Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[Micaiah]

I have a question evolutionists can't answer.

I'm thinking of a number between yellow and grapefruit. What was the question?

And the question is "How many pips does a banana have?"

 

[hippie]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm

[font=&quot]The term "theory" in science can mean something much different from the same word in general use. The Theory of Evolution of plant and animal species is far more than a simple idea; it is well beyond a hunch; many leading scientists consider it an established fact. It is the foundational belief upon which many branches of science are based. Dr. Gerald Wheeler, director of the National Science Teachers Association said in 1999-OCT: "Everything is a theory, but...[evolution is] probably the biggest unifying theory that exists in all of science." If either the theory of evolution or an old Earth were to be proven incorrect, then our understanding of many different sciences would collapse.

[/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]This makes the ToE a religious belief even if you choose not to accept it. It is a belief system that cannot be proven or disproven and is a foundational belief….ie the bedrock of a belief system.[/font]





[font=&quot]

Scientists feel that their beliefs can be proven correct because they are based on observation and measurements:[/font]

[font=&quot]Evidence from geology, anthropology, paleontology, nuclear physics, astronomy, cosmology and many other sciences show that the Earth and the rest of the universe have been in existence far longer than 10,000 years.[/font]

[font=&quot]Observations of nature show that all "kinds" did not come on the scene at roughly the same time. Rather, simple forms of life came first, and then evolved into more complex forms. [/font]

[font=&quot]However, scientists cannot prove whether or not God or a collection of deities steered various processes over time. This is a speculation that cannot be tested. [/font]

[font=&quot]Meanwhile, those who base their beliefs on their interpretation of the Genesis creation stories feel that their beliefs can be proven right, for the simple reason that they are based on their interpretation of the Bible.[/font]

[font=&quot]Unfortunately, there exists no universally accepted proofs from nature that eliminate any of the main major belief systems. What evidence is accepted by one group is rejected by the others[/font][font=&quot].

[/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]Note the underlined bold face statement: NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED PROOFS FOR ANY OF THE MAIN MAJOR BELIEF SYSTEMS …. ie you can’t prove that I am wrong any more than I can prove you are wrong. We are simply left with our own beliefs concerning the matter[/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]So what do I mean when I say “evolution”? Here’s my answer:[/font] [font=&quot]the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. [/font]

[font=&quot]Abiogenesis refers to the beginnings of life from inanimate objects. [/font]

[font=&quot]Darwin[/font][font=&quot]’s ToE (which is what I learned all those many many years ago in public school) says basically the same thing. All life is related and started from the same common source; over time that life has evolved into evertything from bananas to people.[/font]

[font=&quot] If I’m wrong about any of these please let me know what the “correct” interpretation should be, in your opinion.[/font]

 

[loriersea]

1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?

First, as mentioned, that is meaningless, since you are leaving chemical reactions out of the equation. But, even given your premises, you are still asking the wrong question. No, a tornado wouldn't make a car. But, if an infinite number of tornados kept blowing through the junkyard, we would imagine that eventually something might be made. That's all that evolution would require. But, again, it's a bad analogy, since we're not talking about scrap metal and heavy winds.

2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?

The what?

3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.

Many cultures do have flood stories. However, that doesn't point to the biblical account being literally true. After all, in the Enuma Elish, it is Utnapishtim, not Noah, who is the survivor of the flood, and the flood occurs because the gods are upset by the noise of humanity, not because of humanity's sinfulness. Do you believe that the story from the Enuma Elish, which is considered to be older than Genesis, is true?

It is also important to note that many cultures do NOT have flood stories, including cultures who were around at the time of the supposed worldwide flood. If there was a worldwide flood, it wasn't noticed in either China or Egypt, which both have written records that date from the time the flood supposedly took place. How did they manage to have thriving cultures when there was, supposedly, only half a dozen people in the entire world?

It is likely that there were catastropic local floods that made their way into a number of culture's mythologies, and were, due to their destructiveness, reimagined as worldwide floods. However, there is absolutely no evidence--i.e., not one shred--to support the idea that there was a worldwide flood as described in Genesis.

 

[notto]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm
[font=&quot]So what do I mean when I say “evolution”? Here’s my answer:[/font] [font=&quot]the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. [/font]

This is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with living things coming from subatomic particles and radiation nor 20 billion years of time.

Evolution has to do with the diversity of life on this planet arising from a common ancestory of life that started less than 5 billion years ago. It makes no statements about where the planet, atoms, molecules, light, etc come from.

You seem to be confusing specific part of science 'biology' with the total sum of science including geology, cosmology, physics, and astrophysics.

 

[gluadys]

[font=&quot]Darwin[/font][font=&quot]’s ToE (which is what I learned all those many many years ago in public school) says basically the same thing. All life is related and started from the same common source; over time that life has evolved into evertything from bananas to people.[/font]

[font=&quot] If I’m wrong about any of these please let me know what the “correct” interpretation should be, in your opinion.[/font]

Basically, you are wrong about evolution being a belief system. A belief system can be built on evolution, and some have done this. But evolution itself is not a belief system.

Evolution is 1) a process which has been observed in nature. i.e. we have observed in nature the three processes of evolution: mutation, selection and speciation. None of these is a matter of belief. They are direct observations. We know that evolution happens because it is seen to be happening.

Evolution is 2) a process which we infer to have happened ever since life first appeared on earth. This is an inference from evidence, not a faith commitment. It is not directly observed. But what we see in genomes, geography and geology is what we expect to observe if evolution has been happening throughout the history of life on earth. If evolution has not been happening, we would expect to see different evidence.

From 1) and 2) we also infer common descent---the relatedness of all species from bananas to people, through a common ancestor. Again, this is an inference from observation, not a faith commitment. We see in the fossil record, in genetic analysis, in taxonomy what we expect to see if common descent is the case. If common descent is not the case, we would expect to see different evidence.

Finally, evolution is 4) a theory which explains 1), 2) and 3). The theory does not require any faith commitment, nor any denial of faith. People of all faiths and none are able to observe the process of evolution, to see how the evidence points to evolution happening in the past, and to see what the evidence for relationships between different species is.


Now, some people do go farther than this and incorporate evolution into a philosophy of naturalism or materialism. But this is going beyond the parameters of science, and should never be construed as part of evolution. There are many people, both scientists and laypeople and not a few clergy, who are convinced of the science of evolution but who reject any anti-theistic philosophy pretending to be part of that science.

So, if your problem is with anti-theism, train your sights on that--not on observations or theories that do not imply it.

If you honestly think it takes faith to accept the science, you simply don't know enough of the science.

 

[hippie]

This is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with living things coming from subatomic particles and radiation nor 20 billion years of time.

Evolution has to do with the diversity of life on this planet arising from a common ancestory of life that started less than 5 billion years ago. It makes no statements about where the planet, atoms, molecules, light, etc come from.

You seem to be confusing specific part of science 'biology' with the total sum of science including geology, cosmology, physics, and astrophysics.

Did you read the definition of abiogenesis?

[font=&quot]Abiogenesis refers to the beginnings of life from inanimate objects.

If, as you claim, muy understanding of the ToE has nothing to do with how life started perhaps you could explain it to me? One of the "thories" that I keep hearing about is the Big Bang Theory, which supposedly started the Universe and then abiogenesis (also part of ToE) took over and created life.

Seems to me that it's all part and parcel of the same theory.
[/font]

 

[notto]

Did you read the definition of abiogenesis?

If, as you claim, muy understanding of the ToE has nothing to do with how life started perhaps you could explain it to me? One of the "thories" that I keep hearing about is the Big Bang Theory, which supposedly started the Universe and then abiogenesis (also part of ToE) took over and created life.

Seems to me that it's all part and parcel of the same theory.
[/font] [/font]

The big bang deals with the begining of our known universe and deals mainly with physics.

Abiogenesis (which is not part of the ToE) deals with the start of life.

The theory of Evolotion deals with the diversity of that life once it was started.

Each of these theoriesis pursued and developed independently. They are not part of the same theory. The big bang could be thrown out tommorrow and the theory of abiogenesis would not change. The theory of evolution was penned long before abiogenesis was looked at scientifically.

Darwin wrote the first works on evolution and he gave credit to the creation of life to a Creator. Didn't impact the theory of evolution as it is independent of this creation and start of life.

Think of it this way. We can study chemistry without knowing how each of the atoms involved was created.

 

[hippie]

Basically, you are wrong about evolution being a belief system. A belief system can be built on evolution, and some have done this. But evolution itself is not a belief system.

Evolution is 1) a process which has been observed in nature. i.e. we have observed in nature the three processes of evolution: mutation, selection and speciation. None of these is a matter of belief. They are direct observations. We know that evolution happens because it is seen to be happening.

Evolution is 2) a process which we infer to have happened ever since life first appeared on earth. This is an inference from evidence, not a faith commitment. It is not directly observed. But what we see in genomes, geography and geology is what we expect to observe if evolution has been happening throughout the history of life on earth. If evolution has not been happening, we would expect to see different evidence.

From 1) and 2) we also infer common descent---the relatedness of all species from bananas to people, through a common ancestor. Again, this is an inference from observation, not a faith commitment. We see in the fossil record, in genetic analysis, in taxonomy what we expect to see if common descent is the case. If common descent is not the case, we would expect to see different evidence.

Finally, evolution is 4) a theory which explains 1), 2) and 3). The theory does not require any faith commitment, nor any denial of faith. People of all faiths and none are able to observe the process of evolution, to see how the evidence points to evolution happening in the past, and to see what the evidence for relationships between different species is.


Now, some people do go farther than this and incorporate evolution into a philosophy of naturalism or materialism. But this is going beyond the parameters of science, and should never be construed as part of evolution. There are many people, both scientists and laypeople and not a few clergy, who are convinced of the science of evolution but who reject any anti-theistic philosophy pretending to be part of that science.

If you honestly think it takes faith to accept the science, you simply don't know enough of the science.

But I can make the same arguments for Christianity and say that it is not a belief system. I can even make the claims that the Bible is true and inspired and provide substantial, scientific and archaeological proofs for it. That does not change the fact that it is still as bleief system. In order to accept Christianity you have to have faith; the same is true of evolution. There are lots of "proofs" for either system yet in the end it boils down to which do I choose to believe?

 

[MartinM]

It is not directly observed.

But then, the distinction between 'directly obserevd' and 'indirectly observed' is somewhat arbitrary. What is important is the inductive process used to arrive at our conclusions, which is the same regardless of whether we're discussing evolution or what colour socks you're wearing.

 

[MartinM]

But I can make the same arguments for Christianity and say that it is not a belief system.

You're welcome to try. I doubt you actually can, however.

 

[notto]

In order to accept Christianity you have to have faith; the same is true of evolution. There are lots of "proofs" for either system yet in the end it boils down to which do I choose to believe?

No faith is needed to accept evolution. It is a conclusion based on evidence. The only faith you have to have is that the evidence is correct.

By your reasoning, I accept that medicine will help me when I am sick based on faith. I don't. I accept it as a conclusion based on evidence.

Comparing science to Christianity is a poor analogy.

 

[gluadys]

But I can make the same arguments for Christianity and say that it is not a belief system. I can even make the claims that the Bible is true and inspired and provide substantial, scientific and archaeological proofs for it.

No you can't. There are no substantial scientific and archeological proofs for the most of the bible or the events in the bible.

There are a few: the construction of a tunnel to bring water into the city of Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time is one. But you will not find substantial proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or of his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate (you will find evidence of Pontius Pilate, but not of him sentencing one Jesus of Nazareth) and you will certainly not find any archeological or scientific proof of the resurrection.

So unlike evolution, your claims will remain largely unsupported by evidence and remain claims of faith, not of science.

That does not change the fact that it is still as bleief system. In order to accept Christianity you have to have faith; the same is true of evolution.

No, the significant difference between Christianity and evolution is that Christianity is received by grace, through faith. It is revealed to the believer by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. But evolution is dependant entirely on observation and logical inference from observation. Nothing in evolution requires faith. Nothing in Christianity requires objective evidence.

There are lots of "proofs" for either system yet in the end it boils down to which do I choose to believe?

You don't have to choose. Many Christians, myself included, accept the gospel of Christ and the fact and theory of evolution. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

 

[hippie]

This is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with living things coming from subatomic particles and radiation nor 20 billion years of time.

Evolution has to do with the diversity of life on this planet arising from a common ancestory of life that started less than 5 billion years ago. It makes no statements about where the planet, atoms, molecules, light, etc come from.

You seem to be confusing specific part of science 'biology' with the total sum of science including geology, cosmology, physics, and astrophysics.

Actually I would contend that it is you that is confused about the ToE as are most of the other evolutionists out here. You want to concentrate of one aspect of the theory and ignore the rest of it. The emphasis seems to be on the abiogenesis aspect. There is more to the theory than the biological aspect even if you refuse to accept it.

I stand by my original definition of the ToE.

 

[corvus_corax]

But I can make the same arguments for Christianity and say that it is not a belief system.

Nah, you can't.
You are welcome to try however, and I would dearly love to see any "arguments" that demonstrate Christianity (or any belief in any deity) as objectively empirically evidenced.
Simply can't be done

I can even make the claims that the Bible is true and inspired and provide substantial, scientific and archaeological proofs for it.

You can provide substantial archeological evidence that some of the historical events described in the bible actually happened, but that in no way validates christianity. I can demonstrate (via archeological evidence) that the city of Troy existed. Does this mean that I should take the Illiad as the "gospel truth" and convert to greek paganism?
Methinks not

That does not change the fact that it is still as bleief system.

See, here you contradict yourself. If it can be objectively empirically evidenced, then it is not a "belief system". It is evidenced.
However, if it cannot be evidenced, then it is a belief system
(Note- the above two definitions are not all-inclusive nor comprehensive defintions, just very short examples)

In order to accept Christianity you have to have faith

Right. Because there is no objective empirical evidence of God, much less of Jesus-as-God

the same is true of evolution

No it's not
There is objective empirical evidence that points towards evolution, such as transitional fossils, observed allele frequency change and my personal favorite- Observed Speciation.
And there it is- Speciation has been directly observed. To deny evolution at this point is to cover one's eyes, plug one's ears and go "Lalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!"

And I trust that you would never lower yourself to such

 

[hippie]

You're welcome to try. I doubt you actually can, however.

You are, of course correct. I should have made a reference to sarcasm since that was what was intended.

I can no more prove that Christianity is not a belief system that evoltuinists can prove that evolution (and the ToE) is not a belief system; they both are.

 

[MartinM]

Actually I would contend that it is you that is confused about the ToE as are most of the other evolutionists out here. You want to concentrate of one aspect of the theory and ignore the rest of it. The emphasis seems to be on the abiogenesis aspect. There is more to the theory than the biological aspect even if you refuse to accept it.

I stand by my original definition of the ToE.

And your basis for this is?

I'm a phycisist. No class I have taken, no paper I've read, no textbook I own, no professor I've spoken with has ever talked of the Big Bang as relevant to or part of evolution, or of the theory of evolution as being in any way relevant to or part of cosmology. You're wrong, and that's a fact. Whether you accept it or not will not change it; all that will change is your credibility.

 

[notto]

Actually I would contend that it is you that is confused about the ToE as are most of the other evolutionists out here.

Are physicists confused about physics as well? How about mathematicians? They couldn't add 2 + 3 and get 5, could they.

Goodbye hippie. You've demonstrated that you are not interested in intellectual honesty or learning.

Remember, Science BAD!!!!

Perhaps you might want to read an actual book on the subject of evolution before you claim that those that study it are confused about the subject matter.

Have you read a book on evolution hippie?

 

[MartinM]

And I trust that you would never lower yourself to such

Think he already has. Post #113?

 

[MartinM]

I can no more prove that Christianity is not a belief system that evoltuinists can prove that evolution (and the ToE) is not a belief system; they both are.

Evolution follows from exactly the same scientific method as any other scientific theory. So unless you're willing to write off relativity, germs and atoms as belief systems, you're wrong, and demonstrably so.

 

[hippie]

No faith is needed to accept evolution. It is a conclusion based on evidence. The only faith you have to have is that the evidence is correct.

By your reasoning, I accept that medicine will help me when I am sick based on faith. I don't. I accept it as a conclusion based on evidence.

Comparing science to Christianity is a poor analogy.

And everyday people die from medicin helping them. There is a part of faith in everything we do everyday. Everyday we take mediceines that doctors and scientists tell us will help heal us and everyday people get sick from thosr medications and in extreme cases die from the very substance that is supposed to help them. I would say that our taking the medicines is an act of faith in the doctors and scientists.

We fly in airplanes because science says it is safe to do so and yet there are plane crashes on a regular basis, so I would contend that the act of getting into an airplane to take a flight somewhere is an act of faith!

As for only having faith that the evidence is correct the same can be said of the evidence in favor of evolution. Evolutionists claim it is correct because of scientific study but that evidence is accepted on faith solely because it has not yet been repudiated. Give it more timeand I believe it will be.