TexasSky said:
In another place on the thread you discuss several elements of evolutionary theory and make a reference to the consistancy of physical law.
So I want from you (not from one of the many "how to answer Creationist) web sites out there (I've found a lot of scientific inaccuracies in them posted as if it is fact).. but from YOU personally...... your opinion on the following things.
Sure thing.
1) Do you understand that when you are debating "Creationism" via supporting "evolution" that you MUST discuss "origin of life" in terms "first life"?
Sure I understand that. However, there are several different areas within this debate. They can be roughly divided into the origin of the universe (big bang), the origin of life (abiogenesis), and the origin of biodiversity and species (evolution). All three areas are covered by different theories. The Big Bang could have occurred with or without the abiogenesis or the evolution. Abiogenesis could have occurred without the Big Bang or evolution, all you need is inorganic chemicals that arrive any way you want. Evolution does not require abiogenesis or the Big Bang, all it requires is a imperfect self replicating organism. The universe and life could have come about through divine fiat, but the development of biodiversity could still come about through evolution.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all part of the Cretionism vs. Evolution debate, but they are not the same theory. Physicists and astronomers study the Big Bang. Biochemists study Abiogenesis. Biologists (and evolutionists) study Evolution. Asking for the evolutionist position on the Big Bang and Abiogenesis is like asking a car mechanic for his position on economic free trade. You need to be specific with your questions and realize that "Origins" covers many different fields of science.
2) Do you understand that when you get into a discussion of origin of life in regards to evolution vs creationism, you're going to end up having to deal with chemical evolution and primordial soup and abiogensis?
Of course. Do you understand that when you discuss evolution vs. creationism that you are going to have to realize that the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of biodiversity are covered by separate theories?
3) Given 1 and 2 - Do you believe in Big Bang or not?
I don't believe it. Belief is for religions. I currently accept the Big Bang as the best explanation given the evidence at hand. If new evidence falsifies the theory then I am more than willing to drop it for a better theory.
If you answer not - how do you explain primordial soup? Or origin of life? What is your evolutionary explanation for the very existence of life? Your "beginning point?"
The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution, as explained above.
4) If you accept Big Bang - have you given serious consideration to the questions scientists (not just Christians or creationists) have raised with the theory? Especially in regards to thermodynamics?
Actually, thermodynamics and entropy are a big part of the theory. My expertise is in biology, so I am not able to dig deep into the theory and there are still questions within the theory that remain unaswered, such as dark energy and dark matter. However, this doesn't erase the fact that the Big Bang theory is still the best explanation we have, even if it is imperfect.
5) Have you, when you "look at what people believe" given serious consideration to questions raised by Young Earth and Intelligent Design people, in general?
Yes, I have.
Or have you relied upon websites that claim to refute them? Have you taken the time and effort to try to determine which site is accurately reporting scientific data?
Nope, I read both sides thoroughly.
For instance - the helium question.
Typically - Young Earth supporters state that the amount of helium in the atmosphere is not statistically compliant with a 4.6 billion year existence.
Typically - Old earth supporters state, the atomosphere loses helium, so it balance.
FACTUALLY - The rate it builds up exceeds the rate it is lost. When throws the debate back into the corner of the YEC.
Factually, helium is ionized in the outer atmosphere and stripped away by the solar wind. Also, large amounts of ionized helium is lost when the Earth's magnetic field flips which occurs once every several hundred thousand years. AiG and other creationists ignore these mechanisms because it falsifies their conclusions and contradicts their interpretation of Genesis.
Given that, have you taken the time to look for a scientific fact that would anwer the YEC question?
Yep.
Is there some evidence that the atmosphere lost helium at a faster rate? Or produced it at a slower rate? That a cataclysmic event somehow freed it?
If by cataclysmic you mean the flipping of the Earth's magnetic field, yes.
If you HAVE that evidence - why don't you respond with that type of evidence rather then just label the YEC "ignorant?"
The evidence for an old earth, and against a young earth, is piled as high as the sky. It is better to wait for specific claims (such as helium loss) to show why YEC's are ignorant of the current state of science.
If you DON'T have that evidence - isn't the YEC right?
Let's turn the question around. If there is no evidence for a 6,000 year old earth and separate species, then isn't evolution right?
Both questions are logical fallacies, known as a false dichotomy. If YEC is true then it must stand on it's own evidence, not the falsification of another theory. The same for evolution, which it has done through studies of the fossil record and the DNA of living species.
In regards to DNA - certainly there are similiarites in humans to apes. There are similarities to other animals too, but you can't possibly cross breed a human to a pig, no matter how many similiarties there are. (And I don't know if they have tried, but I'm betting you can't cross them with an ape either.) So - given that you can't do this kind of cross breeding in controlled scientific labs and produce anything close to what you want - how did natural selection, mutation, etc, account for macro evolution?
Through the production of new species, which has been observed. Scientists have observed a single population produce two non-interbreeding populations. When this occurs, mutations can not cross the species barrier creating more divergent species over time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And last - why are evolutionists afraid to answer these questions without slinging insults?
They aren't afraid, just tired of having to do it with every single new creationist that comes on the board. The helium problem that you spoke about is known as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). For a list of the other PRATT's go to
this webpage.