Worlds most prominant atheist stumped.

[phazel]

And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children.  How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution?  They can call me ignorant if they like.  But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution.  Afterall, I know what evolution is.  I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution.  Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.   

The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.

Thats because theorys can be fact.   I have a transmission repair manual that has a section  "Theory of Operation".   I would be hard pressed to take the theory argument and say that I do not believe this transmission works because it is only a theory.

So why does it not say "fact of operation"?    Because scientifically, while it is demonstrated that this transmission can work this way, it is not necessarily the only way a transmission can work.


By and large, most aspects of Evolution taught in schools are indeed observable fact.   Evolution does happen in the genome.   

Scientifically Evolution is the best explanation that can be scientifically promoted.   Theories of Creation that say god did it lack one scientifically sound aspect.  You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause. 


The argument lies in whether the observable aspects of evolution are enough to allow for common descent.   Most recent arguments are that there is no known barriers to prevent it. 


What hinders more honesty in this area of science is because of CHRISTIANS.  They want to remove everything associated with the term evolution.  They want to say that since evolution can be shown to have problems that automatically means God did it.  That is BAD science.

[Kent]

And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children.  How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution?  They can call me ignorant if they like.  But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution.  Afterall, I know what evolution is.  I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution.  Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.   

The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.

Thats because theorys can be fact.   I have a transmission repair manual that has a section  "Theory of Operation".   I would be hard pressed to take the theory argument and say that I do not believe this transmission works because it is only a theory.

So why does it not say "fact of operation"?    Because scientifically, while it is demonstrated that this transmission can work this way, it is not necessarily the only way a transmission can work.

Bad example. It IS the only way your tranny can work. Try removing a gear if you dont believe me. They could just as easily called it "fact of operation". They didnt. They had to name it something.

Theory fits your example though.

Theory:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause. 

None of us were around to see it.
And the evolutionists cannot demonstrate that God isn't the cause, as much as they seem to delight in trying to do that and then declaring victory, for the same reason. They weren't here either.

If we would say that God created the universe, we would have to say how He did it, to satisfy the evolutionists. If we know how He did it, then we could probably find a way to do it too.

It's a never ending argument.


BTW, some time ago I found a really interesting article. I post it here now. Kindly tell me how T Rex soft tissue can be preserved? I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation. 60 70 million years ago ain't yesterday. The article is curiously silent on how this could be.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

[hillsbororiver]

By and large, most aspects of Evolution taught in schools are indeed observable fact.  Evolution does happen in the genome.


Scientifically Evolution is the best explanation that can be scientifically promoted.  Theories of Creation that say god did it lack one scientifically sound aspect.  You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause. 


The argument lies in whether the observable aspects of evolution are enough to allow for common descent.  Most recent arguments are that there is no known barriers to prevent it. 


What hinders more honesty in this area of science is because of CHRISTIANS.  They want to remove everything associated with the term evolution.  They want to say that since evolution can be shown to have problems that automatically means God did it.  That is BAD science.

Hi Phazel,

First off I want to say I do not believe the Christian 6 literal days hypothesis, but if evolution is one thing it is the fact that science cannot even reproduce one single aspect of it! Science only throws an "abra cadabra" and billions of years at the life process and there you have it.

Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.

Do you have any examples of these observable facts of evolution being presented in the classroom? The only observable mutations on record are degenerative, birth defects and the like, I am unaware of any advantageous birth "mutations" being observed but perhaps I have missed them.

From Gerald Schroeder*

With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and the visual systems in worms. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the 'splice' . This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated.

The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."

The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions.

The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data.

The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking., fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price.


*Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His doctorate is in the Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics.

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Kent,

We were posting right around the same time, I appreciate and agree with the points you made.

Peace,

Joe

[David]

The fossil record does not support gradual mutation evolution. What it does show is over 500 million years fully formed functional species existing and then going extinct, then more advanced species appearing with NO transitional link to ANY previous species. Life has evolved with the universe, but NOT by gradual mutation. However, since the arrival of modern man (Gods last creation) this has been in reverse (Gods rest, the 7th day which is NOT book ended with an evening or morning). There is not one new species recorded or found since the arrival of man. There are more than 30,000 less species on earth since the arrival of man. While some of it is due to man, even with the removal of every aspect of humanity from the earth, there would be still one species disappearing every year.

[phazel]

If we would say that God created the universe, we would have to say how He did it, to satisfy the evolutionists. If we know how He did it, then we could probably find a way to do it too.

It's a never ending argument.

Thats actually not true.   Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.

God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life.   It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.

[phazel]

Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.

The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and  one only has to  research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.

The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution.    The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.


And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation,  THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being.   I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.

[Kent]

Thats actually not true.   Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.

And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?

God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life.   It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.

This is what I mean. It never ends. Scientists will always call it speculation, because as far as I can tell, the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. How does one show another a Spirit? Nothing I or anyone else can say will convince an evolutionist, any more than an evolutionist can say anything that will change a creationists mind.

Now where I agree with you is that a lot of people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. All because some monk sat down and figured it out using geneaologies (sp?).
Nothing short of an act of God will change their minds either. They make creationists look stupid.

[phazel]

Thats actually not true.   Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.

And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?

Here is the difference.

You first question is the point scientifically.  Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?

The second question is another problem.  What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate?   Does it really demonstrate God?   If it does, please explain.

[hillsbororiver]

Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.

Hi Phazel,

You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.

The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and  one only has to  research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.

It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?


The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution.    The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.

Nothing happens without God, period. Take Him out of the equation and all we have is nothingness, if you do not believe He exists and is sovereign then this discussion becomes rather pointless, don't you think?

Look at the fossil record, as Dave pointed out and innumerable articles and journals declare, these "new" forms of life appeared fully formed. Show us the in between fossil as fins evolved into hands and feet. As I asked you before can you name one birth defect that has been beneficial and passed on to the children of the person that was born with a defect?

And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation,  THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being.   I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.

If you are saying you believe God used evolution (preprogrammed the entire process, I have no problem with that, if you are implying we are the result of random selection then I emphatically disagree.

I will pass on both the arsenic and the hemlock thank you. 

Peace,

Joe

P.S. This is like debating politics so I will bow out.

[phazel]

You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.[/color]

The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and  one only has to  research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.

It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?

The main point I am trying to make is if the evidence against the aspect of evolution that would be said to be "common descent"  is a scientific demonstration for God.

If it is not then creationists need to formulate a scientific case to demonstrate what God is.   The bible is not scientific evidence for a God creating the universe.  As much as I believe that God did,  I cannot use the scientific method to make the case for it. 


You can't have it both ways.  You cannot say that a new species of mosquito is not evolution while saying evolution is about a new species


A new species is a new species.   Common descent is another matter.   There are gaps in the evidence concerning our origin from a single cell.  But those gaps do not demonstrate God.

[Kent]

Here is the difference.

You first question is the point scientifically.  Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?

Why do evolutionists recognize something they cannot even formulate something for?
Paraphrasing HillsboroRiver, a duck is a duck is a duck. That there are different varieties of ducks doesnt mean that the first duck came from dinosaurs.

Another thing I have wondered about is: If evolution produces positive changes in a species thru mutation, how is it that we still have clearly defined species of apes if they evolved into homo sapiens (or whatever) "millions" of years ago?

Another thing is reproduction. It takes 2 to tango, and they must have the same number of chromosomes. How did 2 compatable mutants "get together" to reproduce? It's a big planet.

The evolutionists (as I understand them. I am talking about the hardcore here, not those that believe God set up evolution.) have faith in evolution as our origin, and Christians have faith in God. Never the twain shall meet, because it is all, creationism and evolutionism, based on faith that, to the faithful creationist or evolutionist, seems reasonable.

That does not mean that Christians dont believe in science. The smart ones do. I just dont confuse science with evolution.

The second question is another problem.  What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate?   

IMO it demonstrates sciences' reluctance to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into their belief systems. Scientists dont like anomalies, but just because they make scientists uncomfortable doesn't mean they dont deserve explanations or even acknowledgement.

That soft tissue was found in one sample doesnt mean it isn't common. What person would intentionally break a extremely rare bone just to see if anything was inside? But I am sure that there are tests that could be performed that are nondestructive. Have those tests been performed? I really doubt it.

Does it really demonstrate God?   If it does, please explain.

In and of itself, not in my opinion.
To me it does demonstrate evolutionists ability to readily give explanations to things that fit into their worldviews, and ignore what doesn't fit, and this definitely does not fit.

I like these kinds of talks. It's rare that this can happen without getting into a "you're a stupid head" "no, you are" "No I'm not, you are!" argument and I appreciate it.

[Falconn003]

According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??

Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??

FOOLISH MAN THINKING

Rodger

[musicman]

According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??

Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??

FOOLISH MAN THINKING

Rodger

Rodger, 
I expected you to be more sophisticated than that.  First off, evolutionists say apes and humans evolved from the same ape like creature.  Second, if higher forms of ape were to split from the main one, that doesn't mean that the first level of ape would have to go extinked.  That would be like saying if multiple celled creatures evolved from single celled creatures, why would there still be single celled life?  Why isn't all life only the most complex.  I as well as evolutionists have a better imagination than that.

Besides, apes can still do some things much better than humans.  They can climb and swing from trees, they can move much faster to avoid predators.  Pound for pound, they are all much stronger than humans.  So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world.  Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee.  Apes rule!!

[indianabob]

According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??

Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??

FOOLISH MAN THINKING

Rodger

So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world.  Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee.  Apes rule!!

Dear Friends,

Humans survived because God made animals to obey instinct and normally to be afraid of the scent of Humans.
Humans normally had the good sense to let the predators eat what tasted good to them.   Ha ha.

Bob

[indianabob]

Phazel,

Not sure if this is helpful, but please consider the idea of Cryptic Genes.

That is genetic structures in each animal or plant that do not surface until the need arises or until the environment changes in which case the existing animal adapts to its environment.  An example may be the Polar Bear and it white fur.  What is to say that God did not provide genetic structures in the Bear kind that would remain recessive until needed? 

Why must we believe that all animals or plants have only one purpose or one way of living.  Why cannot a fresh water fish adapt to sea water over time without becoming a different creation or benefiting from evolution in which the animal makes volitional choices?  Consider Salmon and their habits.  In the same way it seems that folks who promoted the New Eugenics in the end of the 19th century, promoted the idea that the various races had to be generated independently on different continents rather than the idea that all races came from two original members of the human species.

Check our Cryptic Genes.  They have been investigated and the literature defends the idea.  Adaptations were provided for at the creation by the creator.

Bob

[Kat]

I remembered that Ray had spoken a little about this at the Nashville conference last year, here is an excerpt from the transcript.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4472.0.html ----

When I first started studying the Bible, 40 years ago, the one thing that struck me about evolution, was the eye.  How do you evolve an eye?  When did a creature that didn't have an eye, decide he wanted one?  And maybe one of his buddies said, you know if you're going to go for the eye thing, go for 2.  But you know they had no mouth either, so he really couldn't talk and had no brain either.  But he said, what do you mean 2?  His buddy said, you know dept perception, if you're going to have eyes, you're going to need 2 to get this thing called dept perception, it's really an elusion in the brain, it's not real.
And that evolved from sea slime?  No.

Listen, through mutations only one in a hundred generations, of most animals, produce any kind of mutation, ok.  And mutations are usually bad, they are detrimental to the health of the creature.  Let's suppose that once in a while you have a mutation that is of some kind of benefit and in this case we're going to work on an eye.  How many mutations would you have to have, in a row, through evolution, beneficial to start constructing an eye?  Well somewhere around a trillion.  That is if you had a trillion consecutive mutations, that were all positive and beneficial, and they were all directed to constructing an eye.  What are the chances of that?  One in a trillion quardrillion trillion.  You see what I mean.  And that's every hundredth generation or whatever.  How many billion and trillion and quadrillions generations would it take?  It would take millions of times longer than the universe was here. 

Did the human eye evolve?  No, it did not.  Every time you look at an eye you know there is a God.  Not only does the eye see, the eye doesn't 'see', it's the brain that sees.  What?  Yea, you need the eyes, but the brain sees through the eyes, the eye doesn't see anything.  The eye is dumb.  Now you have this eye and you have to connect it to a brain that interprets what all this is.  And that evolved out of chance?  With no intelligence?  All you have to know is you have 2 eyes and that is proof positive, there is a God!  That is unequivocal proof, there's a God. You can't even begin to imagine your way around that in evolution, there's no way. 
Well evolutionist will say, if you got enough time.  How many trillions of years do you want?  Because even that isn't enough time.  So yes, there is a God.  To make eyes, He must be pretty bright.  If He gave us a brain and we can think subjectively He's pretty wise.  I mean you keep adding these attributes of what God is and He just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
------------------------------------------

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[phazel]

Phazel,

Not sure if this is helpful, but please consider the idea of Cryptic Genes.

Not sure what you think I need help with.

Check our Cryptic Genes.  They have been investigated and the literature defends the idea.  Adaptations were provided for at the creation by the creator.

I've never said I doubted creation.   What I am pointing out is the difference between a possibility that is faith based and the scientific method.   Please show scientifically that they were provided by the creator.

[lilitalienboi16]

Since we are all debating evolution i thought i would throw my chime in.

One thing that has always come to my mind when it comes to evolution and the first cell that evolved is this;

Somewhere along the line the cell changed into an organism that required blood to survive. Everyone knows that without blood, the person, animal, what have you in question will die. We also know that without the body, blood itself cannot exist. [Without human intervension that is, no scientific test tubes and what not.]

The delima becomes that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Did evolution develope a body for which an animal could exist in first and than evolve blood, or did blood come first and than the body. How about both at the same time? The problem is so monumental that this alone puts a big dent in the theory of evolution.

One must also consider DNA. We all know that DNA contains the code for who we are physicaly and apperently who we are mentaly through new scientific research. So what came first, the organims or the DNA? We know that without the DNA the organism could not exist and without the organism the DNA would have no place to exist. So what do we do? Once again the chicken and the egg.

Another thing one must consider are the different blood types. Why did evolution create the variouse blood types in animals and humans? Blood type A, blood type B, furthermore how was this done? What natural influence of the enviroment and mutation caused such a variety in blood types we see today?

I have yet to find anyone nor any scientist to date, provide an answer for this other than "We don't know right now."

If someone can answer this than please do.. otherwise i rest my case for why it is a THEORY.

God bless,

Alex

[kweli]

Please show scientifically that they were provided by the creator.

It seems the eye is not proof enough

Jesus walked on water...The waters parted and Moses and Israelites passed right through...Lazarus, a dead man, walked out of a tomb...

How do I scientifically prove that? I honestly cant. And I'm glad I cant. Because then I could almost be like the One who does these things. But let me not have a one track mind about this. We do need proof of these things.

The sun. It is part of the creation (or evolution?). How could the sun possibly come to be? The moon? The stars? The galaxy?

I still cant prove these. But it directs me more and more to acknowledging a source greater than my mere understanding. And that is where GOD shows up.

All glory to Him

BTW, did you know that there was a time in the bible when the sun shone all day and didnt move? All day. I cant prove such things to you or anybody. Sorry for being of so little help.