First Baseman
Retired athlete
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this but prayer to the God of Israel has cured and healed many, many people. But I guess you don't believe that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence showing evolution from one species to another
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this but prayer to the God of Israel has cured and healed many, many people. But I guess you don't believe that.
dust1n
Zindīq
I'll believe that when you have tested this claim with the same rigor as you apply to biological sciences, and then demonstrate to be true with evidence.
Prayer helping people is a placebo effect. I could pray to any possible god, or alien, or goat I sincerely believe to be true, and it will have the same benefits, but this is superfluous.
Why would I think this God of Israel created the world, as opposed to a completely different god, or no god at all?
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I'm still trying to figure out how you or anyone else would think the God of Israel didn't create it or might not have.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Just thinking about a creative being out in the universe considering all of the elements in various places -and assuming the elements and forces were not on an inevitable course to initiate evolution.
The elements brought into existence lend themselves to the formation of physical life, but after that, a being would have to know which elements and forces to manipulate in which way
-and bring which what together in which order, etc., in order to initiate evolution -to create life independent of evolution -or both.
Heat up this star -smash this rock into that -smush things together in a bubbling ooze, etc.... or zap things together instantaneously.
It would certainly be easier to zap things together instantaneously than to manipulate the entire universe to initiate evolution -but the God described in the bible would be capable of both.
From a biblical perspective, God said he declared the end from the beginning -and he has forever to create -so a slow process like evolution determined from before the big bang -inherent in the big bang -should not seem blasphemous to a believer.
The elements brought into existence lend themselves to the formation of physical life, but after that, a being would have to know which elements and forces to manipulate in which way
-and bring which what together in which order, etc., in order to initiate evolution -to create life independent of evolution -or both.
Heat up this star -smash this rock into that -smush things together in a bubbling ooze, etc.... or zap things together instantaneously.
It would certainly be easier to zap things together instantaneously than to manipulate the entire universe to initiate evolution -but the God described in the bible would be capable of both.
From a biblical perspective, God said he declared the end from the beginning -and he has forever to create -so a slow process like evolution determined from before the big bang -inherent in the big bang -should not seem blasphemous to a believer.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Atheists aren't atheists because of evolution. I know I wasn't. Evolution is a natural science and has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists can of course be "evolutionists", not much else they could be, but evolution isn't suggesting that there's no God. Evolution only suggests that if there is a God, then this God must be different than the literalist Christian God.
Once, a long time ago, people believed Thor created thunderstorms. Now, through science, we know different. Luckily, the "Thorists" were gone by that time, so it wasn't a big deal. Now, the literalist Creationists insist on their own favorite creation story, and fight against what the evidence shows us. The evidence supports evolution. There are over a half-a-million fossils recorded today, all pointing to evolution. Geology, astronomy, physics, biology, genetics, and many other sciences all support the same thing, that evolution is true. Now, we can debate the finer details of evolution and how it works, but that species evolve, that's a no-brainer.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Well, sure species change over time. Where we disagree is how much they change over time and of course how much time has actually passed. There is no hard evidence that macro-evolution happened. We have fossils that can be determined to be whatever a scientist can dream them up to be and dream up some explanation that sounds logical to some (or most) people.
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't presume the Bible the be the infallible word of God before never bothering to test any claim in the Bible with the rigor I'd examine a claim that is outside the Bible, for example:
Species change over time. We disagree about how much they change, and how much time has passed. You've presented no hard evidence to suggest any sort of limit to how fast they change or how much time has passed. It's really immaterial how much you or I think how much they change over time or how much time has passed, because in real life we know with certainty that "species change over time" because we can see it. Where can we see this imaginary line you insist exists that prohibits a species from how much they can change or how fast? I'm not saying that there isn't one. I'm concerned about how you believe in one without actually seeing one, being able to describe this line in any detail, can provide no examples, or definitions. And, again, you are wanting hard evidence to show "macro-evolutoin happened" yet maintain that you can't even imagine how people could think that any other god other than your specific god exists, DESPITE THE FACT THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL EXISTS.
You make claims that read like this:
Macro evolution = no hard evidence exists, therefore Macro Evolution does not happen.
The God of Israel exists and created the universe = Totally true, despite the fact there is no hard evidence.
We have religious texts (and religious experiences that can't be shared with anyone else) that can be determined to be whatever a person (no matter their occupation or if they are mentally insane) dream them up to be and dream up some explanation that sounds logical to some (or most) people.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I make no claims of scientific fact. However, I hear evolutionists say they that macro-evolution is fact. It isn't scientific fact, it is all just one way of looking at the evidence presented. Macro-evolution requires faith just as much as, if not more so, than any religion does.
dust1n
Zindīq
So what kind of facts is the Holy Spirit providing you with if they are not scientific? If those claims involve saying that something evolves up to a certain point but then can't anymore, then you are making a claim of scientific fact. You are making a factual claim about how far genetics can go, what limits genes. So, you can make any claim about any animal in the world and it's not a scientific fact you making, and those "facts" are fine, but if I make any claim about any animal based off what can be observed about that animal in the actual work, now I'm making a scientific claim. How does that make sense?
- 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
- 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
- 3 Evidence from paleontology
- 4 Evidence from geographical distribution
- 5 Evidence from selection
- 6 Evidence from speciation
- 7 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Do you believe the Holy Spirit has possibly told me anything?
"How does that make sense?"
It makes sense in that you are able to speculate about certain things. You are able to convince yourself (and others) that what you are saying/reading is fact. But you're wrong because it isn't fact, it's speculation.
Speculation isn't fact. Sorry but it isn't. That's all you've got.
Where the first life-form came from isn't a part of the theory of evolution, which is a theory of movement from one life-form series to another. It's about how that movement happens.
If you have nothing before a first life-form, then there was no movement to that life-form, so whatever cause that first life-form has is no part of evolution.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Once again, this is a deflection. You want to talk about evolution from one life form to another. But evolutionists dodge the questions about the first life form. How did the first life form "evolve"?
And if you don't have a first life form you don't have life or evolution. So it is quite dependent on where the first life came from or how it originated.
If there was no life-form before the first life-form, because the first life-form was the first, then there was no evolution to that first life-form. No evolution, no theory of evolution.
But that isn't what evolution is. It's the process we see now. Before life, there was no evolution. When life happened, it kicked off. Whether said first life managed to show up on its own or something placed it is irrelevant to the fact that it happens. You might as well argue against gravity as well. Where did gravity come from? We're not entirely sure(and it gets reeeally ****ed up on the super-small and super-large scales). But it exists. We can measure it. If you want to continue this kind of line, you're going to have to do it with everything.
I have no issues with using the term "evolutionist" myself, but you're straw-manning evolution (despite being corrected on this before in the this thread). Evolution doesn't explain where or how life came into being: it says how populations change over time. Abiogenesis does not automatically entail evolution nor does evolution automatically entail abiogenesis.
Here you go straw-manning again. The first life form did not "evolve" into being. A different process would have been responsible for its creation because evolution doesn't create living things from scratch.
Yes, it is dependent on a first living thing. The fact that you and me exist at all is proof that there was a first living thing. Do you doubt that there was a first living thing? How can you reconcile that with your own existence?
Yorutenchi
Member
We currently cannot create life from scratch. If we could then it would only point out the fact that we understand it well enough to know how it functions. If we could create life by the way we understand it through evolution it would be validation of evolution.
By observing this change in a way that is obviously non-random. If god was tweaking evolution we would assume that it would have been a quick process. Instead it is littered with failures. If god is the one who creates and tweaks DNA he is an incompetent god.
I do not understand what you ask here. Can you put it differently?
It is not possible for specific radiation to create specific effects no. But it is possible to send radiation to the earth from a long ways away. We see it happening all the time. Mostly from the sun. If there was other radiation we could intercept it.
Yorutenchi
Member
I can answer. But it isn't within the scope of regular evolution that is considered fact. Abiogensis is a theory that simply states that our organic molecules can be created from non-organic molecules. And organic molecules can develop and evolve even without life. The line between what is life and what is non-life is not perfectly clear. It is a slow process.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The species specification is specious. It's a human invention. It's our need to categorize similarities of individuals into groups. There's nothing in nature that divide "species" per se. It's something that we're doing to separate things. In reality, "species" don't really exist at all.
There's no hard evidence that motion pictures are actually moving. Just like a movie consists of single picture frames, the fossil record contains single individuals from different branches of evolution. Looking at the sequence of images creates motion. Evolution is that motion. You have to look at the movie, not the individual pictures.
Well, that basically accuse scientists in general for being liars and cheats. I could throw the same accusations towards religious leaders and preachers. It shows more about what and who you are as a person than the facts of science or the scientists.
The creationist argument about life's origins can be summed up like this: "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened either." This is an equivocation fallacy equating the implications of two different questions: "How did X happen?" and "Did X happen?" Let me use some examples of why this is fallacious thinking (if it wasn't already clear enough).
Scenario #1: Suppose you come home one day and find that your television, DVDs, computer and lawnmower are gone. You see tire tracks in the dirt driveway that are not from your own vehicle. Finally, you had a security camera mounted on your front porch. When you review the footage, you see a strange truck drive into your driveway. Three people get out and then walk out of the camera's view. After fifteen minutes, you see them returning with each of the missing items and loading them into their truck before finally driving away. Problem is, the camera didn't catch them actually entering the house. You can assume that they used the back door or a side door or even the chimney like Santa Claus. Maybe you left the doors unlocked or they picked the locks. You don't know. Ultimately, you can't explain how they got into your house. You can come up with various possible explanations, but you can't prove any of them. So if the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means that you cannot prove that you were robbed because you cannot show how the robbers got into your house. Just as with evolution relying on the existence of the first living thing in order to happen, the robbery relies on the robbers getting into your house in order to happen.
Scenario #2: Imagine you are one of the first meteorologists to study tornadoes. You go out and observe tornadoes over a matter of years and use your observations to summarize the life cycle of tornadoes: the formation of a funnel cloud, the growing stage, the mature stage and finally the dissipating stage. Then you realize there is something that you don't know: how the funnel cloud forms in the first place. You have various ideas about how it happens, but cannot test or prove any of them. If the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means you cannot prove that tornadoes form at all or that your life cycle model is correct because you cannot prove how tornadoes form in the first place. Just as with evolution relying on the existence of the first living thing in order to happen, the tornado life cycle relies on the initial formation of a tornado in order to happen.
Scenario #3: You are now an anthropologist studying a newly-discovered tribe on an island in the Pacific Ocean. You study their oral history as well as artifacts from their past, forming a detailed history of how their society has changed over the past 500 years. You can even divide their history up into eras based on the changes of leadership, the invention of new fishing techniques and clothing and the development of new concepts and words. However, you can't get any data on them past the 500-years-ago mark. How the first members of their civilization got to the island or where they came from are a mystery to you. Maybe they came from a neighboring island, or maybe they arrived from mainland South America. Now, if the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means you have to throw out everything you learned about these people and how they changed over the decades because you can't show where they came from. Ancient tablets and hieroglyphics? Nope. History passed down orally from generation to generation? Nope. It's all meaningless until you can show where they came from. Your studies were obviously for naught, you poor anthropologist.
So what am I saying with all this? That abiogenesis happened even though we can't demonstrate how it happened? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something much more general: that life happened even though we can't show how it happened. Living things exist and this is observable fact. It follows that living things therefore got started somehow. We don't have to know how they came into being to know that they did come into being. That's all that evolution needs in order to work: living things. In conclusion, the prerequisite for evolution (that life began) has been filled.
Scenario #1: Suppose you come home one day and find that your television, DVDs, computer and lawnmower are gone. You see tire tracks in the dirt driveway that are not from your own vehicle. Finally, you had a security camera mounted on your front porch. When you review the footage, you see a strange truck drive into your driveway. Three people get out and then walk out of the camera's view. After fifteen minutes, you see them returning with each of the missing items and loading them into their truck before finally driving away. Problem is, the camera didn't catch them actually entering the house. You can assume that they used the back door or a side door or even the chimney like Santa Claus. Maybe you left the doors unlocked or they picked the locks. You don't know. Ultimately, you can't explain how they got into your house. You can come up with various possible explanations, but you can't prove any of them. So if the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means that you cannot prove that you were robbed because you cannot show how the robbers got into your house. Just as with evolution relying on the existence of the first living thing in order to happen, the robbery relies on the robbers getting into your house in order to happen.
Scenario #2: Imagine you are one of the first meteorologists to study tornadoes. You go out and observe tornadoes over a matter of years and use your observations to summarize the life cycle of tornadoes: the formation of a funnel cloud, the growing stage, the mature stage and finally the dissipating stage. Then you realize there is something that you don't know: how the funnel cloud forms in the first place. You have various ideas about how it happens, but cannot test or prove any of them. If the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means you cannot prove that tornadoes form at all or that your life cycle model is correct because you cannot prove how tornadoes form in the first place. Just as with evolution relying on the existence of the first living thing in order to happen, the tornado life cycle relies on the initial formation of a tornado in order to happen.
Scenario #3: You are now an anthropologist studying a newly-discovered tribe on an island in the Pacific Ocean. You study their oral history as well as artifacts from their past, forming a detailed history of how their society has changed over the past 500 years. You can even divide their history up into eras based on the changes of leadership, the invention of new fishing techniques and clothing and the development of new concepts and words. However, you can't get any data on them past the 500-years-ago mark. How the first members of their civilization got to the island or where they came from are a mystery to you. Maybe they came from a neighboring island, or maybe they arrived from mainland South America. Now, if the creationist logic of "If you can't show how something happened, you can't prove that it happened" is valid, that means you have to throw out everything you learned about these people and how they changed over the decades because you can't show where they came from. Ancient tablets and hieroglyphics? Nope. History passed down orally from generation to generation? Nope. It's all meaningless until you can show where they came from. Your studies were obviously for naught, you poor anthropologist.
So what am I saying with all this? That abiogenesis happened even though we can't demonstrate how it happened? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying something much more general: that life happened even though we can't show how it happened. Living things exist and this is observable fact. It follows that living things therefore got started somehow. We don't have to know how they came into being to know that they did come into being. That's all that evolution needs in order to work: living things. In conclusion, the prerequisite for evolution (that life began) has been filled.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Still, no first life form, no evolution. Well, we have billions if not trillions of life forms now so there must have been a first organism. The theory of evolution is dependent upon how that first organism came to be the first organism. If the creator created many different kinds organisms then the theory of evolution may not be accurate in its present form.