Theistic Evolution - what is it?

[NathanCGreen]

Provide evidence for the supposed flaws in dating techniques.

Provide evidence to suggest that evolution is built on blind faith.

Provide evidence for a designer.

The flaws in dating techniques have been well documented, why don't you search for them yourself?

The evidence to suggest that evolution is built on blind faith is the fact that it has no evidence of its own to back it up, therefore we are left with the conclusion that it is not true. All the arguments for evolution consist of 'begging the question', circular reasoning, and insertion of philosophical ideas into actual data. There are probably more false arguments though...

The evidence for a designer is obvious. Perhaps you should open your eyes and unplug your ears before posing such a question... The Designer is implied from what we see around us, and all those things that we cannot see with the naked eye.

When I ask for evidence I want the same level of data that we provide to you - peer reviewed, published data.

Go for it.....

I don't need to give you extensive data. Why don't you look it up yourself, instead of wasting my time?

 

[Molal]

The flaws in dating techniques have been well documented, why don't you search for them yourself?

The evidence to suggest that evolution is built on blind faith is the fact that it has no evidence of its own to back it up, therefore we are left with the conclusion that it is not true. All the arguments for evolution consist of 'begging the question', circular reasoning, and insertion of philosophical ideas into actual data. There are probably more false arguments though...

The evidence for a designer is obvious. Perhaps you should open your eyes and unplug your ears before posing such a question... The Designer is implied from what we see around us, and all those things that we cannot see with the naked eye.



I don't need to give you extensive data. Why don't you look it up yourself, instead of wasting my time?

So, in other words, you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Interesting.

 

[crawfish]

I don't need to give you extensive data. Why don't you look it up yourself, instead of wasting my time?

The answer to that one is: we did look it up ourself, and so we know you're full of it.

 

[gluadys]

What
Everyone knows that gravity is a reality... from experience.

Just as everyone who has examined the facts knows evolution is a reality....from experience.

But, there are differing theories of how gravity works.

And there is a theory of how evolution works. A theory with a great deal of supporting evidence.

So you cannot reasonably say 'the theory of gravity'. You could say, 'the prevailing theory' however.

And 'the prevailing theory' of evolution is better supported evidentially than any theory of gravity.

The 'theory' of evolution that tries to explain how things got started

There is no such theory of evolution. You may be thinking of a theory of abiogenesis. Or a theory of cosmogony (not sure where you are placing "how things got started.") There are several theories of abiogenesis, none much beyond hypothesis yet. The prevailing theory of cosmogony is big bang theory. Neither of these is a theory of evolution.

Then show us all a testable, observable, repeatable experiment that proves the evolution of all organisms.

All species studied so far show changes in the distribution of alleles in the population over generations. Can you find one that doesn't?

Come on! What is observable that will prove evolution? Huh? What is repeatable?

See above.

I think we all understand what those terms mean. However, can you show us evidence for evolution over creation using these methods? I didn't think so.

Most of us here think evolution is part of creation. Creation does not exclude evolution, nor does evolution exclude creation. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution is a human explanation for diversity, when GOD is the only true explanation. Kinds may cope through specialization; however, individuals within a kind never learn to become diverse.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is a human explanation for diversity, when GOD is the only true explanation.

God is always the ultimate explanation. That doesn't mean we cannot have more proximate explanations as well.

God is the ultimate explanation for why you exist. But that doesn't negate the proximate explanation about sperm uniting with egg.

God is the ultimate explanation for life in all its diversity. That does not negate the proximate explanation of evolution as well.

Kinds may cope through specialization; however, individuals within a kind never learn to become diverse.

Individuals don't evolve either. It takes populations to become diverse.

 

[Mick116]

The evidence to suggest that evolution is built on blind faith is the fact that it has no evidence of its own to back it up, therefore we are left with the conclusion that it is not true.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Consider the following:

The theory of evolution predicts that groups of organisms isolated by geography over many millions of years should evolve along different trajectories, resulting in unique communities of plant and animal species. Australia is a prime example of an isolated island continent with a very unique assemblage of creatures. Supposed post-flood animal migrations do not seem to adequately explain this observation.

Artificial selection is seen when humans intentionally breed for certain characteristics in dogs, for example. Canine variation is a result of mutation and evolution (and, incidentally, such mutations are not obviously detrimental, as is often claimed to be the case for mutations).

Darwin lamented that the fossil record of his day was incomplete. Since then, as predicted by his theory, a wealth of transitional forms have been discovered in the fossil record. There have existed creatures somewhere between fish and amphibians, for example. Recently discovered in China were a plethora of feathered dinosaurs - intermediates between dinosaurs and birds. Even today, we see fascinating examples of living "intermediates". Egg-laying mammals (the platypus and echidna), and the lungfish, a creature with both lungs and gills.

Finally there is the observation of morphological, and, more recently, genetic similarities between groups of organisms. Even a child can see that a wallaby is more closely related to a kangaroo than to a dog. A pumpkin is closer to a watermelon than an apple tree. A cat is closer to a horse than to an ostrich. We are closer in form to a gorilla than to a goldfish. Draw any conclusion from this you will, but to me this indicates shared biological heritage.

All the arguments for evolution consist of 'begging the question', circular reasoning, and insertion of philosophical ideas into actual data.

Arguments for special creation (especially YECism) are far worse in this area. Presumptuous interpretations, circular reasoning and question-begging practically define YECism.

The evidence for a designer is obvious.

Agreed. A theory of evolution as held by a Christian in no way disputes this fact.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Arguments for special creation (especially YECism) are far worse in this area. Presumptuous interpretations, circular reasoning and question-begging practically define YECism.

That's just an accusation, not fact. Even if you could give me an example of circular reasoning used by creationists, it is not widespread. It is far more common in evo circles. Of course, you will probably just respond by saying that I am merely accusing, and not backing up what I say with examples... but that is because I have had enough of trying to convince people such as yourselves.

Agreed. A theory of evolution as held by a Christian in no way disputes this fact.

But what kind of god are you serving that would do such a thing? I could never serve a god who has to use death and suffering to create. It is nonsensical.

Oh yeah, and gluadys... as before, what does the distribution of alleles prove? Nothing but variation within a 'kind', that's what.

We may not have all the answers about how certain animals migrated to Australia after the Flood for example... but there are good theories out there. The post-flood ice age has merit.

 

[NathanCGreen]

So, in other words, you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Interesting.

Your questions were not needed to be answered with a full fledged encyclopedia's worth of information.

 

[NathanCGreen]

The answer to that one is: we did look it up ourself, and so we know you're full of it.

LOL! If you did look for these things, then all I can say is this: You simply can't get enough of those huge daily doses of denial, can you?

 

[sfs]

That's just an accusation, not fact. Even if you could give me an example of circular reasoning used by creationists, it is not widespread. It is far more common in evo circles. Of course, you will probably just respond by saying that I am merely accusing, and not backing up what I say with examples... but that is because I have had enough of trying to convince people such as yourselves.

More accurately, that accusation would be because you are merely accusing and not backing up what you say. You have provided zero evidence of anything, and responded not at all to the any of the evidence offered by anyone else. Be honest: did you even look at any of it?

As for not wanting to convince people of anything . . . Why are you bothering to write anything, then? Right now you are convincing people of something: that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[sfs]

Your questions were not needed to be answered with a full fledged encyclopedia's worth of information.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this kind of response?

 

[Mick116]

That's just an accusation, not fact. Even if you could give me an example of circular reasoning used by creationists, it is not widespread. It is far more common in evo circles. Of course, you will probably just respond by saying that I am merely accusing, and not backing up what I say with examples... but that is because I have had enough of trying to convince people such as yourselves.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But what kind of god are you serving that would do such a thing? I could never serve a god who has to use death and suffering to create. It is nonsensical.

I serve a God that created the universe as it really is. A God that brings order out of chaos, light out of darkness, and life out of death. When the time comes, the imperfections of this present creation will pass away, and God will usher in the new creation; the resurrected Christ represents the firstfruits of this new creation, giving us hope that such an age will one day become reality.

Praise the Lord, there will be room for all of us, YEC and TE alike.

Peace

 

[Molal]

Your questions were not needed to be answered with a full fledged encyclopedia's worth of information.

Yet you expect us to provide answers, which you thenhand waive away and dance around.

But, the reality remains, you can't provide any peer reviewed,published data.

 

[gluadys]

Oh yeah, and gluadys... as before, what does the distribution of alleles prove? Nothing but variation within a 'kind', that's what.

You have not even explained yet what distribution of alleles has to do with variation and you think you know what it means?

Maybe you know and maybe you don't. But we don't know what you know until you tell us.

What does it mean when the distribution of alleles in a population changes?

 

[crawfish]

LOL! If you did look for these things, then all I can say is this: You simply can't get enough of those huge daily doses of denial, can you?

All I can say is, if you really understood it - even a little - then you could explain it a lot better. As it is, it's not worth the time to argue with you.

 

[random_guy]

What!? Again! Oh boy..
Everyone knows that gravity is a reality... from experience. But, there are differing theories of how gravity works. So you cannot reasonably say 'the theory of gravity'. You could say, 'the prevailing theory' however. What about 'the theory of disease'? Once again, there are differing views on its origin, etc.
The 'theory' of evolution that tries to explain how things got started has already been debunked, for example, its mathematical impossibility.
So stop wasting time and effort on a faulty theory and build another one.

Please, show me this "mathematical impossibility". Sounds like magic hand waving. As for me, I know from experience that allele frequencies in a gene pool change over generations. I observe it in my family history just by observing the different hair color in my parent's and my grandparent's generation. Just because you do not understand the theory of evolution, doesn't make it incorrect.

Not withstanding your absurd argument, how are you going to decide if my answer is correct or not?

Easy, the same way I know 1+1 is not equal to 3. You do not use the correct definition of evolution or scientific method, so it's pretty obvious that your answer is incorrect.

You sound like a typical misguided follower of Kabbalic evolutionism. All of your arguments are empty. You simply claim that I don't know what science is, yet you must, right? Then show us all a testable, observable, repeatable experiment that proves the evolution of all organisms. Come on! What is observable that will prove evolution? Huh? What is repeatable? I think we all understand what those terms mean. However, can you show us evidence for evolution over creation using these methods? I didn't think so.

Well, considering I study science, I would take my understanding of science above yours, especially given your answers. I nailed your response in my first post. I knew that you would say evolution is unobservable or unrepeatable. But in fact, by your definition, nothing would be scientific. For example, we can't observe what is in the mantle of the crust, only measure waves that travel through it. By your definition of science, geology of the mantle is then not scientific. We can't reproduce star formation in a lab, by your definition, astronomy is unscientific. We can't even observe atoms form bonds with other atoms, so by your definition, chemistry is unscientific.

People who understand science? Don't you mean those who claim to understand evolution? The two are NOT synonymous.

Well, I meant exactly what I wrote. Nearly every Creationists that posts on this forum doesn't understand science. Heck, you made the same mistakes with your ideas of what it means for something to be observable, testable, and reproducible. You seem to think reproducible means you have to be able to reproduce the event in theory, when it just means that experiments run/measurements made/etc... must have reproducible results.

You should believe God, not men. Use your intelligence, don't just follow the crowd. They could be wrong, you know... Ever heard of what happened to the Antedeluvians?

I do believe in God. I believe in His Creation. And I don't believe in men, especially ones that con people like AiG and Kent Hovind. The great thing about having a scientific mind is I don't need to believe in men, I can use my own mind to examine the evidence.

You seem to be under the impression that evolutionists and Creationists have the same thinking pattern, both blindly follow their respective theories. It's actually quite opposite. Most evolutionists (I really hate that word) on this board have examined both sides very carefully, and chose evolution based on its merits. I don't think many Creationists here can say the same. That's why most Creationists can't correctly define what evolution is, they don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, and they don't understand the scientific method.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Please, show me this "mathematical impossibility". Sounds like magic hand waving. As for me, I know from experience that allele frequencies in a gene pool change over generations. I observe it in my family history just by observing the different hair color in my parent's and my grandparent's generation. Just because you do not understand the theory of evolution, doesn't make it incorrect.

Mate, I don't understand the lie of evolution, because it is not a reality. The mathematics have been done, but it would take a while to type it all out here. If I could scan a page in, I might do that... but why waste time, huh?

As to your mentioning of alleles and genetic variations in people, what have you proven? Nothing at all, that's what. I know about alleles and that variation takes place, but this is not an evolution of anything... And so your reasoning skills are certainly lacking.

By the way, I do not reject the real scientific method. Merely theorizing is not science.

Have you heard of the 'Electric Universe'? This is an idea that has real science behind it, unlike the Big Bang nonsense of mainstream 'science'. This 'theory', if you want to call it that, is getting closer to the biblical model of the universe, which is a pleasant surprise. Look it up why don't you? You call yourself a student of science... then you won't be afraid to investigate it, huh?

Okay, here's a video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo

 

[sfs]

Mate, I don't understand the lie of evolution, because it is not a reality. The mathematics have been done, but it would take a while to type it all out here. If I could scan a page in, I might do that... but why waste time, huh?

Right. You actually have an argument, but you left it in your other pants.

 

[Molal]

Mate, I don't understand the lie of evolution, because it is not a reality. The mathematics have been done, but it would take a while to type it all out here. If I could scan a page in, I might do that... but why waste time, huh?

As to your mentioning of alleles and genetic variations in people, what have you proven? Nothing at all, that's what. I know about alleles and that variation takes place, but this is not an evolution of anything... And so your reasoning skills are certainly lacking.

By the way, I do not reject the real scientific method. Merely theorizing is not science.

Have you heard of the 'Electric Universe'? This is an idea that has real science behind it, unlike the Big Bang nonsense of mainstream 'science'. This 'theory', if you want to call it that, is getting closer to the biblical model of the universe, which is a pleasant surprise. Look it up why don't you? You call yourself a student of science... then you won't be afraid to investigate it, huh?

So, where is your evidence to suggest that evolution does not exist? Where are the published, peer reviewed articles that debunk evolution?

I am still waiting......