B
buffalo
Guest
Everything you know about evolution is a hearsay account. Yet you trust the reasoning of man. How certain are you that it is flawless?
- Status
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Nonsense. Aside from the fact i have studied biology at university there is plenty of evidence which can be observed by anyone. I notice nobody cared to explain why do is limited when he created mammals.
B
buffalo
Guest
Again, I ask, were you a witness to macroevolution? Did you record it? Why not?
R
reggieM
Guest
Corroborated eyewitness accounts are enough to get someone convicted of murder.
The eyewitness testimonies are evidences that can be weighed.
There is more evidence supporting the existence of God than there is for the materialistic-origins of physical laws.
Laws are organizing principles – they cannot arise by chance since they principles of order. By analogy, we see that the origin of all laws that we know of come from an intelligent law-giver. Thus, the origin of physical laws would also come from an Intelligent Creator.
That is logical evidence.
A
avflf
Guest
Here’s a cool game that shows mutation at work:thumbsup: randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Then you must also except the eye witness testimonies of all the other gods then?
We know nothing of the origin of the laws, your claim that the must come from an intelligent law-giver is totally unfounded, not only that but it begs the question where did the law-giver come from?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Observed instances of evolution?? Sure
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
all references are at the bottom of the page
.Now would you care to tell me why god was bound by evolutionary limits when he created life?
B
buffalo
Guest
I asked if you specifically witnessed it?Observed instances of evolution?? Sure
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
all references are at the bottom of the page
Now would you care to tell me why god was bound by evolutionary limits when he created life?
R
reggieM
Guest
What eyewitnesses?
And no, I do not “must” have to – but I do must have to evaluate the evidence and weigh it. What I can’t do is deny that there is any evidence - as you have repeatedly done. I will investigate and weigh the evidence and accept or reject it based on its quality.
Why is the analogy that I provided “unfounded”?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Because its based on nothing but your say so.
K
Kolbe300
Guest
I must admit, this is one very entertaining thread. Darwin, you’ve mentioned your study of biology. I’ve studied a very limited amount of biology, specifically the human body. One thing I have never been able to understand is how anyone can look at the workings of the human body, something so unbelievably intricate and complex, and truly believe that all of it just kind of fell into place that way over time. I’ve always just scratched my head at that. It’d take a lot more faith than I’m capable of to believe my dandy ole’ body here is nothing more than a fortunate accident.
Anywho, I’m done sticking my head in. You smart people go ahead and get back to entertaining me!
Peace,
Kolbe
Anywho, I’m done sticking my head in. You smart people go ahead and get back to entertaining me!
Peace,
Kolbe
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I do so love these threads on evolution we have here at CAF once every hour. They’re about as productive as the threads on abortion, in that by the fifth page or so we have nothing but bickering over who said or even saw what.
The most important thing I think that could ever be said about evolution is so often overlooked or simply ignored by its staunchest critics here. Buffalo, I think it would serve you well to review what Charles said here:
Buffalo, were you there when the Earth condensed and began rotating around the Sun? If not, how could you possibly know that the Earth indeed rotates it?
The most important thing I think that could ever be said about evolution is so often overlooked or simply ignored by its staunchest critics here. Buffalo, I think it would serve you well to review what Charles said here:
One problem I’ve found in arguments against common descent concerning morality and souls is that such opponents are incorrectly expecting a scientific theory to explain a philosophical construct. That’s patently absurd. It’s absurd as the clerics in Copernicus’ day who claimed that the heliocentric model of our solar system negated our “special position” in God’s creation. “Specialness”, “Purpose”, “Meaning”, and other such words have absolutely no definition within the scientific discipline. Claiming that a scientific theory somehow changes the “specialness”, “purpose”, or “meaning” of something demonstrates nothing more than the speakers inability to recognize science.
With the utmost respect to those who employ such an argument, I must say this is without a doubt the stupidest argument against anything. I seriously recommend to anyone who embraces such an argument to stop listening to Ken Ham.
Buffalo, were you there when the Earth condensed and began rotating around the Sun? If not, how could you possibly know that the Earth indeed rotates it?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Ironically i see complexity as one of the greatest stumbling blocks for religion. Think about your position for a minute. You feel humans are to complex to have evolved (for the sake of my point I’m not going to take issue with the fact evolution is anything but just kind of falling in to place).
But how do we arrive a complexity? Well we cant start with complexity, we must start with simplicity. Complexity is a arrive at through building incrementally on simplicity. Imagine walking a mile, we don’t just jump the mile in one leap. We get there one small step at a time.
The beauty is, using DNA, Dating, Nested Hierarchies, the fossil record etc we can trace these steps. All of which are independent forms of evidence and they all overlap and confirm each other.
However thats not what you seem to be implying, you seem to be implying that god is responsible for complexity. That however answers nothing. For if we cant start with complexity, which you have already conceded “something so unbelievably intricate and complex, and truly believe that all of it just kind of fell into place”. Then it make zero sense to explain complexity with something infinitely more complex, all you are doing is compounding the problem exponentially. In short your solution is not a solution, it actually a MUCH bigger problem.
It also begs the question why don’t you apply the same complaint about complexity to your god? Where did your god come from? Surely something so unbelievably intricate and complex, cant just kind of fell into place
R
reggieM
Guest
At the pinnacle of biological complexity is the human brain, the most complex structure known to exist in the universe. It contains about 100 billion neurons, each of which has connections to as many as a thousand other neurons. It dwarfs in sophistication any computer ever devised by man. And yet, this brain, with all its astonishing powers—the brain of Mozart, of Einstein, of Shakespeare—supposedly evolved from an ape brain in about 5 million years or less.
Considering also the massive complexity and power of the human brain is far beyond what is needed for survival alone, I’ll that the evolutionary story doesn’t make any sense.
B
buffalo
Guest
You obviously missed the point of the post First off, I know very little of Ken Ham.
The point of my comment was that the poster would not acknowledge he himself has faith. He claimed he has zero faith. He cannot see that what he knows is not of his own origin, so he has faith that what he reads is correct. Make sure you read the posts in context before you come in with guns blazing.
Physicists (scientists) do speak of purpose. Paul Davies said that it looks like the universe has purpose. Systems have purpose.
Bingo. No I was not there and that is my point. We know that either case are mathematically equal. So how will we know? Two ways: we can go outside our frame of reference and see for ourself or someone outside the frame can tell us.
B
buffalo
Guest
The complexity comes from the mind of God. The Language of DNA is an example. This language is very powerful and can explain the diversity of life.
B
buffalo
Guest
How does the appreciation of beauty, art and music help our survival?
K
Kolbe300
Guest
Actually, I don’t feel that humans are too complex to have evolved. To state it a different way, I feel that the result of any proven factor of evolution itself is too complex to not have an intelligent designer behind it. The result is too complex, not the process.
I agree. Take the building of my computer, for example. If you looked at each tiny step the manufacturer of my computer took to put it together, you’d see complexity arrived at through incremental simplicity. However, before the first, simple, tiny step occurred, the computer’s “creator” had the final, and very complex, result in mind.
If God was responsible for complexity by way of simplicity, would that answer anything?
It wasn’t a complaint. It was an observation that something as complex as the human body, whether created in one instant or brilliantly evolved through billions of tiny, simple steps, cannot (in my opinion) be explained, even remotely, without a creator.
I don’t believe God came from anywhere. I believe God is. Like He said, “I Am”. How’s that for simplicity?
Exactly.
Peace!
Kolbe
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Ken Ham is the infamous Australian YEC, who lectures across the world and is a big front man for “Creationist Museums”. He essentially coined the rebut “Where you There!?”
Please pardon me for jumping the gun. I couldn’t be bothered to read all 12 pages of this thread, but I did read the last 3 to try to get some “context”. It seems I still missed it. Nonetheless, if you two are arguing over who has faith, or even what faith is, I feel this thread is heading toward the same direction as all the other evolution and abortion threads at CAF. I’ll hope for a difference here.The point of my comment was that the poster would not acknowledge he himself has faith. He claimed he has zero faith. He cannot see that what he knows is not of his own origin, so he has faith that what he reads is correct. Make sure you read the posts in context before you come in with guns blazing.
And that would be an example of a human being offering he personal philosophical opinion who just so happens to be a physicist. It doesn’t actually make his statement a scientific one. I too see a sense of design and purpose in creation, but that vantage isn’t justified by my having a biology degree.
Either case? Are we talking about the heliocentric model versus the geocentric one? If so I’ll have to point out that the two are not mathematically equal. The law of parsimony tells us that the heliocentric model is much more likely to be correct than the geocentric model. Either way, nobody can “know for certain” and nobody can “rewind the clock”, so for the sake of consistency if one is going to lambaste the theory of evolution for “lack of certainty” than one must also do the same with the heliocentric model of the solar system.
How would we "go outside our frame of reference. For a very direct observation of the Earth orbiting the Sun, one would have to go into space, keep stationary, and stay there for months in order to see one body moving in an elliptical orbit around the other. Such a feat is not yet possible. Who is this someone outside the frame? An alien watching our planet? Jesus coming down to earth and saying “You know, Galileo was right”? I don’t think I quite understand you statement here.
R
reggieM
Guest
What does justify that vantage?
- Status