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

[LewisWildermuth]

Actually I said several times that God could have done it either way. But that's beside the point.

If God could have done it either way then we should look at creation and test it to find out which way God did it so we know whether or not to read the creation stories as literal or not. This would help eliminate human bias in reading the scriptures.

Your analogy is faulty. You describe a machine that is designed to provide a deterministic output. As we've been told, even in this thread I believe, evolution has no goal and its output is not deterministic.

To say evolution has no goal is only partially true. There is no "stop here" line in evolution and the only thing limiting solutions is the laws of physics. How ever there is a goal in that a population must survive and breed to continue to exist.



To know if the universe is actually a deterministic machine (that life was inevitable) we must study and test it, only then can we even start to ask the right questions to the "Why?" problem.

 

[shernren]

So Remus, what do you think of the mainstream figures? Is the science faulty? How? I mean, one can see how biological "facts" and "observations" can be somewhat conjectural, but the same can't be said of lab-observed decay rates of radioisotopes.

 

[Smidlee]

Still, I do acknowledge that a lot remains unknown. Then again, at least we have only two competing theories (evolution the scientific one and creationism the half-scientific one).

Actually there are only to options as the origins of living things ; 1) by natural laws only or 2) by intelligents/ Creator. There are many varities of both options. It really how far does natural laws can go in explaining the origins of species. Your opinion that evolution is the more scientific one is what the whole fuss is about. there is no known laws of nature that can account for all the known complexities we see in life. Since even evoultionist has realize this yet refused to give up their monopoly of what is called science in which has now become a dogma. Even the media is picking up on this with what happen to Richard Sternberg. What Sternberg did couldn't have come in a worst time for evolutionist since many of their great preachers like Gould have passed away. it hard to tell just how many scientist like Sternberg who starting to question Darwinism.

So far I can think of four theories describing gravity (GR/SR, supersymmetry, superstring, brane theory - any more to add?) and nobody even knows how they can be talking about the same thing! I think that by comparison evolution is more settled than gravity.

Theories of gravity has little to do with philosophy. it's not hard to see that having such statements like "Survival of the fittest" isn't found in the theories of gravity,( which was part of Hitler thinking in World War 2 ).
Questioning these theories of gravity are encouraged in the classroom which can't be said of evolution. Evolution has become a dogma is proclaimed as fact yet even creationists believe that the natural laws alone can explain some changes in animals. It's the limits of evolution/ natural selection is the real battle. Yet evolutionist know if natural laws can't explain something in biology then this point to intelligent designer/ God. Both view are based on opinions and faith which is why there are some feels neither should be taught as science in the classroom since both goes beyond these natural laws.
Icon of evolution is a book which reveals the dishonesty of evolutionists in trying to prove evolution as a fact in science books. Is there such dishonesty in the theories of gravity?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Actually there are only to options as the origins of living things ; 1) by natural laws only or 2) by intelligents/ Creator.

What about both? An intelligent creator who worked within the boundries of natural laws?

 

[Smidlee]

What about both? An intelligent creator who worked within the boundries of natural laws?

No problem if that's your belief yet where you proof that God used these boundries? exact what laws can slowly change bacteria to man naturally or can produce an eye? And if God is involve directly in his creation then what left for evolution to do? If God isn't involved then why does evolution need a creator since it runs itself? Whlie I understand an atheist defended evolution as the origin of everything no matter what the evidence, I admitted I puzzled to see TE defended it just the same. I can see why some can see atheist=evolution especially when there evidence pointing in the opposide direction.

 

[gluadys]

Actually there are only to options as the origins of living things ; 1) by natural laws only or 2) by intelligents/ Creator. There are many varities of both options.

I am glad your option 1) includes the word "only". No one in this forum is saying that. So we all opt for 2).

This is what should bind us together in dealing with those who promote "natural laws only" as if "natural" was equivalent to pushing God out of his own creation. So what if we do get to the point that we can explain all of nature in terms of natural processes? How does that eliminate God?

 

[The Lady Kate]

No problem if that's your belief yet where you proof that God used these boundries?

Why shouldn't he?

exact what laws can slowly change bacteria to man naturally or can produce an eye?

Mutation and Natural Selection... a pretty good combination.

God is involve directly in his creation then what left for evolution to do?

Evolution doesn't do anything...it's simply the tool God used.

That's like asking if you drive in the nails, what's left for the hammer to do?

nvolved then why does evolution need a creator since it runs itself?

Something had to start the whole thing...and guide it in the right direction...

You start your car, you steer it, but you don't push it every inch of the way...OTOH, the car won't get very far without you behind the wheel.

While I understand an atheist defended evolution as the origin of everything no matter what the evidence, I admitted I puzzled to see TE defended it just the same.

What evidence?

Why is it so puzzling? The evidence tells us how, our faith tells us who. How is not debated with the Atheists, and who is an apologetic question, not a scientific one. TEs and Atheistic evolutionists really don't have much to argue about...

I can see why some can see atheist=evolution especially when there evidence pointing in the opposide direction.

Again, evidence for what? What evidence are you talking about?

 

[Remus]

So Remus, what do you think of the mainstream figures? Is the science faulty? How? I mean, one can see how biological "facts" and "observations" can be somewhat conjectural, but the same can't be said of lab-observed decay rates of radioisotopes.

This is hard to answer. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the science is faulty. I believe that our understanding of physics is really good; I think it’s arguably the area of science that we have the best understanding. With that said, there are still several assumptions that are made in dating things. Even though that isn't a very good excuse, it does need to be taken into account.

I do know that what is typically presented in forum discussions and on TO isn't always accurate. Not that it's technically wrong, but things tend to get more certain as they leave the actual scientific journals and the labs. I've read enough and been around enough labs to know that these things aren't as exact as they would like us to believe.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of how and why most of the dating methods work. Ar-Ar still eludes me though. I understand the test, but I don’t yet understand why it works. It seems to be the holy grail of radiometric dating and my initial impression is that it sounds expensive and very unlikely that it would be commonly used. I’ll get to it eventually and be able to answer the questions that I have about it.

 

[Smidlee]

Mutation and Natural Selection... a pretty good combination.

even evolutionist admitted natural selection has nothing to do with the arrival of anything. And the neutral gaps are too huge for mutation alone to cross. If this is all evolutionist got then evolution has been falsified.

Evolution doesn't do anything...it's simply the tool God used.

That's like asking if you drive in the nails, what's left for the hammer to do?

you're forgetting one thing. evolutionist haven't found their hammer yet. They are still searching for their hammer. They believe the reason why the hammer hasn't showed up is they need more time and money but creationist believe this hammer doesn't exist and that God lefted the fingerprints of design to witness that he is greater than the god of nature.

 

[gluadys]

even evolutionist admitted natural selection has nothing to do with the arrival of anything. And the neutral gaps are too huge for mutation alone to cross. If this is all evolutionist got then evolution has been falsified.

That is why you need both. Mutation to bring about the arrival of variation, and natural selection to steer it in the direction of adaptation.

What do you mean by "neutral gaps are too huge"?

you're forgetting one thing. evolutionist haven't found their hammer yet. They are still searching for their hammer. They believe the reason why the hammer hasn't showed up is they need more time and money but creationist believe this hammer doesn't exist and that God lefted the fingerprints of design to witness that he is greater than the god of nature.

Well, TEs believe God left his fingerprints on nature too: with evolution. I don't know of any other way God put design into nature. There is no evidence of any other design mechanism being used.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, TEs believe God left his fingerprints on nature too: with evolution. I don't know of any other way God put design into nature. There is no evidence of any other design mechanism being used.

Again where is this design mechanism that produce complex organ like the eye. Without a mechanism then evolution is on the same ground as creation. Yet this is the really what evolutionist is fighting that they are on the same grounds as creationist. They want to hold the monoploy on what is science by their beliefs.
It like claiming swimming is a proven fact to get a person across a body of water yet that depend what body of water we are talking about. if the body of water is a river or pond then yes, someone could get to the other side by swimming but if the body of water is as huge as Alantia Ocean then it's non-sense to believe swimming is good enough to travel across. You got to have something beside swimming to cross the Ocean like a boat. Yet evolution has find no such boat and still claiming if someone swims long enough he could get to the other side without realizing time isn't on the swimmers side.

 

[Remus]

Again where is this design mechanism that produce complex organ like the eye. Without a mechanism then evolution is on the same ground as creation. Yet this is the really what evolutionist is fighting that they are on the same grounds as creationist. They want to hold the monoploy on what is science by their beliefs.

I think this sums up the problem rather well. It comes down to which is more plausible, random mutation/selection or distinct creations.

 

[Vance]

I think this sums up the problem rather well. It comes down to which is more plausible, random mutation/selection or distinct creations.

Oh, I think it does, indeed, come down to which is more plausible, given the evidence we have in nature.

I find it very telling that the ones who find the idea of distinct creations more telling are, almost without exclusion, those who started with a religious belief that insisted it be distinct creations.

I am not sure I have EVER heard of someone without such a religious belief coming to the scientific conclusion that distinct creation makes more sense (not just having "issues" with evolution, but actually thinking distinct creation was the more plausible thing to have happened from purely a scientific standpoint), and then turning to religious belief as a result (compared to the tons of folks who started with the idea that it must be special creation, but then after having studied the evidence, concluded that it must be evolution, and still retained their faith).

 

[Remus]

I am not sure I have EVER heard of someone without such a religious belief coming to the scientific conclusion that distinct creation makes more sense (not just having "issues" with evolution, but actually thinking distinct creation was the more plausible thing to have happened from purely a scientific standpoint), and then turning to religious belief as a result (compared to the tons of folks who started with the idea that it must be special creation, but then after having studied the evidence, concluded that it must be evolution, and still retained their faith).

*shrugs* I have. In fact, I've used the deficiencies in ToE to lead people down this path and ultimately finding God. There’s also another path that you are forgetting. An atheist that concludes that evolution is the best answer does so without all the information. If there is no god, then that is the only conclusion that they are likely to reach. However, if they are convinced that God does exist, then they learn another piece of information that they can then reevaluate their opinions. I believe Lee Strobel is a good example of someone that has followed this path. He went from believing evolution to writing The Case for a Creator.

 

[gluadys]

I think this sums up the problem rather well. It comes down to which is more plausible, random mutation/selection or distinct creations.

No, it comes down to which is more plausible: God-guided mutations + selection or distinct creations. Remember we are not speaking of atheism here. Given the evidence, evolution guided by God is much more plausible.

 

[gluadys]

Again where is this design mechanism that produce complex organ like the eye. Without a mechanism then evolution is on the same ground as creation. Yet this is the really what evolutionist is fighting that they are on the same grounds as creationist. They want to hold the monoploy on what is science by their beliefs.

The mechanism is mutation + selection (using selection in the broadest sense to include not only natural selection, but such simple factors as that in every generation the number of those who become parents is a sub-set of those that are born.)

We know this mechanism works through actual observation. When we make predictions/retrodictions based on this mechanism, the predictions/retrodictions are correct. An observation which contradicts the possibility that this mechanism has been operative throughout the history of life has not yet been discovered.

So please don't tell me there is no mechanism.

If you have problems with this mechanism, spell out what they are.

It like claiming swimming is a proven fact to get a person across a body of water yet that depend what body of water we are talking about. if the body of water is a river or pond then yes, someone could get to the other side by swimming but if the body of water is as huge as Alantia Ocean then it's non-sense to believe swimming is good enough to travel across.

A fine analogy with one problem. You haven't shown that an ocean exists which the evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of straddling. Darwin was insistent that evolution could only occur in small increments of change. IOW there cannot be an ocean between no eye and a complex human eye. It must be feasible to get from the earliest eye-spot to the camera eye (or the compound eye of insects) or any other complex eye by innumerable small variations. When he looked at complex organs in detail he concluded there was no case in which this was not feasible. 150 years later, it still looks as if he was right.

So the challenge to you is to show the uncrossable ocean even exists.

 

[shernren]

Remus, I'm starting age of the earth discussions on a separate thread. That okay?

 

[Smidlee]

The mechanism is mutation + selection (using selection in the broadest sense to include not only natural selection, but such simple factors as that in every generation the number of those who become parents is a sub-set of those that are born.)

We know this mechanism works through actual observation. When we make predictions/retrodictions based on this mechanism, the predictions/retrodictions are correct. An observation which contradicts the possibility that this mechanism has been operative throughout the history of life has not yet been discovered.

So please don't tell me there is no mechanism.

If you have problems with this mechanism, spell out what they are.

Again the difference between swiming across a river and swiming across the Atantic Ocean. Or just because I can walk one step at a time to walk across the USA doesn't mean I can walk to the moon.
evolutionist can't find this small steps leading to one benefit mutation to another without crossing huge neutral gaps which selection is powerless.

A fine analogy with one problem. You haven't shown that an ocean exists which the evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of straddling. Darwin was insistent that evolution could only occur in small increments of change. IOW there cannot be an ocean between no eye and a complex human eye. It must be feasible to get from the earliest eye-spot to the camera eye (or the compound eye of insects) or any other complex eye by innumerable small variations. When he looked at complex organs in detail he concluded there was no case in which this was not feasible. 150 years later, it still looks as if he was right.

So the challenge to you is to show the uncrossable ocean even exists.

I believe Remus has already revealed that even something simple as the lens of the eye isn't simple and going from a opaque to clear isn't much of a option. Behe states even the simple eyes in nature isn't simple at all on a biochemist level. All you really showed how is possible to go from one eyeball shape to another. this may have been good enough in darwin's day but with today science it's fall short.
Just because you claim Darwin is right doesn't make him right and science is proving Darwin is wrong so I choose to go with science and mathematics on this one. Well , I'm done since this topic seems to go the circles.
P.S Here an interesting article (seems to be a book written by a Muslim) covering the Lobster eyes and how it's point to design.

 

[gluadys]

Again the difference between swiming across a river and swiming across the Atantic Ocean. Or just because I can walk one step at a time to walk across the USA doesn't mean I can walk to the moon.
evolutionist can't find this small steps leading to one benefit mutation to another without crossing huge neutral gaps which selection is powerless.

You are going to have to explain this better. I specifically said, and everything I have read in evolutionary science agrees, that evolution cannot cross an "atlantic ocean" in one bound--or swim across it either. So that analogy does not work. You have to show that something in evolutionary history is equivalent to an "atlantic ocean" leap.

What we find in evolution is a continual series of small steps, one mutation at a time. And it is not necessary that adaptive selection work on all of them all the time. All that is necessary is that they be preserved. If mutations which can be useful in a new scenario exist in the gene pool, then natural selection can start to select for them.

I don't understand why you are supposing gaps that cannot be crossed by small steps.

I believe Remus has already revealed that even something simple as the lens of the eye isn't simple and going from a opaque to clear isn't much of a option. Behe states even the simple eyes in nature isn't simple at all on a biochemist level. All you really showed how is possible to go from one eyeball shape to another. this may have been good enough in darwin's day but with today science it's fall short.

No one is disputing the existence of complexity. Evolution is complex too. The issue is whether any complexity exists which cannot have come about through evolution. Can you show me any complex feature or process for which an evolutionary scenario has been definitively ruled out? Not just speculation, but an actual bar to mutation + selection as the mechanism of origination.

P.S Here an interesting article (seems to be a book written by a Muslim) covering the Lobster eyes and how it's point to design.

Ah yes, the Muslim equivalent of Kent Hovind.

 

[shernren]

I think that a reasonable formal way to state this challenge is: can you show that out of all possible random evolutionary paths that begin from a simple eye-spot, there is not one single one that would culminate in the eye designs we see today?

A person cannot swim across the Atlantic because he/she would run out of energy. But what does the natural selection mechanism "run out of" so that it cannot reach the modern eye design?