Why are you an evolutionist?

[whois]

So far as I understand it, the Earth was lifeless when it formed, 4540±20 million years ago, and it has abundant life now. Therefore, at some time between the Earth's formation and the present day, life appeared for the first time. Do you accept that much?

yes, it would seem as such.
i perfectly understand what evolution says, and i'll agree it makes all the sense in the world.
i question this assumed "mountain of evidence".

a good example would be, the sun rising tomorrow.
there is evidence that says it should, but there is exactly zero evidence that says it will.
saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an assumption, you have every reason to believe it will, but it's an assumption nonetheless.
the same general type of thing can be said about evolution.
given the rules and laws of chemistry, and how these things hook together, coupled with things like miller-urey, it's easy to assume life can arise and evolve.
but until this is proven, it's an assumption.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

This thread has been cleaned!

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

Please refrain from baiting and insulting each other, or making generalized insults against one side!

OFF!

 

[The Barbarian]

the question really isn't about god.
the question is one of proof.
there simply isn't any, apparently we don't even have a plausible scenario of how it could have happened.

That's completely wrong. But pick any step in the evolution of any organism from any suppossed ancestral form that you think is not possible, and we'll test your belief.

 

[The Barbarian]

a good example would be, the sun rising tomorrow.
there is evidence that says it should, but there is exactly zero evidence that says it will.
saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an assumption, you have every reason to believe it will, but it's an assumption nonetheless.

No, it's an inference based on a mountain of evidence. So much evidence, that (like evolution) it's foolish to deny it.

Inductive reasoning might seem like foolishness to you, but it's the way all of us live our lives. And it's remarkably effective. All of science works by induction, and it has been very successful in predicting and understanding the world.

the same general type of thing can be said about evolution.
given the rules and laws of chemistry, and how these things hook together, coupled with things like miller-urey, it's easy to assume life can arise and evolve.

Live did arise. And God says He did it using nature. And since evolution has been directly observed, that seems like pretty good evidence, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

we already have analysis between chimps and humans.
in order to validate these analysis we must test them on other, different, forms of life,

Done.

Summary of evidence showing humans and chimps are an evolutionary group, with other apes as an outgroup:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

 

[The Barbarian]

Entirely different forms of life:

"What, if anything, is a Zebra?"
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/gleazer/462_readings/gould.pdf

 

[Armoured]

"What, if anything, is a Zebra?"

The offspring of a panda and a horse.

 

[Heissonear]

A wise person will not rest upon his laurels or let his dogma dictate what he learns, but will instead be in earnest, untethered pursuit of knowledge until his final days. I've never stated that my mind is settled. Of course I have much to learn; I'm a teenager in my first year at college, and I'd be a fool to declare that my education is complete or to shutter my brain to new information that challenges me. What I admire so much about those in my life who do have very advanced education, exceptional credentials, and an abundance of accolades is that they crave knowledge as much as I do, they remain curious and engaged, and they are receptive. They are confident for substantial reasons, but they are not dogmatic. I believe that God created the world and all life within it, but do not have an immutable stance on the complex specifics of how, and will remain open to compelling scientific evidence. The incident I described earlier at the summer camp I attended when I was fifteen is what prompted me to join this forum seeking viewpoints that contrasted with my own to expand my horizons. I wanted to learn about a diversity of personal perspectives on Christianity in tandem with organized, robust academic learning.

How responsive are you to evidence that conflicts with your beliefs? How humble are you about continuous and expansive learning?

You've made me think of this:

You frequently boast about your educational pedigree and your supposed credentials, and yet I see you make minimal effort to actually put this advanced knowledge to use on this forum. If you are privileged with an exalted education and experience, why squander time here pontificating when you could actually be teaching us? It feels like you are wearing virtual tap shoes to dance in circles around the questions and the points presented to you, making a lot of noise and flair but not actually going anywhere. People like Loudmouth and SFS never have to brag about their education or their careers because it's evident they're knowledgeable from what they actually write on the subjects at hand. They put in consistent effort. They provide evidence and explanations to substantiate their statements. It seems like those who subscribe to YEC or OEC notions dedicate far more energy to tilting at the windmills about evolution than constructively presenting scientific evidence to give credence to their own views.

Btw - I think it's discourteous to address someone you are not on a first-name basis with as if you are.

Ella,
Nice reply.

Do read posts of those who "do not see God around". They are "godless in this world and in actions".

I'm not going to divulge information for them, they are bias and will trash what they hear. What has been "given from above" to them means hallucinations, imagination, believing it so to make it so, and so on.

Yes, something with a price tag that reflects enormous value to obtain is treated as less than a dime right here in front of you. They are perched here to knock such down. Unbelief has them. They only can view from what the dust that they are composed of can acquire.

I can say some things on Christian Forums in macro-level, but the intricacies are not for the ungodly to handle and defile. Do you understand this? And are you able to recognize Psalms 1:1 not working in someone life or various posts?

When I say there is more to learn and know, all the gold in this world does not compare to its value.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ella,
Nice reply.

Do read posts of those who "do not see God around". They are "godless in this world and in actions".

I'm not going to divulge information for them, they are bias and will trash what they hear. What has been "given from above" to them means hallucinations, imagination, believing it so to make it so, and so on.

Yes, something with a price tag that reflects enormous value to obtain is treated as less than a dime right here in front of you. They are perched here to knock such down. Unbelief has them. They only can view from what the dust that they are composed of can acquire.

I can say some things on Christian Forums in macro-level, but the intricacies are not for the ungodly to handle and defile. Do you understand this? And are you able to recognize Psalms 1:1 not working in someone life or various posts?

When I say there is more to learn and know, all the gold in this world does not compare to its value.

So basically, you don't want to say what you know because you know that people will question what you claim (which is a good thing with regards to science), and you just want to live in an echo chamber where you only hear good things people say about your sources.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can say some things on Christian Forums in macro-level, but the intricacies are not for the ungodly to handle and defile. Do you understand this? And are you able to recognize Psalms 1:1 not working in someone life or various posts?

By their fruits you will know them.

Luke 10:36 Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? 37 But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.

 

[whois]

That's completely wrong. But pick any step in the evolution of any organism from any suppossed ancestral form that you think is not possible, and we'll test your belief.

this particular issue concerns abiogenesis and was a dialog addressed to someone else.
but, if you must:
Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

as to the other:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

 

[TLK Valentine]

yes, it would seem as such.
i perfectly understand what evolution says, and i'll agree it makes all the sense in the world.
i question this assumed "mountain of evidence".

a good example would be, the sun rising tomorrow.
there is evidence that says it should, but there is exactly zero evidence that says it will.
saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an assumption, you have every reason to believe it will, but it's an assumption nonetheless.
the same general type of thing can be said about evolution.
given the rules and laws of chemistry, and how these things hook together, coupled with things like miller-urey, it's easy to assume life can arise and evolve.
but until this is proven, it's an assumption.

Sounds like you've got a problem with believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

It should, and it will, unless something stops it.

So... what would stop the rules and laws of chemistry?

 

[whois]

No, it's an inference based on a mountain of evidence. So much evidence, that (like evolution) it's foolish to deny it.

Inductive reasoning might seem like foolishness to you, but it's the way all of us live our lives. And it's remarkably effective. All of science works by induction, and it has been very successful in predicting and understanding the world.



Live did arise. And God says He did it using nature. And since evolution has been directly observed, that seems like pretty good evidence, too.

i stand by my claim:
we have every reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow and no reason to believe it will.
doing such a thing is predicting the future, are you saying science can do this?
i am not talking about "it should", i am talking about "it will".
the best science can do in this regard is to say "short of some catastrophe the sun will rise tomorrow"

 

[whois]

Done.

Summary of evidence showing humans and chimps are an evolutionary group, with other apes as an outgroup:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

like i have stated before, if these methods are not tested on other lifeforms besides apes and humans, how are we to know the method is valid?

from the conclusions:
However, despite decades of research on wild and captive chimpanzees, our overall knowledge about the chimpanzee phenome is very incomplete (Gagneux 2004; Olson and Varki 2004; McConkey and Varki 2005). Studies of intra-specific variation among great apes are in their infancy, and biomedical and physiological data are few. This lack of comparative phenotypic data represents a serious knowledge imbalance. Better phenomic data would enhance our ability to make additional, focused choices for candidate gene studies, and also increase our understanding of the biochemical consequences of any genomic changes we do find.
-ibid.

 

[TLK Valentine]

i stand by my claim:
we have every reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow and no reason to believe it will.
doing such a thing is predicting the future, are you saying science can do this?
i am not talking about "it should", i am talking about "it will".
the best science can do in this regard is to say "short of some catastrophe the sun will rise tomorrow"

And what's the best you can do?

 

[whois]

Sounds like you've got a problem with believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

It should, and it will, unless something stops it.

So... what would stop the rules and laws of chemistry?

there are a number of things that can stop the evolution of life from the elements.
a couple of the most obvious:
the separation, and incorporation of a single handed molecule into the nucleotide strand.

a reaction that requires an acidic solution to be immediately followed by an alkaline solution.

 

[The Barbarian]

i stand by my claim:
we have every reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow and no reason to believe it will.

Of course we do. Physics and astronomy have established that it's far to small to go through any catastrophic changes. And the evidence is overwhelming.

doing such a thing is predicting the future

It's what science is good at. Well over a hundred years ago, Huxley predicted dinosaurs with feathers, even though he had nothing but his comparative anatomical data to support him. He turned out right. Wegener, long before anyone had any sort of data showing it could happen, predicted that the continents were at one time joined together. Turns out, he was right. About 300 BC, Eratosthenes of Alexandria predicted that when someone finally got around the world, it would be about 25,000 miles in circumference. He was right. Long before we had instruments capable of confirming the fact, (about 400 BC) Democritus of Abdera (based on experiments) predicted that all matter was composed of very tiny particles he called "atoms." Turns out his prediction was correct. In the 19th century Arrhenius predicted that rising carbon dioxide levels would warm the planet. He was correct. In 1705, Edmond Halley, using Newton's theory of gravitation and Kepler's laws of planetary motion, predicted the year of return for the comet now named after him. He was right.

are you saying science can do this?

Routinely does this.

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a huge body of data showing that all the compounds necessary for initiation of life on Earth are formed abiotically. If that's not good enough for you, perhaps God's statement that the earth brought forth life, is a better source.

 

[The Barbarian]

like i have stated before, if these methods are not tested on other lifeforms besides apes and humans, how are we to know the method is valid?

You said humans and chimps. I showed you that the it also works for all apes. I also showed you that it works for the genus Equus. Would you like some more examples?

And recently, the chimp genome has been sequenced, so that excuse won't work, either.

 

[whois]

There's a huge body of data showing that all the compounds necessary for initiation of life on Earth are formed abiotically. If that's not good enough for you, perhaps God's statement that the earth brought forth life, is a better source.

i've seen no evidence at all that DNA can arise abiotically.

what, exactly, are these required components?

the only lab test i've seen is the miller-urey experiment, and it only produced a racemic blend of amino acids.
it's impossible for life to arise under these conditions.
even if this blend was separated, research shows the resulting RNA world hypothesis is a failure.