Call me when you are ready to demo your attempt to make one from scratch.
Best Evidence for Evolution.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Call me when you are ready to demo your attempt to make one from scratch.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob B said:
Bob, I simply no longer see the point in defending ToE. Maybe it's complacency. But if you would like to debate ToE, it's probably a good idea to do so with someone as fanatical about the topic as you. It's not that the evidence is lacking, but that you disregard each and every point without serious consideration. You have already revealed in previous threads that you believe the Bible is correct, and that which stands opposed to the "truths" contained in the Bible is incorrect. Essentially, you know which evidence you will and won't accept before you even find out what it is. "Does it agree with the Bible? Great! Oh, it disagrees with the Bible? Must be wrong!" There is simply no point in having a discussion.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Ok, so why not post to a thread you see the point in posting in?
On this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case. So in keeping with the OP, did you wanna share some? If not, why bother making posts with empty promises on a thread you see no point in.
You seem to have a problem telling the difference between evidence and conclusions which people draw from the evidence. If you were clearer about this difference you would see that I don't reject evidence, but I frequently disagree with the conclusions which some evolutionists draw from such evidences.
As far as the Bible is concerned I did not conclude that macroevolution was wrong because it conflicted with the Bible, because frankly at the time that I rejected evolution I did not believe that Genesis was anything more than a fairytale.
No, my rejection of macroevolution was based on my training and experience in technical fields and my ability to examine people's technical ideas for flaws.
Macroevolution via random mutations (throwing away the failures) was once, before the discoveries about DNA, a fairly reasonable idea. With what was known 23 years ago about DNA and what was going on in cells I was able to see that the idea was not credible and so rejected it. I had expected at that time that a more credible mechanism would be forthcoming from the scientific community. This has not happened to date.
At the same time additional findings have been discovered over the intervening 23 years about what is going on in cells that make the challenge for a "naturalistic" mechanism "light years" more difficult, to the point where the concept is not only not credible, it is actually ridiculous. In my opinion most workers in the field probably recognize this, but like my initial reaction 23 years ago, feel that over time someone will be able to come up with a better and far more credible mechanism.
At this point in time, considering what has been learned about the amazing amount of organized information contained in the DNA of even the simplist lifeform known, the "random mutations" thing has got to be the biggest boo boo in the recent history (last 50 years) of evolutionary thought.
I will admit that I gave up on such "pie in the sky" many years ago and opted for a far simpler solution: multiple types of different creatures in the beginning, which coincidentally happens to roughly match what the simple story in Genesis relates.
It was tough for me to "eat crow" and admit that the "simple folk" had been right all along to believe in the Bible version of origins, but I finally had to face reality and admit that I had been wrong in believing that "10 million Frenchmen, i.e. scientists, couldn't possibly be wrong". They were and are. Tough. Face it.
noguru
Well-known member
I try to view the evidence as leading into two distinct directions. One is based stringently on the metaphysical assumption that natural processes led to the universe and life as we observe it now. This conclusion is one drawn from natural philosophy without appealing to the metaphysical assumption of the supernatural and/or the divine. The other direction is one that accepts the metaphysical assumptions of the supernatural and/or divine. In this later philosophical world view there is also two distinct possiblities.
On one hand there is the view that the supernatural and/or the divine works through the natural world and that natural explanations are sufficient to explain the universe and this world. On the other hand there is the view that natural explanations are not sufficient to explain natural phenomenon.
On one hand there is the view that the supernatural and/or the divine works through the natural world and that natural explanations are sufficient to explain the universe and this world. On the other hand there is the view that natural explanations are not sufficient to explain natural phenomenon.
Last edited:
My favourite subject on evolution is the Whale. I made a post about this.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35863&highlight=Whale
Whales and their land ancestors are a good evidence for evolution, even their spines ect.
Abiogenesis is unproven but a logical preconclusion to evolution.
The very existance of the whale and it's transistional fossil record completly disproves YEC.
Slowly slowly tranformy monkey
(Not that whales came from monkeys)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35863&highlight=Whale
Whales and their land ancestors are a good evidence for evolution, even their spines ect.
Abiogenesis is unproven but a logical preconclusion to evolution.
The very existance of the whale and it's transistional fossil record completly disproves YEC.
Slowly slowly tranformy monkey
(Not that whales came from monkeys)alexander a
New member
the evidence, hearkening back to highschool biology, is in the fossil record, and how that relates to modern day organisms. one of the most compelling stories is this: in africa a cery strange fossil from millions of years ago was uncovered. it was similar to that of a wolf, but had the internal ear mechanism of a whale, meaning that it could hear underwater. this has led scientists to believe that whales evolved from early wolf like creatures that eventually found their way into the water. this is also seen in the movement of a whale; the exact same movement of the spine as in the wolf.
as for all life evolving from a single original ancestor, the theory is like this. the cell would have procreated itself. as it did so, it would spread to new environments. as it did so, it would addapt to the different climates terrains etcetera. it became more complex and eventually split off into millions of genetic lines that we now see today in the diversity of life.
as for all life evolving from a single original ancestor, the theory is like this. the cell would have procreated itself. as it did so, it would spread to new environments. as it did so, it would addapt to the different climates terrains etcetera. it became more complex and eventually split off into millions of genetic lines that we now see today in the diversity of life.
alexander a
New member
ahh doogie i see u beat me to the whale explanation. kudos
SUTG
New member
It's sorta like you and bob b are asking for evidence of electricity or the existence of atoms, or asking for evidence that the Earth is round. If you were honestly seeking evidence, you could do a quick google search and find it. None of the evolutionists here are responsible for teaching you basic science.
Not a bad assessment.
I would only add a few minor points.
There is little in scripture which would conflict with your view once the universe and life was created during Creation Week. Yes, there are a few "miracles" noted in scripture, but considering the time frame covered these were quite few and far between.
Of course if we assume that God exists then it could be quite believable that He would be able to duplicate the strategy of Star Trek commanders and adhere to a
"non interference" policy. For one thing God could be maintaining the so-called "natural laws" of the universe without our knowledge, and as some theologians in the past have surmissed, could easily cease doing this at any time, causing everything in the physical universe to cease existing in the blink of an eye.
On a smaller scale an all powerful God could easily orchestrate certain details in the world without anyone's knowledge by planting ideas in people's minds, if He wanted to do this. There are hints in the Bible that He does do this from time to time in cases He deems necessary to carry out His overall plans. It is also possible that He responds to some extent to prayers of the Saints (i.e. all of us Christians), but His response would probably be His idea of what is best and not ours.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
If you have nothing to add, it's a simple thing not to add anything.
Evolutionists like to change the subject when asked for evidence for their belief that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.
This is because they have none (as this thread documents).
SUTG
New member
I'm amazed at how desperate you've become in your attempts to refute evolution. Why not just come out and say you refuse to accept it because it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis? It would be so much easier for you.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Seems so Mr. B.
I'd like to add my best argument for the hpp-to-man theory.
:think:
The universe appears so big and so old, anything is possible.
(sorry, that's the best I could do. Abiogenesis really puts a crimp in my ability to believe in the hpp-to-man theory...)
I'm not amazed that you would fail to tell us why you think that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. That is par for the course with evolutionists who always prefer to badmouth the Bible.
Many years ago Eugenie Scott tried your same tactic of changing the subject when she debated Bob Enyart (Video available at KGOV.com). She had no evidence for her beliefs either, and Bob neatly disposed of her. But before she hung up she said that she never really debated. This was shortly before she appeared on PBS with Ken Miller et al to debate Behe and Johnson.
SUTG
New member
I gave you a rough outline in post 4. The reasons I believe that "all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell" are the same reasons that professional scientists and biologists and lots of others. Open up a biology book, read a science magazine, read Darwin. I know that as a YEC, you will be unable to accept quite a bit of what you will read in science publications. I can't help you there. But why not just admit this is the case instead of pretending you have scientific objections to all of the science that runs contrary to your interpretation of Genesis.
I started this thread so that everyone could see that there is no evidence to support the claim that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.
If you have some evidence (the best evidence as the thread opener asked for) please present it and stop beating around the bush.
BTW, none of the "subjects" you mentioned help us to see what is the evidence that convinced you that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. Or are you simply convinced because of the "bandwagon" effect.
SUTG
New member
It is hard to choose the "best" evidence - there is so much to choose from.
But as I said in post 4, I'd probably go with the molecular evidence. Now I'm not going to explain to you what molecules are, what DNA is, and why the DNA evidence shows common ancestry. Anyone who calls themselves a "science lover" should be familiar with such basic science. The same goes with the other categories I listed in post 4.
Do your own homework.
I do my homework, but apparently you don't or you wouldn't have chosen such a subject as the molecular evidence.
If you think that this is the best evidence that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell please explain to us dummies why the top experts in this field believe that this task would be impossible because of the potential of simpler creatures to "trade genes" back and forth between different lines of descent by way of horizontal gene transfer.
There are other reasons but this should do for starters.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Doesn't the fact that they can trade genes argue for a common ancestor? A gene is a pretty complex protein and seperate creations are unlikely to use the same "hardware".