Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Not really.
You are merely skirting around it as if you are trying desperately to make it all mystical and mysterious.


Except I can show others what exactly to look for to spot a fake one dollar bill.
You seem completely unable to do anything but pay lip service for your God...


You assume to much.
That aside, why would you repeat the very process that failed with yourself?


I strongly suspect I know far more about the differences between what geology says, both current and past, and what the Bible says, than you.


I know a lot of people who present their opinion as fact.
You are not the first, nor do I suspect you will be the last.


Repeating the same bold empty claim ad nauseum does not make the bold empty claim true.


That is your strawman to deal with.
I never made any such claim, nor have I seen said claim made by anyone other than creationists.


I am quite familiar with the "you have to believe in order to believe" strategy.
Still not impressed.

When Jesus was on the earth, he really didn't hang around explaining everything in detail he was saying to everyone. But I know you don't believe what the Bible says anyway. I'm saying this because I'm beginning to understand why Jesus did not explain everything in detail. If and when you ever realize that there is a God who cares, and that the Bible is inspired by Him, maybe somehow you can let me know.
P.S. When I was younger and did not believe in God, I made fun of someone I asked, a contemporary because she believed closely with what the Bible said.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lets pretend you are a landlord who rented to some college students.

By the end of the year, they've done thousands of dollars worth of damage.

Their defense? It all happened the day after they moved out.

Their attorney says to you, "Hey, Bub, like where are your photos
and documents that show them wrecking your house?"

The judge says, "Well, so far all you have is speculation, opinion.
I have seen no firm evidence, no cogent explanation as to why
you think these fine young men wrecked your house."

Now what do you do? (hint: this is not a trick question,
the answer is not too hard, but lets see if you can think
a little, or would have to buy your own arguments about
speculation and photos)

Looking at this again, I didn't say that dinosaurs never existed. Or that they were not wiped out by some physical force. I didn't say that at all. What I am saying is just as you believe that evolution made living matter on this earth, I find no credible evidence that evolution as explained is the sole factor for life. Again -- what I see is evidence of fossils and craters. But no real evidence showing that this all came about by itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't like it when the minister gave me that answer. I kept telling him I don't believe in God, so how can God give me faith. And he rather kindly repeated that no one can give me that faith but God. And I realized that it was then a circle. I didn't want to get rude with him, so I terminated the conversation. Well anyway, here I am. With faith.

Too bad that most Christians do not realize that that is a statement that their God is evil.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Though I consider Creation and the natural processes of abiogenesis and evolution to be one in harmony

Can you be more explicit about each part's involvement. I generally don't like to guess. How does creation come into the picture?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again this is not how science works, and simply the stonewall 'arguing from ignorance' based on a religious agenda does work. The 'objective verifiable evidence' of the first known living organisms in the rock strata on earth are single celled organisms, colonies of bacteria in the same way they form today.

From: Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

• 1 March 2017

• Share this with Facebook
  
• Share this with Messenger
  
• Share this with Twitter
  
• Share this with Email
  
• Share

Image copyrightM DODD
Image captionAncient life: These clumps of iron and filaments show similarities to modern microbes
Scientists have discovered what they say could be fossils of some of the earliest living organisms on Earth.

They are represented by tiny filaments, knobs and tubes in Canadian rocks dated to be up to 4.28 billion years old.

That is a time not long after the planet's formation and hundreds of millions of years before what is currently accepted as evidence for the most ancient life yet found on Earth.

The researchers report their investigation in the journal Nature.

As with all such claims about ancient life, the study is contentious. But the team believes it can answer any doubts.

The scientists' putative microbes from Quebec are one-tenth the width of a human hair and contain significant quantities of haematite - a form of iron oxide or "rust".

Matthew Dodd, who analysed the structures at University College London, UK, claimed the discovery would shed new light on the origins of life.

"This discovery answers the biggest questions mankind has asked itself - which are: where do we come from and why we are here?

So they found what they say could be, but are not sure if they are, some of the earliest living organisms on Earth. And so you think Creation, abiogenesis, and evolution are all inextricably enmeshed with one another, is that it, with a creator who doesn't care much, if at all, about what's happening, is that about right about your belief? So He started evolution with abiogenesis, but then just let whatever happened, happen. Is that right about your belief?

 

[McBell]

No, that is not true. I simply do not want to explain my own experience with many details. That is not for me to give in a post here. And because of the nature of various conversations, this type on the internet to be exact, all I can really do is speak in generalities. Thanks for the conversation though.

Fair enough.

 

[McBell]

That's not how it happened in the re-telling you gave. But anyway -- before that, when I heard the instructor say that war is necessary sometimes to reduce the population, I didn't believe in God. I did not have faith in God. Perhaps, who knows? the instructor did, but at the time I did not know what the Bible said. Now I guess I would ask him more about his viewpoint, perhaps after class. Just wondered why some people were so cruel to one another, and you're right, I did not have the faith that I have now. So why do you think horrible things happen? Evolution?

Cause and effect.
The labeling of effects "horrible" or "miraculous" is completely subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, what were the very first life forms, if you know? (like for sure...)

Nobody knows.

 

[Polymath257]

So you think evolution as well as creation is indifferent to human desires? I don't want to misunderstand you, so that's why I'm asking.

Yes, of course they are. And, so are gravity, electromagnetism, the planet Jupiter, etc. MOST of the universe is indifferent to human desires.

 

[Polymath257]

So the big dominant land creatures you say made a stab at re-evolving. But I guess they just didn't make it all the way to the big dinosaurs that were before that extinction.

Huh? No, *different* animals evolved to fill in the niches left by the dinosaurs. The terror birds were NOT 'making a stab at re-evolving'.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know they were the first "known" living organisms? And how does your idea of creation fit into this picture? Want to say?

If these were from early life (still to be determined---but possible as far as we know), they would be the first living things *we know about*. Is that a difficult concept?

And if these were from early life, it suggests life is even easier to form than we thought because it happened *very* quickly.

 

[Audie]

Looking at this again, I didn't say that dinosaurs never existed. Or that they were not wiped out by some physical force. I didn't say that at all. What I am saying is just as you believe that evolution made living matter on this earth, I find no credible evidence that evolution as explained is the sole factor for life. Again -- what I see is evidence of fossils and craters. But no real evidence showing that this all came about by itself.

Looking yet again or once with due care you'd see that
your recognotion that dinosaurs were real was not in
question, nor the physical cause of demise.

So you might consider for a moment or two that what you
perceive-especiaaly given your obviously near-complete
ignotance of the topic just might account for your failure
to see much.

You have now btw switched to "absence of evidence / evidence
of absence".

Of course there is no evidence of no god taking some part.

No evidence that you dont have a microscopuc alien spaceport
in your molars, either.

If god exists and wants to hide his presence, that is his
biz. Meanwhile, he has done a bang-up job, there's not
a trace.

You are welcome to go on believing that which
is not evident, but meanwhile try to avoud looking
foolish arguing from ignorance or making much
of your strawmen such as that science in
any way claims or tries to prove your "sole cause".

 

[Audie]

There were convicts that were released recently because they were given freedom by a state governor. One reason given for a convicted child rapist who was released is that there was no real evidence, so it goes back and forth. That's an extreme example, of course. The evidence is such that there are fossils. And there is evidence to show that bacteria and other forms move biologically, such as inbreeding, and gene-changing from various stimuli or environmental factors. (Nothing to show that bacteria became more than bacteria, though.) But again -- fossils do not prove that dinosaurs became birds. What it shows (I can't say prove, because that's evidently not allowed) is that there were structures in fossil form that are said to be dinosaurs with feathers and so that means they evolved eventually to be birds.

"Evidently not allowed" is evidence you've not a clue why
science does not do proof-a fundamental concept, integral
to science, not an arbitrary rule.

Feathered dinosaurs are well known now. It is not "said to be".
The descent of birds from dinosaurs was evident long before you
were born or any feathered dinosaurs other than archaeopteryx
had been found.

"So that means..." is just silly and ignorant, it is not at all
descrptive.

You are again just thrashing your strawmen.

 

[Polymath257]

Looking at this again, I didn't say that dinosaurs never existed. Or that they were not wiped out by some physical force. I didn't say that at all.

OK, that's a good start.

What I am saying is just as you believe that evolution made living matter on this earth, I find no credible evidence that evolution as explained is the sole factor for life.

This is a major misunderstanding of what evolution is about and what it claims. Evolution is a description of how species change over time. In no way does it claim to have 'made living matter' or that it is the 'sole factor for life'.

In fact, evolution has NOTHING to do with how life came about. It is *only* concerned with how living species change over time.

In particular, you seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis, the idea that life came about through physical/chemical processes.

Again -- what I see is evidence of fossils and craters. But no real evidence showing that this all came about by itself.

What do you mean here? Fossils come about because living things die and their remains *sometimes* are preserved and become fossilized. Craters are formed when meteors hit. Both of these happen through known physical processes.

What you mean when you say they 'came about by itself' is very unclear, though. Does the fact that they came about through physical processes mean they came about through 'themselves' or not?

 

[Skwim]

According to one Bible dictionary, the Hebrew in the section at Leviticus 11:13-19 speaks of collective flying creatures, fowl, insects. Hebrew: opf. Not just birds.

So what? A Bible dictionary isn't a Bible.

.

 

[YoursTrue]

Cause and effect.
The labeling of effects "horrible" or "miraculous" is completely subjective.

Here's a question for you, really for SubductionZone as well, since it was brought up in another post. And, of course, horrible is in the eyes of the beholder then, is it not? Because many supported the Nazi death camps and Hitler, and many support other forms of cruelty beyond that. Some would say that cruelty is ok. Bad is good, and good is bad, some might say. So maybe one thinks there is no such thing as good or bad, that it's subjective, completely.
But then for SZ (and you if you wish to consider it), while some animals can be trained to be vicious and cruel to each other, such as dogs and roosters, others are simply fearsome (alligators come to mind). So here is the question: how does evolution affect one's thinking as to good, bad, or evil? Does it? Is it just a fact of life that humans have biologically evolved to the warfaring and vicious state that as a human population we are subjected to now?
Perhaps you have been reading about the young woman who was stabbed to death in Morningside Park in NYC. Is that also simply a product of evolutionary ways, since this is, after all, a thread for-and-against-evolution. Therefore, discussing evolution, how do you feel about it? We know from history that cruelty, if you in fact think that maybe dragging people with hooks on their noses or ripping their limbs apart while they were alive is neutral, not good or bad, did not start yesterday, viciousness and cruelty has been going on for thousands of years ago until now. What do you think? Is this type of behavior a product of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? A Bible dictionary isn't a Bible.

.

There are varying translations, and of course, a translation is as good as the translator and perception. You brought up that bats were classified as birds, and that is not accurate, because the Hebrew word for that scripture about bats is really FLYING CREATURES. Yes, many translations do have that as birds or fowl, but not all do, and given the context and proper translating techniques, winged creatures is better, because of course, a bat is not a bird, anyway. But it does have what are considered as wings. Note from LiveScience: "Bats are more efficient fliers than even birds, thanks to a novel ... Unlike insects and birds, which have relatively rigid wings that can move in only a few ... wave them up and down like relatively rigid paddles the way birds do."
So far everything I've read about bats says that they have WINGS. Just not quite like birds' wings. But wings they are called.
The International Standard Version is more accurate for that scripture, just so you know.
International Standard Version
"These are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey,"
The Holman Christian Standard Bible uses the term birds. The internation Standard Version uses 'winged creatures.'
Leviticus 11:13 Holman Christian Standard Bible
You are to detest these birds. They must not be eaten because they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,"

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, that's a good start.


This is a major misunderstanding of what evolution is about and what it claims. Evolution is a description of how species change over time. In no way does it claim to have 'made living matter' or that it is the 'sole factor for life'.

In fact, evolution has NOTHING to do with how life came about. It is *only* concerned with how living species change over time.

In particular, you seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis, the idea that life came about through physical/chemical processes.



What do you mean here? Fossils come about because living things die and their remains *sometimes* are preserved and become fossilized. Craters are formed when meteors hit. Both of these happen through known physical processes.

What you mean when you say they 'came about by itself' is very unclear, though. Does the fact that they came about through physical processes mean they came about through 'themselves' or not?

When I say these things came about by themselves, I mean the theory that life came about from a unicell without divine intervention to cause inert elements to be alive. Meaning in combination as apparently it is said that evolution started with. Meaning chemicals from ?? water? outer space? (I don't know.) But again, I will say this, as I've said before. It is very, very hard for me to believe that a living unicell started the whole thing without having supernatural, shall we say, guidance. And if, in fact, the dinosaurs were knocked out by a meteor, then I believe there was a divine reason for that. If I knew why exactly, I'd be God. All this is because I believe there is a Creator who inspired the writing of the Bible. And frankly, I'm so glad I know it and keep considering it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody knows.

Ah, thank you!

 

[Polymath257]

When I say these things came about by themselves, I mean the theory that life came about from a unicell without divine intervention to cause inert elements to be alive. Meaning in combination as apparently it is said that evolution started with. Meaning chemicals from ?? water? outer space? (I don't know.) But again, I will say this, as I've said before. It is very, very hard for me to believe that a living unicell started the whole thing without having supernatural, shall we say, guidance. And if, in fact, the dinosaurs were knocked out by a meteor, then I believe there was a divine reason for that. If I knew why exactly, I'd be God. All this is because I believe there is a Creator who inspired the writing of the Bible. And frankly, I'm so glad I know it and keep considering it.

Well, let's first take a step back. You seem to be making a big distinction between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter'. I think that is fundamentally incorrect. In fact, everything we know shows that life is a matter of a complex system of chemical reactions. There is nothing 'extra' required: once you have the chemicals in the right places, you will have life.

Part of the problem is also when you talk about 'inert elements'. But most of matter is quite far from being 'inert'. Matter will spontaneously interact with other matter. In fact, that is what the whole subject of chemistry is about: learning *how* matter interacts with other matter to produce new substances. In particular, the atoms that make up living things (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, etc) tend to be very reactive elements. And it is exactly this reactivity that makes life possible.

I'm not sure why you think there was a 'divine reason' for the meteor that 'knocked out' the dinosaurs. It seems to be like a bit of bad luck for them and good luck for mammals like us.