So, there's no question about the science of it.

[shernren]

So I take it that there's no question about what science is pointing to? It seems that almost everybody here would agree that the scientific evidence so far, taken at face value, suggests an old earth, an old universe, and evolution.

If that is so, then there should no longer be any debate with non-Christians, for the simple reason that this makes the origins debate a debate of theology, not science. And if it is a theological debate, how can non-believers understand the issues at stake? Talking about theology with non-believers is like telling Kylie to get a second opinion about her cancer from a lawyer.

 

[Remus]

So I take it that there's no question about what science is pointing to? It seems that almost everybody here would agree that the scientific evidence so far, taken at face value, suggests an old earth, an old universe, and evolution.

I admit that the age of the earth is difficult to defend, but this hardly means “the scientific evidence so far, taken at face value, suggests … evolution”. I wouldn’t agree with that statement at all.

 

[SBG]

So it is your belief that talking of theology to a non-believer is dumb/illogical?

Jesus Christ dying on the Cross and raising from the dead is theology.

 

[invisible trousers]

I admit that the age of the earth is difficult to defend, but this hardly means “the scientific evidence so far, taken at face value, suggests … evolution”. I wouldn’t agree with that statement at all.

Well...is there scientific evidence that doesn't suggest evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

So I take it that there's no question about what science is pointing to? It seems that almost everybody here would agree that the scientific evidence so far, taken at face value, suggests an old earth, an old universe, and evolution.

Old earth?
Hmm... From what little I know is hard to tell. I feel the evidence maybe point older 6,000 years but not billions. Just as YEC feels the need of 6,000 year planet Earth to fit their view , evolutionists badly need the earth to be billions of years old to give time for the impossible to happen. If the earth was only 1 million or even 10 millions year old would be extreme bad for evoltionists theory. So Evolutionist must have the earth billions and even this isn't enough time.

Old universe ?
I agree the speed of light itself seems to point ot an old universe yet I knowledge of our universe is extremely limited since we have only the earth's view. The big Bang has to rely on some much that can't be proven.

Notice the even though evolutionist claim Big Bang is separate from evolution yet evolutionist heavy rely on this theory to help give earth it's 4.5 billion years od age. Big bang involves how our solar system was form which leads that the earth has to be the age of the solar system , etc.

evolution ?
Most of the so called evidence that support common descent can just as easily fits (if not more so) with common design. IMHO the evidence points more to design all the time. This is what ID is all about. The true evidence of evolution is extremely weak.

 

[Remus]

Well...is there scientific evidence that doesn't suggest evolution?

Why yes. Generally speaking, complexity would be a good place to start.

Others would be sexual reproduction, instinct, external symmetry… I can come up with more if needed.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So it is your belief that talking of theology to a non-believer is dumb/illogical?

Certainly not, but calling the age of the Earth a theological issue is.

Jesus Christ dying on the Cross and raising from the dead is theology.

Which we accept as an issue of faith no matter what age the Earth is.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why yes. Generally speaking, complexity would be a good place to start.

Others would be sexual reproduction, instinct, external symmetry… I can come up with more if needed.

Complexity is a vague term that needs to be properly defined. If you're talking about "Irreducible Complexity," you must first find something which is, in fact, irreducibly complex whose origins cannot at least be partially traced through evolution.

Are there any such examples?

Sexual reproduction and instinct are good examples, worthy of further study, but I don't see how symmetry disproves evolution...

 

[gluadys]

Old earth?
Hmm... From what little I know is hard to tell. I feel the evidence maybe point older 6,000 years but not billions. Just as YEC feels the need of 6,000 year planet Earth to fit their view , evolutionists badly need the earth to be billions of years old to give time for the impossible to happen. If the earth was only 1 million or even 10 millions year old would be extreme bad for evoltionists theory. So Evolutionist must have the earth billions and even this isn't enough time.

You know, I think this position mystifies me even more than the young-earth position. At least YECs can point to an allegedly biblical chronology for their estimate of the age of the earth. And scientists have scientific evidence for their estimate.

But what is an in-between estimate like a few million years based on? Why pick a figure that neither biblical literalists nor scientists support?

evolution ?
Most of the so called evidence that support common descent can just as easily fits (if not more so) with common design. IMHO the evidence points more to design all the time. This is what ID is all about. The true evidence of evolution is extremely weak.

Not when you start looking at the details, like ERVs. Most of the common elements are better explained by descent than by design.

 

[Remus]

Complexity is a vague term that needs to be properly defined.

Just complexity in general. The eye is a good example. Not to mention that the eye would have to independently evolve at least twice. The eardrum would be another.

Sexual reproduction and instinct are good examples, worthy of further study,

I await your plausible explanation.

but I don't see how symmetry disproves evolution...

Who said anything about disproving evolution? I was asked for evidence against.
I believe that the external symmetry that we see in most creatures is strong evidence against evolution. It is not plausible that a random process can produce such a thing.

 

[Smidlee]

Who said anything about disproving evolution? I was asked for evidence against.
I believe that the external symmetry that we see in most creatures is strong evidence against evolution. It is not plausible that a random process can produce such a thing.

It's very hard to disprove evolution when they don't even have the mechanics of how something like the eye involve.

 

[Smidlee]

But what is an in-between estimate like a few million years based on? Why pick a figure that neither biblical literalists nor scientists support?

I do believe that the gap theory is a possibility while doesn't need the billions of years that evolutionist badly need nor need the earth only be 6,000 years old. the problem with the gap theory is that since God hasn't revealed it to man then it hard to back it up with scriptures. IMO One of the big problem with evolutionist idea of the age of earth is well over billions of years is these amazing long times would do some serious erosion. A billion years is really beyond human comprehension.

Not when you start looking at the details, like ERVs. Most of the common elements are better explained by descent than by design.

I would disagree.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Just complexity in general.

"Complexity in general" is too vague and subjective a term. What's complex to one person is child's play to another.

The eye is a good example.

Actually, it's not. We can see various forms of the eye, some more advanced than others, all throughout the animal kingdom. More developed creatures have more developed eyes... exactly the kind of thing that evolution predicts.

Not to mention that the eye would have to independently evolve at least twice.

Why twice? Is this that symmetry thing you were talking about?

The eardrum would be another.

See the eye... no pun intended.

I await your plausible explanation.

Keep waiting. I'm not a biologist, but I'm also not arrogant enough to think that something is inexplicable just because I can't explain it.

Google it if you're curious.

Who said anything about disproving evolution? I was asked for evidence against.

Well, the main reason people seek evidence against evolution is to try and disprove it.

I believe that the external symmetry that we see in most creatures is strong evidence against evolution. It is not plausible that a random process can produce such a thing.

Seems highly plausible to me. On what are you basing your opinion?

Although, amoebas and such seem pretty asymmetrical, and they do just fine. Asymmetrical multicellular creatures probably wouldn't get very far before something eats them.

 

[Smidlee]

Actually, it's not. We can see various forms of the eye, some more advanced than others, all throughout the animal kingdom. More developed creatures have more developed eyes... exactly the kind of thing that evolution predicts.


.

yet one gene can produce two complete different sets of eyes. I believe a rat and a fly has the same eye gene but produces total different eyes. So it not so simple just scambling a few DNA around to creat different varied of eyes. Just because there different varity of eyes doesn't in any way prove evolution when even common sense could perdict that a worm's eyes doesn't need to be good as the eagle's eye. IMO this shows the creator designing eyes to fill the need of the creature. So Jesus perdict this by claiming God look after the spare. huh?

 

[gluadys]

Why yes. Generally speaking, complexity would be a good place to start.

Others would be sexual reproduction, instinct, external symmetry… I can come up with more if needed.

I don't see how any of these tell against evolution.

Take complexity, for example. Evolution does not require that species become more complex over time. But since all early life is simple (relatively speaking) it is pretty understandable that one route evolution would take is toward complexity. There is no where to go but laterally into divergent, but equally simple, species or toward more complex species.

And we also have many examples of complex species shedding elements of complexity which are no longer useful to them.

Sexual reproduction and instinct both offer advantages that make them explainable by natural selection. So does external symmetry if you are thinking of something like the bilateral body plan of most animals.

 

[gluadys]

Just complexity in general. The eye is a good example. Not to mention that the eye would have to independently evolve at least twice. The eardrum would be another.

A lot more than twice. It is estimated that the eye has evolved independently at least 40 times. Dawkins covers this topic very well in Climbing Mount Improbable.

I believe that the external symmetry that we see in most creatures is strong evidence against evolution. It is not plausible that a random process can produce such a thing.

No problem. Evolution is not a random process.

 

[gluadys]

I do believe that the gap theory is a possibility while doesn't need the billions of years that evolutionist badly need nor need the earth only be 6,000 years old. the problem with the gap theory is that since God hasn't revealed it to man then it hard to back it up with scriptures.

Ah, gap theory. That explains it in part. My problem with gap theory is just what you pinpoint. There is very little scripture to support it (and none that supports it unambiguously) and no science to support it. In fact, as far as I understand gap theory, it is contradicted as decisively by scientific evidence as YEC is, no matter how long the gap is. And again, I see no reason to settle on one time-frame for the gap. Why millions rather than billions of years?

IMO One of the big problem with evolutionist idea of the age of earth is well over billions of years is these amazing long times would do some serious erosion. A billion years is really beyond human comprehension.

In the first place it is not an "evolutionist idea" in the way your gap theory is your idea. It is a conclusion from the evidence of geology and physics. And you are right, there is a lot of erosion over billions of years. That is why we have so few Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rocks to study. That is why the oldest rocks on earth are only about 3.8 billion years old, not the 4.5 billion years which is the estimated age of the earth.

I would disagree.

Well we can simply agree to disagree or you can show me how ERVs can be plausibly explained by common design. If you wish, I can show how they are explained by common ancestry.

 

[Remus]

Actually, it's not. We can see various forms of the eye, some more advanced than others, all throughout the animal kingdom. More developed creatures have more developed eyes... exactly the kind of thing that evolution predicts.

For example?

Why twice? Is this that symmetry thing you were talking about?

Twice as in vertebrate eyes and the eyes of octopi and squids. Look up "convergent evolution" for more information.

Keep waiting. I'm not a biologist, but I'm also not arrogant enough to think that something is inexplicable just because I can't explain it.

Google it if you're curious.

Oh, I have "googled" it and what little I end up with is severely lacking.

Seems highly plausible to me. On what are you basing your opinion?

Although, amoebas and such seem pretty asymmetrical, and they do just fine. Asymmetrical multicellular creatures probably wouldn't get very far before something eats them.

For it to be plausible, it has to be that asymmetry is usually a disadvantage and would normally be selected out. Either that or through random mutations, you’ll most likely get a symmetric change.

 

[Remus]

Take complexity, for example. Evolution does not require that species become more complex over time. But since all early life is simple (relatively speaking) it is pretty understandable that one route evolution would take is toward complexity. There is no where to go but laterally into divergent, but equally simple, species or toward more complex species.

And we also have many examples of complex species shedding elements of complexity which are no longer useful to them.

Sexual reproduction and instinct both offer advantages that make them explainable by natural selection. So does external symmetry if you are thinking of something like the bilateral body plan of most animals.

It's easy to say that something gives an advantage is selected. Before something can be selected, it first has to come into being.

 

[Remus]

No problem. Evolution is not a random process.

Is the output of the process not dependant on a random input?