On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

@Adam

I have no wish to call you retarded.

The big bang didn’t “create stuff on earth”, it is the event that occurred some 13 billion years ago, of which we can see evidence throughout space today. Although the Big Bang itself is not a fact, the evidence explained by the theory are. If you don’t believe that, please find a cosmologist to debate that with.

There is the hypothesis of abiogenesis (again, not presented as a “fact” anywhere that I know of, except on creationist/ID sites) which, as far as I’m aware, has not been disproved. It hasn’t been proved either, that’s why it’s still a hypothesis and not a theory or a fact.

Gradual evolution and natural selection does not rely solely on paleontological evidence to support itself. I’m also not aware of how paleontology doesn’t support gradual change. There are plenty of transitional fossils that say otherwise.

You don’t have to apologize for being skeptical, in fact I would urge everyone to be as skeptical as they can be regarding evolution. However, are you as skeptical of creationism/ID as you are of evolution? If not, are you really being honest when agreeing with Comfort and his opinions?

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve – If ID is right, why is it so hard to convince people of it?

I’ve seen Expelled, yes, and I wasn’t very impressed. It was a lousy documentary, shot under dishonest pretenses that didn’t accurately investigate why these people had been fired or had their careers ruined. http://www.expelledexposed.com/

There are very few good hypotheses from creation “scientists”, and they are cast out for good reason. There’s no evolutionist conspiracy, but there are a whole lot of scientists who value proper science over religious goals and bias. If those who defied evolution actually brought some real evidence, some real facts, they wouldn’t have to fear anything. As it is, however, they should rightly fear drawing conclusions based on their own faith, instead of following the actual evidence.

Evolution (both macro and micro) starts with no presupposition whatsoever. It is merely a theory that binds and explains the available evidence and facts in a way that makes the most sense. No one said “hey, let’s put forth a theory that doesn’t involve God!” and then invented evolution. May I remind you that even Darwin was a Christian, and Carl Linnaeus was a devout creationist. Evolution explains the evidence, nothing more and nothing less. It has absolutely nothing to do with your particular faith.

Biomolecular or biochemical scientists don’t really agree with you on the whole “DNA always loses info” thing, and I dare you to be the first creationist to ever properly define the term “information” in this context. It is a word used constantly in a way that assumes “victory” over evolution, but no one ever seems willing to tell anyone what it actually means.

Don’t thank me for being polite. I’m polite to everyone :)

Yes, let’s not get into the whole “he wasn’t a real Christian” argument :)

I’m not naive, and I certainly don’t expect scientists to be superhuman. However, that wasn’t the point. It was that the theory of evolution did not emerge with the pre-supposition that God had nothing to do with it. If God didn’t leave any evidence behind to support his involvement, it is not the scientists who are pre-supposing that lack of evidence. It is not a fault, but a strength, that scientists don’t consider evidence that doesn’t exist. Therefor, scientists would be wrong only if they did pre-suppose the existence of God, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence to support that supposition.

The terms observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable don’t exclusively mean things we can create in a lab somewhere. There’s a lot more to science than than. There’s the study of fossils, clearly showing intermediate species within many branches of evolution. There’s the study of biology, genetics and chemistry which also support the theory of evolution by confirming things like ERVs. The fact that we can’t stand around and watch one species give birth to another doesn’t mean anything, because that’s not even how it works.

Look, I assume that you accept the theory of gravity, don’t you? Even though you can’t “observe” it directly, but rather only the effects it has on objects. In the same way we can’t “observe” evolution directly, but we can study it’s effects and patterns and the traces left behind for us to find.

You say you “still don’t see the actual science behind macro-evolution”. I ask you then, what exactly is it you don’t “see”? If you go to someone actually working within that field, and ask him your questions, do you expect you wouldn’t get any answers? Assuming your a layman just like me, have you been to sites like the Talk Origins archives, which answer most, if not all, of the questions you probably have in very simple ways?

Also, noting that the argument from authority is a weak one, I still have to ask whether you actually do think that you being unable to understand evolution means it is false, even when the overwhelming majority if trained scientists who really do understand all the complicated parts of it all accept it as true? You make it out to sound as if all the scientists who work in fields related to evolution are part of a vast conspiracy, many million people in numbers, when all the rest of science is accepted as honest and true. Why evolution? What does anyone stand to gain by repeating a false claim like that? What’s their motivation? And don’t say “they hate God” or something to that effect, because if they’re biased in their disbelief in God, then you are even more biased in your belief in God and the bible. Even so, they still have the upper hand in that they are trained in their fields of study, whereas I assume you’re still not.

Half dog/half cat has nothing to do with evolution. They are completely separate species, and neither humans nor nature itself will ever combine the two, no matter the reason. We have been able to do things like grow a fifth leg on a mouse’s back, for example. We have more control over DNA and genetics than before, but no one has ever claimed total control. Showing evolution to be true doesn’t require total control either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg – Look at the various forms between land animal and whale. There are lots more fossils to support those transitions than mere footprints in the rock, and there are also the facts that whales still have vestigial leg bones. Now, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God create a creature that cannot live anywhere but in the sea, yet give it legs which don’t work and are only visible if you look beneath the blubber, directly at it’s skeleton? Which explanation fits the evidence best: gradual evolution, or God is playing us a prank?

Do the same thing with horses, and ask yourself whether it’s more plausible that horses evolved, or that God created all those separate species that look so much like each other just to mess with our heads?

To me it’s quite obvious that you dismiss evolution not because a lack of evidence, but because you choose to believe the bible instead. You dismiss all the reasons for evolution to be true because they contradict your faith. It’s not science that has failed you, it’s you that has ignored science. I’m sure you watch TV, ride your bike, take medicines and enjoy all the raw foods that have been prepared with genetics and chemicals even though scientists are so incompetent that they can’t even explain evolution to someone like you.

My conclusion is that I believe you’re being dishonest. You’re not interested in the evidence at all, you just want to know barely enough to dismiss the evidence as weak, so that you can keep feeling good about your belief in God and the bible. If that’s true, then whatever, I’m not going to fight with you. I just want you to admit it, admit that you’re the one ignoring science and not science failing to support its theories. Don’t blame someone else for your own choices or shortcomings.

Pointing to similar characteristics or vestigial organs and saying, “see evolution must be true” is not science. It is a guess of what might have happened based on what we can observe. I don’t deny evidence…both you and I have the same evidence to look at.

It’s not about evolution being “true”, it’s about the scientific theory being best equipped to explain the largest amount of otherwise unexplainable phenomena.

Let’s look at it differently. Take this pattern of numbers: 1, 2, 3, …, 5, 6, 7, …, 9. Now, not knowing what comes between 3 and 5, and 7 and 9, this means there could be anything there. It’s impossible to know for sure. However, looking at the numbers we do have, we see a pattern. It would be logical to assume that between 3 and 5 came 4, and between 7 and 9 came 8. You could also argue that, since some God really likes the number 0, all the missing numbers will always be 0. This makes sense, but only if this particular God really exists, and even then only if it’s true that he really likes 0.

Now, knowing that it’s impossible to know for sure whether this God exists or not, and even if he does it’s equally impossible to know if he really loves 0 as much as people claim, since the claim really has been put forth exclusively by humans with self-interests, is the God-explanation really better? Isn’t it better to take what we do know about other numbers, and apply that knowledge on the numbers that are missing? Consider then that applying the logical numbers in the empty spaces leads to breakthroughs in medicine and DNA research, while stuffing 0s everywhere would do absolutely nothing to further any kind of real understanding.

There’s also this implied notion that whatever science tells you about evolution today must remain true tomorrow. Science changes, and theories along with it. Science allows for the possibility of being completely and utterly wrong, but not without the evidence to support that. As of today, there is no evidence to show that science is completely and utterly wrong, and all the evidence we do have shows a pattern that is best explained by the theory of evolution.

My original post mentioned Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I still ask you… Why did Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould abandon gradualism in the first place? They did not abandon evolution just Darwin’s assumptions of gradualism. Why?

Well, to be honest, I didn’t know much about those terms before your most recent post. I’ve now read up a bit on them, mainly on Wikipedia.

As far as I understand, phyletic gradualism isn’t supported by evidence, mainly the fossil record, where punctuated equilibrium is. However, as was explained on Wikipedia, punctuated equilibrium is another form of gradualism, not gradualism’s antithesis. As was also explained, as well as backed by direct quote, Darwin didn’t really “assume” gradualism, but explicitly said “Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree“.

Anyway, thanks for having me learn something new :)

1. Questions for theory #2…how did it all begin? What is the latest theory on that? Aliens seeding life or something like that….where did they come from?

Well, first of all, just to stay somewhat on topic: Ray Comfort recently made a post pointing out that we need not “explain the explanation” in order to accept it. This would apply even to macro-evolution. The fact that we don’t know how all life began originally does not impact the evidence that still show macro-evolution after this particular event.

Secondly, as far as I’m aware, abiogenesis is still the most likely contender. There’s also been more “breakthroughs” in that area since Miller-Urey, even though anti-evolution people seem to favor that particular experiment regardless. Can’t seem to find the link right now, but there were several reports on this just a few months ago.

3. How did we get from simple celled organisms to complex animals and humans? Science does not support this whatsoever.

Of course “creation.com” will tell you that scientists have no answers to anything, that’s the whole point of their existence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61 – I haven’t read all of it, but it might answer some of your questions.

I have dismissed macro-evolution because it clearly ignores scientific fact. I believe that I have been honest. Let me ask you the same thing…have you been honest or do you start with the presupposition that there is no god so you must explain everything with naturalistic or material reasons?

Again, you state that macro-evolution “clearly ignores scientific fact”, but you fail to explain how almost the entire scientific community can still accept macro-evolution as supported by both fact and evidence. What gift of understanding to they lack that you possess? In the context of this discussion, it’s your word against the entire society of scientists. Why should I trust you? What is your credibility? Respectively, I absolutely don’t expect you to believe me when I argue for evolution. In fact, I would find it just as stupid to accept evolution based solely on what I say, as I find it stupid to reject evolution.

Yes, I have been, and am, honest. If I have ever had the presupposition that there is no God, it is because there is no evidence God exists. It would be dishonest for me to suppose that God does exist, no? I believe the evidence that we do have, and I don’t see how any of them implies some sort of theistic “designer” at all, least of all the Christian God.

Tell me, did you start with the presupposition that Brahma didn’t create the universe and all life within it? Or did you first consider that as a probable and credible alternative?