proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

How's that? I simply asked you a question?

No, you asked me a question and I answered it. But it wasn't just the question, it was the scare marks around "Christian" that made it offensive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever science discovers about our origins, God is responsible for it.

Was God responsible for the discovery of Spontaneous Generation?

 

[Speedwell]

Was God responsible for the discovery of Spontaneous Generation?

No, I'm afraid it was our sinful selves as made up that particular legend. It was finally debunked by a scientist. He was a Christian; maybe he had God's help.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'm afraid it was our sinful selves as made up that particular legend. It was finally debunked by a scientist. He was a Christian; maybe he had God's help.

When will evolution follow suit?

 

[Almost there]

Evolution is backed up by a mountain of evidence. Comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA & Genetics, observations in nature and in the lab, embryology and more.



Which is contradicted by several other religions. Evolution is supported by an abundance of verifiable facts and is contradicted by nothing. It's literally the most robust, most tested theory in all of science.



How could anyone solve a crime if there are no written accounts!? It's called looking at the available evidence. Your incredulity doesn't make something false.



99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor. Game. Set. Match.

What I find kinda interesting is that evolutionists, at least until the last couple of decades, were pretty much all unifomitarian. Meanwhile, Creationists were catastrophist.

Now EVERYBODY is a catastrophist.

Regarding evidence for evolution, yes, it exists, in as much as gold exists in the ocean. But evidence for creation exists in as much as water exists in the ocean. It is everywhere. It is in you DNA. It is in how solar systems, ecosystems, galaxies, etc. work. It is truly marvelous.

The challenge is that too many people look for proof of God in creation in the same way you may look for an architect in a house. But no, he's not hiding in the closet, or under the stairs, or holding up the curtains. The proof is the house itself. And the proof of our Creator is creation itself.

 

[2tim_215]

shouldn't have been. Just was making sure that we were on the same page in that regard. But having determined that, how do you explain this (you actually answered more than I was expecting although very curious in that regard stating that you believe in the Bible):

You say that you believe that the Bible is the "inspired word of God". You know that there are Christians who don't believe that, right? I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from before jumping to any conclusions since I don't know you from Adam. Now if I were to say to you that "you're not really a Christian" that I'm sure would be a rules violation, but I'm not doing that.

So how do you explain these verses in 1 Cor. 15 (emphasis in bold)?
1 Corinthians 15:38-50(KJV)
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
flesh - G4561 σάρξ sarx sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):—carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
Does this sound like man "evolved"? It sounds like he was created, as well as all other life. God didn't need for it to evolve, He just made it as He wanted to, during the 6 days of creation.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, so then you're an animal and there's no distinction between animals and men.

We can be animals and there can still be a distinction between humans and non-human animals and humans. Chimpanzees and barnacles are both animals, but I suppose that you can distinguish between them.

In what sense do you think there should be a distinction between humans and non-human animals? Obviously there is a distinction in their legal status and in their capacity for thought and learning. However, just to show that there is nothing new under the sun and that it has all been said before, I will quote from a book written more than 2000 years before Charles Darwin was born.

'For man is a creature of chance and the beasts are creatures of chance, and one mischance awaits them all: death comes to both alike. They all draw the same breath. Men have no advantage over beasts; for everything is emptiness. All go to the same place: all came from the dust, and to the dust all return' (Ecclesiastes 3:19).

 

[ruthiesea]

how exactly? can you give an example please?

All the biology classes I have taken use evolution at some point to make sense of what we are discussing. Evolution provides the background to what we see today. For example, when discussing the human eye, the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cells to modern human eyes helps to understand why the eye is formed as it is.

Evolution gives us insight into modern life forms that we would not have without the theory. To truley understand modern life you must enterstand how it developed.

 

[pitabread]

What I find kinda interesting is that evolutionists, at least until the last couple of decades, were pretty much all unifomitarian. Meanwhile, Creationists were catastrophist.

You're thinking of geology, not evolution.

 

[xianghua]

ok. i will focus in the main point here.

The flagellum does not simply fall into place by mixing the ingredients together like cake batter. There are a series of events that lead up to its formation, and each of those events has a better chance than the whole thing just falling together at once.

so prove it. your link above just gave a theoretical scenario and not something that we can actually test like a scientific claim. so so far you have not prove that irreducible complexity can evolve stepwise.

Ignoring all that, even if you consider the evolution of the flagellum to be absurdly improbable, it's still a better explanation than intelligent design because you can't point to an actual designer to substantiate your explanation.

no. we know that complex things like a watch or a robot are evidence for design. even without seeing who designed them. check my argument here for more details:

the self replicating watch argument

 

[ruthiesea]

Therefore science is unreliable in this case. Science is not the only answer.

An idea is tested by science by examining the empirical evidence, the logic used, and the results of testing. Belief in the existence in G-d has none of these features, so it has no scientific meaning. As such, no matter whether a scientist believes in the existence`G-d or not, it does not affect the science.

 

[Speedwell]

shouldn't have been. Just was making sure that we were on the same page in that regard. But having determined that, how do you explain this (you actually answered more than I was expecting although very curious in that regard stating that you believe in the Bible):

You say that you believe that the Bible is the "inspired word of God". You know that there are Christians who don't believe that, right? I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from before jumping to any conclusions since I don't know you from Adam. Now if I were to say to you that "you're not really a Christian" that I'm sure would be a rules violation, but I'm not doing that.

So how do you explain these verses in 1 Cor. 15 (emphasis in bold)?
1 Corinthians 15:38-50(KJV)
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
flesh - G4561 σάρξ sarx sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):—carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
Does this sound like man "evolved"? It sounds like he was created, as well as all other life. God didn't need for it to evolve, He just made it as He wanted to, during the 6 days of creation.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I'm not quite sure what you think needs explaining about those passages. Paul makes a commonplace observation about different kinds of meat as the basis for developing the earthy-heavenly dichotomy which is his theme. There is also an echo of Jewish dietary customs in his choice of examples.

 

[pitabread]

no. we know that complex things like a watch or a robot are evidence for design. even without seeing who designed them. check my argument here for more details:

the self replicating watch argument

Your argument relies on the fallacy of false equivalence (not to mention more than a little equivocation). It's been soundly refuted as a consequence and continuing to repeat it doesn't make it any more valid.

It's time you came up with something new.

 

[xianghua]

All the biology classes I have taken use evolution at some point to make sense of what we are discussing. Evolution provides the background to what we see today. For example, when discussing the human eye, the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cells to modern human eyes helps to understand why the eye is formed as it is.

creation can explain how the eye created too (just replace the word "evolution" by the word "creation"). so what is the different?

Evolution gives us insight into modern life forms that we would not have without the theory.

again; such as?.

 

[Speedwell]

so prove it. your link above just gave a theoretical scenario, and not something that we can actually test like a scientific claim. so so far you have not prove that irreducible complexity can evolve stepwise.

Yours is an apriori claim: that there is no possible stepwise path. Logically, all that is necessary to refute it is a credible hypothetical pathway,

no. we know that complex things like a watch or a robot are evidence for design. even without seeing who designed them. check my argument here for more details:

the self replicating watch argument

You are only wasting your time reposting that over and over. Complexity is not evidence of design.

 

[Almost there]

You're thinking of geology, not evolution.

I'm thinking of all of it.

 

[Almost there]

An idea is tested by science by examining the empirical evidence, the logic used, and the results of testing. Belief in the existence in G-d has none of these features, so it has no scientific meaning. As such, no matter whether a scientist believes in the existence`G-d or not, it does not affect the science.

What if someone believes someone designed it? Can that lead to understanding? If not, why not?

If you see a device in a field that looks an awfully lot like an interstellar spacecraft that was designed by someone, which foundational assumption regarding how it came to exist would aid in understanding what it is, how it was made and why it exists: Belief that someone designed it, or belief that it is an accident of evolution?

Is nature not far more complex than that? Is the simplest living creature not more complex than that?

 

[Almost there]

Complexity is not evidence of design.

It most certainly is SUPPORTING evidence until some better theory comes along.

And so far, all evolution gives us is the equivalent of seeing the effects of rust on an old chevy in a field and arguing that that same rust is how the Chevy came into existence in the first place.

 

[gaara4158]

so prove it. your link above just gave a theoretical scenario and not something that we can actually test like a scientific claim. so so far you have not prove that irreducible complexity can evolve stepwise.

No, I don’t have to prove it. This is like, the third time I’m explaining it now. I don’t have to prove irreducible complexity wrong. You have to prove it right. That means you have to prove something couldn’t possibly have evolved. If I provide a plausible evolutionary path for it, then you fail. I don’t have to prove that’s how it really happened. Because it’s a plausible path, it’s not impossible, which is what you’re supposed to prove.

And again, we’re not robots, so your continual mention of them is completely irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

Is nature not far more complex than that? Is the simplest living creature not more complex than that?

yep. something like that:

(Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U)

or that:

(VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)

or that:

(June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)