Just so you know the only reason I shortened many of your quotes is because the dang computer...
Ah... I understand well
No problems.
In other words they attributed the works of creation to "Gods."
Yes. So if it is no problem to attribute it to one god, why not multiple gods, and then how would one distinguish?
I'm saying that for their idea to work something would have to guide the changes in biology.
Yes, and mutation/other genome changing methods (like sexual reproduction) and pressures from the environment work well as guides.
but for evolution to work, they would have to control their biology, or some outside force would have to. How would natural mutation produce anything positive?
Mutations change genes. They change teh genome by definition, and so certain mutations will change genes. Changed genes may or may not confer a benefit. The animal/plant/single celled organism cannot control where or how often or which mutations occur.
But why are their sheep at all if they are all slow and stupid? They do live among predators if not shepherded.
There are certain sheep even though they are slow and stupid because humans keep them that way. Sheep that live among predators are not the same in behavior or body build, etc. After all, domestic sheep are only one species in a genus.
Unless acted on by on outside force, the 2 law applies.
Yes, and there are several outside forces imparting energy. Solar radiation, undersea thermal vents, etc.
The body's ability to fight diseases and "heal itself' ... happened by chance.
1) But that deterioration is not the change in energy that entropy describes.
2) Again, it is a bare assertion.
I don't remember referencing the Big Bang theory
Yeah, sorry, I just C&Ped the whole thermodynamics thing.
The idea that natural selection is randomness because it is not explained thoroughly. Merely saying that the stronger animals within a species survive and the weaker ones die does not explain mutation, unless the surviving species were always there to begin with.
But natural selection is NOT randomness.
It goes like this:
Mutations happen. Where the mutation happens is random, what the mutation is is random. The mutation changes a gene (or more than one). The effect on the gene(s) is not random, but is fixed, based on how the gene was changed. This change is expressed by the beings cells (not random). This leads to some (not random) change in the animal. This change in the animal is (not randomly) selected for, selected against, or acted upon neutrally (which is not random, it is determined by what the change is and what the environment is.)
And it also seems your surviving species were there to begin with is based on a flawed understanding.
How it works is, according to mutations and selection, changes will build up in the current species, until it will have changed so much, it could not breed with its predecessors... or a separate population of what was the same species that was isolated. I can expound if you wish.
It assumes that because it assumes there is no creator.
Because there is no evidence for a creator.
It makes perfect sense that the strongest would survive in theory but I'm asking what is evolution's answer to how they became the strongest.
Remember, it is fittest, not strongest. And the answer is that they were bested adapted for their niche.
It doesn't say how everything began, but just tries to explain how it behaves and assumes that the way it behaves is how it began.
But that is what evolution is designed to do. The beginning of life is outside the field of evolution. ONCE LIFE STARTED, it was not perfectly replicating (the DNA I mean), so there were mutations from the beginning, and the way they were expressed and the environment determine what is the fittest. Fittest is subjective based on the environment. This is essential to understanding.
ut creationism does not pass itself off as following the scientific method.
But the ToE actually DOES.
Scientists put faith in research already done by other scientists, and put faith in the idea that what they see and understand is all the puzzle pieces needed to complete the whole puzzle.
But this is not the same as religious faith. This is an equivocation.
For evolution to be true and for stronger species to evolve out of weaker species, there must be some force that makes them change and not just die off.
A force like... natural selection. Like the fitter surviving long enough and spreading enough through the gene pool to change the populations makeup.
Evolution across kingdoms, phylum, ect are what I don't believe in- even with millions of years to evolve.
Nothing evolves ACROSS a phylum, or a kingdom. The kingdoms evolved from a split in something that did not yet possess distinguishing features of any kingdom that it split in to.
But common sense doesnt work in science. Common sense would tell you things are solid, not that a human being has little enough matter to barely see under a microscope and is 99%+ empty space. Common sense would not tell people the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem. Common sense would not say that the Sun is millions of times more massive than the earth, or tell us anything about the distance to the moon. Common sense would tell you you could NOT walk on a 1:10 mixture of corn starch and water. And so on.
IE a creator that was never created. ...There had to be energy there to begin with.
There is no evolutionISM. Evolution does not assume a creator of any kind. What got the ball rolling would actually be biochemistry and thermodynamics. If you go back further than that, to the Big Bang, then go read my earlier thing about the 1st LoT
And they had to be created. BTW what holds the proton to the neutron? The neutron has no charge.
Evidence for your assertion they needed to be created? Also, the answer is the strong force. No joke, that is its name.
And its that positive evidence that evolution never produces because it never says what started the ball rolling in the first place, nor does it prove what was there at the beginning.
NO! This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The theory of electricity is not evidenced against by NOT explaining where electrons come from. Germ theory is NOT evidenced against by NOT explaining where germs come from. Cell theory is not evidenced against by not saying where cells come from, atomic theory is not evidenced against by not saying where atoms come from, and so on. Evolution explains the adaption and diversification of life, no more. If evolution not explaining the origin of life is evidence against it, then so is evolution not explaining how clouds form.
Plus I don't agree that negative claims do not have to be supported. If everyone else but you says that George Washington never lived, you must prove that he didn't and that they are all either liars or mistaken. Every ancient culture believes in a God, or a creative force. The cultures closest to the beginning of the world all say there was a God.
But that is how the burden of proof works. A positive claim requires positive evidence. Also, if everyone but me said George Washington didnt exist, how would I prove he did? Supply evidence.
There is something in science generally called the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is generally there is no X and the experiment must show it wrong. It might be there is no effect beyond the placebo effect for medical treatment Y. It might be there is no correlation between the radiation absorbing effects of different isotopes of lead. Or so on. And that must be shown WRONG by providing evidence.
This is also an argument ad populum. All the ancients believe there was a god or gods, so there MUST be!
We are further ... unless we are just humbly investigating.
We are not very much further from the start, and we know vastly more than they did about the world and how it works.
If you are going to say that we need evidence that it is designed, I'll just ask for the opposite.
The burden of proof does not work that way. The POSITIVE claim there is design REQUIRES positive evidence.
There is evidence of not design- ... They just follow wherever the cow ran 150 years ago. Thats not design- unless you want to say the cow designed them.
That isnt evidence of non-design. The road IS designed. Someone had to clear the grass, flatten it out, pave it, etc. The path might not be planned out, but the road IS designed.
So murder is a good idea as how to deal with people who disagree with you? It works... they no longer disagree.
It works it far too broad.
Seeing life evolve from simple organisms in one kingdom, phylum, ect evolve to complex organisms in different phylums does not happen. None of us have ever seen that which is why believing that requires faith.
But the ToE does not say that they changed phyla. What the ToE SAYS is that different phyla/kingdoms/orders arose from one group of organisms splitting and changing so much that they became different species, which continued to further split, which continued to further split, etc.
Its all the same thing because intelligence is a strength. The sciences that study the past can only follow the scientific method to a certain extent.
But strength is one specific quality. There are many. Speed, intelligence, strength, number of offspring, efficiency at getting food, and so on.
And how so? To what extent?
Things that don't work are bad designs.
Dont work how? And calling them designs ASSUMES a designer who may or may not even be in evidence.
Not across the upper classifications like ...critters to each other. Evolution across these has never been observed
But creatures DONT cross them. They came from minute splits back before there was as much diversity as today.
See, basically many tenants of evolution do not even follow the scientific method. Its usually trying to prove an existing theory.
This isnt correct. You might see how better if you were to study evolution.
If the origin of life is not part of evolution, then that makes it even more cavalier and lacking in verisimilitude.
No, it doesnt. The ToE does not even claim to explain the origin of life, but how it works and its diversity. Its like electricity- it does not claim to explain where electrons come from, merely how they act and interact.
So its all part of a conspiracy to stop science?
Conspiracy implies secret. Its an organized movement to convince people various things are not science and discredit them. There is evidence- take the AiG statement of faith here:
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis
specifically:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Take the Jack Chic tracks and Kent Hovind who try to say there are 6 kinds of evolution that include everything from Big Bang cosmology to nuclear physics to biological evolution.
Take the Wedge Document.

So, no. I am not saying there is a conspiracy. I am saying there is a religious movement out there to discredit any science that is not in agreement with a very narrow view of the Bible, to put creationism and Christianity into US public schools, and that that movement is very open about its goal, attempts to actively recruit and promote its agenda, and is not trying to hide or be a conspiracy at all.
Because somebody before you already figured that information out.
Because many of them already happen in nature. And you havent shown my point wrong. I can know exactly how much energy a reaction takes, at what temperatures the components are stable at, and what kinds of solvent (polar/nonpolar, protic/aprotic, etc) would and would not react with something, WITHOUT HAVING STUDIED DESIGN.
And what allows them to reproduce successfully? ...that something as complex as childbirth is possible?
The womb is fashioned in such as way as to sustain life because it evolved to do just that. It is possible to c-sections can happen because doctors have figured out how to do it, even long ago, through trial and error.
Nope, I already know of problems- ie the fragility of the human knee....but the Bible explains all those problems- the Fall. Before the Fall it claims that everything was perfect.
Nope, it doesnt. It says very good, which is not the same. And the Fall says nothing about such problems. It lists several very specific curses- farming is now toil, childbirth is now painful, snakes must eat dust (which they do not, by the way), there will be enmity between snake and human, and a few others. Nothing about the human body aside from those.
But how is it that the earth is exactly where it needs to be to sustain life? ... there had to be force to begin with to make that all happen.
How is it that water forms itself to exactly the shape of its container? Life arose on earth because conditions were right, not the other way around. Its orbit keeps it at the right distance. If you are curious about it, you could look up accretion. And erosion is what would cause the Grand Canyon.
I'm saying there has to already be life or existance to sustain life- food, shelter, ect.
Then what would sustain the first life? The first life (God) then becomes nothing more than the logical fallacy of special pleading. Also, food does not have to be alive (most plants, many bacteria do not eat other organisms), shelter does not need to be alive, etc.
I too had to shorten some of your quotes. I have indicated where with ellipses. I responded to the whole quotes, not the shortened versions.
Metherion