Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[Smidlee]

If you really believe this, and evolution is wrong, what is keeping even one scientist (over the last 100+ years) from producing the empirical evidence that evolution is wrong and becoming the most famous scientist of his time?

Stephen Meyer has done an excellent job in presenting evidence against Darwinism that was even true in Darwin day in his book "Darwin's Doubt." With his debate with Marshall he bought out the fact the difficulty of changing body plans which Marshall agreed with the present day but believe somehow it was different in the past. So "the present is the key to the past" except when that "key" doesn't fit the naturalist's worldview.

 

[dcalling]

Well, natural selection is part of the evidence that supports evolution. After all, it is one of the principal mechanisms of evolution. IOW, where natural selection is the input, evolution is the output. So evidence of natural selection is evidence of evolution.

You are mixing the concept.

Natural selection is the concept of nature over time select the strongest candidate (the strongest survives).

Evolution is the theory that we mutate over time (for better or for worse) and natural selection helps to wipe out the worse ones, and over time the mutation can result in something almost complete different.

All the evidences points to natural selection is at work. Evolution not so much. In fact many evidences if analyzed correctly, points to creation. Nowadays if 2 close relative produce offspring, it is likely to be a bad one, due to defects in our genes. Many years ago, when humans are few in member, how did we avoid this problem? The answer, the genes are not so corrupted long time ago. do you see how it answers the question better

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[Smidlee]

Natural selection is a core component of evolution. You need to educate yourself a bit.

Unless someone supports neutral evolution where natural selection has to play a much lesser role or it will eliminate too many beneficial genes. That's one of the problems with natural selection when it comes to evolution, at times you need natural selection to be a strong force then other it needs to be a weak force (or nonexistence) not to eliminate too much yet NS can't plan ahead.

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[Smidlee]

Did stephen collect his nobel prize yet for producing empirical evidence to show evolution to be false?

When he does, let me know.

Who doesn't know there is a lot of politics involved in those Nobel prize? All Stephen did was to gather the evidence against Darwinism that already there.

 

[bhsmte]

Who doesn't know there is a lot of politics involved in those Nobel prize? All Stephen did was to gather the evidence against Darwinism that already there.

Good for him and the evidence to support evolution, just keeps getting stronger every day anyway.

 

[Smidlee]

Good for him and the evidence to support evolution, just keeps getting stronger every day anyway.

Just stating the evidence is getting stronger doesn't mean it's true. Marshall agrees with Stephen that the evidence we have today shows those dGRN are resistance to change, the exact opposite needed if evolution was true. So Marshall assumes that in the past dGRN had to be a lot more flexible than they are today for evolution to be true.

 

[bhsmte]

Just stating the evidence is getting stronger doesn't mean it's true. Marshall agrees with Stephen that the evidence we have today shows those dGRN are resistance to change, the exact opposite needed if evolution was true. So Marshall assumes that in the past dGRN had to be a lot more flexible than they are today for evolution to be true.

As i stated, the empirical evidence for evolution just keeps getting stronger. The folks you mention are free to produce empirical evidence to prove evolution wrong at anytime. They will instantly become the most famous scientists of our time.

I am still waiting......

 

[Smidlee]

As i stated, the empirical evidence for evolution just keeps getting stronger. The folks you mention are free to produce empirical evidence to prove evolution wrong at anytime. They will instantly become the most famous scientists of our time.

I am still waiting......

Hello? Scientist has done everything they could think of to change those body plans but so far dGRN resist all changes. That's empirical evidence. I know it's hard to accept this as even those who discovered this want to believe dGRN were different (more flexible) in the past.

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[Smidlee]

Sorry, but scientists prove each other wrong all the time. In fact, they love doing so and they love being right. To be right, if you produce empirical evidence, it can't be ignored and is not ignored by science, because it lives and breaths based on empirical evidence.

Do you realize that even if you have empirical evidence doesn't mean it is true right? There are numbers of cases where a scientist thought they are prove something with empirical evidence then try to get the same results later on and failed. This shows just how hard to prove anything.

This is why science is so reliable over time. When someone gets something wrong, it is only a matter of time before someone else comes along with empirical evidence to prove them wrong. Science has a long track record of this culture.

Science is not very reliable when it comes to truth as many believes as i stated above. Almost everything thought to have been proven true 100 years ago has been showed to be false today.

So, when your guys produce empirical evidence to show evolution to be wrong, they will be famous and they certainly have motivation to do so, no one is stopping them.

There is empirical evidence that evolution is wrong done by evolutionist.

In the meantime, read the quote here from Francis Collins, who was the head of the human genome program and a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN, in regards to his thoughts on how strong the evidence is for evolution:

Francis Collins like Marshall are in denial that the evidence is pointing against evolution like dGRN resisting changes. Who knows maybe when the planets line up and the moon at a certain spot dGRN will allow changes and evolution could be proven true.

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[dcalling]

Do you realize that even if you have empirical evidence doesn't mean it is true right? There are numbers of cases where a scientist thought they are prove something with empirical evidence then try to get the same results later on and failed. This shows just how hard to prove anything.
Science is not very reliable when it comes to truth as many believes as i stated above. Almost everything thought to have been proven true 100 years ago has been showed to be false today.
There is empirical evidence that evolution is wrong done by evolutionist.
Francis Collins like Marshall are in denial that the evidence is pointing against evolution like dGRN resisting changes. Who knows maybe when the planets line up and the moon at a certain spot dGRN will allow changes and evolution could be proven true.

Smidlee said it well. Also from the same Francis Collins interview, Quoted FC " I know it bothers people who are not really convinced yet about the consistency of the whole theory but it doesn’t bother me at all. Is the absence of a fossil representation of an organism really all that troubling when you realize that what you’re asking for in that case—fossilization— is extremely unlikely to have happened? Now we can actually go back and predict pretty much to the base pair what was the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor."

You can see FC basically brush aside all doubts and said "I am right". Just because we now know DNA doesn't prove anything, and I wonder where is his overwhelming evidence is about, I am sure if he show the evidence it might not be what it is. i.e. evidences that supposed to show evolution but turned out to be natural selection only.

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[dcalling]

Natural selection is the key component of evolution.

But hey, I know this is the latest creationist argument; it is all natural selection and not evolution.

A very weak argument I might add.

whether an argument is weak or not depend on evidence and logic.

If evolution is real, we should be able to see all sorts of transitional fossils, instead, what we saw is massive amount of fossils of same species at given times.

If evolution is real, we should see Monkey people, i.e more big foot, people of substandard intelligence, because if monkey/gorillas can survive natural selection, the animal with higher intelligence than them should be able to survive as well.

If evolution is real, incest should not be a big deal, because when humans first evolved and are few in number, all they can do is incest.

And let's see evolution is real, and the first chicken egg is born by a mutant dino, where did the first dinosaur egg come from?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, but scientists prove each other wrong all the time. In fact, they love doing so and they love being right. To be right, if you produce empirical evidence, it can't be ignored and is not ignored by science, because it lives and breaths based on empirical evidence.

I'm often amazed how Theistic Evolutionists are such authorities on science just because they are not creationists.

This is why science is so reliable over time. When someone gets something wrong, it is only a matter of time before someone else comes along with empirical evidence to prove them wrong. Science has a long track record of this culture.

It's not a culture, it's an epistemology.

So, when your guys produce empirical evidence to show evolution to be wrong, they will be famous and they certainly have motivation to do so, no one is stopping them.

Us guys? You mean Bible believing Christians? You keep talking about evolution as if you know what it is so what is it exactly. One of the things about 'science' is that the language of the sciences are famous for their specificity.

Define 'science' and spare us the trolling tactics.

In the meantime, read the quote here from Francis Collins, who was the head of the human genome program and a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN, in regards to his thoughts on how strong the evidence is for evolution:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Define 'evolution', invariably Theistic Evolutionists will troll the forums pontificating to Creationists about science and evolution but they don't even know the meaning of the words. What makes you an authority on science and evolution and more importantly do you even know what those words mean?

Define 'science', define 'evolution' and stop trolling the Creationist subforum.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[mark kennedy]

Natural selection is the key component of evolution.

No it's not, natural selection is a key component of the death of the less fit, what could that possibly have to do with evolution?

But hey, I know this is the latest creationist argument; it is all natural selection and not evolution.

That's not even a coherent statement. What do you know about Creationism, do you know that all Christians are Creationists?

A very weak argument I might add.

What would you consider a strong argument for Creationism.