Anyone else agree that evolution must be right (helped by god or not)

Do you agree?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sam Polter

New Member
Jul 24, 2015
1
1
32
✟15,122.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I recently came across the website proofevolutionisfalse.com (sorry to put this here but needed for context) (also be warned light profanity)
It has the controversial view that we MUST have at least the basic idea of evolution correct because there is no alternative (creation is beyond scientific debate)
I know there are creationists on here (please stay quiet if you can) but do any Christian evolution supporters believe this is true?

Thanks
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is currently the best available theory, and something like it is very probably right.

"Best" is subjective. Personally, I don't believe the view that all of life we observe today is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is the 'best' explanation. It's certainly not based on the scientific method.

This alleged 'best' method claims that pine trees and elephants are the product of this willy-nilly creation, which is nothing more than a faith-based worldview.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
70
✟62,306.00
Faith
Non-Denom
"Best" is subjective. Personally, I don't believe the view that all of life we observe today is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is the 'best' explanation. It's certainly not based on the scientific method.

This alleged 'best' method claims that pine trees and elephants are the product of this willy-nilly creation, which is nothing more than a faith-based worldview.
I couldn't agree more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
"Best" is subjective.

Not really.
There is an objective model defined known as evolution theory.
Then there is an objective set of data that fits this objective model.

There is, objectively, no other model with the same explanatory power.

Making evolution theory objectively the best model we have to explain the objective set of data.

Personally, I don't believe the view that all of life we observe today is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is the 'best' explanation. It's certainly not based on the scientific method.

Science doesn't care about what you believe. Or not.

This alleged 'best' method claims that pine trees and elephants are the product of this willy-nilly creation, which is nothing more than a faith-based worldview.

Science doesn't care about your strawmen either.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not really.
There is an objective model defined known as evolution theory.
Then there is an objective set of data that fits this objective model.

There is, objectively, no other model with the same explanatory power.

Making evolution theory objectively the best model we have to explain the objective set of data.



Science doesn't care about what you believe. Or not.



Science doesn't care about your strawmen either.

Darwinism isn't objective, it's subjective. To be objective, there must be observation with verifiable facts. As seen many times on the forum, there is no basis in the scientific method for Darwinism's claims which are based on guesses and suppositions. Guesses and suppositions do not produce objective conclusions.

Again, 'best' is nothing more than a subjective opinion.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Darwinism isn't objective, it's subjective. To be objective, there must be observation with verifiable facts.

And there is such observation.
Denying it doesn't make it go away.


As seen many times on the forum, there is no basis in the scientific method for Darwinism's claims which are based on guesses and suppositions.

As seen many times on this forum, dissmissing evidence at face value with fallacious reasoning, does not invalidate the actual evidence.


Guesses and suppositions do not produce objective conclusions.

It's a good thing then, that the biological sciences don't engage in such practices.

Again, 'best' is nothing more than a subjective opinion.

Nope. In this case, it's an objective evaluation of a model that fits the available data while no other model does a better job.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And there is such observation.
Denying it doesn't make it go away.

There is observation for bacteria becoming bacteria, finches into finches, moths into moths. There's no observation, which is a step required in the scientific method for HOW all life we observe today was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

As seen many times on this forum, dissmissing evidence at face value with fallacious reasoning, does not invalidate the actual evidence.

No evidence has been offered for the HOW.

It's a good thing then, that the biological sciences don't engage in such practices.

I agree. Only biological pseudo-science does.

Nope. In this case, it's an objective evaluation of a model that fits the available data while no other model does a better job.

A model of what, based on what?
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
A model of what, based on what?

For a tiny sampler of the evidence that evolution is based on, ubiquitous genes as posted in the other thread.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is observation for bacteria becoming bacteria, finches into finches, moths into moths.

Just like evolution predicts.
If moths would change into anything but moths, evolution would be falsified.

But hey... why bother with intellectual honesty if you think you can score points by erecting a strawman, right?


There's no observation, which is a step required in the scientific method for HOW all life we observe today was created from an alleged single life form of long ago.

All life we observe today was never "created" from a single life form.
Rather, it evolved from an ancestral population. Which is vastly different.

No evidence has been offered for the HOW.

You mean, besides all the evidence in support of evolution coming from multiple independend lines of study?

Indeed. If we ignore all the evidence, then there is no evidence.

I agree. Only biological pseudo-science does.

Like "intelligent design" and other species of religious creationism.

A model of what, based on what?

A model of a phenomena of reality, based on the data of reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

asherahSamaria

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2013
501
134
✟16,390.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
If you people need your proof do a simple google search. Even Wikipedia has some good information on the subject

It's not that they don't understand - it's that they won't understand.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For a tiny sampler of the evidence that evolution is based on, ubiquitous genes as posted in the other thread.

Evolution is certainly based on evidence, supported by the scientific method. Darwinist evolution is certainly not based on evidence, supported by the scientific method. Two very different forms of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just like evolution predicts.
If moths would change into anything but moths, evolution would be falsified.

But hey... why bother with intellectual honesty if you think you can score points by erecting a strawman, right?

Where's the evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a claim?

All life we observe today was never "created" from a single life form.
Rather, it evolved from an ancestral population. Which is vastly different.

Created, produced, made...use whatever term you wish. The fact is, no evidence, based on the scientific method, exists for the evolutionary view (one of many) HOW all life we observe today was created, produced, made from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Pine trees and humans were produced from one (unknown) form of life? How?

You mean, besides all the evidence in support of evolution coming from multiple independend lines of study?

Indeed. If we ignore all the evidence, then there is no evidence.

Is the evidence you speak of based on the scientific method?

Like "intelligent design" and other species of religious creationism.

You forgot atheistic Darwinist creationism.

A model of a phenomena of reality, based on the data of reality.

What, no scientific method?
 
Upvote 0

Tbarjr

Member
Sep 18, 2015
10
7
35
✟7,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Pine trees and humans were produced from one (unknown) form of life? How?
Let me tell you the history of evolution (roughly) for both trees and people based on current scientific models extrapolated from known fossil records.
About 4 billion years ago a simple self replicating molecule formed in the primordial oceans called Riboneucleic Acid. It reacted with elements in the water to create flawed copies of itself. Most of these copies were destroyed by the elements or were unable to continue production, however some continued. Some of these began to have sections that reacted with certain inorganic compounds to create proteins and a protective phospholipid layer around the molecule. This basic structure is what exists today as the nucleus of the cell and the ancestor all modern life. At this point almost all life used methane for energy, however some also metabolized naturally forming sugars. A certain one of these sugar metabolizing life forms had a mutation that created a new compound called chlorophyll that converted CO2 and water to sugar and O2. These creatures thrived and killed off the methane consuming ones with O2, which is poison to them. By this time certain cells had absorbed, but not destroyed, ones that were of benefit to them, creating Eukaryotic life over a billion years ago, this is the ancestor to all complex life. Pine Tree ancestors and Human ancestors split soon after this with Pine ancestors becoming a type of algae while the human ancestor was beginning to evolve to group up in a multi-cellular life. For the next 750 million - 1 billion years aquatic evolution slowly marched on as animal life began to compete for resources and hunt one another with continually enhancing predatory and defensive adaptations. During this time Pine Tree ancestors were creeping onto land, which until then had been devoid of any life and evolved the modern plant cell wall to allow them to live on land without drying out. The Pine ancestors also began to grow upwards, using the new strengthened cell wall to keep rigid and specializing things like bark, leaves, seeds, etc. Around this time the Human ancestors also came to land in the form of amphibians. This was the time that modern coal deposits formed from dead Pine ancestors that began to cover the ground. with nothing to break them down these trees simply piled up and through time and pressure became the primary fuel source for our civilization. Our ancestors then separated from reptiles and at the time resembled large ferrets, while Pine Trees were more or less it's modern form. Human ancestors spent most of the dinosaur era underground as creatures that resembled small rodents. After the extinction of the dinosaurs our ancestors came out of the ground, began to inhabit trees and evolve into primates. This continued until a shift in the climate in Southern Africa led to the jungle receding and the previously tree dwelling primates on the ground. This group is what we now call the Great Apes. One of these began to evolve to use tools and scavenge for meats, human ancestors, and over the next few million years evolved into Modern Man.

That is how Humans and Pine Trees Evolved. All of this is backed by evidence and a quick google search on any of this can give you it. Have a good day.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let me tell you the history of evolution (roughly) for both trees and people based on current scientific models extrapolated from known fossil records.
About 4 billion years ago a simple self replicating molecule formed in the primordial oceans called Riboneucleic Acid. It reacted with elements in the water to create flawed copies of itself. Most of these copies were destroyed by the elements or were unable to continue production, however some continued. Some of these began to have sections that reacted with certain inorganic compounds to create proteins and a protective phospholipid layer around the molecule. This basic structure is what exists today as the nucleus of the cell and the ancestor all modern life. At this point almost all life used methane for energy, however some also metabolized naturally forming sugars. A certain one of these sugar metabolizing life forms had a mutation that created a new compound called chlorophyll that converted CO2 and water to sugar and O2. These creatures thrived and killed off the methane consuming ones with O2, which is poison to them. By this time certain cells had absorbed, but not destroyed, ones that were of benefit to them, creating Eukaryotic life over a billion years ago, this is the ancestor to all complex life. Pine Tree ancestors and Human ancestors split soon after this with Pine ancestors becoming a type of algae while the human ancestor was beginning to evolve to group up in a multi-cellular life. For the next 750 million - 1 billion years aquatic evolution slowly marched on as animal life began to compete for resources and hunt one another with continually enhancing predatory and defensive adaptations. During this time Pine Tree ancestors were creeping onto land, which until then had been devoid of any life and evolved the modern plant cell wall to allow them to live on land without drying out. The Pine ancestors also began to grow upwards, using the new strengthened cell wall to keep rigid and specializing things like bark, leaves, seeds, etc. Around this time the Human ancestors also came to land in the form of amphibians. This was the time that modern coal deposits formed from dead Pine ancestors that began to cover the ground. with nothing to break them down these trees simply piled up and through time and pressure became the primary fuel source for our civilization. Our ancestors then separated from reptiles and at the time resembled large ferrets, while Pine Trees were more or less it's modern form. Human ancestors spent most of the dinosaur era underground as creatures that resembled small rodents. After the extinction of the dinosaurs our ancestors came out of the ground, began to inhabit trees and evolve into primates. This continued until a shift in the climate in Southern Africa led to the jungle receding and the previously tree dwelling primates on the ground. This group is what we now call the Great Apes. One of these began to evolve to use tools and scavenge for meats, human ancestors, and over the next few million years evolved into Modern Man.

That is how Humans and Pine Trees Evolved. All of this is backed by evidence and a quick google search on any of this can give you it. Have a good day.

Thank you for a detailed answer, I do appreciate it and the effort you've put into it. Could you point out the part which is based on the scientific method for how pine trees and humans were produced? We can observe evolution (or at least the form based on the scientific method) today and find that bacteria produce bacteria, moths produce moths, etc., but nothing suggesting that only naturalistic mechanisms produce anything resembling the incomprehensibly varied and complex life form we observe today.

My request, for quite a while now, is for the 'how' claims of certain forms of evolution (Darwinism) to be supported by the scientific method. Again, I do appreciate your response but it offers nothing based on the scientific method for the 'how'.
 
Upvote 0

Tbarjr

Member
Sep 18, 2015
10
7
35
✟7,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for a detailed answer, I do appreciate it and the effort you've put into it. Could you point out the part which is based on the scientific method for how pine trees and humans were produced? We can observe evolution (or at least the form based on the scientific method) today and find that bacteria produce bacteria, moths produce moths, etc., but nothing suggesting that only naturalistic mechanisms produce anything resembling the incomprehensibly varied and complex life form we observe today.

My request, for quite a while now, is for the 'how' claims of certain forms of evolution (Darwinism) to be supported by the scientific method. Again, I do appreciate your response but it offers nothing based on the scientific method for the 'how'.
I understand your position and see why you are not convinced. The problem is that yes, a moth gives birth to another moth but it is not identical, nor is it a perfect mix of parent genes, it is different. This moth then goes on and repeats the process giving birth to another generation of slightly different moths. Some moths will be born with disadvantages and die while others will be born with advantages and reproduce. Repeat the cycle about 10000 times and you will get something that may look moth-like but has several different attributes. It may be so different that when introduced to an original moth it can not, or will not reproduce. If this happens the new moth is considered a new species. Repeat this cycle 100 times and you get something that looks nothing like it's ancestor. It may not even be similar on the cellular level.
Evolution is simply taking micro-evolution and letting it go on for 4 billion years.
Our proof the history I gave you comes from analyzing genetic similarities to get an estimated time of divergence and analyzing fossils to get an idea of what these common ancestors look like. Geology used to determine factors that could influence the evolutionary timeline. Isotope analysis to determine how old the fossil is and use any discrepancy to refine our idea of the evolutionary timeline and earth's history. Using this scientists have set a pretty solid record for how life evolved as far back as ~2 billion years ago.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I understand your position and see why you are not convinced. The problem is that yes, a moth gives birth to another moth but it is not identical, nor is it a perfect mix of parent genes, it is different. This moth then goes on and repeats the process giving birth to another generation of slightly different moths. Some moths will be born with disadvantages and die while others will be born with advantages and reproduce. Repeat the cycle about 10000 times and you will get something that may look moth-like but has several different attributes. It may be so different that when introduced to an original moth it can not, or will not reproduce. If this happens the new moth is considered a new species. Repeat this cycle 100 times and you get something that looks nothing like it's ancestor. It may not even be similar on the cellular level.
Evolution is simply taking micro-evolution and letting it go on for 4 billion years.
Our proof the history I gave you comes from analyzing genetic similarities to get an estimated time of divergence and analyzing fossils to get an idea of what these common ancestors look like. Geology used to determine factors that could influence the evolutionary timeline. Isotope analysis to determine how old the fossil is and use any discrepancy to refine our idea of the evolutionary timeline and earth's history. Using this scientists have set a pretty solid record for how life evolved as far back as ~2 billion years ago.

A 'pretty good idea' is simply a subjective conclusion, not based on the scientific method.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
A 'pretty good idea' is simply a subjective conclusion, not based on the scientific method.

Do you actually understand the scientifiic method? I don't believe you do.

Can you create a design for an experiment following the scientific method. E.g. to find out whether adding a small amount of salt to a cake recipe changes flavour, texture, or both? Write it out in words.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you actually understand the scientifiic method? I don't believe you do.

I've posted a simple graphic describing the scentific method in an effort to help you. Here it is again, it'd be beneficial to you to take a little time, shouldn't take long, to study it and understand it.

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png


Can you create a design for an experiment following the scientific method. E.g. to find out whether adding a small amount of salt to a cake recipe changes flavour, texture, or both? Write it out in words.

I can't find any evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Neither can you. Neither can anyone.
 
Upvote 0