Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[outhouse]

Are you actually that stupid or are you intentionally being dishonest?

Choices in life are hard to make.


Its why most of us go out and get a education on a subject we lack knowledge in to better ourselves.


Many people are happy brainwashed and wollowing in it.

 

[johnhanks]

God created cats (and dogs), etc. If two animals can successfully interbreed, they are of the same kind.

Are members of ring species all of the same kind?

 

[lunakilo]

OK, perhaps we should define what is meant by "Evolution". Without getting to hung up on semantics, my definition for the ToE is: The theory that changes occurring as a result of natural selection, mutation, or other events results in the development of all living species. That all animals and plants are the result of changes occurring in other organisms."
That definition or something similar is what I'm talking about when I says the evidence is overwhelming against the ToE. This theory is at odds with the Bible's account of creation that states God created plants and animals according to their kinds.
Changes within a species is not evolution in the definition above, since no new species are formed. Variation within a species or what the Bible calls a "Kind" are not evolution.

Look at the image below.
It changes colour from red to purple from left to right.

Think of it as every colour represents a new species.
Red is one species, orange another, yellow a third and so on all the way to purple.

Now when does red stop and orange begin?
When are the changes large enough to be a new species?

My point?
Any change is just a variation in relation the parent (starting colour), but given enough small changes they all add up, and at some point you have something so different from the starting point that you can no longer say it is the same species (colour)

 

[johnhanks]

Every thinking person has the credentials to properly weigh the evidence.

Only if they examine it sufficiently closely, and have a good understanding of the scientific principles underlying it. You have yet to show that you fulfill either of those criteria.

The principle of free speech supports your right to view your opinions, just as I would have the right to go to an economics forum and air my views on neo-endogenous growth theory. The important difference between us is that I would not expect my shallow and under-informed spoutings to be given equal weight to those who know what they are talking about.

 

[rusra02]

Look at the image below.
It changes colour from red to purple from left to right.

Think of it as every colour represents a new species.
Red is one species, orange another, yellow a third and so on all the way to purple.

Now when does red stop and orange begin?
When are the changes large enough to be a new species?

My point?
Any change is just a variation in relation the parent (starting colour), but given enough small changes they all add up, and at some point you have something so different from the starting point that you can no longer say it is the same species (colour)

I did not miss your point that small changes can accumulate over time, nor do I dispute that. The evidence for such changes is lacking for the ToE. The simplest prokaryotic cell (cells without a nucleus) are so astonishingly complex that it could not possibly arise by chance.
A leaf changes color but remains a leaf. An arctic fox changes color but remains a fox. Colors and species are two entirely different things.
The Bible points to an intelligent maker or producer of life in all it's varied forms, and the evidence supports that. (Psalm 104:24,25)

​

​

 

[camanintx]

The simplest prokaryotic cell (cells without a nucleus) are so astonishingly complex that it could not possibly arise by chance.

As we keep explaining to you, no one says that life came about by chance. Just as Evolution describes how one type of organism can become many, the chemical laws observed in labs repeatedly over the last few centuries are capable of explaining how the simplest prokaryotic cells came into existence. Here's just one example for you.

Monera

The Bible points to an intelligent maker or producer of life in all it's varied forms, and the evidence supports that. (Psalm 104:24,25)

The Center for Unintelligent Design could teach you a thing or two.

http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/

 

[rusra02]

As we keep explaining to you, no one says that life came about by chance. Just as Evolution describes how one type of organism can become many, the chemical laws observed in labs repeatedly over the last few centuries are capable of explaining how the simplest prokaryotic cells came into existence. Here's just one example for you.

Monera


The Center for Unintelligent Design could teach you a thing or two.

http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/

Oh, that's right, life didn't come about by chance. How did it get here, btw?
Then, once life "arrived" it just changed (evolved) into all the plants, animals, birds, insects, and man? Through mutations and natural selection? That's the story and you're sticking to it? So surely scientists must have created in a lab a "simple" prokaryotic cell by now, yes?

 

[McBell]

Oh, that's right, life didn't come about by chance. How did it get here, btw?
Then, once life "arrived" it just changed (evolved) into all the plants, animals, birds, insects, and man? Through mutations and natural selection? That's the story and you're sticking to it? So surely scientists must have created in a lab a "simple" prokaryotic cell by now, yes?

Oh, that's right, Life just "POOFED" into existence.
Where did your "POOFer" come from again?
so surely theists have created a man from dirt by now, right?
Funny how your all knowing, all powerful god is completely helpless in the real world.

 

[camanintx]

Oh, that's right, life didn't come about by chance. How did it get here, btw?

I gave you one example. Did you bother to read it?

Suggesting that something is just "chance" because we don't know everything about it how it works exhibits a rather poor understanding of how science works. Futher suggesting that devine explanations are more reasonable is a classic example of "God of the gaps".

Then, once life "arrived" it just changed (evolved) into all the plants, animals, birds, insects, and man? Through mutations and natural selection? That's the story and you're sticking to it? So surely scientists must have created in a lab a "simple" prokaryotic cell by now, yes?

Seeing how it took nature about 700 billion years to figure this out, don't you think you're being a little unreasonable?

 

[painted wolf]

Don't you know that magical poofing is all the rage at the "real" science parties!

God magic is the most scientific magic there is. There is even a book that tells you all about it, provided you don't read it too carefully and just accept it like it tells you to. What more evidence could you ask for?

And if you don't accept it you will burn for eternity because God is great!

wa:do

 

[Matthew78]

I did not miss your point that small changes can accumulate over time, nor do I dispute that. The evidence for such changes is lacking for the ToE. The simplest prokaryotic cell (cells without a nucleus) are so astonishingly complex that it could not possibly arise by chance.

How complex is "too complex" or "astonishingly complex" to need some kind of intelligent cause? I sometimes read from creationists that a living cell, the human eye, or some other kind of marvel of nature is "too complex" to have originated by natural means so intelligent causation must have been involved, divine or otherwise. But I never read about the natural limits to what kind of complexity nature is capable of producing. Just statements like "X is too complex, so X had to have been designed". How complex is "too complex"?

The problem is that you assume chance is the only alternative to intelligent design. Your post reveals an ignorance about the role of natural laws. No biologist that I know of believes that living organisms arose "by chance". Rather they believe that the origin of life, given the conditions that existed, was inevitable. Natural selection and random variation produced the diversity of life as we know it because the conditions for it were right. Evolution is a process that is governed by natural law and the results of evolution are inevitable. To say that it happens "by chance" or "by accident" is to display a very profound ingorance of evoution.

A leaf changes color but remains a leaf. An arctic fox changes color but remains a fox. Colors and species are two entirely different things.
The Bible points to an intelligent maker or producer of life in all it's varied forms, and the evidence supports that. (Psalm 104:24,25)

A leaf remains a leaf unless conditions are met for evolutionary change to occur. An artic fox changes color with changes in the season but once the conditions are met for evolutionary change to occur, a population of artic foxes will evolve into a new species.

And one last thing, quoting the Bible or referring to it is not going to impress people here unless they are already believers. You say that the Bible points to an intelligent designer. So what? Just today I was reading a book by a journalist who believes that there exist hidden codes in the Bible and it was put there by an alien thousands of years ago. These codes predict future events as well as give clues about where we came from. Should I believe him, too?

 

[rusra02]

How complex is "too complex" or "astonishingly complex" to need some kind of intelligent cause? I sometimes read from creationists that a living cell, the human eye, or some other kind of marvel of nature is "too complex" to have originated by natural means so intelligent causation must have been involved, divine or otherwise. But I never read about the natural limits to what kind of complexity nature is capable of producing. Just statements like "X is too complex, so X had to have been designed". How complex is "too complex"?

The problem is that you assume chance is the only alternative to intelligent design. Your post reveals an ignorance about the role of natural laws. No biologist that I know of believes that living organisms arose "by chance". Rather they believe that the origin of life, given the conditions that existed, was inevitable. Natural selection and random variation produced the diversity of life as we know it because the conditions for it were right. Evolution is a process that is governed by natural law and the results of evolution are inevitable. To say that it happens "by chance" or "by accident" is to display a very profound ingorance of evoution.

I used the example in another post of a rock with JOHN-1785 carved into it. No reasonable person would argue that message happened naturally. If a simple message on a rock could not happen by natural occurrence, how could DNA (that is so complex scientists do not fully understand it) happen by natural occurrence? Speaking of evolution in terms of natural law and inevitability raises many questions. What natural law? Why was it inevitable? What proof is there for such a statement? Even a rock with a short message on it bespeaks an intelligent maker. How much more so the overwhelmingly complex living cell. (Hebrews 3:4)
Antony Flew, an atheist for 50 years, after studying DNA, began to express belief that intelligence must have created life. Why? He went where the evidence led him.
The evidence leads to the logical conclusion that a superhuman intelligent Person,"God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

 

[painted wolf]

How did god do it?

Did he have a laboratory somewhere where he mixes chemicals up? Or did he just magically poof them into existence?

How is that any more logical than evolution?

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

I am not surprised that the ToE faithful do not like this documentary (Expelled), since it exposes the ugly truth about so-called evolution 'science'. That aside, I do not base my belief that God created all life (sans evolution) on this documentary. One more attempt at redirection. The point is that each person is qualified and has the right to think and research for themselves, and not just drink the ToE Kool-Aid.

rusra, how do you know Expelled is true?

 

[rusra02]

rusra, how do you know Expelled is true?

How does one know anything is true? The film's opposers are well represented on the web, as are the defenders of the documentary. Each person should examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions, rather than just embibe the ToE party line.

 

[McBell]

How does one know anything is true? The film's opposers are well represented on the web, as are the defenders of the documentary. Each person should examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions, rather than just embibe the ToE party line.

So, are you going to answer the question or not?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

rusra, how do you know Expelled is true?

The only thing true about Expelled is that it made me find Ben Stein very disappointing. Smart people being so blatantly intellectually dishonest is very disheartening.

 

[camanintx]

I used the example in another post of a rock with JOHN-1785 carved into it. No reasonable person would argue that message happened naturally. If a simple message on a rock could not happen by natural occurrence, how could DNA (that is so complex scientists do not fully understand it) happen by natural occurrence?

If you saw a mountain that looked like an Indian wearing an iPod, would you argue that it was designed as well?

Since rocks are not capable of descent with modification, isn't your example just a little facetious?

The evidence leads to the logical conclusion that a superhuman intelligent Person,"God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

If that is where the evidence logically leads, then why does almost everyone who studies the evidence come the exact opposite conclusion?

 

[Alceste]

How does one know anything is true? The film's opposers are well represented on the web, as are the defenders of the documentary. Each person should examine the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions, rather than just embibe the ToE party line.

You haven't explained your thought process. What did you make of the criticism that you imply you considered before you decided to believe the movie? Specifically, what did you make of the statements from the employers and colleagues of various characters the film claimed had been persecuted disputing every single detail of their accounts? Do you think they're ALL lying? Why would they lie? If the accounts don't match, isn't it more likely that there is only one liar - the guy who made the movie - than hundreds upon hundreds of liars all working in close collaboration to match up their stories?

 

[Alceste]

The only thing true about Expelled is that it made me find Ben Stein very disappointing. Smart people being so blatantly intellectually dishonest is very disheartening.

Ben Stein is smart? How is that possible?

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.