What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Need answers]

The elegance and complexity of life is enough evidence of creation for me.

Me as well. I have doubts about God often. But then i remember how complex life is and i doubt no more.

 

[solid_core]

That Paul would have preached the big bang theory (which has it's own glaring holes).

He would certainly use some generally accepted theories like he used the theory accepted in Greek world that long hair are female sexual organ and therefore its shameful for men to have them.

And the Big Bang has fewer holes than this Greek medical opinion.

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps so; but it says nothing about the literal inerrancy of the texts themselves.

It says what the Word believed to be true.

 

[Hammster]

God did not write the Bible. Men did.

And as God did not write that we think in our bellies or that sky is a solid dome, so He also did not write that men are from the dust of the earth. Men did.

God inspired the path of salvation, men used their language to describe it.

It’s God-breathed.

 

[solid_core]

It’s God-breathed.

So not God-written.

 

[Speedwell]

The authors of the (Berkley) study were at least dealing with one of the glaring holes in the theory. Mainly, an advanced cryptological system (DNA/RNA) is required first before life can exist. Now they claim that DNA/RNA - "are simply nucleotide proteins" whistling past the fact that they are in fact coded instructions no matter how "simple" their biological make up is and that in each organism the code is so complex that it contains the instructions for creating every cell and organ in its body. The DNA inside a liver cell, won't cause the liver to produce a skin cell or a kidney cell. Even a single celled organism is incredibly complex. It eats, poops and reproduces and all of the information which allows it to do so is driven by the DNA.

Certainly modern single-celled organisms fit that description.

So they came up with the idea that the DNA came first (it has to) and that it rained down from the clouds into the ocean and thus the first organisms were created. It isn't possible for evolution to have produced DNA. It requires a designer.

Or a better naturalistic theory. But cannot make a scientific case for creationism that way. If you disprove the theory of evolution all you will have is a disproven theory. You have nothing on offer to replace it with.

 

[Hammster]

Well, I’ve said all I need to for now.

 

[Speedwell]

So not God-written.

The underlying Greek, "theópneustos" is actually a coinage of Paul's, a neologism. Consequently, its meaning is not well-defined in the Greek lexicon.

 

[pitabread]

Something not observed but conjectured.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

I link to Wikipedia because it provides good lay-summaries with references for further reading. If you want scientific sources, there is nothing stopping you from doing research through Google Scholar or other such avenues.

If you want to learn about this you can, but it seems like you're more interested in expressing incredulity.

 

[pitabread]

This is only evidence that they discovered a new species, not that it had come from the previously known species. They haven't documented the change because nobody observed the change. They only discovered a new flower that they hadn't seen before. To say that you know how it came into existence by mere discovery of it is circular logic.

Of course it's observed. If you have a species introduced into new environments and then new species evolving from the previously introduced species, that is evolution of a new species. Especially given that the genetic evolution of such can be traced back to the originating species. So I'm not sure what you think is required to otherwise observe that?

There are also laboratory experiments on speciation as well, which study the different types of speciation that can occur among populations: Laboratory experiments of speciation - Wikipedia

Regardless, your claim that "There has been no observed change in species or transition to another species in history" is simply not a true claim.

It's also an odd claim, since even most creationists accept speciation. In fact, rapid speciation is required for many forms of creationism.

Yes, certain amphibians can switch sexes. This proves nothing since that feature is limited to those species. It can't happen in a mammal unless it is an egg laying mammal. Sex requires complex cooperative organs. The theories on how that can evolve are ridiculous. It's far too complex a problem to evolve without a mistake creating extinction. Not a huge mistake either. Tiny.

If you're just going to handwave away the responses, why are you even asking the question?

If you ever decided you wanted to learn about the Theory of Evolution and find answers to your questions, I have an entire thread dedicated to free University courses on the subject: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

You're welcome to partake.

 

[eleos1954]

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

God isn't scientific ... He is supernatural .... science comes up with THEORIES in an attempt to explain the supernatural.

 

[pitabread]

God isn't scientific ... He is supernatural .... science comes up with THEORIES in an attempt to explain the supernatural.

Scientific theories don't explain the supernatural. The supernatural is not in the domain of scientific inquiry.

 

[SeventyOne]

Scientific theories don't explain the supernatural. The supernatural is not in the domain of scientific inquiry.

That's because science has inherit inadequacies. It isn't robust enough to explain a process of creation.

 

[pitabread]

That's because science has inherit inadequacies. It isn't robust enough to explain a process of creation.

I wouldn't call it an issue with science per se. Rather, it's a consequence of there being no objective basis with which to test claims about supernatural causes.

 

[eleos1954]

Scientific theories don't explain the supernatural. The supernatural is not in the domain of scientific inquiry.

I said the ATTEMPT to explain .... they create theories to ATTEMPT to explain things they do not understand ... an you and everyone else knows this is what they do.

There have been and are many scientists that support the existence of God.

'It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation."

— Sir Isaac Newton

 

[pitabread]

I said the ATTEMPT to explain .... they create theories to ATTEMPT to explain things they do not understand ... an you and everyone else knows this is what they do.

Scientific theories can't even attempt to explain the supernatural. Science literally cannot make any claims about supernatural involvement one way or another. Not until someone invents a methodology to objectively test supernatural causes.

There have been and are many scientists that support the existence of God.

Sure, but personal beliefs have nothing to do with applications of the scientific method.

 

[solid_core]

I said the ATTEMPT to explain .... they create theories to ATTEMPT to explain things they do not understand ... an you and everyone else knows this is what they do.

There have been and are many scientists that support the existence of God.

'It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation."

— Sir Isaac Newton

The theory of Evolution is not against God more than the law of gravity is.

To explain how things work in our Universe is not ruling out the Creator of the universe. I can explain how the mobile phone works, but it does not mean I ruled out its designer and manufacturer.

 

[eleos1954]

Scientific theories can't even attempt to explain the supernatural. Science literally cannot make any claims about supernatural involvement one way or another. Not until someone invents a methodology to objectively test supernatural causes.



Sure, but personal beliefs have nothing to do with applications of the scientific method.

yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!

 

[pitabread]

yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!

The scientific methodology relies on testing natural explanations, not supernatural ones. In methodological naturalism, the universe itself is assumed to be an objective basis for testing competing ideas.

As I said, scientific inquiry makes zero claims one way or another about the supernatural. It's outside of the realm of science.

 

[GodsGrace101]

In the context of evolution, not strict chance (natural selection is a process which isn't pure chance).



DNA isn't really like a computer language. It's actually chemistry, more akin to a recipe than a program.

As for it being "too complicated", there are other fascinating reads like complexity theory than go into the emergence and behaviors of complex systems.

Things like evolution actually fascinate me in that regard, because it's an elegant demonstration of (relatively speaking) simple recursive systems can generate fascinating complexity.

Well, I believe in natural selection...this also occurs in microevolution.

I've been listening to Dr. James Tour and I just find the whole DNA and cell science very interesting.

I used to believe in evolution. I wonder if there's anybody that NEVER did. I just started thinking about it in a logical way and I cannot come to the conclusion that all this came about all by itself with no help.

Even if gas caused the BB...where did the gas come from?

And if aliens made us...where did THEY come from?
There just doesn't seem to be an answer other than something must have made us...if it's God, so be it.
I do believe that God, or some spirit, made us, and space, and time, all at the same moment.

I've heard scientists say that time came into being at the same moment that the BB happened. So, how could there NOT be time??

It's all very fascinating.

 

[solid_core]

yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!

Science does not make theories about metaphysics (= supernatural).

Philosophy makes theories about metaphysics.

The theory of evolution is science, atheistic evolution or theistic evolution is philosophy.