Driving Force

[cvanwey]

Nope it surely does not, those pesky scientists love to keep that part out of it, but like it or not, the beginning of evolution is part of evolution.



I know, and that answers your first question. It was clear you accepted their claims, implicating evolution as the way.



A supposed cute cut down, and that's it? I guess that beats having to actually reply to the meat of the post. Anyway, moot point, at least until you prove evolution is a fact. And not evil as you put it, more like ignorant.



Not sure what you mean by my batching up the wrong tree, I'm trying to answer to your posts. I'm aware of what the OP is discussing and I would hope you know I'm on the God side of this by now.

As to the blank assertion, far from it.

Since you guys have zero explanation how it started, and since evolutionists also use plenty of what they would consider common sense assumptions to reach their goal, I have a few of my on.

"In the beginning God" makes much more sense than in the beginning nothing or who knows. And I already know the arguments there "We don't know how it began, we don't know it was nothing blah, blah blah" but until you can do better than that, I'm perfectly satisfied it began just like we have seen things always begin, someone began it, then finished it.

Have you ever seen anything just start then finish itself without a creator? Men create things all the time just as they are in a finished state, so why not the universe earth, plants and animals just as they are, in a finished state?

Where is my evidence? For stahe universe and all it entails exist for starters, and I have never once seen anything just happen with no reason aor once again, without someone doing it...

Physical evidence? Show me absolute proof of evolution and we can talk about that. Now you are saying you just want the driving force, and what I'm trying to tell you, if you cannot prove evolution you have no business blowing off the driving force as your silly made up terms in the quote below when your solution is no better...unless it can be proven:

I'll make it even more simple for you. You can't determine the driving force for something until you are certain how/why that something came about. Try this, assume there was only one man on the planet, and he built the first car, the only possible way to find out it's driving force would be to talk to that man, and if you don't believe the man made the car then you need to address where you think it came from first, and prove that is a fact before you can draw an accurate conclusion... the very reason I keep asking you to prove evolution, or actually any reasonable alternative to that.

After reading this 'response', I have a suggestion (and) a question.

Suggestion... If you seem to 'know' the 'theory of evolution' is properly invalid, in all it's claims, might I suggest YOU get onto a scientific forum. Or better yet, debate an evolutionary biologist. Because guess what, in regards to what I'm doing, at least I'm a little more consistent. I'm pressing the 'God claimers' for their 'answers'. And thus far, all you have furnished are logical fallacies. (i.e.) special pleading and the argument from ignorance, more specifically. But hey, who knows, you may be able to furnish evidence to demonstrate that evolution is not valid. I'll be awaiting to see your name on the next Nobel prize award for debunking such a 'theory.'.

Question... If the 'theory of evolution' was demonstrated valid, in all it's actual claims, or was demonstrated in a way in which you understood, and the presented evidence was presented in a way where you could no longer refute as such, would you then drop your God belief? Because I hope you know, there exists many believers in Christ, as well as many other believers, while still accepting evolution.

I'm not here to 'justify' evolution. And you do not seem to be here to 'justify' your God. But to instead assert it, by way of fallacious reasoning.

 

[cvanwey]

The "You don't understand science" thing has been done to death as yet another excuse not to prove evolutionary, so if you think my ignorance of simple biology is truly a problem, simply answer any questions I might have after you prove evolution. Surely you know there will be questions after you think you have proven evolution.

See how easily solved that is?

Well, let's investigate a little further, for goofs, shall we...?

1. Why don't you accept this theory? Is it because it seems to conflict with your current belief system? I think I might be on to something here....

2. Have you challenged 'science', addressed professors, or wrote to the national academy of sciences, or even joined a forum to debate against the claims as such? Well, in regards to 'God believers', I have often times challenged pastors, church staff, and the like.

Again, yes, I accept evolution as a 'fact'. If you care to demonstrate evidence to sway my current understanding, go for it. However, my acceptance of evolution is NOT what keeps me from questioning the premise of a God(s). So it really won't matter very much. It would just simply mean there is a different explanation. But you need to demonstrate not only A GOD, but YOUR GOD. Can you do that?

However, on the flip side, due to your apparent 'spunkiness', it would appear evolution might present a 'direct threat' to your current belief model? Am I close?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why?

Because, like it or not, the first person to come to the Americas is part of American History, and if we don't know how it started, we can't say anything about what happened after it started, right?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Suggestion... If you seem to 'know' the 'theory of evolution' is properly invalid, in all it's claims, might I suggest YOU get onto a scientific forum. Or better yet, debate an evolutionary biologist. Because guess what, in regards to what I'm doing, at least I'm a little more consistent. I'm pressing the 'God claimers' for their 'answers'. And thus far, all you have furnished are logical fallacies. (i.e.) special pleading and the argument from ignorance, more specifically. But hey, who knows, you may be able to furnish evidence to demonstrate that evolution is not valid. I'll be awaiting to see your name on the next Nobel prize award for debunking such a 'theory.'.

No, I'd much rather do as we have before, get anyone who would take the challenge, to to tha and as they "prove" their end here on the thread, we can stop them when they are posting something invalid, and show, like we always have before how their proof falls apart every time. That way anyone can join in, and everyone can see how it falls apart

Question... If the 'theory of evolution' was demonstrated valid, in all it's actual claims, or was demonstrated in a way in which you understood, and the presented evidence was presented in a way where you could no longer refute as such, would you then drop your God belief?

Ask me when you prove it.

Because I hope you know, there exists many believers in Christ, as well as many other believers, while still accepting evolution.

So?

I'm not here to 'justify' evolution. And you do not seem to be here to 'justify' your God. But to instead assert it, by way of fallacious reasoning.

The way you have worded your OP:

Meaning, one could adopt evolution by natural selection in it's entirety, along with abiogensis, and etc... And yet still ask, 'what' drives such forces?

You have already, in affect, done more than justify evolution, in your mind anyway, you are assuming it's a fact by asking the OP to begin with. Don't you think it would be nice if you proved evolution exists before you ask what drives it. You are simply assuming way too much here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

1. Why don't you accept this theory? Is it because it seems to conflict with your current belief system? I think I might be on to something here....

Theory as in fact or theory as in so called scientific theory, or theory by it's normal definition? I accept it's a theory as I define theory...just an idea/possibility. I don't accept it as fact because it's never been proven.

You are on to nothing, and I assure you, all this has been done to death already. Now if i wasn't Christian I might need to fill in the gaps too, and evolution is the perfect way to do that, at which point I would likely not look into it closely enough either, just as you all apparently have not, and quickly just accept it because it gives me what I need.

2. Have you challenged 'science', addressed professors, or wrote to the national academy of sciences, or even joined a forum to debate against the claims as such? Well, in regards to 'God believers', I have often times challenged pastors, church staff, and the like.

One cannot challenge Science in itself because science does nothing of itself, we can only challenge people that draw their opinions using science. Why should I challenge them? There are plenty of people right here that claim it a fact, and I assumed they didn't just accept it being the free thinkers they are, and they looked into it enough to be sure. You all did do that...right? Did you do that? This has little to nothing to do with my belief, but
I could ask you the opposite, does the fact you prefer not to believe in God give you need to fill in the gaps, hence you and others grasp at the straw that is evolution, even though you cannot prove it as fact? At least see how that makes sense.

Again, yes, I accept evolution as a 'fact'. If you care to demonstrate evidence to sway my current understanding, go for it. However, my acceptance of evolution is NOT what keeps me from questioning the premise of a God(s). So it really won't matter very much. It would just simply mean there is a different explanation. But you need to demonstrate not only A GOD, but YOUR GOD. Can you do that?

I won't even try, it's a fruitless effort. I've already given you my logic, and shown how, to me, it makes a heck of a lot more sense that what you have to offer for creation, which is pretty much nothing...so. You'll need to go back a few posts to find it, and I should add that logic is proof enough for me.

However, on the flip side, due to your apparent 'spunkiness', it would appear evolution might present a 'direct threat' to your current belief model? Am I close?

Not at all, does Christianity pose a direct threat to you, the reason you persist with believing something you cannot prove? Actually I think, by coincidence, I already covered this a few paragraphs back.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because, like it or not, the first person to come to the Americas is part of American History, and if we don't know how it started, we can't say anything about what happened after it started, right?

Of course you can, or I can, as do most people.

I personally take the word of history for why it started, because there was someone there to witness it. There was no one there to witness the very beginning.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course you can, or I can, as do most people.

I personally take the word of history for why it started, because there was someone there to witness it. There was no one there to witness the very beginning.

But if we can't prove how it started then we can't prove anything else about it, right?

 

[cvanwey]

No, I'd much rather do as we have before, get anyone who would take the challenge, to to tha and as they "prove" their end here on the thread, we can stop them when they are posting something invalid, and show, like we always have before how their proof falls apart every time. That way anyone can join in, and everyone can see how it falls apart

Again, then you, and all these 'people' whom have defeated as such, should all elect a ring leader, present your 'counter evidence' to the powers-that-be, and then graciously accept your Nobel prize. I will gladly then accept your alternative conclusions. Because something so fundamental, which is taught in schools across the world, as 'fact' actually being incorrect, just the same as all other accepted sciences, requires immediate correction, don't you think?

Ask me when you prove it.

No, I really need to know. As this really is the key to everything (you) are focusing on.... If evolution were 'proven', would you drop the God belief?

- If 'yes' - Then I would only ask what 'evidence' is not compelling to you, regarding this theory, soley out of curiosity. As this gets taught along side the many other scientific theories in which it might appear you accept. Because again, if you read the OP more carefully, 'evolution' is really nothing more than a small side product for me. Nothing is lost or gained if it is 'debunked'. My objective is to locate the 'driving force' to the claimed 'change in allele frequencies over time' foundation.

-If 'no' - then there exists nothing more to discuss.

So?

'So', if you fall into the 'no' category, please read above. Because thus far, assertions, using the argument from ignorance and special pleading are not going to help, as also instructed in the OP

The way you have worded your OP:

My OP, as a refresher for you:

'I must admit, this inference does leave one to ponder...?

Meaning, one could adopt evolution by natural selection in it's entirety, along with abiogensis, and etc... And yet still ask, 'what' drives such forces? Does there exist a way to test for such? Or must we merely appeal to all sorts of violated logical fallacies (i.e.) argument from ignorance, special pleading, and-the-like?'

To elaborate, if the change over time theory were amended/eradicated, I would still ask the very same follow-up question. 'What drives it?' And by it, I mean what drives the on-going process we observe.

Comprende?