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

[Hetta]

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

Yes I agree with evolution. Anyone who has taken classes in science, even bio 101, has got to see the evidence that exists and accept that the theory of evolution fits the evidence best. I can't even debate with people who refuse to acknowledge the very obvious facts that exist to support evolution. "God put it there" just doesn't work for me.

 

[justlookinla]

You're becoming a parody of yourself Justlookinla, it's got quite sad. The how is evolution, the evidence is what Dogmahunter posted. Can you refute it (using the scientific method)?

No, Dogmahunter has not posted evidence for the HOW, based on the scientific method. Simply saying 'evolution' doesn't present the scientific method for the process which created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

There is no evidence for the HOW, based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

No. As I have explained in the very post you reply too: that's not how it works.

No creature of species X ever gave birth to a creature of species Y.
Just like no Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speak child.

This has been pointed out to you I-don't-know-how-many times. Why do you still repeat this falsehood?

Do you really not comprehend that?
Or do you deliberatly misrepresent this?

How long are you going to evade the issue? Somehow, somewhere, there existed no pine trees or humans. Now there are pine trees and humans. Somehow, there was a process which produced pine trees and humans. What was this process, based on the scientific method? Simply saying 'evolution' doesn't address the process, the HOW.

The how is explained by the evolutionary model (in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat). The observed data fits that model.

See, there you go again making claims with no support based on the scientific method. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat is no more than a guess, a supposition. There is absolutely, totally, completely no evidence, based on the scientific method, that such a process produced pine trees and humans from a single life form of long ago. So far, in evolution which is based on the scientific method, there is no evidence of a process which would produce pine trees and humans from a life form which wasn't a pine tree or human.

It's not what I "will". It's what it is. Intellectual honesty dictates that term, not me or my preferences.

You're using terms with no meaning concerning the issue.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Didn't produce pine trees and humans.

The evidence of mutation, survival, reproduction.
Genetics, comparative anatomy, distribution of species (both living and fossilised),...

I really don't care about your suppositions and guesses. Try offering evidence please.

It's an integral part of it.

No, common ancestry doesn't address the HOW.

All those things are branches of science, working by the scientific method.

Yet the scientific method is absent when addressing the HOW.

You being unable (or unwilling, rather) to comprehend the "how" seems to be the issue.

Again, in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Again, guesses and suppositions, no evidence, based on the scientific method.

Trees and humans sharing common ancestors is very much based on science. Genetics in particular.

This isn't about common ancestry, it's about the HOW.....and will continue to be about the HOW.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How long are you going to evade the issue? Somehow, somewhere, there existed no pine trees or humans. Now there are pine trees and humans. Somehow, there was a process which produced pine trees and humans. What was this process, based on the scientific method? Simply saying 'evolution' doesn't address the process, the HOW.



See, there you go again making claims with no support based on the scientific method. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat is no more than a guess, a supposition. There is absolutely, totally, completely no evidence, based on the scientific method, that such a process produced pine trees and humans from a single life form of long ago. So far, in evolution which is based on the scientific method, there is no evidence of a process which would produce pine trees and humans from a life form which wasn't a pine tree or human.



You're using terms with no meaning concerning the issue.



Didn't produce pine trees and humans.



I really don't care about your suppositions and guesses. Try offering evidence please.



No, common ancestry doesn't address the HOW.



Yet the scientific method is absent when addressing the HOW.



Again, guesses and suppositions, no evidence, based on the scientific method.



This isn't about common ancestry, it's about the HOW.....and will continue to be about the HOW.

Yawn.


You remind me of that woman in the that video with richard dawkins.

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence!!!"

/richard explains and presents the evidence

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence!!!"

I've done my part. You being to stubborn and intellectually dishonest to process the information is not my problem.

Bye Bye.

 

[justlookinla]

Yawn.


You remind me of that woman in the that video with richard dawkins.

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence!!!"

/richard explains and presents the evidence

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence!!!"

I've done my part. You being to stubborn and intellectually dishonest to process the information is not my problem.

Bye Bye.

Richard offers the same evidence as you do. None.

Adios!

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

OK lets stop right here. That is one huge step that just got ran over like it was a simple hoe hum event. What was this "self replicating" molecule? What was it's energy source? Respiration? Source of information that was contained and passed on to the "replicated" next molecule?
The biggest question is what was it's motivating force? It's "life"? The component that made it "living"?

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.

So now it's gone a way down the road to the point where it has a "nucleus". Is this a surviving "nucleus" even without a cell membrane of any sort, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum? Or even Ribosomes to produce these "proteins" which are very complex and cannot be made like adding water to dirt to make mud? How about a cytoplasm within this newly found membrane?

At this point almost all life used methane for energy, however some also metabolized naturally forming sugars.

And, there it is. All "life". Where did this come from? How did anyone ever come up with this process of the emergence of life and a living molecule by digging up dead fossilized bones?

This is all a nice story, however, it takes for granted the immense complexity of even one of the components of a single cell that has to have all the components necessary for life, let alone replication, the forming of proteins, ATP and other complex components necessary for a functioning cell.

Then, the one element that is the most fleeting and impossible thing to create even today........life. To bring the cell to life. Without this, even IF you had the components of a fully functioning organism, even a single celled being..... you don't have life.

This is why the evolutionists say "We don't deal with the Origin of LIFE. We deal with the origin of the species that evolved from that life"

And again, you cannot deduce any of this from fossils.

 

[Celticroots]

I am a Christian who accepts Evolution. I agree with the OP.