How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[-57]

What actually happened was that you asked sfs for an estimate on how many mutations that would take, and he gave you an estimate.

You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I agree; it overwhelmingly points to intelligence being behind the origin of life!

Can you demonstrate that this 'creator' exists? What is your falsifiable test?

A bit like evolutionists then. At least the Christian faith has a miracle maker for it's miracles, so it's not a blind faith.

Demonstrate that this 'miracle maker' exists. Using the bible isn't evidence, it is the claim. Can you provide this demonstration? Can you present the evidence that we can run a falsifiable test against to make sure it's not wrong?

The Bible can't get it wrong because it's the word of God. You would need to speak to experts of Biblical hermeneutics to get the full story. There is a useful comment about this on the following link, although it doesn't go into any great depth: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/contradictions-hanging-on-pillars-of-nothing/

Do you realize that you're providing a link that actually admits it's own bias? They state that no matter what the evidence says, if it contradicts the bible, the evidence must be wrong. That is not only intellectually lazy but dishonest. If the bible is without error, how come there are so many apologists that have to do mental gymnastics to try to make sense of it all? Is your holy book that flawed and incomprehensible that it needs to be defended?

You mean, like love or kindness or moral truth

I can observe love and kindness. I can interpret how someone's behavior makes me feel. I can see and communicate face to face with people and other animals.

or perhaps you mean Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which I would say, are very likely to be imaginary?

We know dark matter and energy exist because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. When you add up the matter in the stars, gas, and dust that is visible it doesn't add up to the amount of motion we should observe. Things are moving faster than they should be. The matter that we can see is not enough to produce the gravity that is pulling it around. Other than that, we don't know much about these things. It's an exciting mystery. We know it's there, we just don't know what it is.

Can you observe or test the origin of the universe or life? If not, does that mean we don't really exist then, or even the universe for that matter?

We can't test those questions because we don't have an answer for them. I don't know what the origin of the universe or life is. I'm not going to pretend that I do. You're the one making the claim that you KNOW. Well....show me the evidence. How do you test something that you are so sure of. What is the falsifiable test you run to make sure you aren't wrong?

You can, by using your own powers of logic and observation.

But you said earlier that you can't test it. What is the test? Explain it to me. What is the falsifiable test you ran to make sure you aren't wrong? Be detailed and precise. It appears to me you haven't used logic to come to your conclusion since you've gone with the "it's true because the bible says it's true" argument. That is a logically fallacious argument. Try again.

"It" yes, but they can't be certain what they are watching from so great a distance.

Are you unaware of the capabilities of space technology are? They know what they are looking at. These are experts in astrophysics.

Here's a picture of a galaxy taken by the Hubble telescope. The Hubble Telescope is capable of seeing 10-15 BILLION light years away.

what does it prove in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely zilch, nada, nothing.

It demonstrates that planets can form on their own without any divine being. They form naturally. I think this scares you a little bit.

 

[sfs]

You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess.

And you forgot the mention the post where I explained my estimate, here. And the subsequent post where I provided links to some of the papers in question, here. (Though I've subsequently realized that one of my numbers was off by 50%. But if you're simply going to ignore my posts, more precision doesn't seem very important.)

 

[lesliedellow]

If I took the word you just posted...and randomly change out the letters....you would still argue there is information present.

You might be right....letters are information...but your information would be useless.

No it wouldn't. 0cdh, 19h is perfectly good machine code for the PC.

 

[-57]

And you forgot the mention the post where I explained my estimate, here. And the subsequent post where I provided links to some of the papers in question, here. (Though I've subsequently realized that one of my numbers was off by 50%. But if you're simply going to ignore my posts, more precision doesn't seem very important.)

You continue to fail to show how the mutations add up.
You would think the evos would have answered this question...instead of claiming it is buried amongs the pages of PDF's.

 

[lesliedellow]

You continue to fail to show how the mutations add up.
You would think the evos would have answered this question...instead of claiming it is buried amongs the pages of PDF's.

So you think the 3,000 pages of "Remembrance of Things Past" should be shrunk down to a couple of paragraphs, because that is all the attention you are prepared to give it.

 

[The Cadet]

It's not possible to test for God

Is there anything else in your life that you accept based on faith? If I showed you a used car and offered to sell it to you, and told you, "It runs perfectly, no need to test anything", would you accept that on faith and buy the car? This is doubly bizarre when you say this:

[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the theories of a modern culture that looks at life without considering any possibility of a divine origin for the wonders that we see around us.

Why should we consider a divine origin? If we can't test for it, if we can't demonstrate that it exists in the first place, what possible reason is there to consider it?

 

[-57]

From what I understand..they say the number of stars in the heavens is about... 7 E+22.
Later I read where Astronomers have made a discovery suggesting that the universe might have three times as many stars.

Then the atheist-minded tell us things such as....Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity.

Ever wonder how all that stuff got in there?




t

 

[-57]

So you think the 3,000 pages of "Remembrance of Things Past" should be shrunk down to a couple of paragraphs, because that is all the attention you are prepared to give it.

I kinda figured a big time evo like you could explain it at a level higher than coloring book.

 

[lesliedellow]

I kinda figured a big time evo like you could explain it at a level higher than coloring book.

I am not a biologist. Sfs, however, is.

 

[The Cadet]

Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?

I'll be perfectly honest: I'm not sure how any particular given organelle evolved. It's entirely possible that we just don't know the evolutionary pathway for any given system.

However.

The question "how did this evolve" has been asked quite often in the past, usually with the arrogant assumption that there is no possible answer. In essentially every case, the answer was found relatively quickly. We figured out how the motor of the bacterial flagellum evolved. We figured out how the eye evolved. We've been solving these questions for ages now, and the response is always, "Okay, here's the next thing for you guys to figure out."

At what point is it fair to start treating these questions as an annoying distraction?

 

[The Cadet]

Ever wonder how all that stuff got in there?

Do you have an answer? And can you back up that answer with evidence? I don't know the answer, but if you know, I'd like to know.

 

[-57]

I'll be perfectly honest: I'm not sure how any particular given organelle evolved. It's entirely possible that we just don't know the evolutionary pathway for any given system.

However.

The question "how did this evolve" has been asked quite often in the past, usually with the arrogant assumption that there is no possible answer. In essentially every case, the answer was found relatively quickly. We figured out how the motor of the bacterial flagellum evolved. We figured out how the eye evolved. We've been solving these questions for ages now, and the response is always, "Okay, here's the next thing for you guys to figure out."

At what point is it fair to start treating these questions as an annoying distraction?

No, it hasn't been figured out. I'm kinda chuckling at your suggestion it has been explained. It becomes apparent to me you don't quite know just how complicated organelle are (which is OK)...and that's not including the process coded for in the DNA to create them.

Here's a 3:34 min video that shows part of the process. It's not presented here to be "in your face" but rather to be amazed at the complexity of the process.

 

[-57]

Do you have an answer? And can you back up that answer with evidence? I don't know the answer, but if you know, I'd like to know.

My answer is....it never was. The BB never was.

 

[-57]

I am not a biologist. Sfs, however, is.

I wish someone would explain how. From what you post you seem to believe evolutionism happens...because you were indoctrinated into that faith.

 

[lesliedellow]

I wish someone would explain how. From what you post you seem to believe evolutionism happens...because you were indoctrinated into that faith.

I will tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe that almost every Christian biologist in the world is signed up to the Theory of Evolution because there is no evidence for it, and I don't believe that almost every Christian biologist in the world is engaged in a grand conspiracy against Christianity.

 

[The Cadet]

No, it hasn't been figured out. I'm kinda chuckling at your suggestion it has been explained. It becomes apparent to me you don't quite know just how complicated organelle are (which is OK)...and that's not including the process coded for in the DNA to create them.

No, I'm well aware. I understand that it's phenomenally complex, and that it seems implausible that it could have evolved. But we've been offered countless similar systems, such as the eye or the bacterial flagellum, and we have offered clear evolutionary pathways for them. So what makes you think the complexity of this system makes it impossible that it evolved? Why should we assume that it'll be different this time, when in the past, we've always had the same result? And if we solve this one, will you abandon this line of reasoning, or will you just find another system to call "impossible"?

My answer is....it never was. The BB never was.

And that's a lousy answer, because there's quite a lot of evidence supporting the big bang model and essentially none refuting it.

 

[-57]

No, I'm well aware. I understand that it's phenomenally complex, and that it seems implausible that it could have evolved. But we've been offered countless similar systems, such as the eye or the bacterial flagellum, and we have offered clear evolutionary pathways for them. So what makes you think the complexity of this system makes it impossible that it evolved? Why should we assume that it'll be different this time, when in the past, we've always had the same result? And if we solve this one, will you abandon this line of reasoning, or will you just find another system to call "impossible"?

First I have to ask...did you watch the video?

 

[The Cadet]

First I have to ask...did you watch the video?

Yes, I did. The objection remains the same. All that's offered is an implicit argument from incredulity; one that has be offered in the past and has failed. Yes, this system is phenomenally complex. But evolution can produce phenomenally complex systems, and does so with some regularity.

 

[lasthero]

From what I understand..they say the number of stars in the heavens is about... 7 E+22.
Later I read where Astronomers have made a discovery suggesting that the universe might have three times as many stars.

Then the atheist-minded tell us things such as....Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity.

Ever wonder how all that stuff got in there?

Stars formed after the universe began, so I don't much see your point.