Some questions about evolution.

[David M]

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true. Claiming evolution is an observable fact over and over will not make it so.

Evolution is an observable fact and claiming otherwise is either a flat-out denial of reality or a display of breathtaking ignorance. Every year the flu virus evolves, the allele frequencies of populations change over time, that fact cannot be argued.

Of course it may be that you still fail to comprehend the difference between the definitions of "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution".

 

[rusra02]

Evolution is an observable fact and claiming otherwise is either a flat-out denial of reality or a display of breathtaking ignorance. Every year the flu virus evolves, the allele frequencies of populations change over time, that fact cannot be argued.

Of course it may be that you still fail to comprehend the difference between the definitions of "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution".

You are correct in saying people have different definitions for "evolution". Most people know we're talking about the ToE and the word "evolution" has that baggage associated with it.
Calling changes that occur within a species "evolution" may make ToE advocates feel warm and fuzzy, but such changes do not constitute anything truly new. Darwin's finches always have been, are now, and will ever more remain...finches. Same with flu viruses.

 

[Valjean]

Won't

 

[rusra02]

Instead of changing the topic again to avoid being wrong, why don't you respectfully address his statement?

I thought I did. The laws of the universe require a lawgiver. Buildings require a builder. ToE advocates blithely speak of "laws of the universe " causing life to arise. That, sir, is a cop-out. A man walking on a beach and finding a bottle with a message in it probably would not conclude the "laws of the universe" produced this. The DNA in a single cell is more complex than anything ever devised by man, yet ToE opine that the laws of the universe built it? Is that what we are to believe? The facts match what the Bible says. That a superhuman intelligent Being, God, created life. (Genesis chapter 1, Psalm 36:9)

 

[rusra02]

With respect both you and the writer you quote are missing the real point by a mile. We can call Evolution a 'biological hypothesis' or a scientific fact, but whatever appellation we use, and no matter how committed its advocates, the theory remains subject to change and aspects of it may be improved or even rejected. The difference then is that no scientist can claim certainty, unlike the religious dogmatists who make claims to certain truth while being unable or unwilling to demonstrate the 'truth' of what they claim. The business of science hinges on probability, not articles of faith. Whatever a scientist believes can be wrong. The mystic or religionist can never make such an admission.

You state above: "The difference then is that no scientist can claim certainty."
You obviously have not been paying attention to this forum or what ToE advocates are saying:

"We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” - Richard Dawkins

"The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” Stephen J Gould.

"What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.." Ashley Montagu.

Of course, such baseless claims are, as molecular biologist Michael Denton stated:
"simply nonsense".

 

[jarofthoughts]

I thought I did. The laws of the universe require a lawgiver. Buildings require a builder. ToE advocates blithely speak of "laws of the universe " causing life to arise. That, sir, is a cop-out. A man walking on a beach and finding a bottle with a message in it probably would not conclude the "laws of the universe" produced this. The DNA in a single cell is more complex than anything ever devised by man, yet ToE opine that the laws of the universe built it? Is that what we are to believe? The facts match what the Bible says. That a superhuman intelligent Being, God, created life. (Genesis chapter 1, Psalm 36:9)

No, you did not.
What you did is commonly known as 'moving the goal-posts' and it is a very common shell-game that creationists play.
Whenever they are shown to be in error they move the goalposts to whatever gap they can find instead of admitting fault.
So, again, answer the subject raised (with a counter-explanation) or admit that you were wrong.

 

[rusra02]

No, you did not.
What you did is commonly known as 'moving the goal-posts' and it is a very common shell-game that creationists play.
Whenever they are shown to be in error they move the goalposts to whatever gap they can find instead of admitting fault.
So, again, answer the subject raised (with a counter-explanation) or admit that you were wrong.

No, I did answer it. You just didn't like my answer.

 

[johnhanks]

I thought I did. The laws of the universe require a lawgiver.

Let us, for a moment, pretend that this is so. Where did that lawgiver come from?

A man walking on a beach and finding a bottle with a message in it probably would not conclude the "laws of the universe" produced this. The DNA in a single cell is more complex than anything ever devised by man, yet ToE opine that the laws of the universe built it?

Yet again - are we surprised? - you insert as though it were evidence your unsupported assertion that cells or organisms or biomolecules are too complex to have arisen without supernatural intervention. How many times will we have to point out to you that this opinion of yours does not constitute a fact?

The facts match what the Bible says. That a superhuman intelligent Being, God, created life. (Genesis chapter 1, Psalm 36:9)

And what created that superhuman intelligent Being? You will of course say that it was uncreated, had always existed and so requires no explanation. I quote: that, sir, is a cop-out. You claim that a spontaneous origin for DNA is too improbable to take seriously, yet at the same time invoke a non-corporeal entity able to will into existence an entire universe and the laws by which it operates: how much more improbable is that?

 

[rusra02]

Let us, for a moment, pretend that this is so. Where did that lawgiver come from?
Yet again - are we surprised? - you insert as though it were evidence your unsupported assertion that cells or organisms or biomolecules are too complex to have arisen without supernatural intervention. How many times will we have to point out to you that this opinion of yours does not constitute a fact?
And what created that superhuman intelligent Being? You will of course say that it was uncreated, had always existed and so requires no explanation. I quote: that, sir, is a cop-out. You claim that a spontaneous origin for DNA is too improbable to take seriously, yet at the same time invoke a non-corporeal entity able to will into existence an entire universe and the laws by which it operates: how much more improbable is that?

Saying there is a first Cause, a Source of life is not a cop-out. Eventually, we must go to a Source. We can examine what is created, what is here in front of our eyes, to determine whether we should believe in a Creator. The Bible reasons from effect to cause this way:"Because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and godship, so that they [persons who deny God] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20)

You state that it is my opinion and not a fact that complex things can not originate without a maker. That is simply not true. Any entity that displays intelligent design (such as a bottle with a message in it) begs a designer. A person claiming a house built itself would be regarded as either crazy or lying. Yet, evolutionists ask us to suspend our common sense and believe that vastly more complex things (such as the cell) arose by 'natural law' or "natural selection". And not only that. That once the process started, we are to believe all the remarkably designed plants and animals and insects and birds that fill the earth were molded into existence by random mutations and 'natural selection'.

It is up to each person to examine the evidence, (not be swayed by the views of others), and make up their mind what the evidence proves.

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, I did answer it. You just didn't like my answer.

No, you didn't.
This tread, and the subject discussed, is about biological evolution.
Where the laws of the universe came from is completely irrelevant when discussing whether ToE is correct or not.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Saying there is a first Cause, a Source of life is not a cop-out. Eventually, we must go to a Source. We can examine what is created, what is here in front of our eyes, to determine whether we should believe in a Creator. The Bible reasons from effect to cause this way:"Because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and godship, so that they [persons who deny God] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20)

You state that it is my opinion and not a fact that complex things can not originate without a maker. That is simply not true. Any entity that displays intelligent design (such as a bottle with a message in it) begs a designer. A person claiming a house built itself would be regarded as either crazy or lying. Yet, evolutionists ask us to suspend our common sense and believe that vastly more complex things (such as the cell) arose by 'natural law' or "natural selection". And not only that. That once the process started, we are to believe all the remarkably designed plants and animals and insects and birds that fill the earth were molded into existence by random mutations and 'natural selection'.

It is up to each person to examine the evidence, (not be swayed by the views of others), and make up their mind what the evidence proves.

I'll invalidate everything you just said here by asking a simple question.

Do houses and bottles (with or without messages in them) reproduce?

See where you went wrong?

 

[camanintx]

Saying there is a first Cause, a Source of life is not a cop-out.

Yes, it is a cop-out when the question at hand does not relate to a first cause. You said that "getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros." This statement has been shown to be patently false for several reasons, so when are you going to admit that?

 

[camanintx]

I thought I did. The laws of the universe require a lawgiver. Buildings require a builder. ToE advocates blithely speak of "laws of the universe " causing life to arise. That, sir, is a cop-out. A man walking on a beach and finding a bottle with a message in it probably would not conclude the "laws of the universe" produced this. The DNA in a single cell is more complex than anything ever devised by man, yet ToE opine that the laws of the universe built it? Is that what we are to believe? The facts match what the Bible says. That a superhuman intelligent Being, God, created life. (Genesis chapter 1, Psalm 36:9)

This is a logical fallacy called "special pleading". I suggest you look it up.

 

[johnhanks]

Saying there is a first Cause, a Source of life is not a cop-out.

It is if you say to scientists "Your postulated source of life is too improbable to believe, but mine is exempt from scrutiny and self-evidently true".

We can examine what is created, what is here in front of our eyes...

You do realise the latter does not have to imply the former? This is a classic piece of conflation.

... The Bible reasons from effect to cause this way:"Because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and godship, so that they [persons who deny God] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20)

[My emphasis]. You have a strange definition of 'reasoning'. What you have quoted is more commonly called petitio principii, or circular argument.

You state that it is my opinion and not a fact that complex things can not originate without a maker. That is simply not true. Any entity that displays intelligent design (such as a bottle with a message in it) begs a designer...

Again the weak analogies. Others have ably pointed out that living cells and organisms do not bear comparison with houses and messages in bottles.

It is up to each person to examine the evidence, (not be swayed by the views of others), and make up their mind what the evidence proves.

As I'm sure you know, 'prove' is a verb employed by mathematicians rather than scientists; but the stupendous weight of scientific evidence places the theory of evolution in the same category as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun - beyond all reasonable doubt. That apart, this is the one statement in your post with which I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, it is a cop-out when the question at hand does not relate to a first cause. You said that "getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros." This statement has been shown to be patently false for several reasons, so when are you going to admit that?

Sorry, I must have missed the reasons that statement (not mine, btw) is patently false. Can you restate so a simple mind like mine can understand?

 

[rusra02]

I'll invalidate everything you just said here by asking a simple question.

Do houses and bottles (with or without messages in them) reproduce?

See where you went wrong?

Uh.....no. Oh, you mean if something is living, it can spring into existence by itself, modify itself endlessly in response to external stimuli, and grow increasingly more complex and remarkably designed... just give it enough time...
Do you see where you went wrong?

 

[rusra02]

I'll invalidate everything you just said here by asking a simple question.

Do houses and bottles (with or without messages in them) reproduce?

See where you went wrong?

Uh.....no. Oh, you mean if something is living, it can spring into existence by itself, modify itself endlessly in response to external stimuli, and grow increasingly more complex and remarkably designed... just give it enough time...
Do you see where you went wrong?

 

[rusra02]

No, you didn't.
This tread, and the subject discussed, is about biological evolution.
Where the laws of the universe came from is completely irrelevant when discussing whether ToE is correct or not.

Natural laws are used by evolutionists to try to explain the beginning of life and the mechanics of the ToE. All things are subject to the laws of the universe. So where they came from is relevant to me. Laws require a lawgiver, and universal laws require a universal Sovereign, God.

 

[rusra02]

It is if you say to scientists "Your postulated source of life is too improbable to believe, but mine is exempt from scrutiny and self-evidently true".
You do realise the latter does not have to imply the former? This is a classic piece of conflation.
[My emphasis]. You have a strange definition of 'reasoning'. What you have quoted is more commonly called petitio principii, or circular argument.
Again the weak analogies. Others have ably pointed out that living cells and organisms do not bear comparison with houses and messages in bottles.
As I'm sure you know, 'prove' is a verb employed by mathematicians rather than scientists; but the stupendous weight of scientific evidence places the theory of evolution in the same category as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun - beyond all reasonable doubt. That apart, this is the one statement in your post with which I wholeheartedly agree.

You are entitled to your opinion. As I said, it is up to each person to decide what the evidence proves. Obviously, I draw different conclusions based on the evidence. Your last statement about the "stupendous weight of scientific evidence proves the ToE" is, of course, also your opinion and not supported by the facts. As Michael Denton stated: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense." They are worse than nonsense. They are totally false and part of the big lie being foisted upon an (largely) unsuspecting public. As famed scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe stated: "There's no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since." (quote from W94 9/1 Evolution on Trial)

 

[johnhanks]

You are entitled to your opinion. As I said, it is up to each person to decide what the evidence proves. Obviously, I draw different conclusions based on the evidence. Your last statement about the "stupendous weight of scientific evidence proves the ToE" is, of course, also your opinion and not supported by the facts.

What I actually stated was "the stupendous weight of scientific evidence places the theory of evolution in the same category as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun - beyond all reasonable doubt". Strictly, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun remains unproven - no-one has stepped outside the solar system and observed it - but, like evolution, it is supported by so much other observational evidence that to act as though it might not be true would be absurd.

As Michael Denton stated: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense."

This Michae Denton?

Denton however is not a creationist, he describes himself as an evolutionist, he has rejected biblical creationism.

His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is expertly taken apart here.

They are worse than nonsense. They are totally false and part of the big lie being foisted upon an (largely) unsuspecting public.

I've asked you this before, and have no more serious hope of a reply this time, but can you explain the motives behind this "big lie"? How and when do the students of biology who start off as victims of this lie turn into its perpetrators? And how, crucially, does this international biological mafia enforce its omerta, given the fame and fortune that would accrue for a whistle-blower?

As famed scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe stated: "There's no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since." (quote from W94 9/1 Evolution on Trial)

"Famed scientist Chandra Wickramasinghe" is an astronomer who has courted controversy over his views on the origin of life and diseases from space. His understanding of evolutionary theory has been shown to be weak*. Closer to his own territory, Wickramasinghe has also stated that a person would have to be crazy to believe the universe was only around 10,000 years old.

* On edit: this link was intended to take you to a page of articles critiquing Wickramasinghe's ideas, but it links only to TalkOrigin's search page: typing in 'Wickramasinghe' will take you to the intended page.