Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[HitchSlap]

If ToE makes no claims about abiogenesis, then why does every ToE textbook claim abiogenesis?

"Every textbook" does not. As I said, they're both natural sciences, so not unusual that they would both be covered in a science text.

 

[nomadictheist]

"Every textbook" does not. As I said, they're both natural sciences, so not unusual that they would both be covered in a science text.

"Every textbook" that I've ever come across about the theory of evolution (taken as a whole, not looking at an individual species) does. And I'm not just talking about them both being covered in a science text. I'm talking about, as I posted examples of earlier, abiogenesis being included in every science text written specifically about ToE.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes we were. You were correct in saying that we're not made of dust. Made and created are two different things.

To create something is to make something from nothing or to use components already present to make something new. Try finding anything in the human body that can't be found in the earth.

C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."

Sorry, science wins.

 

[nomadictheist]

C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."

Sorry, science wins.

Oh, so none of those exist in the earth outside of living beings?

 

[HitchSlap]

"Every textbook" that I've ever come across about the theory of evolution (taken as a whole, not looking at an individual species) does. And I'm not just talking about them both being covered in a science text. I'm talking about, as I posted examples of earlier, abiogenesis being included in every science text written specifically about ToE.

What's your strawm... er, point?

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, so none of those exist in the earth outside of living beings?

They most definitely do, in stars mainly, just not dirt.

 

[nomadictheist]

C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."

Sorry, science wins.

You must be more ignorant than I thought. Even science acknowledges that living bodies consist of things that can be found naturally occurring in the earth.

 

[HitchSlap]

You must be more ignorant than I thought. Even science acknowledges that living bodies consist of things that can be found naturally occurring in the earth.

I'm not in control of what you think, but at least I know humans aren't made of dirt.

 

[nomadictheist]

I'm not in control of what you think, but at least I know humans aren't made of dirt.

There you go again, trying to say that I'm saying that we're "made of dirt" and flipping the "created from..."

But actually, unlike you, I believe that humans are much more than bodies created from the elements of the earth - because the Bible also says that following the creation of the bodies God breathed life into them. And that - the God-breathed life - is what we really are - not this physical body that He created for us to inhabit.

 

[HitchSlap]

There you go again, trying to say that I'm saying that we're "made of dirt" and flipping the "created from..."

But actually, unlike you, I believe that humans are much more than bodies created from the elements of the earth - because the Bible also says that following the creation of the bodies God breathed life into them. And that - the God-breathed life - is what we really are - not this physical body that He created for us to inhabit.

If what you say doesn't comport with reality, well there you go. I really don't care what you say or believe, only what you can demonstrate with evidence, and all the evidence we have says, that we, like all life on earth, are products of evolution.

You're free to believe what you need to about humans, the bible and god breathed life, but I'll accept what can be demonstrated with evidence.

 

[nomadictheist]

If what you say doesn't comport with reality, well there you go. I really don't care what you say or believe, only what you can demonstrate with evidence, and all the evidence we have says, that we, like all life on earth, are products of evolution.

You're free to believe what you need to about humans, the bible and god breathed life, but I'll accept what can be demonstrated with evidence.

Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.

We have never observed abiogenesis. We have never observed a species evolving into a new and better species. These are just theories about how things could have happened based on what we have observed. It would be like me saying that since I've seen somebody jump 6 inches off the ground, then somebody could exist who can jump 100 feet off the ground, and then noting that other people can jump 8 inches, 10 inches, a foot, etc. That isn't evidence that my theory is correct - just that my observation that people can jump is correct.

The mutations that occur in the genetic code are, similarly, not evidence that the theory of evolution (specifically the macroevolution) is correct - it is merely evidence that what has been observed does indeed happen.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.

We have never observed abiogenesis. We have never observed a species evolving into a new and better species. These are just theories about how things could have happened based on what we have observed. It would be like me saying that since I've seen somebody jump 6 inches off the ground, then somebody could exist who can jump 100 feet off the ground, and then noting that other people can jump 8 inches, 10 inches, a foot, etc. That isn't evidence that my theory is correct - just that my observation that people can jump is correct.

The mutations that occur in the genetic code are, similarly, not evidence that the theory of evolution (specifically the macroevolution) is correct - it is merely evidence that what has been observed does indeed happen.

Yet, every explanation for our reality and universe is a natural one. No god needed.

Believe what you need to, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply pointing out that you aren't even able to demonstrate a god/s exists, so what makes you think that anything you say regarding your religious opinions on the natural sciences are in any way relevant?

 

[nomadictheist]

Yet, every explanation for our reality and universe is a natural one. No god needed.

Believe what you need to, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply pointing out that you aren't even able to demonstrate a god/s exists, so what makes you think that anything you say regarding your religious opinions on the natural sciences are in any way relevant?

Every explanation for our reality and universe in its current state is natural because that's the way God created it.

Until recent years, when the intelligence of humanity declined enough to believe ridiculousness, the presence and complexity of life and a universe in and of itself was enough evidence that Someone must have created it. Just because you can observe natural processes and say that they account for everything that exists without a need for God doesn't make it true. And the fact remains that, while many mutations have been observed, the emerging of an entirely new species through such mutation has never been observed.

Like our musculoskeletal system, evolution has its limits.

And I'm not trying to convince you either - I know that you've already determined that anything involving God makes less sense than anything involving purely natural processes.

 

[HitchSlap]

Every explanation for our reality and universe in its current state is natural because that's the way God created it.

Until recent years, when the intelligence of humanity declined enough to believe ridiculousness, the presence and complexity of life and a universe in and of itself was enough evidence that Someone must have created it. Just because you can observe natural processes and say that they account for everything that exists without a need for God doesn't make it true. And the fact remains that, while many mutations have been observed, the emerging of an entirely new species through such mutation has never been observed.

Like our musculoskeletal system, evolution has its limits.

And I'm not trying to convince you either - I know that you've already determined that anything involving God makes less sense than anything involving purely natural processes.

Your fist sentence made me chuckle, as the Carlin bit, "...but he loves you," came to mind.

 

[Astrophile]

The Roman empire which occupied a vast area throughout Europe icluding Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries became Christian by the 5th century.

Germany and the Scandinavian countries were never part of the Roman Empire.

 

[RickG]

Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.

Question. How do you explain the fossil record without evolution. And before you begin, forget about transitional fossils, they are not necessary. What you need to explain is how all the different life forms throughout geologic time got where they are in such a way that shows evolution without evolution. If evolution were false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata. Or are you going to say they all just popped into existence at just the right place and time?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are we talking microevolution (the small changes that take place in a species, leading to variations, but do not lead to new species) or macroevolution (the theory that microevolution, given enough time, can cause a species to slowly turn into another species altogether)?

In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.

Now, before all you eager atheists and agnostics jump on this and say that "science doesn't speak to God," I will elucidate this statement.

Even though scientists claim that science - in which they include the "science" of origins - does not speak to the existence of God, this is nothing more than a falsification of fact. The reason is simple: If God exists, then, by His very nature, there are things in this world that cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God.

When scientists say that everything in this world can be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God, it is the same as saying that there is no God. Because if there is a God, then His actions will have caused effects that cannot be satisfactorily explained without Him.

What intrigues me is that - in this regard - evolutionists apply a premise that is not thought reasonable if applied anywhere else. The premise is that if we can understand the parts and workings of something, that is evidence that it didn't have a Designer.

There is another premise applied by evolutionists that is not thought reasonable anywhere else. That is that if things are similar, that is evidence that one came from another, or all from some lower thing of the same variety.

But if we tried to apply these premises to any other orderly thing in the universe, these same scientists would ridicule us.

For example, we understand very well how a cell phone works. But if we tried to use our understanding of a cell phone as evidence that it came to being by completely natural processes with no intelligent interference, we would be ridiculed for this notion (and rightly so).

If we were to say that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were carved out over thousands of years by natural processes and just happen to look like real faces, we would be ridiculed (and rightly so).

If we were to claim that because all vehicles have features common to them, it's evidence that they evolved without outside interference from a single vehicle, which itself came about through purely natural processes, we would be laughed at (and rightly so).

And yet, scientists say that because we can understand a large portion of the incredibly complex systems that make up physical life - because we can analyze the components that all living creatures physically have to process food, water, etc. - that this is enough evidence to say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of life.

Furthermore, they say that because all life has certain similarities, it all evolved from an original life form, that itself came about by purely natural causes. They further say that closer similarities indicate evolutionary ancestry.

So why do I choose to not believe in macroevolution? Because I believe that there is a God, and therefore there are things that exist because He made them to exist. And the most unsatisfactory explanations of evolution do not negate the intricacy, complexity, and glory of His works.

Adaptation - not evolution or macro-evolution. When the proper words are used it differentiates between the reality and fantasy. Adaptation is 1 million black rabbits placed in the Arctic becoming millions of white fat rabbits due to different environmental conditions. Nothing at all to do with mutation, evolution or even macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is still the fantasy that one infraspecific taxa magically becomes a different infraspecific taxa. The only thing that has changed is the time frame.

This has also never been observed except in the fantasy of one's own mind in order to justify ignoring the observational evidence.

Adaptation on the other hand is a natural process that occurs due to dominant and recessive genes. For example: despite their claims Darwin's Finches were never reproductively isolated - never underwent speciation. They ignore this despite the DNA tests and the fact that they are interbreeding before their very eyes. Due to different infraspecific taxa within the species breeding - and their environment - the finches developed specific beaks for specific food supply. Not due to evolution or macro-evolution - but the natural God-given gift of a species ability to adapt to its surrounding through dominant and recessive traits.

So understand when I say I accept that animals can change to their environment - it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution in any form whatsoever, no matter if they decide to add the prefix macro or not. Just as E coli adapted to their environment over billions of generations and were capable of processing citrus efficiently. They already possessed the ability to process citrus, it was just not a dominant gene as it took too much energy to process. But when left with no choice, those genes for processing citrus became dominant instead of recessive. There was no evolution - macro, micro or anything - validated by the fact that when all was said and done - they still remained E coli.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Question. How do you explain the fossil record without evolution. And before you begin, forget about transitional fossils, they are not necessary. What you need to explain is how all the different life forms throughout geologic time got where they are in such a way that shows evolution without evolution. If evolution were false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata. Or are you going to say they all just popped into existence at just the right place and time?

We already falsified that strawman - which is why you ignored answering.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-18#post-68899223

Your strawman can not stand - any more than your last strawman stood.
"If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column."

"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."

Well answer me - are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before the Husky and mastiff mated to create the Chinook? You ain't gonna get out of this one. Your strawman is going to be shown for what it is - pure dishonesty and distraction.

And still you attempt the same dishonesty and distraction you couldn't answer the frst time - praying no one would notice and call you on it. Well, I am calling you on it.

I'll ask again: "Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook?"

Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook in all layers and ages in which the Mastiff or Husky is found????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/chinook/detail/
"The Chinook Breed was developed by Polar Explorer Arthur Treadwell Walden during the early 1900's on his farm in Wanalancet New Hampshire."

http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/mastiff/detail/
"As far as the Mastiff is concerned it has a longer history than most. Caesar describes them in his account of invading Britain in 55 B.C."

I don't know about the rest of you - but I certainly do not expect to see the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, and certainly not before the 1900's, let alone back in 55 B.C.. Now you may of course choose to believe dishonest strawmen if you like - if of course you so choose to ignore the observational evidence. Your choice of course - I certainly can not force any of you to accept the science or the facts.

Each of you is going to have to decide for themselves who's trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[bhsmte]

I just showed you three textbooks that are used to teach evolution, and all three of them discuss the origin of life.

As I've said several times - it is taught as part of the theory of evolution. You want to separate it for your purposes in this thread, but not in the classroom.

Abiogenesis is NOT PART of the theory of evolution.

It may be brought up in text books, but that does not make it part of the theory. And actually, abiogenesis is more a hypothesis than it is a theory.