For your second point, you are (as is often the case amongst creationists) assuming evolution knows what it's doing. It doesn't. It's random. Many species (lets take octopuses for an example) produce thousands or millions of offspring, 99.9% of which are eaten within seconds of being born. That tiny fraction of those that survive make up the next generation. This is a huge waste of energy, not to mention cruel. But the species survive by doing it, so it is evolutionarily favorable. So to answer your question, you're right: there is no logic.
7. evolution is described as a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-everything process thus how could it conceive of what is the right combination of organs, blood and so on that would be needed for the species to survive? how would it know to evolve variety? or know that species would need feelings? morality? none of these are evident in the process thus it is impossible for the process to evolve what it has no conception.
Again, it DOESN"T know what it is doing. There is a major fallicy in your argument but I can't remember what it is called; basically what you are doing is taking the final product and assuming that it was a desired end-point, when in reality it was just how things happened. This is a very popular argument by creationists, but it's one of the worst. They often say: "How did it know to create a liver? Did it forsee that the organism would need to process toxins? No. But if it hadn't, the organism wouldn't have persisted, and therefore we wouldn't be discussing this. I built a swing recently. I made an A-frame. I could have tried an H-frame, but that probably wouldn't have worked, and been scrapped. I could have gone through the whole alphabet, and most wouldn't work, but some would. If I kept refining my designs by RANDOMLY going through the ones that worked, I would probably end up at an A-frame, because it works the best. I don't need any knowledge of physics or any thought at all to figure this out; just enough time and wood. However even this is an oversimplification. In reality, many forms might persist if there is NO REASON for them NOT to (i.e. the frame collapses and kills me). This is actually evident in human "design". Men have nipples. The tube that you eat and breathe through is the same for about the first 8 inches; not very safe. You can't see behind you, despite the fact that that is the most likely direction for attack. Human embryos have a tail. Cancer cells come directly from the body's own cells. There is a vital nerve that runs through the human neck, for no apparent reason. You (probably) have an appendix. These things are either not harmful (nipples) or not harmful enough to prevent breeding (choking,cancer, appendix, nerve), and so they persist in the species. But if God truly created us in His image, he has a really poorly designed image. Furthemore, since we DO see so many variations in how organism do things, like process food, it proves that there really IS no "right" way to do many things, just ways that are right enough to survive in a particular environment. For example, rats. If an alien life form were to come to earth, they would probably conclude that rats are the most dominant mammal on earth, and they would be right. To state the obvious, rats are different than people. We do, however, share most of the same organs. But rats have taken a different approach to life as humans. They breed very quickly, bear very little regard for their offspring, and they die young, thus avoiding age-induced mutations that would be deletarious to the species. They also live in filth. However, they are the most successful mammalial species, in terms of sheer number and adaptability; humanity would be wiped out by nuclear winter; rats would be just fine. By your standards, given that rats are more successful than humans, the "correct" way to live life is the way rats do. The reality is that rats have simply adopted a different survival strategy (breed fast and die young) than ours (invest lots of energy into few young), and there's is better.
case in point: man would not dream of flying and seek to do it if there were no birds or insects to give him the idea.
What? I don't get many ideas from insects.
evolution is void of all that we contain thus how could it evolve what it does not know? adherents ascribe God-like characteristics to what they say it does not possess, sorry but you can't have it both ways. either it is a process lacking in all we possess or it is a living being which created in its own image. one of the two.
I think I've hit all these before. Top summarize: evolution doesn't think. It is FORCED to do "what it does not know" (which is everything) by the conditions surrounding it. If I threw a ball, it will inevitibly end up in the position of lowest possible energy. It does not know to go there. It is driven by physics. Evolution is ongoing and has made many "mistakes", such as rewarding cruel breeding schemes. Evolution has not come up with anything perfect, including humans, or even gotten close. It has simply allowed things to survive that COULD survive.
**i could go on but my time is running out here. i am sure i am going ot here the words; 'you do not understand evoultion'. sorry but i understand it quite well or i wouldn't be able to point out its fatal errors. this theory is what people want it to be, nothing else and it changes as adherents get stumped by creationists. our knowledge is growing concerning evolution it is just that the ie needs to be perpetuated so people will keep believing in it.

i haven't even dealt with the miniscule amount of evidence scientists use to build their theories and that alone shows that evolution is untrue becuase too much conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks.

the last item in the case against evolution: we wouldn't be having this debate if the Bible wasn't true. no one pits evolution vs. the mormon scriptures, the popol val, the hindu scriptures, all debates focus on the Bible and there are many attempts to discredit it. if the Bible was false, it would have the same amount of attention given to those ancient works and people woul dbe researching something else.
You can SAY that evolutionists get stumped by creationists all the time; this doesn't make it true. Even just going by my personal knowledge of biology and plain common sense I have managed to refute all of your claims. Same goes for the "miniscule" amount of evidence, which is actually literally millions of peer-reviewed papers and books for ~150 years, which frankly trumps the, well, one book you have, written by shephards 2000 years ago, that says the world is flat. Your standard of proof is such that there will never be a "proof" of evolution to your liking. There have been dozens of pre-human primates discoved. Not enough. There have been giant ancient lizards discovered that are not mentioned in the bible (you think Noah had a T-Rex on that canoe?). Not enough. The age of the universe has been confirmed and re-confirmed. Not enough. There has been genetic linkages hypothesized and proven between man and apes. Not enough. You can go to THE ZOO and compare yourself to the gorillas vs. the tigers. Not enough. There are LIVING transitional species, like the lungfish and mudskippers. Not enough. We can WATCH evolution taking place in bacteria and virus, in real time!!! Not enough. I submit that you will NEVER be convinced of evolution unless you can be taken back in time to witness it for yourself, and even then you will simply believe that it is the devil deceiving you, just like the church said the other planets in the universe that Gallileo could see through his telescope were the work of the devil.

Please not that I have tried to provide REAL instances of evolution in the natural world. Creationists rarely is ever provide any such evidence, because there is very little, and the examples they use (like the eye) are easily refuted (hint: look at a flatworm). They rely on trying to manipulate and mis-state the actual work of others, AND things that are blatently obvious, like my Gorilla example, to cover up the fact that they HAVE no evidence EXCEPT their BELIEF that we must be wrong. They never publish peer-reviewed papers. They never go to conferences. They are in the enviable position of sitting back and jabbing at people that do try to figure stuff out without providing their own, testable theories.

I don't know if God exists or not, but I am pretty sure that evolution does.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:54 am
by madscientist
jady wrote:You can SAY that evolutionists get stumped by creationists all the time; this doesn't make it true. Even just going by my personal knowledge of biology and plain common sense I have managed to refute all of your claims. Same goes for the "miniscule" amount of evidence, which is actually literally millions of peer-reviewed papers and books for ~150 years, which frankly trumps the, well, one book you have, written by shephards 2000 years ago, that says the world is flat. Your standard of proof is such that there will never be a "proof" of evolution to your liking. There have been dozens of pre-human primates discoved. Not enough. There have been giant ancient lizards discovered that are not mentioned in the bible (you think Noah had a T-Rex on that canoe?). Not enough. The age of the universe has been confirmed and re-confirmed. Not enough. There has been genetic linkages hypothesized and proven between man and apes. Not enough. You can go to THE ZOO and compare yourself to the gorillas vs. the tigers. Not enough. There are LIVING transitional species, like the lungfish and mudskippers. Not enough. We can WATCH evolution taking place in bacteria and virus, in real time!!! Not enough. I submit that you will NEVER be convinced of evolution unless you can be taken back in time to witness it for yourself, and even then you will simply believe that it is the devil deceiving you, just like the church said the other planets in the universe that Gallileo could see through his telescope were the work of the devil.
Well seems like you re a strong evolutionist, jady, what to say... u are a strong non-believer, too, u said, when u said u dontk know God exists. but have you ever believed in God, e.g. before you started studying biology?
To say my point - as a believer i try to accept theory of creationsim rather than evolution. i must admit that many believers dont want to accept a tiny bit of the opposing argument, e.g. evolution - many believe believers shouldnt even think about the idea of a microevolution - but i think its the same with the other side. Both are biased and try to argue for what they believe. me, i completely agree that there IS a lot of evidence to try and go to the evolutionists. bacteria virus etc all mutate. it is true that gorillas are VERY close to humans and so on, anfd that evolution happens RANDOMLY as you said. But dont you think if it ALL happened randomly, after 15 billion yrs it would come up to this? I believe there was a force driving all this - even if evolution did take place, it was led and controlled by GOD, and the "creation" is actually God controlling and leading the process as He wished for his own pleasure and according to His divine will - thats how i see it personally.
Moreover, Bible says nowhere it is PERFECT; rather VERY GOOD. I agree this is NOT PERFECT, and there are some things we may consider as "weird?" or "why the hell does it happen like this"? and many questions like that.
jady wrote:Please not that I have tried to provide REAL instances of evolution in the natural world. Creationists rarely is ever provide any such evidence, because there is very little, and the examples they use (like the eye) are easily refuted (hint: look at a flatworm). They rely on trying to manipulate and mis-state the actual work of others, AND things that are blatently obvious, like my Gorilla example, to cover up the fact that they HAVE no evidence EXCEPT their BELIEF that we must be wrong. They never publish peer-reviewed papers. They never go to conferences. They are in the enviable position of sitting back and jabbing at people that do try to figure stuff out without providing their own, testable theories. I don't know if God exists or not, but I am pretty sure that evolution does.
That may be somehwat true. however, i also believe the opposite for any evolutionist to be true - they could think of the probability, maybe see the species be born and so on and yet not believe it is NOT random and that there is GOD driving it all like that.
as with the planets and gallilieo - ya may be true koz they didnt know it was made by God. again, im not sayin CHURCH is always right, as we know a few hundred years ago it was corrupt and so on, and thats why they came up with those ideas.
As for Noah - ya i myslef cant imagine having an arch with billions of species of insects and animlas it would need to be IMMENSE!!! (? maybe a point for evolution? starting with a few, and after the flood, new ones were (evolved) or something like that). dono how that ties with evolution/creatiuonism, but it does a lot since all the animals couldnt possibly fit in it... Moreover, man couldnt name and remember names of billions of species, thats for sure...
Or maybe some didnt need to be taken on arch; they were able to live through it, e.g. some insects? WHo knows... :)
I just hope that God will come to our minds and put us to the right path.
God bless

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:03 am
by godslanguage
Thats interesting Madscientist. Some way wonder whether non-believers or atheists with agendas are more likely to go to school to become biologists. Its often interesting since the majority of biologists have very strong opinions on these issues.
However, given they have studied evolution, doesn't make evolution more correct, althought thats probably the reason they become biologists, to make evolution more correct and any other theory less.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:28 am
by madscientist
godslanguage wrote:Thats interesting Madscientist. Some way wonder whether non-believers or atheists with agendas are more likely to go to school to become biologists. Its often interesting since the majority of biologists have very strong opinions on these issues.
However, given they have studied evolution, doesn't make evolution more correct, althought thats probably the reason they become biologists, to make evolution more correct and any other theory less.
Ya thats what happens most probably. however i also believe biology can be a beautiful subject to study as it reveals what God has made and what He has done. It shows the immense beauty and logic and glory in his creation. however it also depends on the approach - if i want to study it koz i wana laugh at religion, or whether i wana proclaim glory of God, thats 2 completely contradicting approaches and reasons. as for me, im interested in biology and im plannin to study it at university, along with chemistry.
its true that making them study doesnt make it more correct- however, more people studying and arguing means more stronger evidence meaning creationism has less arguments and arguers.
What i hope that once will happen - and wana help if i can, is that science and religion will join together and stop contradicitng one another - only then science would be regarded as something from God and would possibly lead some people to belief, as it has led some away. I also believe that some "evil" things which may lead as away from God, may later bring us towards Him, when and where the final thing and will be much stronger than at the beginning - maybe some evil which leads to greater good? WHo knows... 8)

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:28 am
by godslanguage
What i hope that once will happen - and wana help if i can, is that science and religion will join together and stop contradicitng one another - only then science would be regarded as something from God and would possibly lead some people to belief, as it has led some away. I also believe that some "evil" things which may lead as away from God, may later bring us towards Him, when and where the final thing and will be much stronger than at the beginning - maybe some evil which leads to greater good? WHo knows... 8)
Are you saying that we should first turn our backs against God for a while, and then once we find more evidence for creationism and more arguments against evolution we become believers again?

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:01 pm
by drddunks
but then again there is probably also no ancient account of quantum physics, germ theory of disease, or the earth not being the center of the universe
there were doctors weren't there? so there must have been germ theory of some sort. didn't the babylonians have advanced math? there were astronomers in the ancient world so there must have been some idea that the earth revolved around the sun.
but simple logic helps us deduce that if an older species looks like a later species then the later probably came from the earlier.
how do you know if they are older? could they not have been placed at the same time?
Evolution states that ALL fossils are mutants
how does evolution prove that?
But just saying "there is no way to prove it" doesn't satisfy, because as I have stated your requirements for "proof" go so far beyond what is feasible then you can never be disproven
we can always prove something if it is true why can't science?
I'm not a palentologist so I don't know
the dating tools have little to do with paleontology, they are used by many different fields.
Physicists have proven pretty well the age of the universe
How? there is no start date for them to be sure or accurate?
We don't need the past to prove evolution. Do you ever wonder why you need to get a flu shot every year
yes you do. i have never had a flu shot, never needed one.
They would note the differences in since creation?
isn't that the questioners point? how would scientists know what the original animal looked like and be sure evolution proceeded as the state if they didn't know the original appearance of an animal or species? they could have it all wrong.
It is not something that evolution can defeat; it can't stop time or gravity, either.
then how woul dit have the power to evolve life? alter design of species?
Again, it DOESN"T know what it is doing
if it doesn't know what it is doing, why would you believe in it or accept it? seems to me that most people owuld avoid anyone/thing who doesn't know what they are doing?

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:21 am
by madscientist
godslanguage wrote:
What i hope that once will happen - and wana help if i can, is that science and religion will join together and stop contradicitng one another - only then science would be regarded as something from God and would possibly lead some people to belief, as it has led some away. I also believe that some "evil" things which may lead as away from God, may later bring us towards Him, when and where the final thing and will be much stronger than at the beginning - maybe some evil which leads to greater good? WHo knows... 8)
Are you saying that we should first turn our backs against God for a while, and then once we find more evidence for creationism and more arguments against evolution we become believers again?
hah no what i meant was that we should focus on Bible and then look for evidence for Bible. That scinece should prove creationism to be right, not evoltuionism, and so on. Of course, those "scientists" would need to be devoted christians, not some freaks going against God of course! 8) :wink: And it would be nice if that ever occured, coz science - or rather WHAT science investigates comes from God, and if the study investigating that joined WITH God rather than against Him then that would be nice.. :D

And the evil things leading to God is kinda differnet topic, sorry for confusion. as people sometimes say that evil leads to good - i mean that it may be the thing which was making you not follow God your entire life that finally makes you go for it. It can be a person you either like or hate, or any other object. Dont know if anyone agrees but i thought of some things and they may lead you to God finally. They may for example bring you happiness in this temporary life or search for a greater one, and may find God as a result... etc.

Re: the case against evolution

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:31 pm
by Fortigurn
jady wrote:
6. elements of life today, why would evolution need death, since there is nothing waiting for anyone when they die, death is a useless function. why would evolution conceive of such an act? also, with its ability to evolve speices, why would evolution need a reproduction system which sets its species free from its control? there is no need for any species to be able to reproduce for the process should continue replicating them at will. there is no reason nor logic as to why evolution would change its process mid-stream?
What? Why would anybody choose to die? It is not something that evolution can defeat; it can't stop time or gravity, either. For your second point, you are (as is often the case amongst creationists) assuming evolution knows what it's doing. It doesn't. It's random. Many species (lets take octopuses for an example) produce thousands or millions of offspring, 99.9% of which are eaten within seconds of being born. That tiny fraction of those that survive make up the next generation. This is a huge waste of energy, not to mention cruel. But the species survive by doing it, so it is evolutionarily favorable. So to answer your question, you're right: there is no logic.
It's possible that mortality was selected for its advantages to local biological communities as a method of balancing population and resources, or that any immortal animals were sterile or were wiped out by externally caused extinction events.