Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[GodsGrace101]

You don't agree with what? That something can come from nothing? Great. I don't agree with that either. That DNA came together randomly? Fantastic. I don't agree with that either. Neither do the people with whom you are speaking about all this. So why not try to understand what we actually do believe?

You think the things around you came from nothing? What things are you talking about specifically?...cause where raindrops come from is a lot different than where babies come from.

You keep saying this, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. Many scientists STILL think that the universe always existed...just in a different form. As it stands, virtually none of them think it came from nothing. It's pretty much the consensus that our universe came about from the expansion of a singularity. Beyond that, there is no consensus.

That's a pretty huge leap. I go back to the very first question I asked of you...how do you know this state of "nothingness" has ever existed?

As sfs explained to you, it happened through FILTERING by natural selection. If you have random inputs, then filter those inputs, you get a NON-RANDOM output.

As Frumious explained to you, Krauss' "nothing" is not really nothing...at least, not the same kind of nothing that you are trying to argue. What YOU mean by nothing, is not the same thing as what he means by nothing. Regardless, it's not like he speaks for the whole scientific community. His ideas are relatively controversial. But all he's really doing is trying to find a natural explanation, because natural explanations are the only ones that have ever worked out.

I THINK I agree with all you've said..
in the sense that you're correctly repeating what I've been saying - but not, probably, correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do I make a false claim about someone if it's my belief that it's the truth?

To make a false claim against my neighbor, I'd have to know it's false.

This is from Wikepedia and is correct:
Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his persons and Christian biblical law, and by injuring others. In Christian views it is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God's nature and his eternal law.

So, how am I committing an evil act if I don't know it's evil?

Will a just and moral and merciful and loving God hold against us an act that we are not aware is sinful?

You really don't understand this? It is not so hard to understand. If you claim something to be a fact and it is not that is bearing false witness. Your personal belief has nothing to do with it. Let's say you are in a city and you see your neighbor steal a woman's purse. You tell everyone that you saw him do it. Now your friends think that your neighbor is a thief. But it turns out you did not see your neighbor. You saw someone that looked like him and your neighbor can prove that he was not in at the locale of the crime when it occurred. You may have believed that you saw your neighbor, but by not using a qualifier, you stated that you saw him and that was all, you have "borne false witnesss". He did not do it, you said that he did. Making claims about people that you do not even know is just as bad. If you say they did something that the all likelihood did not whether you believe your statement or not has nothing to do with it. When making statements about other being in error is not an excuse.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You really don't understand this? It is not so hard to understand. If you claim something to be a fact and it is not that is bearing false witness. Your personal belief has nothing to do with it. Let's say you are in a city and you see your neighbor steal a woman's purse. You tell everyone that you saw him do it. Now your friends think that your neighbor is a thief. But it turns out you did not see your neighbor. You saw someone that looked like him and your neighbor can prove that he was not in at the locale of the crime when it occurred. You may have believed that you saw your neighbor, but by not using a qualifier, you stated that you saw him and that was all, you have "borne false witnesss". He did not do it, you said that he did. Making claims about people that you do not even know is just as bad. If you say they did something that the all likelihood did not whether you believe your statement or not has nothing to do with it. When making statements about other being in error is not an excuse.

You're talking about secular law and earthly things.
I'm talking about sin and God.
You know a lot about science.
I know a lot about theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand what YOU are saying, but you're not understanding my point.

WHAT caused the energy?

For the Big Bang? And that is not quite the right question to ask. We do not know yet. Not knowing is never an excuse to invoke a god.

What caused the first spark of life?

'

That is becoming more and more well understood. In a nutshell complex chemistry. And the laws of thermodynamics.

Science has no answer.
Christianity says it's God,,,but then we need to understand what caused God.
Nothing caused God because He's a first cause...
but it's still a problem we don't understand....

Christians have no answer either. "God did it" is simply a non-explanation. You should look into abiogenesis. More and more of the questions of how life was likely to have formed have been answered. Not all of them have been answered yet, but to claim that scientists do not have a clue is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're talking about secular law and earthly things.
I'm talking about sin and God.
You know a lot about science.
I know a lot about theology.

I don't think you understand this part of theology. For the Ninth Commandment ignorance is not an excuse. If you are not sure about others you should not make sweeping claims about them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They both do not believe in the primordial soup theory.
They both do not believe a one celled organism could have resulted in becoming a human.

And Meyers is not a scientist. His opinion is not worth much. And the other is not a biologist. His opinion is not well informed either.

What you need to do is to find people that are doing real science in this area. That means they put their ideas to the test and publish them in well respected professional scientific peer reviewed journals. A "scientist" that is not willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, is not a scientist at all in the subject at hand.

 

[GodsGrace101]

For the Big Bang? And that is not quite the right question to ask. We do not know yet. Not knowing is never an excuse to invoke a god.

'

That is becoming more and more well understood. In a nutshell complex chemistry. And the laws of thermodynamics.



Christians have no answer either. "God did it" is simply a non-explanation. You should look into abiogenesis. More and more of the questions of how life was likely to have formed have been answered. Not all of them have been answered yet, but to claim that scientists do not have a clue is demonstrably wrong.

You say "invoking a god" like we're back in the caveman days.

Christians don't INVOKE a god...they believe in GOD,,,probably the God that DID create the universe we see around us.

And as to chemistry...he's not hero of mine, but Dr. Tours is a Chemist and he DOES say that the ingredients of life could not have come together by chance.

I seem to be the one saying we should all slow down since we cannot know how we came to be...it's the science believers that are so sure God does not exist.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't think you understand this part of theology. For the Ninth Commandment ignorance is not an excuse. If you are not sure about others you should not make sweeping claims about them.

What do you mean about not being sure about others?
What are we talking about here?
Did I make a statement about someone that was not true?
OR
Are we discussing theology?

I believe it's the second.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And Meyers is not a scientist. His opinion is not worth much. And the other is not a biologist. His opinion is not well informed either.

What you need to do is to find people that are doing real science in this area. That means they put their ideas to the test and publish them in well respected professional scientific peer reviewed journals. A "scientist" that is not willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, is not a scientist at all in the subject at hand.

The above has been done.
And I did say they are NOT my gurus...just the first names that come to mind...
There are scientists that are abandoning the idea of proving evolution...this cannot be denied.

And I never did get an answer about the Cambrian Explosion. I'm not expecting one either because there is none.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You're talking about secular law and earthly things.
I'm talking about sin and God.
You know a lot about science.
I know a lot about theology.

Science is useful; theology is not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@GodsGrace101, let me recommend Francis Collins' The Language of God. Collins in the PhD who headed up the Human Genome Project for sequencing our genome. He is also an evangelical. I did not find his arguments for a god compelling, but perhaps you find his arguments for evolution compelling.

 

[GodsGrace101]

@GodsGrace101, let me recommend Francis Collins' The Language of God. Collins in the PhD who headed up the Human Genome Project for sequencing our genome. He is also an evangelical. I did not find his arguments for a god compelling, but perhaps you find his arguments for evolution compelling.

I think I know the arguments.
The fact that I do not agree with you does NOT mean that I don't know the arguments.
It means I don't agree with you.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Science is useful; theology is not.

Your belief is valid for you.
God has always existed...
science has not...

 

[46AND2]

I THINK I agree with all you've said..
in the sense that you're correctly repeating what I've been saying - but not, probably, correctly.

 

[GodsGrace101]

LOL
What? You're worried because I agree with you?
You said that something can't come from nothing.
I agree.

You mentioned something about raindrops coming from a difference place than babies.
Woah...you coulda fooled me!
I've had two btw...babies, I mean.
I mean....EVERYTHING had to be created by someone or something...I think it'll be someone...like, maybe God.

I can't remember the last thingy...
But 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think I know the arguments.
The fact that I do not agree with you does NOT mean that I don't know the arguments.
It means I don't agree with you.

I never said otherwise. I just thought you might find it useful.

 

[46AND2]

LOL
What? You're worried because I agree with you?
You said that something can't come from nothing.
I agree.

You mentioned something about raindrops coming from a difference place than babies.
Woah...you coulda fooled me!
I've had two btw...babies, I mean.
I mean....EVERYTHING had to be created by someone or something...I think it'll be someone...like, maybe God.

I can't remember the last thingy...
But 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Your belief is valid for you.
God has always existed...

Prove it without spouting theology or making appeals to the authority of the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

EVERYTHING had to be created by someone or something...I think it'll be someone...like, maybe God.

What created God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The above has been done.
And I did say they are NOT my gurus...just the first names that come to mind...
There are scientists that are abandoning the idea of proving evolution...this cannot be denied.

And I never did get an answer about the Cambrian Explosion. I'm not expecting one either because there is none.

But once again, Meyers is not a scientist. If anything he is a historian. He does not do work in the sciences. And your other example was exceedingly poor too. It does not matter is for example a computer scientist that never works with anything in the field does not accept reality. His opinion in that matter has no weight.