Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.

It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K

Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.

I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken

Evolve: change. Yes, life 'evolves," and we can test and observe the mechanisms of evolution (NS, mutation....) changing the genome. And yes, it's a fact. Does anyone here dispute that? Not that I can see. So, let's look at the whole theory.
What do we know, and what is speculation?
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Ok, Darwin has provided a means by which to falsify his theory, but the problem is that his theory isn't demonstrable in the first place. There is no evidence of the mechanisms of evolution creating such complex structures. None. So, how can we falsify a negative? It is simply assumed. It is question begging to the highest degree. I mean the theory literally presumes in its premise what it intends to demonstrate in the conclusion. That is circular. It presumes a closed system, which can't be argued scientifically. It's like taking a pair of scissors and being asked to explain the origins while being forced to ignore the design they demonstrate.
So here is a question, what is the function of an eye?

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.

Paul ID is a but more then that . ID also I plus that the designer had to intervene
At certain points of life to create other kinds of animals .

Sounds like a "designer of the gaps" thing, as some have pointed out.
TE leaves it open that God COULD have also done that, put it points out that God wouldn't have needed to.
I think it is a question of degree at times.
ID says that a designer had to have int evened at certain times in the creative process so that we got "A".
TE says that God created life from the very beginning with the building blocks to do just that, change/evolve without His direct intervention BUT still needing Him to sustain creation.
Of course it is God's purview to intervene at any time for any reason.
SO ID sees design at certain points and TE sees "design" at the very beginning of creation.

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. ?

ToE has zero to do with disproving god. That isnt even smoke and mirrors from you, its just a silly s-man.

ToE has zero to do with the origin of the universe. Why not demand that the origin of the universe be explained before you will listen to anything about chemistry? (or do you? )



Ever notice how many creox, knowing nothing but a few mixed up ideas about evoltuion, still think they know that its wrong, and by extension, more than any scientist on earth?

oh, and we dont doubt YOU have absolute certainty about a god.

Audi , or maybe we know a lot more then your willing to admit we know. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Philip's post . In fact he pointed out that the theirs of evolution can be interpreted in many ways . And as far as chemistry is concerned you have hide from the specified information their that ID brings. Throughout our history and experience as humans on this earth we have never had an example of Chemistry producing specified complex information . NOT ONE.


Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley’s change of views here.

Audi here's your chance to make history man . You can now explain the chemistry of Macroevolution to a world famous
chemist and gain your yoir Nobel prize in chemistry .

All I was responding to was to point out that ToE has no more to do with the origin of the universe, or the origin of life for that matter, than chemistry does. (or auto mechanics, aerodynamics, the gas laws, etc.)

The requirement to explain the one first before going on to the other is silly.

I wasnt talking about chemistry as such, nor ID. Why waste time on that. All I said was that origin of universe is irrelevant.

Those are in fact strong words , that ToE has been "Dealt a death blow".
The one who is so qualified to say so, and is so sure is the one who should get the Nobel.

It would be for the greatest scientific discovery in many many decades, possibly ever.

Think of the vast swaths of all the physical sciences that would be dealt a death blow by that one disproof!

I wonder why we've not heard of this?

Its all a conspiracy against ID...

Bippy wrote:
Rick, awesome question .
This kind of blurs the line between what theistic evolution is and intelligent design is.
My point is when does theistic evolution cease being theistic evolution and becomes intelligent design ?

You urself even said that god would still be the DESIGNER under theistic evolution .
This is when you would need to look at other areas of life such as the ape like creature to man evolution, or the whale transitional chart .
You could also look at genesis where it says God created every creature according to its own kind .

For me the evidence points easier to a designer intervening to add this information at steps to create new life a little better then A designer preprogramming the steps or front loading the steps into life.

I think the ID advocate who comes closest to the position you just addresses is michael behe .
Behe believes in common descent but also believes in intelligent design so I would call him an idvolutionist .

William lane craig first called michael behe a theistic evolutionist , but I would call behe a hybrid of both.

But superb question Rick

Bippy,

It seems to me that a type of TE that affirms God's intervention anywhere along the line, may be confused with PC. For example, a TE that believes in evolution, but also believes that God specially created Adam.

And I don't know if WLC still believes this, but I once heard him say that his creation belief is somewhere in between PC and TE.

RickD wrote:

Bippy wrote:
Rick, awesome question .
This kind of blurs the line between what theistic evolution is and intelligent design is.
My point is when does theistic evolution cease being theistic evolution and becomes intelligent design ?

You urself even said that god would still be the DESIGNER under theistic evolution .
This is when you would need to look at other areas of life such as the ape like creature to man evolution, or the whale transitional chart .
You could also look at genesis where it says God created every creature according to its own kind .

For me the evidence points easier to a designer intervening to add this information at steps to create new life a little better then A designer preprogramming the steps or front loading the steps into life.

I think the ID advocate who comes closest to the position you just addresses is michael behe .
Behe believes in common descent but also believes in intelligent design so I would call him an idvolutionist .

William lane craig first called michael behe a theistic evolutionist , but I would call behe a hybrid of both.

But superb question Rick

Bippy,

It seems to me that a type of TE that affirms God's intervention anywhere along the line, may be confused with PC. For example, a TE that believes in evolution, but also believes that God specially created Adam.

And I don't know if WLC still believes this, but I once heard him say that his creation belief is somewhere in between PC and TE.

I think the majority of TE don't really have any problem with progressive creationism UNLESS it is used to (somehow) counter the evidence we do have for evolution.
See, evolution just states that life HAS changed/evolved over time and that those changes seem to have been random BUT ( and some evolutionists have issues with what I am going to say) that there is a anticancer process to them, a certain "goal orientedness" to them and by that I mean that SOMEHOW the beneficial changes were used and passed on and living organism were able to take benefit from them.
The atheistic naturalist view is that "natural selection" just happens and things just "work out" and they say this because they do NOT want to give the impression that the natural selection "process" is "guided" or whatever.
That is really where the TOE VIA Natural selection tends to hit road blocks, simply because the very term "selection" implies a process of sorts.

Even though I do believe the evidence leads us to evolution, what I do not believe is that "natural selection" is an unguided and non-goal oriented process.

As for Adam, there is no evolutionary reason to believe that He and Eve were NOT real people at one point in history.
WHY? Because evolution does NOT deal with individuals, only groups.

bippy123 wrote:Rick we also know that the very first life was simpler then the life we have today , meaning that information would have to be added to it . The question is could it have been added through a designer adding information into the life firm itself or could it have been preprogrammed into the first cell itself ?

To me it seems like this information had to have come from outside of DNA because of the video I just gave you

This video here http://youtu.be/rwCf24fVb3g talks about how the theistic evolution if initial conditions would be I possible because of what we know about information , but I don't think that doctor Meyet deals with the theistic evolution that you talk about which is the "creating life and then preprogramming evolution into that cell""

This is what u are talking about isn't it Rick?

Bippy,

That absolutely answers my question. Thank You.

And after watching that video, it shows by science, how front loaded TE cannot be true. That's actually amazing. So, if that's true, then all we're really left with is some kind of creationism. Or, at the very least, a version of TE where a designer inserts dna into creation well after the beginning of the universe. But in that kind of TE, it seems too much like PC to be called TE.

RickD wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Rick we also know that the very first life was simpler then the life we have today , meaning that information would have to be added to it . The question is could it have been added through a designer adding information into the life firm itself or could it have been preprogrammed into the first cell itself ?

To me it seems like this information had to have come from outside of DNA because of the video I just gave you

This video here http://youtu.be/rwCf24fVb3g talks about how the theistic evolution if initial conditions would be I possible because of what we know about information , but I don't think that doctor Meyet deals with the theistic evolution that you talk about which is the "creating life and then preprogramming evolution into that cell""

This is what u are talking about isn't it Rick?

Bippy,

That absolutely answers my question. Thank You.

And after watching that video, it shows by science, how front loaded TE cannot be true. That's actually amazing. So, if that's true, then all we're really left with is some kind of creationism. Or, at the very least, a version of TE where a designer inserts dna into creation well after the beginning of the universe. But in that kind of TE, it seems too much like PC to be called TE.

That is simply not true because it misses another alternative not addressed, i.e, potentiality. Forget DNA and the first formation of life and all the information required to produce it, forget all that. Go back, way back to the beginning, immediately after the singularity (or whatever, I don't want this to turn into a debate about the origins of the universe). Even though 95% of matter that exists today came about at that instant, what elements were most likely present during this nucleosynthesis? Well not many, some basic ones like helium, hydrogen, and lithium. The question then becomes how did more basic elements come about, and later on, how did complex elements coalesce in the manner they did? The third option to direct divinie intervention by means of front loading or the laws de-jour is potentiality. Things occured the way they did not only because there were laws of interaction between them but most essentially because they had the potential to interact the way they do.

The point, as you may have guessed, is that potentiality is completely consistent with theism and any type of evolution. No front loading required. Same thing goes for chemistry and later biology.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. ?

ToE has zero to do with disproving god. That isnt even smoke and mirrors from you, its just a silly s-man.

ToE has zero to do with the origin of the universe. Why not demand that the origin of the universe be explained before you will listen to anything about chemistry? (or do you? )

Ever notice how many creox, knowing nothing but a few mixed up ideas about evoltuion, still think they know that its wrong, and by extension, more than any scientist on earth?

oh, and we dont doubt YOU have absolute certainty about a god.

What you are giving as evidence life evolves is that scientists are smarter than we are about evolution and that we should believe them like you do.You are just preaching evolution is true because scientists wouldn't just make it all up and those who oppose it don't understand it but you overlook that when I say there is no evidence anywhere in science that demonstrates life evolves,it is true.You only believe life evolves by blind faith with no evidence that demonstrates it does.I'm talking about dinosaurs evolving into birds,there is no evidence that demonstrates this happens or happened,none,not even biologists can.

You believe it by faith.Dinosaurs evolving into birds is what evolution has always been about - one kind of life evolving over time changing into another kind of life and yet there is no evidence in science this happens.

Variations in reproduction- micro-evolution and adaptation is not evidence life evolves and yet this is the only kind of evidence you can point to when trying to give evidence life evolves.You do not know the difference between life evolving and life adapting and variations in reproduction,like I do,and so despite how much you seem smart about it,you are not as smart about life evolving as you let on. No pun intended.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.

Meyer would frame ID in this manner.

Back when proposed evolution, there was selective breeding -- humans have always done selective breeding.
For example, if you want really woolly sheep, mate up two that are the woolliest of their stock and keep doing it.
Eventually you should have a line of really woolly sheep.

Darwin essentially proposed that such selection could in fact be "natural".
That the design we see in nature, need not be actually designed but that nature gives the appearance of design.
Enter in "Natural Selection". Not a selection of species guided by intelligence, but rather a selection guided by nature.
For example, maybe the woolly sheep will end up surviving in a really cold season whereas the less woolly will die off.
Or Darwin's own example with finches beaks naturally adapting to their climate.

So what Darwin did was to say that what people thought was actual design, is actually apparent design.

Now this was before our modern understanding of inside the cell.
Information in our makeup, DNA, RNA and the like allows us to understand biological life and systems at a whole new level.
A level that is foundational to the macro level. Previously we just thought things worked, now we now there is a whole new complexity of information to it all (which is what Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is about).
And this information appears so specified that what Darwin thought was apparent design actually points back in the direction of true design.

Really, ID is about understanding the information we see in biology.
It is where information theory meet biologists, biochemists and the like.
A more appropriate term for Intelligent Design is perhaps really Information Design.
However, it seems the founders of this movement wanted to contrast against Darwin's reasoning for "apparent design" via natural selection, and thus you have "intelligent design".

I still feel many scientists are coming to terms with applying information theory to biology.
Intelligent Design as a movement will likely fall away, it no longer has the interest that it once us to.
But, the information we see in biological systems will never die. It is there for all to see.

Including people who were once firm Atheists like Antony Flew (and bippy it seems), who became convinced that some "God" must exist due to the complex information seen in biology. In light of this, according to Flew, the presumption of Atheism is now lost.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Rick we also know that the very first life was simpler then the life we have today , meaning that information would have to be added to it . The question is could it have been added through a designer adding information into the life firm itself or could it have been preprogrammed into the first cell itself ?

To me it seems like this information had to have come from outside of DNA because of the video I just gave you

This video here http://youtu.be/rwCf24fVb3g talks about how the theistic evolution if initial conditions would be I possible because of what we know about information , but I don't think that doctor Meyet deals with the theistic evolution that you talk about which is the "creating life and then preprogramming evolution into that cell""

This is what u are talking about isn't it Rick?

Bippy,

That absolutely answers my question. Thank You.

And after watching that video, it shows by science, how front loaded TE cannot be true. That's actually amazing. So, if that's true, then all we're really left with is some kind of creationism. Or, at the very least, a version of TE where a designer inserts dna into creation well after the beginning of the universe. But in that kind of TE, it seems too much like PC to be called TE.

That is simply not true because it misses another alternative not addressed, i.e, potentiality. Forget DNA and the first formation of life and all the information required to produce it, forget all that. Go back, way back to the beginning, immediately after the singularity (or whatever, I don't want this to turn into a debate about the origins of the universe). Even though 95% of matter that exists today came about at that instant, what elements were most likely present during this nucleosynthesis? Well not many, some basic ones like helium, hydrogen, and lithium. The question then becomes how did more basic elements come about, and later on, how did complex elements coalesce in the manner they did? The third option to direct divinie intervention by means of front loading or the laws de-jour is potentiality. Things occured the way they did not only because there were laws of interaction between them but most essentially because they had the potential to interact the way they do.

The point, as you may have guessed, is that potentiality is completely consistent with theism and any type of evolution. No front loading required. Same thing goes for chemistry and later biology.

Byblos,

I hope you weren't expecting me to respond to this, because I have no idea what you are talking about. You're either going to have to dumb it down for me, or maybe Bippy or someone else can respond.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. ?

ToE has zero to do with disproving god. That isnt even smoke and mirrors from you, its just a silly s-man.

ToE has zero to do with the origin of the universe. Why not demand that the origin of the universe be explained before you will listen to anything about chemistry? (or do you? )

Ever notice how many creos, knowing nothing but a few mixed up ideas about evoltuion, still think they know that its wrong, and by extension, more than any scientist on earth?

oh, and we dont doubt YOU have absolute certainty about a god.

What you are giving as evidence life evolves is that scientists are smarter than we are about evolution and that we should believe them like you do.You are just preaching evolution is true because scientists wouldn't just make it all up and those who oppose it don't understand it but you overlook that when I say there is no evidence anywhere in science that demonstrates life evolves,it is true.You only believe life evolves by blind faith with no evidence that demonstrates it does.I'm talking about dinosaurs evolving into birds,there is no evidence that demonstrates this happens or happened,none.You believe it by faith.Dinosaurs evolving into birds is what evolution has always been about - one kind of life evolving over time changing into another kind of life and yet there is no evidence in science this happens.

Variations in reproduction- micro-evolution and adaptation is not evidence life evolves and yet this is the only kind of evidence you can point to when trying to give evidence life evolves.You do not know the difference between life evolving and life adapting and variations in reproduction,like I do,and so despite how much you seem smart about it,you are not as smart about life evolving as you let on. No pun intended.

I didnt mean to just ignore your rather touching suggestion that you and I sit down to a
discussion of the issues. I mean it, I was touched, it was almost a real point of human contact rather than you just seeing some stereotype. So, yes, I did consider attempting an actual dialog. I did consider it, but
the chance of it being productive is approaching zero.

Your above post is a good example of why Im not going to to so.

I tried, once, to see if you had the capacity to recognize that you got anything wrong.
The bit about proving a theory is an easy one, but I dont think I got anywhere with even that.


Your psot has little to nothing to do with what I said, and the things you invent to say about me are just that, your inventions. You are starting to get offensive with your falsehoods and insults to my character. Im putting you on ig.

Kurieuo wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.

Meyer would frame ID in this manner.

Back when proposed evolution, there was selective breeding -- humans have always done selective breeding.
For example, if you want really woolly sheep, mate up two that are the woolliest of their stock and keep doing it.
Eventually you should have a line of really woolly sheep.

Darwin essentially proposed that such selection could in fact be "natural".
That the design we see in nature, need not be actually designed but that nature gives the appearance of design.
Enter in "Natural Selection". Not a selection of species guided by intelligence, but rather a selection guided by nature.
For example, maybe the woolly sheep will end up surviving in a really cold season whereas the less woolly will die off.
Or Darwin's own example with finches beaks naturally adapting to their climate.

So what Darwin did was to say that what people thought was actual design, is actually apparent design.

Now this was before our modern understanding of inside the cell.
Information in our makeup, DNA, RNA and the like allows us to understand biological life and systems at a whole new level.
A level that is foundational to the macro level. Previously we just thought things worked, now we now there is a whole new complexity of information to it all (which is what Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is about).
And this information appears so specified that what Darwin thought was apparent design actually points back in the direction of true design.

Really, ID is about understanding the information we see in biology.
It is where information theory meet biologists, biochemists and the like.
A more appropriate term for Intelligent Design is perhaps really Information Design.
However, it seems the founders of this movement wanted to contrast against Darwin's reasoning for "apparent design" via natural selection, and thus you have "intelligent design".

I still feel many scientists are coming to terms with applying information theory to biology.
Intelligent Design as a movement will likely fall away, it no longer has the interest that it once us to.
But, the information we see in biological systems will never die. It is there for all to see.

Including people who were once firm Atheists like Antony Flew (and bippy it seems), who became convinced that some "God" must exist due to the complex information seen in biology. In light of this, according to Flew, the presumption of Atheism is now lost.

The son of a preacher 'falls away' from the church, and then, not having reached escape velocity, he falls back into it.

That is so deep!

jlay wrote:Evolve: change. Yes, life 'evolves," and we can test and observe the mechanisms of evolution (NS, mutation....) changing the genome. And yes, it's a fact. Does anyone here dispute that? Not that I can see.

The person I was refuting said "I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves."

jlay wrote: So, let's look at the whole theory.
What do we know, and what is speculation?
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Ok, Darwin has provided a means by which to falsify his theory, but the problem is that his theory isn't demonstrable in the first place. There is no evidence of the mechanisms of evolution creating such complex structures. None. So, how can we falsify a negative? It is simply assumed. It is question begging to the highest degree. I mean the theory literally presumes in its premise what it intends to demonstrate in the conclusion. That is circular. It presumes a closed system, which can't be argued scientifically. It's like taking a pair of scissors and being asked to explain the origins while being forced to ignore the design they demonstrate.
So here is a question, what is the function of an eye?

I understand there is much that is under the umbrella of Evolution that people disagree with. It was not my intention to defend evolution against all who have disagreements with it, just to point out that saying all of it is false is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am curious though; whatever disagreements you have with the theory, I am sure there are plenty of others who share your disagreements. Why do you suppose nobody publishes something for peer review? Why not put something down so those who study Paleontology can either pick it apart or admit it is true?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Evolve: change. Yes, life 'evolves," and we can test and observe the mechanisms of evolution (NS, mutation....) changing the genome. And yes, it's a fact. Does anyone here dispute that? Not that I can see.

The person I was refuting said "I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves."

jlay wrote: So, let's look at the whole theory.
What do we know, and what is speculation?
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Ok, Darwin has provided a means by which to falsify his theory, but the problem is that his theory isn't demonstrable in the first place. There is no evidence of the mechanisms of evolution creating such complex structures. None. So, how can we falsify a negative? It is simply assumed. It is question begging to the highest degree. I mean the theory literally presumes in its premise what it intends to demonstrate in the conclusion. That is circular. It presumes a closed system, which can't be argued scientifically. It's like taking a pair of scissors and being asked to explain the origins while being forced to ignore the design they demonstrate.
So here is a question, what is the function of an eye?

I understand there is much that is under the umbrella of Evolution that people disagree with. It was not my intention to defend evolution against all who have disagreements with it, just to point out that saying all of it is false is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am curious though; whatever disagreements you have with the theory, I am sure there are plenty of others who share your disagreements. Why do you suppose nobody publishes something for peer review? Why not put something down so those who study Paleontology can either pick it apart or admit it is true?

Ken

IOW, lets hear an actual fact contrary to ToE. Philosophy, religion, "information", etc aint it.

Nobody has published such facts, They may be there, but they seem to remain undetected.

IF ToE is wrong, the proof should be everywhere.