Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ecco]

OK, what were the very first life forms, if you know?

What do you mean "life form"?

I kept telling him I don't believe in God,

If you didn't believe in god, why were you talking to a preacher? It seems to me that you were talking to a preacher, perhaps many such, in the hopes that someone would say something to confirm your belief that there is a god. Atheists do not search for a god. They know there isn't one, aren't any.

 

[ecco]

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, The evidence is such that there are fossils.

Now you are really going completely off the tracks.
You are comparing the actions of a Governor trying to cover his tracks of repaying a contribution with science.

Of all the nonsense you have posted, this tops the list.

 

[leroy]

The 1969 Dodge Charger R/T is the best American car ever produced. Rather than support this in a reasonably expected way, I need you to make a claim about the best car ever produced in America. You can't say you don't know. I am looking for a way to argue without supporting my assertion. 'I don't know' would not give me the ways out I need to perpetuate this without a real defense of my position.

Ok what if I say...
I disagree the 1969 Dodge Charger is not the best car.

Wouldn't you ask me, in your opinion which is the best car, and why is it better than the 1969 Dodge?

Wouldn't you atleast consider that you are asking a reasonable question?

You can't say you don't know. I am looking for a way to argue without

I am simply not interested in arguing someone who doesn't know.... My interest is to share opinions with someone who thinks that there is a naturalistic hypothesis better than design

If you don't know, then go to any source that you would consider reliable , learn about Fine Tuning, learn about all the explanations that are being offered by scientists and philosophers and chose you favorite, then you can share your opinion on why is that explanation better than design.


This is just a forum, I will not elaborate an argument from zero,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok what if I say...
I disagree the 1969 Dodge Charger is not the best car.

Wouldn't you ask me, in your opinion which is the best car, and why is it better than the 1969 Dodge?

Wouldn't you atleast consider that you are asking a reasonable question?

Whoosshh!!

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean "life form"?



If you didn't believe in god, why were you talking to a preacher? It seems to me that you were talking to a preacher, perhaps many such, in the hopes that someone would say something to confirm your belief that there is a god. Atheists do not search for a god. They know there isn't one, aren't any.

If I have to explain the term 'life form' to you, lol, I believe we're finished. Anyway, have a nice day tomorrow. More than likely, I would say, the sun will still be there. And yes, I did need to understand many things at that time because I did not believe in God but I knew I needed something more in my life than just waking up each day and going through life 'living.' But that's me. Obviously that's not you. I had that one conversation with him. He does not know that because of our conversation, which led to a wall in the conversation that evening, since I did not believe in God and he kept telling me only God can give me faith, I did become a believer in God. But the rest is to be found by others, as I said to another poster, not now for the details. Each one has his own journey, so to speak.

 

[YoursTrue]

A fine story. Now, what evidence do you have for it being true?

I know you don't believe in the truthfulness of the Bible. But I have come to realize that it is true, a message from God transmitted to human writers, compiled and put together over a thousand years. The evidence is twofold: the Bible and life. Romans 1:20 speaks of this: "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." But as the one conversation with the preacher led me to understand, it is God alone that can give you this faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you thought I said, "the world being in the mess from evolution is fun", you have is a problem in reading comprehension.

(shaking my head here...) So you don't think life is "fun." (By the way, I didn't say you said that the world being in the mess from evolution is fun." You misunderstood my phrase. OK, so you don't think life is fun. Or did I misunderstand you again? So it's not fun. Or is it fun. OK. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you don't believe in the truthfulness of the Bible. But I have come to realize that it is true, a message from God transmitted to human writers, compiled and put together over a thousand years. The evidence is twofold: the Bible and life. Romans 1:20 speaks of this: "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." But as the one conversation with the preacher led me to understand, it is God alone that can give you this faith.

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence. You are using confirmation bias. That is not evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

What part of my comment are you referring to?





Apparently? Based on what? That I realize that nature is not perfectly set up to accommodate my wishes and desires? How ridiculous.

Nature is nature and $hit happens. $hit is not caused by some evil-minded old man in the sky.

Wait a minute. Are you calling Evolution 'nature'? Does evolution or nature (are you using change of terms, or do they mean the same thing) cause crummy things to happen? "NATURE IS NOT PERFECTLY SET UP???" What? It's imperfectly set up? Is it nature or evolution that is not perfectly set up? Which? Or are the terms interchangeable? Set up? By who or what? GENES???

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok since you disagree with both of the premises let's start with the first

The premise states that if an organism requires multiple independent mutations (say 3 mutations) in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection, then such step would not ocurre (atleast not by a process of random mutations)

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic then this organism will not become inmune to the antibiotic. (in this example having 1 or 2 mutations would be completely useless) you need all 3 mutations to gain a benefit.

Behe justify his claim as follows, his point is that 2 mutations are within a limit, (very improbable but possible) but 3 mutations would become impossible. So why is Behe wrong?



(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Behe is wrong because certain ones want him to be wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that the opposite is true, in the last 70 years or so, scientists have discovered that the problems and the obstacles are harder to solve and more abundant than previously thought.

Yes, indeed, and chances are near to the impossible factor that a complex organism just comes about by -- chance.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is why it is significant that RNA does spontaneously form self-reproducing molecules. Again, the current best model says that amino acids and proteins were not initially dominant in the way they are today, which much catalysis based on RNA.



Interesting. The research that has happened over the last 70 years or so has uniformly been seen that obstacles people thought were insurmountable are overcome spontaneously.



Except that the YECs *don't* do any research and haven't made any progress in this regard. This is quite in opposition to what has happened in abiogenesis research.

I am not sure what you mean by Young Earth Creationist. Please explain. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

And this is exactly my point. These Bibles are wrong!

One of the mistakes in the Bible I refer to in my OP, which you cite, was that "bats are birds." But obviously you take exception to this or you wouldn't have bothered to bring up birds

"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." ​

and trying to exonerate the bible by saying the verse wasn't only talking about birds (fowl) but insects as well. Well, as I see it your 6% doesn't justify your contention.


Bingo! These... translations... are... not... correct. .. And just because three bibles use "creatures" instead of "birds" or "fowl" certainly doesn't mean they imply insects as well, not when the VAST majority of the bibles, 96%, spell out what kind of creatures the Hebrews were talking about.

.

Which Bible are you talking about? The many different translations? Bats fly, but are not birds. And the Hebrew at that scripture simply does not mean birds only. If you want to argue with that, that's up to you, obviously. But it doesn't make sense to me that you take issue with it except to justify your misconception. The same Hebrew word is used in context for other terms, rightly so. The Hebrew word (oph) means flying insects at Leviticus 11:20, but don't let that phase you. Because it says, “All winged insects [oph] that go on all fours are detestable to you. 21Yet among the winged insects [oph] that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground."
Oph - birds. Oph - winged creatures Oph - winged insects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe is wrong because certain ones want him to be wrong.

No, Behe is wrong because he made the foolish decision to say that cutting edge science problems could not be solved. All of his examples that I can think of have been shown to be wrong. It is foolish to say "Scientists will never solve this problem", especially if most of the work to solve it had been done already.

 

[YoursTrue]

One word disproves this entirely: Holocaust

The Holocaust shows what misery both secular and religious thinking has done to the state of mankind. But God is true, and He will release His people, just as He did when Moses led them out of Egypt. By God's people, I don't mean only Jews. More than Jews died in the Holocaust. And WWI and WWII. The Bible is an absolutely amazing story, and the more I think about it, the more wonderful it becomes in the sense of the time it took to write the Bible, to compile the scriptures, and the history recorded. The Scriptures offer a hope for mankind, as well as a resurrection from the dead, and the end of evil, wicked actions. Revelation 21 speaks of new heavens and a new earth which righteousness will be forever. It will happen just as God promised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Holocaust shows what misery both secular and religious thinking has done to the state of mankind. But God is true, and He will release His people, just as He did when Moses led them out of Egypt. By God's people, I don't mean only Jews. More than Jews died in the Holocaust. And WWI and WWII. The Bible is an absolutely amazing story, and the more I think about it, the more wonderful it becomes in the sense of the time it took to write the Bible, to compile the scriptures, and the history recorded. The Scriptures offer a hope for mankind, as well as a resurrection from the dead, and the end of evil, wicked actions. Revelation 21 speaks of new heavens and a new earth which righteousness will be forever. It will happen just as God promised.

Bad example since Moses and the Exodus are mythical. You are in effect claiming that your God does not exist either by using that one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, yes, but the point is that aminoacids do not naturally join and form proteins (let alone self replicating proteins) in the same way copper and iron do not naturaly produce robots.

All naturalistic hypothesis have mayor and fundamental problems,........ honestly what does it take to convince you that abiogebesis can't happen naturally? To me it seems that we live in a world where abiogebesis is clearly and unambiguously impossible (according to natural laws)

Sure you can say that you are still working and searching for answers. But the same thing can be said by YEC...... "We don't know yet what mechanisms caused accelerated decay in radioactive elements" but we are still searching for answers, (this would explain why rocks seem to be billions of years old even if they are just 6, 000yo)

The heart pumping, the veins being flexible, the lungs working, bones forming, none of this can really be explained by evolution as if these things just happened. And then, of course, the idea that humans have a sense of right and wrong, hold court and trials, reinforces the idea that God made humans different from the animals when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The Bible didn't say, "let us make chimpanzees in our image." Something is very different about humans, although people will argue with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The heart pumping, the veins being flexible, the lungs working, bones forming, none of this can really be explained by evolution as if these things just happened. And then, of course, the idea that humans have a sense of right and wrong, hold court and trials, reinforces the idea that God made humans different from the animals when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The Bible didn't say, "let us make chimpanzees in our image." Something is very different about humans, although people will argue with that.

Actually all of them can be explained through evolution. Just because you do not know something it is never wise to assume that no one knows.

 

[YoursTrue]

Morality is a social construct. In particular, it comes about for humans because we are an intelligent, social species.

No, sharks, crocodiles, monkeys, etc cannot be considered to be either good or bad in themselves. *WE* are the ones that determine whether something is good or bad *for us*. And you are right, eating humans is not bad for the croc. The croc knows nothing different. But *we* decide, for our own preservation, to deal with the croc so it doesn't eat us.

Interesting that is what the Bible says about Eve wanting to decide for herself. She did not want God to tell her what was right or wrong, she wanted to decide these things for herself, the serpent (later revealed as the Devil) influencing her decision, and that is what has been passed down to human beings until today. Some would say that moral consciousness is in the genetic arrangement within the human body and brain. Not all would argue that morality is simply a social construct. As I was thinking about this in reply to you, I doubt that microbes and unicells have brains that code morals. And then worse, if a person fears the other may hurt him, it seems reasonable that the victim would try to protect himself. Social construct, or evolution that makes the situation that way so the victim may try to protect himself, one way or the other.

 

[Valjean]

Ok since you disagree with both of the premises let's start with the first

The premise states that if an organism requires multiple independent mutations (say 3 mutations) in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection, then such step would not ocurre (atleast not by a process of random mutations)

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic then this organism will not become inmune to the antibiotic. (in this example having 1 or 2 mutations would be completely useless) you need all 3 mutations to gain a benefit.

Behe justify his claim as follows, his point is that 2 mutations are within a limit, (very improbable but possible) but 3 mutations would become impossible. So why is Behe wrong?



(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Ridiculous! Why would you need three mutations to make a difference? A single mutation can make a massive difference, and a hundred can make none. Many genetic abnormalities are the result of single point mutations.

Why would mutations be needed at all? I'm different from any of my siblings -- and it's not due to mutation, just simple sexual variation.