How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The BIBLE is inspired by God.

Faith based claim.

Not asking you, of course, to believe it, but there is no evidence showing the idea that humans evolved from fish

This is very false.

, although many here believe that.

Because it's what literally all evidence converges on. Multiple independent lines of evidence.
Being willfully ignorant of that evidence won't make it go away.

Libraries are more than filled with huge amounts of papers, journals and books.

Yes. All detailing and explaining said evidence.

The Bible is not like that.

You can certainly say that again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not say there was evidence of need. It is you who is making the claim, that being that there is no need for divine manipulation. So burden of proof goes to you.

The evidence that there is no need for it, is quite simply that the natural process of evolution is sufficient to explain the facts.
When you have an explanation that is sufficient to account for the facts, then there is no need for any undetectable entities getting involved in unknown mysterious ways.

Like the example I always give of the chocolate cake that goes missing from your kitchen.
Your kids have a stomach ache and their faces, t-shirt and hands are covered in chocolate cake.
The explanation that your kids ate it, is sufficient to account for the missing cake.

Does it rule out that a burglar came into in your kitchen and stole said cake? No.
But it sure shows that there is no need to invent such to explain the missing cake.

On top of that, you are not even positing something as mundane and known to exist as a burglar. No, you are positing a magical being who intervened in magical ways.........

Since you have left out the "without a designer" but, your answer means nothing. Nobody is questioning whether evolution happened.
The "with a designer" or "without a designer" parts are faith based. BOTH of them are faith based.

Do you require "faith" to not include magical cake thieves to account for the missing cake in the example above?

Also, no possible naturalistic mechanisms eliminate the need for a designer to, for a start, design the whole system

False. The NEED is most definitely eliminated.
If you wish to posit a NEED, then you are going to have to demonstrate that.
A NEED is much stronger wording then a mere OPTION or POSSIBILITY. Even though those would have to be supported with evidence as well, off course.

All you are doing is building a giant argument from willful ignorance. Not just mere ignorance, because we actually know quite a lot about evolution and KNOW that it is sufficient to account for the facts (and thus eliminate the NEED for any other alternatives - magical or otherwise).

and secondly to get each step up and running in situations where nature itself probably could not do it alone.

Which step in particular in evolution would you say that "nature could not do it alone" and demonstrate how you have concluded that.


I'll bet 500 bucks on an argument from ignorance being included in your answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe the Bible is true and authentic

Why?

. I do not believe the theory of evolution is true and authentic.

Why not?


I bet 500 dollars that your answers here will show that @McBell is bang on the money and that idd you demand an absurd amount of evidence for evolution while you demand practically no evidence for your god.

Take it as you will. I believe populations with short arms and legs can pass on those genes producing more that are similar. I do not believe that fish evolved in the long run to become humans. Or gorillas.

Your argument from incredulity is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But your argument is from your position of empiricism, which seems to be an argument from incredulity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But your argument is from your position of empiricism, which seems to be an argument from incredulity. Then from there you reason that a God would change nothing because the only God your incredulity argument allows is a god that changes nothing in your list of possible things that a god could be relevant to.
You ignore evidence for a god and pretend you are looking at all the evidence.

Are you a skeptic in general for how you doubt all types of evidence? Or are you as most people a local one in that you doubt all types of evidence expect your own type?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If God brought different environments at different times, to produce a type of life, then a third party was involved and science would not know

And if undetectable graviton pixies were involved in regulating gravity, then a third party was involved and science would never know....

You can invent undetectable third parties till you are blue in the face. If you have no supporting evidence for them, then they are meaningless claims.

The fact remains the same: we can account for changing environments. No third parties required.
The environment is ever-changing, including today. We can observe that. No gods or other "third parties" required.

,,,,,,,,,,,,, and more importantly it is not science that says that no third party was involved

You continue to insist on this strawman. Why?
Do you understand the difference between "there is no..." and "there is no need nor evidence for..."?

Either you don't and you need to learn the difference.
Or you do and are being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

,,,,,,,,,, it is people who make statements of faith that say such things.

And you would be among those people.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

abiogenesis …. going from abiotic to Biotic .. and in fact we can do most of the way in a lab…

And who’s in charge of those labs? In fact, who built the labs?

People with intelligence.

That wasn't what was being discussed .. your realization that scientists believe fish evolved into humans .. but what ever .. Mutations happen .. and over time .. through these mutations .. one species is transformed into another .. small changes over time add up .. nothing complicated to see here

“Over time”.
There’s your fallback.

How’s that working with whale evolution?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

By the way the writers of the NT … also believed in a literal Genesis and Pentateuch without question.

Where’s your evidence?

Regarding the Creative days, I can show otherwise…

In Hebrews 4, Paul said the seventh day, God’s Rest Day, was still continuing in his time.

That was over 4,000 years later!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And who’s in charge of those labs? In fact, who built the labs?

People with intelligence.

That's an asinine comment and you know it.
It's like saying that because people build freezers, it requires "intelligence" for water to turn to ice.

“Over time”.
There’s your fallback.

You say that as if it is some kind of argument against it.
Mutations accumulate over generations. This takes time. That's just how it is.

How’s that working with whale evolution?

Very well.
It took tens of millions of years to go from a land animal to a sea dwelling mammal.

 

[ChristineM]

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

Why not to mention another, one has ignored, please, right??
Another one is G-d created via evolution , right,please?

Regards

I mentioned magic as in god magic.
And as i said i don't believe magic
Right!

 

[Sargonski]

And who’s in charge of those labs? In fact, who built the labs?

People with intelligence.

“Over time”.
There’s your fallback.

How’s that working with whale evolution?

?? I can't make any sense out of what you are trying to say friend .. are you suggesting Time was not a factor in Whale evolution ?

 

[Sargonski]

I mentioned magic as in god magic.
And as i said i don't believe magic
Right!

How are you defining "magic" ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How are you defining "magic" ?

I can't speak for @ChristineM but I'ld define it as the violation and / or suspension of natural laws.
And I think chances are quite high that she would agree on principle.

 

[ChristineM]

I can't speak for @ChristineM but I'ld define it as the violation and / or suspension of natural laws.
And I think chances are quite high that she would agree on principle.

^^^ that'll do.

 

[Sargonski]

I can't speak for @ChristineM but I'ld define it as the violation and / or suspension of natural laws.
And I think chances are quite high that she would agree on principle.

K .. good start -- but you need to be more specific .. humans for example have developed the ability to "Violate" the law of Gravity .. learned to fly .. something definitely categorized as "Magic" to all the folks in Ezekiel's day.

Keep in mind that this term is being used in the context of Godly powers .. such that one who could perform such deeds would be said to be a God .. and thus God is defined by the powers she has ....

 

[shunyadragon]

And who’s in charge of those labs? In fact, who built the labs?

People with intelligence.

“Over time”.
There’s your fallback.

How’s that working with whale evolution?

A silly cartoon You tube video does not justify your anti-science agenda.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But your argument is from your position of empiricism, which seems to be an argument from incredulity.

My argument was that since no god is needed to account for any observed phenomena, gods have no place in science or in the lives of empiricists.

What job would a god have been or still is needed to do? None. A god might have set the early universe in motion, or it might have created the first life, but we have naturalistic hypotheses for these as well. You shouldn't ever expect science to begin talking about gods until they detect one or some phenomenon that only the existence of a god could explain.

you reason that a God would change nothing because the only God your incredulity argument allows is a god that changes nothing

I'm discussing non-interventionist gods like the deist god. We have no evidence for gods that modify our reality as by coming to earth, providing revelation, performing miracles, or answering prayer. We have insufficient evidence to believe that those things ever happen. And the truth of a non-interventionist god is, as I said, moot. I can imagine both and couldn't use that answer for anything.

You ignore evidence for a god

No, I've rejected what believers have offered, which includes scripture/biblical prophecy, the complexity of a cell/life/the universe, and a handful of medieval arguments about first causes or morals. None of that requires the existence of a god to exist.

who’s in charge of those [abiogenesis research] labs? In fact, who built the labs? People with intelligence.

Agreed. We have no theory for the evolution of labs prior to the evolution of intelligence and then intellect - a strictly human form of intelligence on earth (linguistic and mathematical symbolic thought).

But the chemistry is nearly as old as the universe and as far as we know is not the result of intelligent design and does not require intelligent oversight to proceed. All that the scientists are doing in their labs is accelerating the process by which various components of life come together. It doesn't not make them react, and if and when the abiogenesis hypothesis is fleshed out sufficiently to become a sound scientific theory, the intelligence of the scientists won't make those chemicals come to life. That occurs automatically whenever the conditions are right.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where’s your evidence?

Do you understand the definition of evidence?, which needs to be more objective than simple the claim of an ancient text without provenance or an independent objective basis.

Regarding the Creative days, I can show otherwise…

In Hebrews 4, Paul said the seventh day, God’s Rest Day, was still continuing in his time.

That was over 4,000 years later!

Simply relying on the text of the Bible is not evidence by definition and is circular reasoning.

This does not change what the authors of Genesis wrote and believed concerning the the days of Creation. The accounts of Genesis and the Pentateuch were accepted as being literal by the authors of the NT whether 7 days or 7 to 10 thousand years.

Nothing here addresses the evidence for the history of the universe 13.8 billions of years old, and the history of life over 3.7 billions of years.

 

[YoursTrue]

That wasn't what was being discussed .. your realization that scientists believe fish evolved into humans ..

Scientists do believe that. Again -- like the word proof or not, there is no evidence that fish evolved eventually to become humans.

but what ever .. Mutations happen .. and over time .. through these mutations .. one species is transformed into another .. small changes over time add up ..

That is the theory.

nothing complicated to see here

Humans on the other hand .. advanced to a certain point - an early Primate .. but then had a big leap .. as the Bible tells us about the offspring .. of the Gods who came down from the sky .. and took wives from the hybrid Adamu .. (Earthlings)

Again -- lots of things in the dark, so to speak. In other words, just not there. But! have a good one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientists do believe that. Again -- like the word proof or not, there is no evidence that fish evolved eventually to become humans.

That is the theory.

You do not remotely understand science nor the plain high school level English as to what is proof, how it is applied not even what is theory.

Again -- lots of things in the dark, so to speak. In other words, just not there. But! have a good one.

You remain happily hiding in Plato's cave based on ancient tribal beliefs without science or a basic understanding of the English language,