15 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

[Razare]

However, the fact remains that he has failed to convince science that he is right.

It's not his science. It's other people's work, he just dumbs it down and sums it up so we can understand it.

Convincing someone is really irrelevant then on his part. It's not his job, but he does us a favor if we fail to understand "The Neutral Theory" and other arguments.

Convincing science is also irrelevant if we care about what truth is. Truth stands apart from science, it is not built atop it. Science was derived from scientific philosophy. And therefore, science builds itself upon things it deems true without proof. This is not a slight against science, but a limitation in what it is capable of doing. Therefore, truth in itself must be found outside science, even if the truth can contain the branch of science within it's scope... but certainly the philosophy of science contains flaws in reasoning as I have identified several myself. Two main ones: Uniformitarianism and observation of an experiment does not affect the outcome. Both have been proven false by science itself, yet they are held as core philosophical assumptions within the field of science. So science itself is contradictory in nature... but it works for its intended use.

His arguments against evolution have all been addressed and debunked.

All arguments can be debunked. If you have studied debate enough, you can find a flaw in all things. It's hard to understand how this happens unless you know how to nit-pick in arguments.

So "debunking" anyone is very easy. I can debunk established science and facts very easy. Yet, if they are true, I can still debunk them. And be factually correct when I debunk them, even if they are true.

Therefore, debunking something is not impressive. Rather, the core goal of why any of this matters is to arrive at the truth.

Debunking from one side or the other, never arrives at truth, it only finds potential flaws in reasoning. Whether those flaws are real or not, requires a greater degree of knowledge than is usually available to men, because often it goes into philosophy or hyperbole.

He provides no constructive alternative to evolution.

Whether it is true or not, has nothing to do with whether you provide a constructive alternative.

If you believe in science, science does not require we provide an alternate hypothesis if we disprove a given hypothesis.

We can disprove a hypothesis, and not provide an alternative assertion, this is logical.

Also, I find it extremely arrogant when lay persons come along, play wannabe a scientist, and think they know more about science than the scientists.

Offense then is a determinant of what is true? If I offend others with my arrogance, I must therefore be wrong?

My skill is in logic, not science. Science was built on top of logic, therefore, when scientists make pretentious assertions that are logically unsound assertions, we can pick those flawed assertions apart using logic. But like I said, doing this does not mean we are right, but it certainly can make us look smart and "debunk"... which is often meaningless, because the truth can be debunked almost as well as what is false.

 

[sfs]

It's not his science. It's other people's work, he just dumbs it down and sums it up so we can understand it.

Whose work is Berlinski summarizing? I couldn't recognize anyone's scientific work in that video clip.

Convincing someone is really irrelevant then on his part.

I don't understand this statement. If Berlinski isn't doing research himself, and isn't attempting to convince people of his claims, what is the point of his presentation?

It's not his job, but he does us a favor if we fail to understand "The Neutral Theory" and other arguments.

I understand the Neutral Theory pretty well, and I cannot imagine how anyone could construe it as an argument against evolution. Would you care to elaborate on this argument?

Convincing science is also irrelevant if we care about what truth is. Truth stands apart from science, it is not built atop it. Science was derived from scientific philosophy. And therefore, science builds itself upon things it deems true without proof. This is not a slight against science, but a limitation in what it is capable of doing. Therefore, truth in itself must be found outside science, even if the truth can contain the branch of science within it's scope... but certainly the philosophy of science contains flaws in reasoning as I have identified several myself. Two main ones: Uniformitarianism and observation of an experiment does not affect the outcome. Both have been proven false by science itself, yet they are held as core philosophical assumptions within the field of science. So science itself is contradictory in nature... but it works for its intended use.

Could you be more specific? What scientific conclusion depends upon a kind of uniformitarianism or observer-independence that has been proved false by science?

 

[Speedwell]

And so the prize is for discovering the mechanism. If the mechanism were random + N.S. then the prize would be won already, but it's not won, because no one has observed this occurring.

The usual IDist misrepresentation of Information Theory. Hubert Yockey, whose name they invoke, was opposed to ID and is on record as complaining about their misuse of his work.

 

[RickG]

I have been watching CMIcreationstation on Youtube.

Here is a link to their 15 Questions for Evolutionists: http://creation.com/15-questions

I don't know yet if Creationists would agree with this material or not, so this thread may be based on wrong material, but for those who want to debate these 15 questions, here it is.

Will post CMIcreationstation's 16 videos on 15 questions for Evolutionists here:

1.

2.

3.

4.

I thought this was a discussion forum, not a youtube video link.

I will be glad to discuss any question or comment you wish to expound upon. Simply ask a simple question ( not a Gish Gallop) and we can go from there.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[-57]

Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new.

OK, lets see you change a fin into a leg with this process.

 

[-57]

7. The evolution of multicellular life is well understood, with transitional forms like Volvox still alive today. You can find out quite a bit about it online.

7. The evolution of multicellular life is well understood,....wrong.

Atoms make molecules.
Molecules bond together to make amino acids.
Amino acids then chain together and form proteins.
Proteins fold in precise manners and join with other proteins to create specialized structures known as organelle within a cell.
The instructions that allow this to happen is contained within the code of DNA.

Organelle such as what is pictured below are to complicated to have arrived through a process of evolution.

In the picture the motor protein is carrying a lipid and walking across a microtubule. You can see it in action in the following 22 second video.

Moments before the motor protein walked across the microtubule, the microtubule wasn't there.
The microtubule grows between point "A" and point "B" which allows the motor protein to travel from point A to point B.

This 21 second video shows this process.

For this process to happen a pretty complicated chemical reactions occurs. You can see a quick 2 min animation of the process in the video below.

The process presented above is to sophisticated and complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

It strongly suggest their was a designer who coded the DNA to allow the process to happen.

 

[Speedwell]

Atoms make molecules.
Molecules bond together to make amino acids.
Amino acids then chain together and form proteins.
Proteins fold in precise manners and join with other proteins to create specialized structures known as organelle within a cell.
The instructions that allow this to happen is contained within the code of DNA.

Organelle such as what is pictured below are to complicated to have arrived through a process of evolution.

In the picture the motor protein is carrying a lipid and walking across a microtubule. You can see it in action in the following 22 second video.



Moments before the motor protein walked across the microtubule, the microtubule wasn't there.
The microtubule grows between point "A" and point "B" which allows the motor protein to travel from point A to point B.

This 21 second video shows this process.



For this process to happen a pretty complicated chemical reactions occurs. You can see a quick 2 min animation of the process in the video below.



The process presented above is to sophisticated and complicated to have arrived by a process containing random chance and natural selection.

It strongly suggest their was a designer who coded the DNA to allow the process to happen.

Ah, the argument from incredulity--one of your very favorites. But complexity as it applies to evolution is a mathematical concept. Without the math, you have no argument at all.

 

[Papias]

7. The evolution of multicellular life is well understood,....wrong.

Atoms make molecules.
Molecules bond together to make amino acids.
Amino acids then ch..... Organelle such as what is pictured below are to complicated to have arrived through a process of evolution.

So you disagree with my point that the evolution of multicellular life from single celled life is well understood, but then fill the rest of your post with organelle information, complete ignoring whole topic of the single to multicellular transition?

That's like saying "I completely disagree that men are grown teenagers! To prove it, I'll point out that no one knows how sperm and egg could actually combine." Um, what?

are to (sic) complicated to have arrived through a process of evolution.

And then even when you try to back up your statement on a different topic than the one you say you object to, all you can offer is the argument from incredulity fallacy. You know, maybe we should call that fallacy the "I'm clueless and I know it!" fallacy - because that's what you are saying.

7. ....

So you agree with 1 through 6 and 8 through 10, it seems.

OK, lets see you change a fin into a leg with this process.

I never said that I did it. After all, God did it. He found it quite easy to evolve a fin into a leg - and yes, you can see this yourself.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

I never said that I did it. After all, God did it. He found it quite easy to evolve a fin into a leg

But the bible informs us that God didn't use evolutionism. It is people like you who must change the bible to fit into their pseudo-science.

 

[Papias]

But the bible informs us that God didn't use evolutionism. It is people like you who must change the bible to fit into their pseudo-science.

The Bibles don't give us the scientific details either way, just like they don't give the scientific details of obstetrics, of gravitational theory, of germ theory, nor of refraction. Indeed, a literal reading of one's Bible says that the real cause of each of these is as follows:

• babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
• gravity works because Jesus pushes thing together (Col 1:17)
• germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
• rainbows are because someone put a rainbow in the clouds, not due to refraction. (Gen 9:12)

So obstetrics, gravity, germs, evolution, and refraction don't exist, right? Well, unless one is a hypocrite and picks and chooses which to accept, of course. So I don't pick and choose - I recognized that God is responsible for all of these, and that one should not expect modern, scientific descriptions in one's Bible.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

The Bibles don't give us the scientific details either way, just like they don't give the scientific details of obstetrics, of gravitational theory, of germ theory, nor of refraction. Indeed, a literal reading of one's Bible says that the real cause of each of these is as follows:

• babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
• gravity works because Jesus pushes thing together (Col 1:17)
• germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
• rainbows are because someone put a rainbow in the clouds, not due to refraction. (Gen 9:12)

So obstetrics, gravity, germs, evolution, and refraction don't exist, right? Well, unless one is a hypocrite and picks and chooses which to accept, of course. So I don't pick and choose - I recognized that God is responsible for all of these, and that one should not expect modern, scientific descriptions in one's Bible.

In Christ-

Papias

Tannks for the great example of where you need to changes the bible..and showing how you really don't understand what it is saying.

 

[Papias]

Tannks for the great example of where you need to changes the bible..and showing how you really don't understand what it is saying.

a non-answer - especially since you are the one, not me, insisting on a literal interpretation, even when it doesn't fit. Oh the irony.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[-57]

a non-answer - especially since you are the one, not me, insisting on a literal interpretation, even when it doesn't fit. Oh the irony.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Please don't take it out on me because you need to change the bible to filter it through the religion of evolutionism.

 

[Papias]

Please don't take it out on me because you need to change the bible to filter it through the religion of evolutionism.

I'm not. I'm pointing out (see the list in post #32) that you are changing your Bible to filter it through the religion of modernism. That's why you are the pot calling the kettle black when you accuse evolution supporters of "changing" the Bible. No, we are just using a non-literal interpretation, just like you do in chapter after chapter.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

I'm not. I'm pointing out (see the list in post #32) that you are changing your Bible to filter it through the religion of modernism. That's why you are the pot calling the kettle black when you accuse evolution supporters of "changing" the Bible. No, we are just using a non-literal interpretation, just like you do in chapter after chapter.

In Christ-

Papias

A six day creation is a modernism?

It is you who have changed literal historical biblical events...into myth. I would argue that it is you who have a religion of modernism

 

[Raggedyman]

I can't find any evidence to suggest the evolution of multi cellular anything is well understood anywhere, love to see something explaining how well understood it is

Thanks in advance

 

[Papias]

A six day creation is a modernism?
It is you who have changed literal historical biblical events...into myth. I would argue that it is you who have a religion of modernism

As pointed out in post #30, you change the text of the Bible routinely to fit with modernism, ignoring the literal text. You might want to read post #30, since you've ignored it three times in a row now.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Ps 139:13, which says that God makes babies using knitting, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says babies are made by undirected chemistry and random physics.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Col 1:17, which says that gravity works by Jesus pushing things together, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says gravity is due to godless, atheistic physical forces.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of many Gospel and OT verses, which say that diseases are due to evil spirits (or very often, God Himself), and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says diseases are due to germs (a completely unscriptural idea).

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Gen 9:12, which says that rainbows are due to God putting them there, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that removes God by saying that rainbows are made by the unprovable and non-Biblical process of "refraction".

and so on - there are plenty of other examples too.

That's why I asked you:

So obstetrics, gravity, germs, evolution, and refraction don't exist, right? Well, unless one is a hypocrite and picks and chooses which to accept, of course. So I don't pick and choose - I recognized that God is responsible for all of these, and that one should not expect modern, scientific descriptions in one's Bible.

In Christ-

Papias

*******************************************************************

I can't find any evidence to suggest the evolution of multi cellular anything is well understood anywhere, love to see something explaining how well understood it is
Thanks in advance

Raggedyman, welcome to the forums! I hope you find plenty of good discussions and enjoy your time here. : )

I can get you started on some reading material, but like so much in biology (or any other science, for that matter), there is a lot of learning and details, and that's beyond the scope of this post & thread. As with details of any science topic, the best information isn't always accessible online, and a university course (or series of courses making up a whole degree or minor) is the best way to really learn what the experts already know.

So, to start - First, it's important to remember that the evidence shows that multicellularity evolved multiple times. So the way it evolved in one instance is not necessarily the way it evolved in all the other instances. I think you are asking for information on at least one route, and are not asking for details on every single one of the different routes, right? Here is a link with a paper giving an overview of these different times: http://www.amjbot.org/content/101/1/6

Second - luckily, many of the intermediate types of life still live (as would be expected often in evolution), or types similar to them, so we can directly see what they were like.

Third - of the many different possible routes, perhaps the easiest to understand (and with direct examples) is the colony route. In the colony route, a single celled organism functions better when others are around (many creatures fall into that category, from bacteria to deer), and a mutation in the cell wall proteins causes cell separation to be disrupted, leaving daughter cells stuck together. This is easily shown for many protists (single celled organisms), which can, in the next stage, form clusters that benefit for mutual survival. Further growth makes the division of labor advantageous, where different cells take up different roles, benefiting the whole colony. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219140546.htm
As these colonies get larger, more cell diversivication leads to greater division of labor, and invaginations in different areas leads to specialized regions (precursors to organs). Division of labor invariable leads to some cells specializing for reproduction, and hence these cells form the germ line, leading to sexual reproduction and the formation of separate animal bodies. For instance, a group of choanoflagellates can function well this way.

A sponge is an example of such a creature, and in fact, sponges can be run through a strainer to physically separate all the separate cells. These cells can live as single celled organisms, be fully dispersed in water, and then gathered together (such as by filtration of the water), at which point they will reorganize into a functioning, living sponge animal.

From there, further specialization leads to animals with additional distinct tissue types (organs), and with that specialization, comes complete dependence. At that point, the animal can no longer be separated into separate cells and survive, and full mulitcellularity has been arrived at. An overview can be found here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15714559

That's of course only a very general outline. The details of each step are best learned in a biology class at a university.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

As pointed out in post #30, you change the text of the Bible routinely to fit with modernism, ignoring the literal text. You might want to read post #30, since you've ignored it three times in a row now.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Ps 139:13, which says that God makes babies using knitting, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says babies are made by undirected chemistry and random physics.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Col 1:17, which says that gravity works by Jesus pushing things together, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says gravity is due to godless, atheistic physical forces.

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of many Gospel and OT verses, which say that diseases are due to evil spirits (or very often, God Himself), and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that says diseases are due to germs (a completely unscriptural idea).

You subscribe to modernism by changing the literal text of Gen 9:12, which says that rainbows are due to God putting them there, and instead you subscribe to the modernist religion that removes God by saying that rainbows are made by the unprovable and non-Biblical process of "refraction".

and so on - there are plenty of other examples to

Not quite. Psalms is a poetic expression. Then again many translation use the word "covered" instead of weaved or knitted. You need a better example.

Col 1:17 is claimed by you to be about gravity....And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. It seems like you are the one who changed the meaning of the verse...Not me.

As to disease....I believe some of them are due to supernatural beings as well as germs. So, I haven't changed a thing.

Gen 9:12 is about the first rainbow in the sky. Prior to the flood you could see a rainbow at the base of a waterfall in the myst.

As to you, you change the bible when Paul informs us...TWICE...that sin and death spread because of ONE MAN.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

 

[Radrook]

Some will, some won't. Some creationists support nutcases like Kent Hovind, while others are OEC (Hugh Ross), or have other positions. About the only thing creationists agree on is that they dispute evolution.



Sounds like a good plan. : )

Papias

Not al creationists dispute evolution. Some Creationists believe that God used evolution to create mankind.

 

[Armoured]

Not al creationists dispute evolution. Some Creationists believe that God used evolution to create mankind.

Usually such people think of themselves a "theistic evolutionists", rather than "creationists", creationist being rather a loaded term.