Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Bust Nak]

In case you didn't know, I am formerly "For_the_Kingdom".

If you speak to otseng, you would be able to get access to your old account.

Look, materialism has no explanatory power, which is needed to explain..

1. The origin of the universe
2. The origin of life
3. The origin of consciousness

You just simply can't do it. The God Hypothesis is the best explanation to explain the origin of those 3 things.

Either acknowledge and accept this...

That's easy, I acknowledge and accept that materialism currently has no explanations for the origin of: universe, life and consciousness. It's easy to accept because no explanation is better than "God did it" as an explanation.

or simple accept the challenge to a debate on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Why either-or? I choose both. Link me to your argument please.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Your request is like a builder telling you it will take 6 months to build your house and you demanding to see it finished tomorrow.

I will expect to see the house built in 6 months, not a hundred million years.

Please read what I said again. Your response bears no relation to the example I used to highlight the fact that your request is unreasonable. Was it just a dodge to avoid acknowledging that fact?

Please read what I said again. Your analogy is/was irrelevant, because while we have actual legitimate records/history of what can be considered reasonable "time frames" at which houses are built, that is in no way analogous to the idea that certain phenomena in nature occurs every hundred million years + at a time.

When I said "I expect to see a house built in 6 months", I said that based on what I KNOW. So since I KNOW, I will expect it to be built such a time frame, instead of some outrageous time frame like 3-5 years...on in your case, hundreds of millions of years.

And just for the record, my position is that macroevolution did not, and CANNOT occur in nature...PERIOD. So giving time frames about how long it takes to occur is irrelevant. I only use the whole "hundreds of millions of years" for arguments sake.

As I stated previously, evolutionists knows full well that they can't either simulate or down right conduct any experimentation that will allow such astronomical changes in organisms, so in order to provide some rinky dink explanation as to those things happen without an observation...they just simply sprinkle a little (or a LOT) of "time" in the mix...and ta da!!

"Now we have a reptile-to-a-bird. All we needed was 500 million years, and there we have it".

[We_Are_VENOM]

You really aren't making any case with that emotional rant. It can easily be turned around to reflect the creationist position as follows:

For the creationists (who are usually hardcore science-denying theists), creation is the only game in town...they believe in God, so creation is the only thing that they can appeal to in order to account for the origin of species...which is why they defend their "faith" so vigorously, at all costs...even willing to defy all logic and reasoning, just to hold true to their faith.

See, your attempt at being slick falls flat, because..

1. It wasn't an emotional rant. It was just me telling it like it is.

2. Creationists aren't science-denying. We just don't believe that science is the end-all-be-all of knowledge, as most naturalists/atheists do. We recognize the fact that science isn't capable of explaining all things, and were science stops, something else has to pick up the baton.

3. Again, we appeal to creation only because we understand that science is incapable of explaining absolute origins. Law of excluded middle; when you only have two options (natural/supernatural), when one is negated (natural), the other one wins by default (supernatural). We are just going where true logic and reasoning leads us...and if it leads us to the supernatural, we don't fight it. We accept it.

But you right about one thing, though. We defend the truth, vigorously.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Ah yes, the explanation of last resort: magic.

Yup. And guess what; God is the magician. But at least we can say that the magician caused the rabbit (synonymous with the universe) to appear.

Without God, there is/was no magician; the universe just popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Dead matter suddenly and/or gradually came to life and began to talk, think, and reproduce.

Letters and sentences structures began to formulate (synonymous with low entropy) without any preconceived sense of direction.

All of this happened, with NO magician. To me, that is actually worse than magic

[We_Are_VENOM]

So it is FTK, from my home state of NC I believe (from another post on this website where you posted a link to your personal website).

Nope, I'm not from NC And I don't have a personal website.

We've had this dialog before. But a quick couple of comments. First, from the quoted text above, I do not claim and never have that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST." I am an atheist, which means I lack a belief in gods. But that is not a claim that they don't exist, only that I don't believe that they exist because I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do.

Sounds like a form of agnosticism to me. But either way, you live your life as if God doesn't exist, which is close enough to atheism. On Christian theism, God does not make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

There is no gray area...either you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or you don't. God is not in the business of playing word or label games. There is only one true label: Christianity.

According to the Bible and Christian theism (which you could probably care less about; just sayin) it is clear that man is without excuse for nothing believing in God (Romans 1:20), because the evidence is clear based upon what has been made in and of creation..so this whole "I've never seen any convincing evidence" thing, just doesn't hold any water.

If one of these beings popped out of the clouds and introduced itself I'd change my mind.

"You have seen, therefore you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believe".
(John 20:29).

But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen (or anything remotely similar).

Yeah, and you also won't hold your breath for the one hundred million years it takes for a reptile to evolve into a bird, either.

Secondly, abiogenesis does not have to transition to a "brute fact" before it can be considered as a possibility.

Actually, it isn't even possible (sentient life originating naturally). And cool, you acknowledge that it is possible, but will you also acknowledge its unlikelihood? Will you take it that far?

As I said, it is an open scientific hypothesis that may well turn out to be correct.

Or it may turn out to not be correct. Again, will you acknowledge this?

I personally think it will be shown to be correct eventually, but until then it is on the table along with all of the other options. It has never been shown NOT to be an option, and until that happens it is in the running.

Or, it can be falsified. Third time, are you going to acknowledge this?

It is certainly a lot more plausible than god magic, and by your own logic since the existence of a god of any kind is not a "brute fact", it seems that option is just as questionable as abiogenesis, or more so.

Actually, the existence of God is not only a "brute fact"...but it is absolutely, positively logically necessarily for transcendent cause to exist.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #94]

Again, let me make this point blatantly clear; my position regarding macroevolution is simple..

1. I don't believe that it occurred in any way, shape or form.
2. It did not occur in individual populations
3. It did not occur in group populations
4. It did not occur suddenly (one birth at a time)
5. It did not occur gradually (many births over hundreds of millions of years)

So it isn't a matter of misunderstanding the theory, because again, I understand that the evolutionist just can't wait to discuss the theory with a skeptic, so they can eventually pull the "you just don't understand evolution", or "that's not what evolution says" card.

They always have any variation of those quips in the clip, at all times.

My position is, evolution, as a theory, is false...not only is it false, but it is simply naturally impossible for sentient life to originate from non living material.

Yes, I said it...impossible.

So make no mistake about it. Just because I don't accept the theory, doesn't mean I don't understand it. In fact, it is my understanding of the theory which allows me to refuse its acceptance as a viable, scientific theory.

[Miles]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #94]

Again, let me make this point blatantly clear; my position regarding macroevolution is simple..

1. I don't believe that it occurred in any way, shape or form.
2. It did not occur in individual populations
3. It did not occur in group populations
4. It did not occur suddenly (one birth at a time)
5. It did not occur gradually (many births over hundreds of millions of years)

So it isn't a matter of misunderstanding the theory, because again, I understand that the evolutionist just can't wait to discuss the theory with a skeptic, so they can eventually pull the "you just don't understand evolution", or "that's not what evolution says" card.

They always have any variation of those quips in the clip, at all times.

My position is, evolution, as a theory, is false...not only is it false, but it is simply naturally impossible for sentient life to originate from non living material.

Yes, I said it...impossible.

So make no mistake about it. Just because I don't accept the theory, doesn't mean I don't understand it. In fact, it is my understanding of the theory which allows me to refuse its acceptance as a viable, scientific theory.

And if you actually did understand it, which your conflating abiogenesis with evolution shows you do not, your dismissal of it in favor of magic would be all the sadder---not that anyone is shedding any tears, mind you.


In any case, have a good day

[We_Are_VENOM]

You really overestimate human beings in that regard. The average human being doesn't even know what a quadratic equation is let alone have the ability to solve one. We have made great leaps and bounds in the last century largely due to the advances in technology that science has given us. Your expectations are unreasonable and really constitute a straw man attack based on human limitations.

I am obviously not talking about "average" human beings...I am talking about human beings who are so called "experts" in various fields of science.

1. We do not know the origin of the universe. Saying that is was created assumes facts not in evidence.

We know the universe began to exist..and we are also smart enough to know that nothing from within the universe can explain the origins of the universe.

If you think otherwise, I will simply ask you to explain the origins of your computer...but the answer you give me have to lie within your computer. No external explanation can be given.

Can you pull that one off? No, you can't.

So at that point, we are smart enough to appeal to something outside the universe to explain the origins of the universe.

But of course, we understand that any talk of stuff being "outside of the universe" is a difficult concept for naturalists to come to terms with.

But hey.

2. All living things are constructed from the same non-living elements. We don't know how life began, but there are many hypotheses that are more credible than a magical being poofing it into existence.

Well, give me call when those hypotheses are backed by testable/observable data.

Until then..

3. Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of organisms with brains.

Ok, so gather all of the brain matter you need...and shape and form a human brain...and let me know when consciousness will "emerge".

Cool stuff like eyeballs, skin, bones, blood, etc. are all constructed from organic molecules which are in themselves made from the same elements found throughout the universe. No magic involved.

It takes a lot of low entropy for all of these elements of physical matter to come together in a organized and structured manner to get us all of this cool stuff.

Care to scientifically explain how you can get all of this low entropy from an original high entropy state.

Or better yet, get about a dozen or more of full deck of cards....and take all of the cards out their boxes, and place the unboxed cards inside of a sizable box.

Now take this box of cards, and get on an airplane...and once you are thousands of feet in the air on the airplane, pour all of the cards out of airplane, and watch all of the cards float around in the sky..and the cards will eventually find themselves on the ground below.

Now, when these cards fall to the ground, do you think they will fall into a perfectly structured card house?

Do you really?

Why should we be able to do that?

Because nature did it. If sweet, frail Mother Teresa can go in a gym and lift 400lbs on the bench press...I expect Mr. Olympia Arnold Arnold Schwarzenegger to be able to life it too.

We can do a lot more than we could a hundred years ago and way more than we could do a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean we should be able to do everything you want now.

We aren't even close, brotha. Not even close.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #105]

Nope, I'm not from NC And I don't have a personal website.

Whoops. I found the link that I saved from another post here and thought it was you, but maybe you just posted the link? It was this one:

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ience.html

I'd guess you share some of the same viewpoints as this other JW, even if it isn't yourself.

According to the Bible and Christian theism (which you could probably care less about; just sayin) it is clear that man is without excuse for nothing believing in God (Romans 1:20), because the evidence is clear based upon what has been made in and of creation..so this whole "I've never seen any convincing evidence" thing, just doesn't hold any water.

I grew up in a Christian household and was immersed in that religion until I was 18 and moved away to college. I bought the whole story hook line and sinker for most of my childhood. Then in my mid 20s I met a Hindu couple at work and realized I knew nearly nothing about all the other religions of the world so decided to study the subject for a couple of months. My conclusion from that effort was that the only explanation that is perfectly consistent with everything we know about the many gods and religions that humans have invented, is that gods don't actually exist. The other two options (all gods and religions are "true", or only one of them is true) just don't "hold any water." Too many inconsistencies and conflicts with reality.

Yeah, and you also won't hold your breath for the one hundred million years it takes for a reptile to evolve into a bird, either.

But it only took a few million years for a great ape to evolve into a homo sapien, and a lot less than that for many other examples. We've used artificial selection to greatly increase the milk output from cows, and get more corn from a single corn plant, so why would you think that natural events could not cause similar changes, including speciation, due to a change in the environment, and eventually create (for example) an amphibian from a fish? Fortunately there is no guesswork involved in this, as we know amphibians did in fact evolve from fish. This is no longer conjecture, and neither is the fact that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor (we are apes, technically). Genetics work has confirmed what the fossil record strongly suggested as far as human evolution, and your disbelief of this appears to be based entirely on a religious text that it is not consistent with, rather than any science that falsifies evolution. But I suspect you have no scientific arguments against evolution, as so far no one has produced any such thing that held up to scrutiny.

Actually, it isn't even possible (sentient life originating naturally). And cool, you acknowledge that it is possible, but will you also acknowledge its unlikelihood? Will you take it that far?

How do you know it isn't possible? Just because science has yet to work out a mechanism does not mean that it never will. It is an open science problem, and I'd have no reason to believe it won't be solved at some point. Sure it may be unlikely, but life does exist so there much be some explanation for its origin, and a god being that no one has ever seen or heard being responsible through sheer magic seems a far less likely explanation.

Or it may turn out to not be correct. Again, will you acknowledge this?

Sure ... it is still an open problem. But given science's record of solving problems (countless examples), compared to the number of times a god has been shown to be responsible (zero), I'll put my money on science finding a natural explanation regardless of the small probability that may be involved. It did happen, and if the probability is >0 then a natural mechanism is on the table.

Actually, the existence of God is not only a "brute fact"...but it is absolutely, positively logically necessarily for transcendent cause to exist.

No god has ever been demonstrated to exist, so the existence of the particular god you believe in is highly questionable. All we can say now is that humans have created thousands of gods in their heads, and not one of them has decided to make itself visible. Philosophical arguments for the existence of gods can't actually prove anything about their existence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #106]

My position is, evolution, as a theory, is false...not only is it false, but it is simply naturally impossible for sentient life to originate from non living material.

Evolution does not depend on the mechanism for origin of life. If you understood evolution as well as you claim, you wouldn't keep making this fundamental mistake.

What would your reaction be if humans did in fact create life from nonliving material? Not sentient life, just some single-celled organism similar to a bacteria or archaea. We know how such single celled organisms can become multicellular organisms like sponges, and evolution tells us the general path for the diversification of life that we have on this planet today (including humans). So all you need is this first population of simpler, single-celled organisms to kick start the process.

If a group of researchers did, in fact, succeed in creating the simplest organism that could be characterized as "living", would you continue to deny that this is possible even if it were actually done and confirmed? Or would you accept it but then claim it impossible that this population could evolve into something very different such as a sponge or the like?