Has science falsified macroevolution?

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

Your arguing about symantics, and its pointless.

Faith…

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So yes i have faith in the as defined in 1. You have faith as defined in 2. They are NOT the same thing, not even close.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

Yes DNA is very strong evidence for evolution.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

The process of evolution is fully understood, there is no need or place for a “god”. I’m sorry to say the only reason you could think this way is if you don’t fully understand evolution.

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.

Computers don’t reproduce so they have no relevance to evolution.

If God was responsible for complexity by way of simplicity, would that answer anything?

No, for it silly leaves us with question where did god come from, who made god.

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.

The surly god cannot be explained, even remotely, without a creator. How can you deal with the issue of complexity by adding MORE complexity? Can you not see the problem with this and the blatant double standard?

I don’t believe God came from anywhere. I believe God is. Like He said, “I Am”. How’s that for simplicity?

Am sorry but that means absolutely nothing . An entity that can create and entire universe must be INFINITELY more complex than us.

See this is what am talking about, reason, logic, empirical evidence. That is what I’m looking for, not irrelevant comments. Imagine you seeking evidence that the earth orbits the sun and all i could provide was “earth is!, hows that for evidence?”. That might be good enough for you but some of us require a little more.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

“supposedly evolved from an ape” Err not supposedly, we did evolve from a common ancestor we share with modern apes. Also do you have any idea how complex an apes brain is? They are VERY clever animals that we share a lot of characteristics with.

Evolution is a fact, get over it.

 

[reggieM]

They are VERY clever animals that we share a lot of characteristics with.

Some people are very proud to claim that they are quite similar to apes. If true, then it would provide a lot of convenient excuses for certain behaviors and ways of thinking. For myself, I do not accept that I’m a “different kind of ape” – but rather I am a different kind of being, and as such, share almost nothing with apes except for some minor, superficial characteristics. Then again, for many, the world is judged on external and shallow observations.

Evolution is a fact, get over it.

*Imagine you seeking evidence that evolutionary theory is true and all i could provide was “Evolution is a fact!, hows that for evidence?”. *

 

[buffalo]

Your arguing about symantics, and its pointless.

Faith…

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So yes i have faith in the as defined in 1. You have faith as defined in 2. They are NOT the same thing, not even close.

So yes atheists do have faith. Thank you.

My faith does not need to rest on empirical proofs but is supplemented by plenty of evidence from eyewitnesses etc… and inductive reasoning.

 

[buffalo]

“supposedly evolved from an ape” Err not supposedly, we did evolve from a common ancestor we share with modern apes. Also do you have any idea how complex an apes brain is? They are VERY clever animals that we share a lot of characteristics with.

Evolution is a fact, get over it.

Evolution is not empirical science, get over it.

 

[buffalo]

Yes DNA is very strong evidence for evolution.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

The foundations of scientific materialism are in the process of crumbling. In Signature in the Cell, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer shows how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life. The book will be published on June 23 by HarperOne.
Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. That evidence has been mounting exponentially in recent years, known to scientists in specialized fields but largely hidden from public view. A Cambridge University-trained theorist and researcher, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.
The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.

more…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Some people are very proud to claim that they are quite similar to apes. If true, then it would provide a lot of convenient excuses for certain behaviors and ways of thinking. For myself, I do not accept that I’m a “different kind of ape” – but rather I am a different kind of being, and as such, share almost nothing with apes except for some minor, superficial characteristics. Then again, for many, the world is judged on external and shallow observations.

*Imagine you seeking evidence that evolutionary theory is true and all i could provide was “Evolution is a fact!, hows that for evidence?”. *

Then lets talk evidence, could you start by addressing my point on unique character combinations.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Evolution is not empirical science, get over it.

LOL of course it is.

I wonder what makes you feel you are qualified to comment. What is your area of expertise? What science have you studied? What are your scientific credentials?

 

[buffalo]

LOL of course it is.

I wonder what makes you feel you are qualified to comment. What is your area of expertise? What science have you studied? What are your scientific credentials?

Perhaps you do not understand empirical.

What makes me qualified? I am an interested human being.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

The foundations of scientific materialism are in the process of crumbling. In Signature in the Cell, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer shows how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life. The book will be published on June 23 by HarperOne.
Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. That evidence has been mounting exponentially in recent years, known to scientists in specialized fields but largely hidden from public view. A Cambridge University-trained theorist and researcher, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.
The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.

more…

Stephen C. Meyer, lol. Is that the Stephen C. Meyer of the discovery institute? The same Stephen C. Meyer that refused to defend I.D under oath? Stephen C. Meyer of the discovery institute that openly censors free speech, that Illegally censors videos that expose their I.D nonsense?

Oh and Stephen C. Meyer is not a biologist. So why on earth would one listen him when hes out with his field. You’d be better listening to real biologists like Richard Dawkins for example.

 

[buffalo]

Stephen C. Meyer, lol. Is that the Stephen C. Meyer of the discovery institute? The same Stephen C. Meyer that refused to defend I.D under oath? Stephen C. Meyer of the discovery institute that openly censors free speech, that Illegally censors videos that expose their I.D nonsense?

Oh and Stephen C. Meyer is not a biologist. So why on earth would one listen him when hes out with his field. You’d be better listening to real biologists like Richard Dawkins for example.

Gee - attack the person, never the substance. Your credibility is falling post by post.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Perhaps you do not understand empirical.

What makes me qualified? I am an interested human being.

Hmm well considering i do have a scientific degree, i would suggest that I’m not the one the needs to brush up on my understanding of science.

Now are we going to discuss the evidence or not? I can understand why you dont want to.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Gee - attack the person, never the substance. Your credibility is falling post by post.

I’m pointing out the man has zero credibility. How could i comment on the book without reading it? Im not a creationist.

 

[buffalo]

Hmm well considering i do have a scientific degree,
.

Yeah! :clapping:

If I have more degrees than you do I win?

Many fools have degrees. :sad_yes:

 

[Eleve]

Darwin, I think that buffalo thinks that “empirical” means “directly observed.” With that in mind, I’ll point him/her to these links to the Index to Creationist Claims:

CA221: Were you there?
CA230: Interpretation and observation

And, as a bonus, something that I think partially addresses that Meyer book:

CF003: Information assembling itself

 

[Eleve]

Yeah! :clapping:

If I have more degrees than you do I win?

Many fools have degrees. :sad_yes:

I’ll call your bluff, then. Care to enlighten the guy who has a degree in empirical science on the meaning of “empirical science”?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

OK lets talk evidence

The first piece of evidence i would like to present is unique character combinations. Every animal alive falls into a nested hierarchy. For example there is not ONE mammal that does not have a spine, a jaw, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, lungs, is bilaterally symmetrical, and so on.

If we are part of some grand design, then why was god limited when creating mammals? Why could he not make ONE mammal with say gills? Like a whale for example, why did he not give whales gills. These are NOT similarities, they are unique character combinations which CANT be broken. If you break them then you have falsified evolution.

So why does the whale, contain ALL the features of a mammal? Why was god bound when designing the whale? Why could be not give them gills? Why do they swim up and down the why (the way a mammal runs), rather than side to side (like a fish)? Why do they have hair?

Common designer has NO way to explain this other then god made the whale that way to make it look like it had evolved. Evolution explains this PERFECTLY.

 

[buffalo]

I’m pointing out the man has zero credibility. How could i comment on the book without reading it? Im not a creationist.

Then perhaps you should reserve your comments until you have. Perhaps in the meantime you can start boning up on your arguments as after the book is released it sure will be fun.

Suggestion: Focus of the Language of DNA. You will need to show how language, maps, codes and instructions can arise naturally.