After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

[EarthScienceguy]

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered the most basic questions of theist?

Charles Hodge Systematic theology copywrite 1870.

Although Strauss greatly exaggerates when he says that men of science in our day are unanimous
in supporting the doctrine of spontaneous generation, it is undoubtedly true that a large class of
naturalists, especially on the continent of Europe, are in favour of that doctrine. Professor Huxley,
in his discourse on the “Physical Basis of Life,� lends to it the whole weight of his authority. He
does not indeed expressly teach that dead matter becomes active without being subject to the
influence of previous living matter; but his whole paper is designed to show that life is the result
of the peculiar arrangement of the molecules of matter. His doctrine is that “the matter of life is
composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in which its atoms are
aggregated.�2 “If the properties of water,� he says, “may be properly said to result from the nature
and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say
that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.�3 In his
address before the British Association, he says that if he could look back far enough into the past
he should expect to see “the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.� And although
that address is devoted to showing that spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis, as it is called, has
never been proved, he says, “I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to
suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past or ever will take place
in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and
every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to
say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call ‘vital,’ may not some
day be artificially brought together.�4 All this supposes that life is the product of physical causes;
that all that is requisite for its production is “to bring together� the necessary conditions.

The theist argument has not changed in 150 years.

In 1870, the full problem in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion had still not been fully realized.

In 1870 an equation to calculate rate of beneficial mutations in organisms, which makes it impossible for the cambrian explosion to happen through naturalistic means.

[Yahwehismywitness]

If you think evolution says that rocks are fossils, or that living things grow from either one of these, you need to go back to the beginning and find a book that properly describes the theory of evolution as you are very clearly confused on what it actually is. There are introductory books available, and web sites, where you can learn something about it.

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds

Is this not part of your Evolution theory?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 41 by Yehwahismywitness]

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds

Is this not part of your Evolution theory?

No. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about HOW life came into existence, only that it did via some means. Again, you need to read up on what the Theory of Evolution is (and isn't).

Origin of life is a different subject altogether ... evolution only describes how life diversified once it did come into existence. The mechanism of how that happened (abiogenesis, panspermia, a creation even by a god being, etc.) is a separate issue, and evolution is consistent with any of these mechanisms. it makes no statements on how life originated to begin with.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

But according to you, there can be no such thing as a "10's of million year plates", because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You can't conveniently use millions or billions of year old events or items when it suits your argument, then claim they don't exist when that suits another argument. Either the universe is about 6,000 years old, or it isn't, and we positively know the answer to that now (and it ain't 6,000).

What are you talking about? Naturalist theory states that these plates have to be 10's of millions years old. I am asking how is that possible.

I disagree completely, but there is no need for me to debunk any of your claims. They have been so thoroughly debunked by the science community at large that they are no longer part of any educational curriculum anywhere in this country. I'll ask again ... doesn't that tell you something? If young earth creationism had any legs to stand on it would not have been jettisoned long ago from educational institutions ... as it has.

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject.https://www.softschools.com/examples/fa ... mples/430/ This seems to be a favorite defense these days instead of facts.

Really? Then why isn't this taught anywhere but in churches or other religious organizations who believe it purely because it is described in holy books written long before humans had any real knowledge of science or how nature works?

Here are fifty scientist that you can read about that believe in 6 day creation.

Why would any educated scientist with a PhD advocate a literal interpretation of the six days of creation? Why, indeed, when only one in three Americans believes "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word" according to a recent Gallup poll.

Science can neither prove nor disprove evolution any more than it can creation. Certainly there are no human eyewitness accounts of either. However, certain factors are present today which are capable of swaying one's beliefs one way or the other.

In this book are the testimonies of fifty men and women holding doctorates in a wide range of scientific fields who have been convicted by the evidence to believe in a literal six-day creation. For example, meet:

The geneticist who concludes that there must have been 150 billion forerunners of "modern man" in order for the natural selection required by evolution to have taken place in the development of man. The evidence for such vast numbers of "prehistoric man" is in dire shortage.
The orthodontist who discovered that European museum fossils of ancient man have been tampered with to adhere to evolution theories.
The geologist who studied under the late Stephen Jay Gould and literally cut the Bible to pieces before totally rejecting evolution.
All fifty of these scientists, through faith and scientific fact, have come to the conclusion that God's Word is true and everything had its origin not so very long ago, in the beginning, In Six Days.
"In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation"

Take a big picture look at where YECs are relative to where the modern world is regarding science and understanding of nature. If you think your ship is racing ahead of the naturalists you need to get out more, or do some reading. Being 2000 years behind the times is not a goal anyone should chase.

Our ship has been head of the naturalist. Creationist have been ahead of the naturalist on the rate at which fossils are formed, on the rate at which coal and oil can be formed, on what would be found on comets, on the magnetic fields of planets, and the list goes on and on. Just because some voice might be louder does not mean that the loudest voice is correct.

I am not worried about six day creation. The church has a tendency to follow whatever the current scientific belief of the day is. Flat earth and spontaneous generation were both scientific beliefs that started outside of the God's word and the church wholeheartedly supported those beliefs, but eventually the church righted itself. It will do the same with this issue and it is already beginning to. The number of six day creation organizations is growing. Answers in Genesis is expanding. The ark exhibit is simply amazing, if you can go you have got to go.

[Tcg]

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject.https://www.softschools.com/examples/fa ... mples/430/ This seems to be a favorite defense these days instead of facts.

Here are fifty scientist that you can read about that believe in 6 day creation.

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. https://www.softschools.com/examples/fa ... mples/430/ This seems to be a favorite defense these days instead of facts.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Here are fifty scientist that you can read about that believe in 6 day creation.

In this book are the testimonies of fifty men and women holding doctorates in a wide range of scientific fields who have been convicted by the evidence to believe in a literal six-day creation.

"In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation"

If anyone wants to actually read this book, a PDF was made available by Answers in Genesis on a now-defunct website. The website's gone, but the book is still sitting on the server and the link still works.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 39 by Purple Knight]

The daughters of parthenogenesis are equivalent to clones of the mother except in

the case of random mutation,

which would almost exclusively produce a heterozygous individual. Let's say for the sake of argument that this mutation is a recessive trait, so right now there is no expression.

It are these random mutations that still cause Muller's ratchet to occur.

And voila: Selection. Not just selection, but selection with breakneck efficiency. The bad trait gets itself gone with no carriers remaining if every worse fish is eaten and only better fish survive.

This is an assumption a belief. This what has to happen for this fish to be possible in anytype of old earth assumption.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 45 by Difflugia]

Thanks!!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 43 by EarthScienceguy]

What are you talking about? Naturalist theory states that these plates have to be 10's of millions years old. I am asking how is that possible.

What problem do you have with crustal plates being 10s of millions of years old? There is nothing inconsistent or surprising about this. Do you think the Himalayas are not 10s of millions of years old? How did they form? There is mountains of evidence (literally and figuratively) to support the currently accepted age of the Earth (4.6 billion years). A 6,000 year old Earth is nearly six full orders of magnitude out ... not some rounding error.

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy ...

And right after that comment you proceed to do exactly the same thing and point out that someone has found a miniscule number of 50 scientists who believe in a literal 6 day creation. Admonish someone claiming an appeal to authority fallacy, then immediately do exactly the same thing! But 50 scientists compared to the entire science community is nothing, despite your appeal to authority suggesting that this is somehow convincing evidence to support a literal 6 day creation.

I can easily find 50 people who believe that bigfoot exists, or that alien spacecraft have visited Earth, or that they were abducted by aliens themselves, that they can speak with the dead, etc., despite there being zero evidence for any of these things. 50 misguided scientists do not represent the scientific community.

The number of six day creation organizations is growing. Answers in Genesis is expanding. The ark exhibit is simply amazing, if you can go you have got to go.

Again I will ask ... why isn't this stuff being taught in U.S. schools (outside of "Sunday School")? It has been proven to be nothing but myth written by people who could not explain the natural world using science, so they attributed things to deities. And humans have invented thousands of such deities over time, not one of which has even been demonstrated to exist. Fortunately, science has shown that these imaginary entities are no longer necessary or useful, and no longer uses them for any explanations of the natural world.

The only reason I'd visit the ark exhibit would be to see the gigantic taxpayer ripoff in action and to laugh at the ridiculousness of the exhibits showing people coexisting with dinosaurs, and similar nonsense. They should be shut down for tax evasion.

[Diagoras]

The geologist who studied under the late Stephen Jay Gould and literally cut the Bible to pieces before totally rejecting evolution.

That would be Kurt Wise:

�As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.�

The ark exhibit is simply amazing, if you can go you have got to go.

Here’s a different take on it.

[Purple Knight]

It are these random mutations that still cause Muller's ratchet to occur.

What Muller's Ratchet is talking about is an accumulation of detrimental mutations. My point was that the way the Amazon Molly reproduces, producing homozygous individuals exclusively or almost exclusively, detrimental mutations probably wouldn't have the chance to build up.

The only way I can see this is in nonselection, plus an extreme bottleneck.

Tiny fish don't live like that. They make hundreds of babies and most of them are eaten.

And voila: Selection. Not just selection, but selection with breakneck efficiency. The bad trait gets itself gone with no carriers remaining if every worse fish is eaten and only better fish survive.

This is an assumption a belief. This what has to happen for this fish to be possible in anytype of old earth assumption.

Is it an assumption that if the fish produces homozygous individuals only, evolution has a better chance to select out detrimental mutations?

Let me also ask you a question about gynogenesis. The current research would have us believe that males of closely related species mate with the Amazon Molly and don't contribute their genes, but that this mating stimulates the fish to clone herself.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that these male fish are suckered into mating pointlessly, over and over? You're Christian, and this means you think animals were created by God to be perfect. And you must have noticed that animals don't tend to be perverts, sex fiends, or chronic masturbaters (if there are a few like this, they're generally domesticated animals).

This male fish, according to science, is basically masturbating. I don't think God would make a fish that does something so sinful. (Actually, what I don't think is that a fish that wastes its energy like this would survive. I think the female Amazon Molly may have a slight chance to uptake DNA from the males of related species.)

Do you believe that the male fish does this, over and over, with no chance to reproduce? And that there will always be new suckers to help the female Amazon Molly impregnate herself? Or does this sound a bit... fishy?