Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[albrecht]

My point is that I gave my REPLY to that last post of yours, in which I more or less debunk what you had presented.

You debunked nothing.

You are apparently a layman who cannot do some honest and objective thinking for himself, or else I wouldn't be here trying to break this down for you.

You're not breaking anything down. You haven't explained anything. All you've done is present scientifically and theologically illiterate creationist maxims for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

It has no theological significance, none whatsoever.

Maybe not to willfully ignorant "theologians" who disregard anything that contradicts their naive interpretations of scripture and science.

Maybe you would understand why if you'd spend less time looking into evolution and more into theology, while remembering which takes priority.

Evolution has been incorporated into theological discourse for over a hundred years. Or are you one of those for whom the only legitimate theology is that which claims that slavery is supported by scripture, black people are the sons of Ham, and evolution is atheism in disguise?

 

[Assyrian]

I think the Bible says that each creature shall produce offspring according to their kind...

A common Creationist misconception, but the bible doesn't say that.

 

[Assyrian]

#2 Theistic evolution, as I said, is ultimately useless and an oxymoron.

Only if you have a false dichotomy between the handiwork of God and natural processes that God ordained and created. Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good. Is there any contradiction between between Jesus' statement and understanding the earth rotates? A biblical theology sees God behind the natural processes he created.

As evolution has nothing to do with theology and is rendered obselete outside of a fallen state where death and decay are realities.

You mean evolution is rendered obsolete if you assume your interpretation of Genesis is right? Obviously if you assume you are correct then you are also assuming that ideas you disagree with must be wrong too.

Two big problems with that, first the bible never says animal death is the result of man's sin, and second, the geological evidence shows us animals and plants were dying hundreds of millions of years before mankind was around.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Only if you have a false dichotomy between the handiwork of God and natural processes that God ordained and created. Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good. Is there any contradiction between between Jesus' statement and understanding the earth rotates? A biblical theology sees God behind the natural processes he created.


You mean evolution is rendered obsolete if you assume your interpretation of Genesis is right? Obviously if you assume you are correct then you are also assuming that ideas you disagree with must be wrong too.

Two big problems with that, first the bible never says animal death is the result of man's sin, and second, the geological evidence shows us animals and plants were dying hundreds of millions of years before mankind was around.

Hello Assyrian,

As far as I understand, you have to make assumptions, whether you believe in evolution, creation, or anything else. You wouldn´t get out of bed in the morning if you didn´t make assumptions. So when I hear someone say that he is completely objective and makes no assumptions, I just shake my head and smile.

Science makes assumptions ALL THE TIME. The big assumption that evolutionists make, the pink elephant in the living room, that hardly anyone notices, is uniformitarianism. It´s a long word, but it means something quite simple; the assumption is that everything we see happening today has always been happening in a similar way, at a similar rate. This is the basic assumption that Charles Lyell made in his "Geological Studies", that Darwin made, and that nearly all evolutionists make nowadays.

Creationists do NOT make that assumption. They make the assumption that the Word of God is true. Weird thing to assume, hey! From there they say that the present world is the result of several catastrophes related in the Bible. Firstly, original sin; secondly, Noah´s flood, that covered the ENTIRE world; and thirdly, the tower of Babel, that dispersed mankind throughout the world.

Evolutionists find lots of evidence that backs up their theory, so they say it´s a "scientific fact" that we evolved from monkeys, and that billions of years ago unicellular organisms evolved into bigger bugs, which evolved into fish, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into reptiles, etc., etc., etc. We all know the story. And that´s exactly what it is: a fairy story. I would sooner believe the story of the Three Piggies than believe the story of Evolution!

Creationists, starting from their assumption that the Bible tells the truth (woah, crazy people!!! ) find plenty of evidence that supports the theory of Creation. I suggest you look at some of their evidence before you disgard it outright.

Remember that any assumption you start with will determine to a large extent the conclusions you arrive at. If some evidence you discover doesn´t fit your theory, you will be tempted to reject it and use only the evidence which does fit. This is something the evolutionists continually do. We are force-fed the "evidence" for evolution in schools and universities, yet all the evidence against it is systematically censored.

 

[Greg1234]

Microevolution and macroevolution are basically identical processes. The only difference is the length of time being considered.

Ok. So is it like cars after long periods of time?

Other factors, such as natural selection, and allele drift and flow, for example, also play a significant role.

But Creationism already deals with all this, no? Perhaps we're beyond things changing and "volumes and volumes" of evidence for things changing and into epi genetic inheritance, intelligent adaptation and degradation.

Here's a small exercise- lets say we come on earth and see only vehicles and owners' manuals. Without trying to say that the manuals metaphorically mean Sun made the vehicles, what would be brought to the table to show that cars can or cannot change into a submarine? That cars change? That cars are similar? That there are no airplanes in medieval rock? It's the manner and ability of the mechanism, no?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

You debunked nothing.

LOL. Nice joke. That's like borderline trolling. Just like you ignorantly and arrogantly accusing the literalist of idolatry, it is no different here, where you will insist I have debunked " nothing" when I clearly have. You just reject truth and sound arguments due to your predispositions, so it is no wonder all you do is read/argue selectively, evade and not actually engage in real topics.

You're not breaking anything down. You haven't explained anything. All you've done is present scientifically and theologically illiterate creationist maxims for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Interesting, considering how I never mentioned creationism and was pin pointing issues in evolution this whole time. You are just full of yourself. All you can do is stone wall and evade and cowardly fall back on the dishonest tactic of ignorantly associating me with the " creationist" camp. You have not began to even address or engage in any of the significant points I present, all while attempting to justify your position with fancy words and insisting I am "ignorant". You are clearly not interested in truthfullness, so forgive me if I do not waste further time with you.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Hello Assyrian,

As far as I understand, you have to make assumptions, whether you believe in evolution, creation, or anything else. You wouldn´t get out of bed in the morning if you didn´t make assumptions. So when I hear someone say that he is completely objective and makes no assumptions, I just shake my head and smile.

Science makes assumptions ALL THE TIME. The big assumption that evolutionists make, the pink elephant in the living room, that hardly anyone notices, is uniformitarianism. It´s a long word, but it means something quite simple; the assumption is that everything we see happening today has always been happening in a similar way, at a similar rate. This is the basic assumption that Charles Lyell made in his "Geological Studies", that Darwin made, and that nearly all evolutionists make nowadays.

Creationists do NOT make that assumption. They make the assumption that the Word of God is true. Weird thing to assume, hey! From there they say that the present world is the result of several catastrophes related in the Bible. Firstly, original sin; secondly, Noah´s flood, that covered the ENTIRE world; and thirdly, the tower of Babel, that dispersed mankind throughout the world.

Evolutionists find lots of evidence that backs up their theory, so they say it´s a "scientific fact" that we evolved from monkeys, and that billions of years ago unicellular organisms evolved into bigger bugs, which evolved into fish, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into reptiles, etc., etc., etc. We all know the story. And that´s exactly what it is: a fairy story. I would sooner believe the story of the Three Piggies than believe the story of Evolution!

Creationists, starting from their assumption that the Bible tells the truth (woah, crazy people!!! ) find plenty of evidence that supports the theory of Creation. I suggest you look at some of their evidence before you disgard it outright.

Remember that any assumption you start with will determine to a large extent the conclusions you arrive at. If some evidence you discover doesn´t fit your theory, you will be tempted to reject it and use only the evidence which does fit. This is something the evolutionists continually do. We are force-fed the "evidence" for evolution in schools and universities, yet all the evidence against it is systematically censored.

And where did I ever say I was completely objective and made no assumptions? Sure, let's just forget about all contexts and say whatever we feel like!

P.S. I am more ready to accept the story of 3 little pigs than evolution as well.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Only if you have a false dichotomy between the handiwork of God and natural processes that God ordained and created. Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good. Is there any contradiction between between Jesus' statement and understanding the earth rotates? A biblical theology sees God behind the natural processes he created.

There is no false dichotomy once you a reject this notion of "evolution" as the natural process that God had apparently "ordained and created". This comes from your presupposition of evolution being accurate and real.

You mean evolution is rendered obsolete if you assume your interpretation of Genesis is right? Obviously if you assume you are correct then you are also assuming that ideas you disagree with must be wrong too.

Some prefer to let the focal point be the actual Word of God, while others let that focal point be a shoddy scientific idea that dictates Biblical realities. All I know is that I will on no grounds go with the latter.

 

[gluadys]

Hello Assyrian,

As far as I understand, you have to make assumptions, whether you believe in evolution, creation, or anything else. You wouldn´t get out of bed in the morning if you didn´t make assumptions. So when I hear someone say that he is completely objective and makes no assumptions, I just shake my head and smile.

Science makes assumptions ALL THE TIME.

Assumptions are not the problem. As you say, everyone makes assumptions. Science could not be done without assumptions.

The key question is whether assumptions are tested and whether one is willing to abandon an assumption that fails to be consistent with reality.

The big assumption that evolutionists make, the pink elephant in the living room, that hardly anyone notices, is uniformitarianism. It´s a long word, but it means something quite simple; the assumption is that everything we see happening today has always been happening in a similar way, at a similar rate.

A usual misunderstanding of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not predict a similar rate at all moments of time, but rather under similar conditions. Some people, for example, are under the misapprehension that strata formed quickly at Mt. St. Helen's prove the Grand Canyon could also have been formed quickly. Not so. The strata were formed under different conditions and so formed in different ways and at different rates. And they show numerous differences as a consequence.

Can you show any example of the same natural conditions naturally producing different consequences at different rates?

Creationists do NOT make that assumption. They make the assumption that the Word of God is true. Weird thing to assume, hey! From there they say that the present world is the result of several catastrophes related in the Bible. Firstly, original sin; secondly, Noah´s flood, that covered the ENTIRE world; and thirdly, the tower of Babel, that dispersed mankind throughout the world.

Sorry, but that is not an assumption that the Bible is true. It is an assumption that the bible is to be interpreted as concordant with science.


There is plenty of scientific confirmation that the present world is the result (in part at least) of several catastrophes. But no scientific confirmation that any of them was a global flood within human history--or at any other time for that matter.

Creationists, starting from their assumption that the Bible tells the truth (woah, crazy people!!! ) find plenty of evidence that supports the theory of Creation. I suggest you look at some of their evidence before you disgard it outright.

Most of us already have, and found it to be without substance. Many TEs are former creationists who discovered that the so-called evidence did not stand up to scrutiny.

Nevertheless, we still hold the bible to be true, just not concordant with modern science. Why should it be?

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Assumptions are not the problem. As you say, everyone makes assumptions. Science could not be done without assumptions.

The key question is whether assumptions are tested and whether one is willing to abandon an assumption that fails to be consistent with reality.

Well said, gluadys. This is why I am baffled by the evolutionists´ insistence that the fossil record supports their theory, when it manifestly does not. There are NO transitional fossils, as even emminent evolutionists admit. How on Earth can you believe in evolution, if there are absolutely no fossils showing one species changing into another? The diagrams showing the common descendancy of animals exist only in text books and in evolutionists´minds. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they had a transitional fossil they would have told us about it. The fact is they don´t.

A usual misunderstanding of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not predict a similar rate at all moments of time, but rather under similar conditions. Some people, for example, are under the misapprehension that strata formed quickly at Mt. St. Helen's prove the Grand Canyon could also have been formed quickly. Not so. The strata were formed under different conditions and so formed in different ways and at different rates. And they show numerous differences as a consequence.

Can you show any example of the same natural conditions naturally producing different consequences at different rates?

Perhaps we are using the word to mean different things. I just meant that evolutionists assume that things we observe now in nature have been going on in roughly the same way for millions of years. The problem with that is that there are dozens of phenomena that cannot fit into their time scale. They choose to ignore them, and concentrate on others.

For example, if the oceans were fresh water to start with, and they have been increasing in salinity at the same rate as presently, it would only have taken around 60 million years to make them as salty as they are now. If, as most geologists claim, the oceans have existed for around 3 billion years, they should be thousands of times more salty than they are.

What do theydo with this information? Ignore it, bacause it doesn´t fit their assumption that the world is billions of years old. And it has to be billions of years old, in order to give evolution at least a possibility of being true. One assumption leads to another, and so on.

 

[Assyrian]

Hello Assyrian,

As far as I understand, you have to make assumptions, whether you believe in evolution, creation, or anything else. You wouldn´t get out of bed in the morning if you didn´t make assumptions. So when I hear someone say that he is completely objective and makes no assumptions, I just shake my head and smile.

The big problem with Mr Waffles' argument wasn't assumption so much as circularity, he simply took a creationist view of evolution as post fall and though it was an argument against evolution. Of course I also looked looked at the assumption he made, that there was no death before the fall and showed how it was unsuppported by either geology or the bible.

Science makes assumptions ALL THE TIME. The big assumption that evolutionists make, the pink elephant in the living room, that hardly anyone notices, is uniformitarianism. It´s a long word, but it means something quite simple; the assumption is that everything we see happening today has always been happening in a similar way, at a similar rate. This is the basic assumption that Charles Lyell made in his "Geological Studies", that Darwin made, and that nearly all evolutionists make nowadays.

It is tested every time scientists get coherent results, it is tested with wildly different dating methods producing the same results. There is an assumption in science, that the the universe itself is coherent and consistent, but then again, that is an assumption that fits the traditional Christian view of God's creation. Even that assumption is tested by the coherent results science comes up with, how would an incoherent universe produce consistent and coherent results?

Creationists do NOT make that assumption. They make the assumption that the Word of God is true. Weird thing to assume, hey! From there they say that the present world is the result of several catastrophes related in the Bible. Firstly, original sin; secondly, Noah´s flood, that covered the ENTIRE world; and thirdly, the tower of Babel, that dispersed mankind throughout the world.

It is reasonable for a Christian to assume the word of God is true, the problem with creationists is that they make further assumptions that aren't supported by scripture. They assume Genesis creation accounts must be interpreted literally, , they assume all the ideas they read into the text to create a coherent world view must be correct too, like all animals being changed by the fall and animal death being the result of the fall. Worse still and this is an idea that goes totally against the traditional Christian approach to science and scripture, they assume that if science contradicts their interpretation, it must be the science that is wrong. In fact Christians who argued their interpretation of scripture against science have a very poor track record and even creationists accept the science they argued so vehemently against, whether it was Cosmas Indicopleustes arguing against a round earth or the Inquisition silencing Galileo. That was a big mistake and one that went against teaching that went back through Aquinas all the way to Augustine, that if science contradicts an interpretation of scripture, that that interpretation never was the real meaning of the text.

Evolutionists find lots of evidence that backs up their theory, so they say it´s a "scientific fact" that we evolved from monkeys, and that billions of years ago unicellular organisms evolved into bigger bugs, which evolved into fish, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into reptiles, etc., etc., etc. We all know the story. And that´s exactly what it is: a fairy story. I would sooner believe the story of the Three Piggies than believe the story of Evolution!

If it was a fairy story then the evidence wouldn't fit. Scientists wouldn't keep finding new evidence and the evidence wouldn't keep on fitting.

Creationists, starting from their assumption that the Bible tells the truth (woah, crazy people!!! ) find plenty of evidence that supports the theory of Creation. I suggest you look at some of their evidence before you disgard it outright.

You are talking to a former creationist here.

Remember that any assumption you start with will determine to a large extent the conclusions you arrive at. If some evidence you discover doesn´t fit your theory, you will be tempted to reject it and use only the evidence which does fit. This is something the evolutionists continually do. We are force-fed the "evidence" for evolution in schools and universities, yet all the evidence against it is systematically censored.

It isn't censorship to exclude dodgy claims and bad arguments from science. Creationists have two problems they need to 1) find evidence that contradicts evolution and 2) produce a better explanation for the evidence we do have. Unfortunately the universe God created just doesn't seem to fit their claims.

 

[Assyrian]

And where did I ever say I was completely objective and made no assumptions? Sure, let's just forget about all contexts and say whatever we feel like!

P.S. I am more ready to accept the story of 3 little pigs than evolution as well.

Worth pointing out that was Christopher Fleming's claim not mine.

 

[gluadys]

Well said, gluadys. This is why I am baffled by the evolutionists´ insistence that the fossil record supports their theory, when it manifestly does not.

Obviously you need to learn more about the fossil record.

There are NO transitional fossils, as even emminent evolutionists admit. How on Earth can you believe in evolution, if there are absolutely no fossils showing one species changing into another?

There are plenty of transitional fossils, though most link higher taxa than species. And the eminent evolutionists who "admit" there are none, never made such admissions. These "admissions" are artifacts generated by quote-miners. (See Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists especially misrepresentations of passages from Stephen J. Gould.) Btw, Gould, so often quote-mined as saying that transitions don't exist also discovered a species-to-species transition in snails (his specialty) and his partner in promoting punctuated equilibrium, Niles Eldredge published a paper on his discovery of a species to species transition in trilobites (his speciality). And here are a couple of researchers who have found 330 fossil species of foraminifera with plenty of species to species transitions. Geology Dept article 3

So, when the fossil record is good enough at preserving them, species-to-species transitions are found. And when it is not good enough at preserving that level of detail, there are still plenty of transitional fossils at higher taxonomic levels such as genus-to-genus, family-to-family, & even class-to-class (e.g. Tiktaalik--bridging the transition from fish to tetrapods).

You have to be wilfully blind not to see transitional fossils.

The diagrams showing the common descendancy of animals exist only in text books and in evolutionists´minds.

True, every illustrated phylogenetic tree is an inference from the evidence. And it is continually tested against new evidence, not only from the fossil record but also from genetic analysis, developmental processes, comparative morphology, physiology, etc.

As I see it, better to have a strongly tested inference from evidence than an assumption based on no evidence at all.

Perhaps we are using the word to mean different things. I just meant that evolutionists assume that things we observe now in nature have been going on in roughly the same way for millions of years.

And again, that assumption is regularly tested. (See Assyrian's post). What evidence do you have that this is not the case?

The problem with that is that there are dozens of phenomena that cannot fit into their time scale. They choose to ignore them, and concentrate on others.

OK. Present these phenomena one at a time, and let's take a look at them.

For example, if the oceans were fresh water to start with, and they have been increasing in salinity at the same rate as presently, it would only have taken around 60 million years to make them as salty as they are now. If, as most geologists claim, the oceans have existed for around 3 billion years, they should be thousands of times more salty than they are.

What do theydo with this information? Ignore it, bacause it doesn´t fit their assumption that the world is billions of years old. And it has to be billions of years old, in order to give evolution at least a possibility of being true. One assumption leads to another, and so on.

On the contrary. I don't know where you got this argument, but it fails because the source you got it from ignored a very important point.


Mineral salts not only get into the ocean waters; they also leave the ocean in various ways. You have to balance the rate at which they enter the ocean with the rate at which they leave the ocean. What you are left with is not a rate of accumulation, but an average rate of residence of each mineral salt in oceanic waters. This varies from mineral to mineral from tens of thousands of years to a mere hundred or so (for aluminum, for example). The more actively any mineral combines with another, the less time it spends as a dissolved mineral salt in the ocean. Once you take the exit rate of salt from the ocean into account along with the entrance rate into the ocean, the time for the ocean to become as salty as it is fits the standard geological timetable.

So it is not the scientists who ignored anything here, but your anti-science source of information.


Would you like to present another phenomenon that "doesn't fit" scientific assumptions and is ignored by scientists in the field?

Possibly, before you do, you should see if it has already been noted here:
An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Assyrian]

There is no false dichotomy once you a reject this notion of "evolution" as the natural process that God had apparently "ordained and created". This comes from your presupposition of evolution being accurate and real.

Then your argument is simply that evolution is wrong, not that theistic evolution is an oxymoron. To argue TE is an oxymoron, you have to assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true first and then show that if it were true it would be inconsistent with theism.

Some prefer to let the focal point be the actual Word of God, while others let that focal point be a shoddy scientific idea that dictates Biblical realities. All I know is that I will on no grounds go with the latter.

What you try to dismiss a shoddy is our understanding of the universe God created, if that doesn't fit you interpretation of scripture, then it isn't biblical reality that is in conflict with science but your misunderstanding of God's word. I see no grounds for clinging to misunderstandings of the text when the evidence form God's creation tells you that you are wrong.

If you want to focus is the word of God, I made a couple of points about scripture in that post that you didn't actually address.

 

[good brother]

A common Creationist misconception, but the bible doesn't say that.

It doesn't say that? You must have a different Bible than every one I have ever read.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 8:15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. 17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.”

​

The very first passage I quoted demonstrates the model which the other verses follow. In the first passage it says that plants shall produce seed according to their kind and fruits will produce seed according to their kind for the furtherance of each different type of fruit or grain or vegetable or other plant. With each following passage about animals, whether it be marine life, avian, or land animal, why do you think the Bible would go to the length to mention that each were "after their own kind" if it was not to infer that fish will produce more fish, birds will produce more birds, cattle will produce more cattle, etc, etc... In fact, in the 1:20 and the 8:15 passages it has God saying "increase" "multiply" and "fill". An animal could not increase in number if it was diverging so greatly as to become vastly different from it's ancestor. Likewise, a kind of animal could not fill the earth if it was not perpetuating descendants similar to that kind.

So, maybe the Bible doesn't say exactly that wording I had, it certainly supports that thinking.

In Christ, GB

 

[albrecht]

LOL. Nice joke. That's like borderline trolling. Just like you ignorantly and arrogantly accusing the literalist of idolatry, it is no different here, where you will insist I have debunked " nothing" when I clearly have.

You haven't even presented an accurate definition or description of the theory of evolution yet, so, yes, you have debunked nothing.

You just reject truth and sound arguments due to your predispositions, so it is no wonder all you do is read/argue selectively, evade and not actually engage in real topics.

If you presented arguments that were sound, we wouldn't have anything to debate.

Interesting, considering how I never mentioned creationism and was pin pointing issues in evolution this whole time.

You haven't pin-pointed issues in evolution because you have a reprehensibly inaccurate notion of what the theory of evolution says and means.

You are just full of yourself. All you can do is stone wall and evade and cowardly fall back on the dishonest tactic of ignorantly associating me with the " creationist" camp.

I assume you're a creationist because you use the same bad arguments creationists use. But maybe you've found your own way to your sloppy arguments.

You have not began to even address or engage in any of the significant points I present, all while attempting to justify your position with fancy words and insisting I am "ignorant". You are clearly not interested in truthfullness, so forgive me if I do not waste further time with you.

Right. We'll talk again when you have the slightest informed inkling of what you're trying to debunk.

 

[albrecht]

Here's a small exercise- lets say we come on earth and see only vehicles and owners' manuals. Without trying to say that the manuals metaphorically mean Sun made the vehicles, what would be brought to the table to show that cars can or cannot change into a submarine? That cars change? That cars are similar? That there are no airplanes in medieval rock? It's the manner and ability of the mechanism, no?

I don't see why you would suppose that cars could change into anything unless there were empirical evidence that said cars changed into other things in the first place. I don't see how you would suppose that there is even a category of cars unless, as objects, they were similar in anatomy and mechanism anyway. You can't simply propose that things might change and then conceptualize a mechanism. In any case, I have no idea where you're going with this.

 

[Papias]

albrecht wrote:

I don't see why you would suppose that cars could change into anything unless there were empirical evidence that said cars changed into other things in the first place. I don't see how you would suppose that there is even a category of cars unless, as objects, they were similar in anatomy and mechanism anyway. You can't simply propose that things might change and then conceptualize a mechanism. In any case, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I don't know where Greg is going with that either, but he's brought up his "car" misunderstanding of evolution before, even to the point of claiming that he could put cars in a nested hierarchy like living things (which, if you are familiar with it, is an expected result of an evolutionary origin). However, when asked repeatedly to actually show a nested hierarchy of cars, he refused to do so. It's a quite amusing thread, which you can read here:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7497864-6/

If you get a straight answer as to where he's going with that, I'd be interested to see it as well......

Have a fun day-

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

I don't see why you would suppose that cars could change into anything unless there were empirical evidence that said cars changed into other things in the first place.

So a car in 1st gear can't change into a car in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear? New car to old broken down car? Yes? No?

 

[Keachian]

So a car in 1st gear can't change into a car in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear? New car to old broken down car? Yes? No?

changes in state can't really be likened to evolution, to apply the same sort of analogy:

so a person sleeping can't change into a person awake, running, jumping, playing? A person doesn't age? Yes? No?

While not an exact representation of your question, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't really do what you think it does.