If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Jimmy D]

March of Progress page of the Big Daddy Chick tract

LOL, I just had a read of that (link), it's laughable to thinkthey can still cling to these arguments.

 

[USincognito]

So you think Genesis can be combined and fit well into the TOE. Guess what. It can't. You're wrong.

You can't just decide it isn't literal because you don't believe what it says.

O.k. then. Since the evidence for evolution and deep time is overwhelming I'll have to reject Genesis then. You know, since I have to do one or the other.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm sure that site is completely unbiased.

"Secular" scientists my backside. Outside of creationist propaganda sites does anyone use this phrase?

I suppose creationists have to justify their denial of solid, empirical evidence somehow. The old "trying to remove God" schtick is woefully untenable when you consider the contributions to our body of knowledge from scientists of pretty much every religion.

 

[xianghua]

That paper is garbage.

so you call a scientific paper "garbage?". if so we can say the same for any scientific paper about evolution. see how easy it is?

I really suggest familiarizing yourself with what evolution theory encompasses and what biological evolution actually *is*.

as i said: according to that definition even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will still call it evolution. this is what you want to argue? fine. but remember that under this definition evolution is true even if special creation is true. by the way; according to berkeley site the definition of evolution also include common descent:

An introduction to evolution

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."

"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

you can see that in this definition they actually include common descent and not just changes over time in the gene pool.

1) We've been over this. You appear to not understand that even within evolutionary biology there are multiple possibilities. What do you not understand about that?

and i already told you that variations of evolution theory are still kind of evolution. so we still have 2 possibilities: creation or evolution.

2) Where? Cite a specific paper and cite within the paper where they actually demonstrate positive evidence for design in biological organisms. Like I said, I've been over a number of those papers and have never seen it.

sure. we can start with this : Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370 (you can find it as a pdf file).

3) Not really. At best, some of them may criticize it but its questionable how valid those criticisms are.

we can say the same about any paper about evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no evidence, and you have not presented me with any "evidence" to prove that the original writings of the Bible were not true. On the contrary I know of evidence that proves the Bible is true, though people that are set on not believing the Bible will not accept that evidence for themselves. I don't want to debate such people that have already made up their mind. What's the point? People have been having such debates for centuries, running around in circles, getting nowhere, not winning people to either side. Now those that have honest questions, and are open to finding out the truth, even if it is not what they currently believe, that is a different matter. I think we both know which group you are in.

"Centuries" is something of an exaggeration. I'll give you a couple, not more. The key Bible doctrines of YECism--literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration--none of them are found in Christian theology before the Protestant Reformation at the earliest. As a package deal they did not begin to come together until the invention of Dispensationalism in the early 19th century.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is no evidence, and you have not presented me with any "evidence" to prove that the original writings of the Bible were not true. On the contrary I know of evidence that proves the Bible is true, though people that are set on not believing the Bible will not accept that evidence for themselves. I don't want to debate such people that have already made up their mind. What's the point? People have been having such debates for centuries, running around in circles, getting nowhere, not winning people to either side. Now those that have honest questions, and are open to finding out the truth, even if it is not what they currently believe, that is a different matter. I think we both know which group you are in.

There is no evidence, so there is not proof. There is only a supposed thing that happened so long ago that, well, guess what, no one saw it, which is sufficient enough to not only hide behind when it comes to offering dead proof, but good enough reason to just believe it without question, for those who prefer to believe it over creation, whatever their agenda may be that makes them prefer one over the other.

Greg, a hint, when they start getting to the point where they claim it's not something that can be proven, probably a good time to stop wasting your time. Oh, and changing the definition of terms, and the claims YOU don't understand science, are some pretty common paper shields as well. Then there is the "You think you are smarter than the the scientist who have been doing this for years?" I mean how dare you think for yourself? lol And these are the free thinkers, mind you, that make the accusation. There are a few more that I can't recall at the moment, but point being, there is a point where we just have to stop taking it seriously.

Oh, I forgot the most recent..."I have the proof but I'm not going to simply lay it out for you. Go look at it, and see it as proof like I do, or blame it on yourself we don't have proof...not my fault, man."

We have to ask them to say/write it themselves...to sum it up with explanation. That often seems to do something strange to what they once perceived as proof. Maybe it forces them to look closely at it, and see all the unproven suppositions involved or that they themselves don't understand it, or something like that...I'm still trying to figure out the exacts on why that happens.

All is well and good until someone actually has to prove it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All is well and good until someone actually has to prove it.

-_- and then I commit myself to a 10 year long evolution experiment, design it so that as many people as possible could repeat it, and beg for creationist participation just in determining which traits would be selected for. You want to know how many creationists participated? 1. And it only has to be so long because creationists wave away any that involve bacteria, so I had to use a macroscopic creature.

 

[Greg Merrill]

-_- and then I commit myself to a 10 year long evolution experiment, design it so that as many people as possible could repeat it, and beg for creationist participation just in determining which traits would be selected for. You want to know how many creationists participated? 1. And it only has to be so long because creationists wave away any that involve bacteria, so I had to use a macroscopic creature.

What a waste to win a debate and not win a soul.
Waste of time, waste of effort. There are better things to do.

 

[Skreeper]

What a waste to win a debate and not win a soul.
Waste of time, waste of effort. There are better things to do.

Do you only do things that result in "winning a soul" (Whatever that means)?

 

[Speedwell]

What a waste to win a debate and not win a soul.
Waste of time, waste of effort. There are better things to do.

Lots of debates are not about winning souls--including this one.

 

[USincognito]

What a waste to win a debate and not win a soul.
Waste of time, waste of effort. There are better things to do.

Sometimes you can have a plan old discussion and exchange of ideas. Not everything needs to be a debate with a winner and a loser.

 

[Astrophile]

Interesting to say the least. Especially when the Bible says we were created from the dust of the earth, right there on the spot, with no mention whatsoever of an evolving period. I mean that's what my bible says anyway so that's what I choose to believe.

As you say, interesting. Has it ever occurred to you to try to find out why so many people who believe in God, and who know what the Bible says about creation, choose evolution rather than a creation out of nothing in six days?

 

[Astrophile]

Poorly divinely inspired? Man was created on the sixth day or he evolved from an ape. You can't have it both ways, one is right, the other is wrong.

Were you created by God or were you conceived by your parents? You can't have it both ways, one is right, the other is wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As you say, interesting. Has it ever occurred to you to try to find out why so many people who believe in God, and who know what the Bible says about creation, choose evolution rather than a creation out of nothing in six days?

No, what happened was very clear to me right off. I always knew they had chosen mans word over Gods...wasn't something that took a whole lot of pondering.

They went by theirs and the worlds understanding, something that is specifically spoken against in the bible, so nothing unexpected.

 

[Kenny'sID]

-_- and then I commit myself to a 10 year long evolution experiment, design it so that as many people as possible could repeat it, and beg for creationist participation just in determining which traits would be selected for. You want to know how many creationists participated? 1. And it only has to be so long because creationists wave away any that involve bacteria, so I had to use a macroscopic creature.

Not sure if that is a good thing/bad thing, or what since I have no idea what your experiment was. Also, not sure what that has to do with my observation.

How many non creationists turned you down?

 

[Astrophile]

The point is, you could have a million evolutionists, and only 10 creationists; you could have the first with many more hours of "schooling", but this doesn't prove who is right or wrong. All of the educated people in the world once agreed together that the planet Earth was the center of the rest of the heavenly objects in the sky. For a time, only one person realized they were all incorrect as he gazed through his telescope over a period of a few nights, and could see that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, not the Earth. The rest of the world later would admit they had been wrong, and that this one man was right. His name was Galileo.

True, and the Roman Inquisition (a Christian organisation) forced Galileo to 'abjure and detest' his theory, put him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and placed his books on the Index.

Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) also thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon all denounced him; Luther called Copernicus 'a fool who wants to overturn the whole of astronomy.

If you Google on 'Bible geocentrism' you will find Christian websites that reject all of modern astronomy and assert that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. Look, for example, at 'The Association for Biblical Astronomy' - Geocentricity - Bernie Brauer's website 'Moving-Earth Deception! The Earth is NOT Moving!', Geocentrism , and Fair Education Foundation, Inc..

The people who believe in geocentrism would say essentially, 'you could have a million heliocentricists and only 10 geocentricists; you could have the first with many more hours of "schooling", but this doesn't prove who is right or wrong.' How do you know that the million heliocentricists are right and the 10 geocentricists are wrong? What is the difference between the Bible-believing geocentricists and the Bible-believing young-earth-creationists?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no evidence, and you have not presented me with any "evidence" to prove that the original writings of the Bible were not true. On the contrary I know of evidence that proves the Bible is true, though people that are set on not believing the Bible will not accept that evidence for themselves.

There is much evidence for evolution, and if that evidence contradicts your biblical point of view, that is evidence against your biblical point of view. As a person set on not believing evolution, you will not accept that evidence for yourself. That leaves you, however, in error.

 

[pitabread]

LIES

So what, you think that tens of thousands of scientists are sitting around just publishing carefully constructed research papers full of lies for... why would they do that again?

 

[pitabread]

I started a whole thread brimming with evidence for evolution (specifically for them) that was ignored by them.

Oh absolutely, these "requests" for evidence by creationists are not honest in the slightest. They're just issuing challenges so they can handwave away and/or ignore anything they are presented and then self-declare victory.

Anyone honestly interested in learning about biological evolution isn't likely to start with a C/E debate forum.

 

[pitabread]

The point is, you could have a million evolutionists, and only 10 creationists; you could have the first with many more hours of "schooling", but this doesn't prove who is right or wrong. All of the educated people in the world once agreed together that the planet Earth was the center of the rest of the heavenly objects in the sky. For a time, only one person realized they were all incorrect as he gazed through his telescope over a period of a few nights, and could see that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, not the Earth. The rest of the world later would admit they had been wrong, and that this one man was right. His name was Galileo.

Aside from the fact that Galileo wasn't the first (or only) person to propose a non-geocentric universe, opposition to the idea came from religious quarters (i.e. the Catholic Church) since it contradicted specific religious beliefs of the time.

It's not all that different from modern Protestant evangelicals opposing biological evolution among other sciences including geology, cosmology, physics, etc, because it contradicts their own beliefs.

It's the same battle in a different century. Religion generally has a poor track record when it comes to those fights, however.