Dr. Carson on Evolution: ‘No One Has Ever Demonstrated One Species Changing to Another Species’

cnsnews ^

[springwater13]

He continued, “Darwin said his whole theory depended on the fossil remains. He said we should be able to line up from a single-cell organism to man, several miles long and just walk right down the fossil trail and see how everything evolved.”

“He [Darwin] said the only reason they didn’t have the fossils was because they were not geologically sophisticated enough, but that we would be in 50 to 100 years,” said Dr. Carson. Well, that was 150 years ago. We still haven’t found them. Where are they? Where are the fossil remains?”

Carson continued, “When you ask the evolutionists about that, they say, ‘Uh, I don’t know where they are, they’re somewhere, they are, we just haven’t found them yet.’ That’s a pretty lame excuse, to be honest with you.”

Earlier in his remarks, Dr. Carson said, “Many people don’t know this but Charles Darwin actually started out in the seminary to become a man of the cloth. He had some experiences with God that didn’t go his way, like his 10-year-old daughter who died of pneumonia despite his pleas.”

[fortheDeclaration]

A 'confirmed hypothesis' is a meaningless term.

There are only two possible ways for the universe and life to have begun, God or evolution.

Science can prove or disprove neither.

Evolutionists must believe evolution by faith and thus, their paradigm is simply based on the view that evolution is true, it just hasn't been proven yet.

Science can only prove what it can test, it cannot test origins.

Those who accept evolution as 'science' are really accepting a 'science falsely so called'.

[fortheDeclaration]

A 'confirmed theory' is science proving something to be true.

In others words, a fact.

Now, anyone reading your posts can see the scam that modern science uses, redefining terms to mean whatever the science community want them to mean.

No, most Christians do not accept evolution, not those who believe the Bible!

As I said, Christians understand there is adaptation within a species, but we also know that something doesn't come from nothing and life from non-life.

So, we accept adaption within a certain limitation, that is, what God has already created.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "A 'confirmed hypothesis' is a meaningless term."

Sorry FRiend, but much as you might wish it, you are not authorized to redefine scientific terms, or declare some term "meaningless".
By US law, scientific words mean what scientists say they mean, so a working "hypothesis" is defined as a:

"...proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation"

When a scientific hypothesis is strongly confirmed, it becomes a theory:

"A scientific theory is is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory."
It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress.
But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

What can be accepted as "fact" is the part of evolution you call "adaption" -- where DNA changes have been observed to create new adaptions to new environments -- i.e., high altitude living.

Short-term, we can see evolution creating new breeds & subspecies (i.e., dogs), and even on occasion, new species in a petri-dish which no longer interbreed with others there.
The results of long-term evolution can also be observed all around us, in DNA changes, behavior and appearances of closely related populations.

So evolution theory simply says, the short term adaptions we have seen continued long term producing ever greater species differentiations, resulting over many millions of years in all the complexity of life we see today.

fortheDeclaration: "There are only two possible ways for the universe and life to have begun, God or evolution.
Science can prove or disprove neither."

First of all, science often observes data to falsify a defective hypothesis, but science never "proves" nor "disproves" any theory.
The word science uses is "confirm".

Second, no scientific theory "proves" or "disproves" God's Hand in creating the Universe we see today.
Science merely describes how God's Hand may have worked, and still works today.
Science always works from the basic scientific assumption of: natural explanations for natural processes.
You, of course, are free to impose any religious explanation on those processes you wish, just so long as you don't call your religion "scientific".
That's because: modern science -- natural science -- is only about natural processes & explanations.

fortheDeclaration: "Evolutionists must believe evolution by faith and thus, their paradigm is simply based on the view that evolution is true, it just hasn't been proven yet."

No, FRiend, there is neither "belief" nor "faith" in any scientific theory.
Scientific hypotheses (explanations) are suggested -- no "belief" or "faith" implied -- tested and confirmed.
If strongly confirmed they become accepted by scientists as theories -- still no "belief" or "faith" implied.
All scientific theories can be later falsified by confirmed observations or better ideas -- still no "belief" or "faith" implied.

fortheDeclaration: "Science can only prove what it can test, it cannot test origins."

Yet again: by definition, science "proves" nothing, ever.
Only mathematics can prove, for example, a mathematical theorem.

Science confirms hypotheses like evolution, making them theories, using many methods, including observations and predictions.

• For a list of evolution predictions confirmed, look here.
  
• For a listing of evidence confirming evolution, look here.
  
• For a listing of observations confirming so-called macro-evolution, look here.

fortheDeclaration: "Those who accept evolution as 'science' are really accepting a 'science falsely so called'."

Sorry, FRiend, but your endless efforts to force a Biblical declaration of war on modern natural-science are again noted and utterly rejected, as: false, sophistry, and infused with bad motives.

So I'll repeat: Paul's word to Timothy was "gnosis" which in no way, shape or form refers to natural-science.
Gnosis was a secret, heretical spriritual knowledge, the polar opposite to modern science.
Your King James mistranslates "gnosis" as "science", while nearly 90% of other translations more correctly use the word "knowledge", as in false-knowledge.

Second, natural-science, properly understood, is simply a search for natural explanations of how evidence suggests God may have created the Universe as we see it.
So, bottom line: science is not at war against God, nor is the Bible at war against natural-science.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "A 'confirmed theory' is science proving something to be true.
In others words, a fact."

Sorry, FRiend, but I'll repeat: by US law you are not authorized to redefine scientific terms, or to declare one or another "meaningless".
So your definitions here are simply false, wrong and misleading.

Natural-science, modern science, does not use words like "prove" or "true".
"Confirmed" covers both of those -- a "confirmed observation" is a "fact", a strongly confirmed hypothesis is a theory.

If you wish to translate science's words into your own religious understandings, that's your right, of course, but you must not pretend that your words have anything to do with real science, because they don't.

fortheDeclaration: "Now, anyone reading your posts can see the scam that modern science uses, redefining terms to mean whatever the science community want them to mean.
No, most Christians do not accept evolution, not those who believe the Bible!"

Sorry, FRiend, but it's you who are scamming and redefining scientific words to suit your own anti-science agenda.
I have merely corrected you, now over and over again, but you still refuse to see the errors in your posts.

And the fact is: a vast majority of Christians belong to denominations who teach what's called "theistic evolutionism", and that's what I've been explaining, however poorly.
Simply stated: evolution is God's Hand at work in Creation.

fortheDeclaration: "As I said, Christians understand there is adaptation within a species, but we also know that something doesn't come from nothing and life from non-life.
So, we accept adaption within a certain limitation, that is, what God has already created."

But your definition of "something coming from nothing" while true to a point, cannot include what is called "complexification", meaning for example, a chemical process where characteristics of the resulting complexity are "something" which were not there before.
Such "complexification" is observed everywhere in chemistry, biology and many other fields (computer science comes to mind).

I'll repeat: by definition -- definitions subject to discussion -- a dividing line separates "complex chemistry" from "simple life".
Bacteria are "life", while viruses are said to be "complex chemistry" along with other organic entities like the prions which cause Mad Cow's Disease.
Exactly where we draw that line is a matter of convention and construct, but as the line moves, so does "life" (something) come out of "chemistry" (nothing).

[tacticalogic]

Dogma is immune to reason.

[amorphous]

+1

[fortheDeclaration]

Is there some reason why you keep posting your nonsense to me?

I don't care what words science uses, we are talking about the real world, the world of reality.

When something is proven, it becomes a fact.

Just because science want to define words doesn't mean it has a right to!

You haven't 'corrected' anything, you just have repeated the same nonsense over and over again.

Real science shows how the real world works, not the world that lives in your imagination.

Real science cannot prove or disprove the origins of the universe or life.

That is a FACT.

So, if someone believes that the origin of the universe and life was by evolution and not creation, they do so by FAITH.

Just like those who believe in a Creator.

Now, stop posting your idiocy to me.

[fortheDeclaration]

Exactly where we draw that line is a matter of convention and construct, but as the line moves, so does "life" (something) come out of "chemistry" (nothing).

This is why no one can take you guys seriously!

Nothing is NOTHING.

It isn't 'chemistry'.

Look up the word 'nothing' in the dictionary.

So, 'something' can't come from 'nothing' since there is 'nothing' there.

What a fantasy world you guys live in.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "Is there some reason why you keep posting your nonsense to me? "

Is there some reason why you keep posting your nonsense to me??

fortheDeclaration: "I don't care what words science uses, we are talking about the real world, the world of reality.
When something is proven, it becomes a fact."

No, a scientific "fact" is defined as a confirmed observation, period.
Theories are never "proved" and are not "facts" except to the degree they can be observed.
In the case of evolution, what can be observed (i.e., "adaption") is fact, what cannot is theory, period.

Your desire to ignore correct scientific terminology is perhaps understandable, however it makes everything you say about science false and misleading.

fortheDeclaration: "Just because science want to define words doesn't mean it has a right to!"

But of course, science has every right to define its own terms, a right established and confirmed in US law.
It's you who have no right to redefine scientific terms to suit your own anti-science agenda.
Indeed, your positions have been tested and ruled against in US courts, for examples: here and here.

So you are out of order, sir.

fortheDeclaration: "You I haven't said anything corrected, anything, you I just have repeated the my same nonsense over and over again.
Real science shows how the real world works, not the world that lives in your my imagination."

There, corrected it for you. Yes, you're welcome.

fortheDeclaration: "Real science cannot prove or disprove the origins of the universe or life.
That is a FACT.
So, if someone believes that the origin of the universe and life was by evolution and not creation, they do so by FAITH.

Now you're just babbling nonsense.
As I have corrected you now many times, science does not "prove" anything.
A "fact" is whatever can be & has been observed.
Much of evolution has been observed and is therefore fact.
Much else of evolution -- recorded in deep-time geology -- cannot be directly observed and is therefore theory, theory confirmed innumerable times, daily, by discoveries of fossils, DNA analyses and many other scientific processes.

So, there's no "belief" or "faith" in it, it's simply a matter of accepting what the abundant evidence shows us.

fortheDeclaration: "Just like those who believe in a Creator.
Now, stop posting your idiocy to me."

But faith in God is a very different matter from analysis of scientific data & theories.
Many people experience the presence of God in their lives, and for them faith is not even a small leap, it's a simple step in the right direction, requiring no great struggle or study -- though those can help to deepen faith.

Science is a very different matter, requiring no personal commitment to any particular idea, indeed science forbids that.
The only things science really require are that you use proper scientific terminology, and report accurately on scientific matters.

So I have been trying to instruct you, but you stubbornly refuse to grasp any of it.

"Now, stop posting your idiocy to me."

Indeed

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "This is why no one can take you guys seriously!
Nothing is NOTHING. It isn't 'chemistry'."

But science thinks primitive life came from complex chemistry, not from "nothing".
So the appropriate scientific question is: where does chemistry end and life begin?

As for origins of the Universe itself, God's creation "ex nihilo" has long been a matter of religious doctrine.
Science, of course, has no real idea or evidence of where & how the Universe came into being.
Yes, a "Big Bang" seems likely, but where did that come from?
Nobody knows.

People of faith believe God created the Universe, and everything we see today, and science has no better answer than that.

fortheDeclaration: "So, 'something' can't come from 'nothing' since there is 'nothing' there.
What a fantasy world you guys live in."

It appears that you refuse to address what I really believe, and so are inventing beliefs for me that suit your own anti-science agenda, right?

[fortheDeclaration]

And we aren't talking about what science thinks, we are discussing the fact that the Universe came into existance from nothing.

So, once again, you cannot get 'something' from 'nothing' unless you think there was always 'something' with no beginning?

[fortheDeclaration]

The only thing TRUE science is to do is show how the world works.

It has nothing to say on how it came into being, or how life began.

If science claims otherwise, it is 'science falsely so called' no matter what definitions it makes up.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "And we aren't talking about what science thinks, we are discussing the fact that the Universe came into existance from nothing."

Of course we are talking about your misunderstandings of "what science thinks", since you obviously have no real clue about it, and so populate your imagination with endless false ideas.

What science really things about the origins of the Universe -- before the "Big Bang" -- is nothing but wild speculations.
The reason is: they have no confirmed evidence (aka "facts"), on which to base even a tentative testable hypothesis.
So, of course, they can & do speculate and right now those speculations run along the line of some kind of "multi-verse".

But, I'll repeat, "multi-verse" is just speculation, not even a testable hypothesis, much less a confirmed theory.

As for God's creating the Universe, that has long been a matter of philosophical (i.e., Aristotle) belief and religious (i.e., Genesis) faith, but it is not a scientifically observed "fact".

fortheDeclaration: "So, once again, you cannot get 'something' from 'nothing' unless you think there was always 'something' with no beginning?"

"Multi-verse" speculation eliminates the "something from nothing" problem, but then, Who created the multi-verse?

My belief is that God created the Universe, and there's no way for us to know what "raw material" (if any), He used.
Nor does it now matter to our mission of fulfilling the Plan (Logos) that was God's in the beginning.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "The only thing TRUE science is to do is show how the world works.
It has nothing to say on how it came into being, or how life began."

First of all, science makes no claims to "truth", such matters are left to philosophers and theologians.
Instead, science deals only in observed facts and natural explanations -- theories.

However, much can be, and has been, observed about the origin of life and species on earth, and much that cannot be observed can still be explained by scientific theories -- regardless of your fervent wish to restrict science to current observable events.
Natural processes certainly include those which happened in the past, as well as those happening today.

Your claim that the past cannot be studied scientifically is rejected by science based on an assumption which is itself innumerable times confirmed: natural processes we see working today worked the same way in the past.
A good example of that is the relatively new science of plate-tectonics.
The world-wide movement of great geological plates can be, and has been, observed, measured and confirmed.
Continental plates move at roughly the same rate as the growth of our fingernails.
If we measure the rate of movement, and count up the tracks left by it, for example, we find the Atlantic Ocean is a hundred million years old, or so.

fortheDeclaration: "If science claims otherwise, it is 'science falsely so called' no matter what definitions it makes up."

Once again, the false-knowledge of ancient Gnostics has nothing to do with modern science, period.
The Bible is not at war against science, regardless of your fervent wish to make it so, FRiend.

[fortheDeclaration]

The belief in the creation of the Universe can only be based on faith, since science has nothing to say about it!

I don't care what science 'thinks' about anything, I only care about what they can prove as true.

And the origins of the universe and life is not one of them.

There couldn't be any 'raw material' that God used, since that would make it as eternal as God.

So, once again, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me.

[fortheDeclaration]

True science makes claims to FACTS, which is TRUTH.

Nothing can be observed about the origin of life, since no one was there to see it!

Your claim that natural processes we see working today worked the same way in the past' is a false assumption!

We know from the Bible that life was much longer before Noah's flood, so, you are assuming that everything is the same now as it was in the past, and have to use that assumption as your basis to make pronouncements on what you can't prove.

Now, once again, stop sending me your condescending posts.

[fortheDeclaration]

I never said the Bible was at war with science, I said it was at war with false science (science falsely so called).

Maybe you need to learn to read before you give lectures about science.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "The belief in the creation of the Universe can only be based on faith, since science has nothing to say about it!
I don't care what science 'thinks' about anything, I only care about what they can prove as true.
And the origins of the universe and life is not one of them."

Ha! The fact of this matter is that you are not required to "believe" or have "faith" in anything science says, for one reason because science, by definitions, never "proves" anything to be "true", nor does it ask for "belief" or "faith".
So you are totally free to reject every word from science, if you wish.

Indeed, science makes only one serious demand of you, sir: you must not call your own anti-science beliefs "science".
That's it, now go in peace.

fortheDeclaration: "There couldn't be any 'raw material' that God used, since that would make it as eternal as God."

Well... since you were obviously there and saw it, and I wasn't, I'll just have to take your word for it FRiend.

fortheDeclaration: "So, once again, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me."

So, once again, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me, sir.

[BroJoeK]

fortheDeclaration: "True science makes claims to FACTS, which is TRUTH.
Nothing can be observed about the origin of life, since no one was there to see it!"

Sorry FRiend, but you are utterly confused on all matters related to science, despite the fact that I have now explained basics over & over.

First of all, you may not call your anti-science beliefs & definitions "science", because they're not.
You must call them something else, and my suggestion is that you call them what they are: anti-science.
In your anti-science world, you can make up any rules you wish, invent whatever definitions suit your fancy.
So long as you don't call them "science", they can belong solely to you and your friends, to the exclusion of all others.

That's because real science -- natural science -- has its own rules and definitions, and does not respond to people like yourself.
As I've said, science is not about "truth" "proof" "belief" or "faith".
Science is about observations and theories, confirmed or falsified.
And despite your disapproval, science does concern itself with whatever evidence it can find, and whatever explanations are verifiable concerning the origins of the Universe and life on Earth.

fortheDeclaration: "Your claim that natural processes we see working today worked the same way in the past' is a false assumption!"

If you have physical evidence to confirm such a claim, I'm certain many scientists would be interested to examine it.
You should write it up and present it for scientific peer-review and publication.

fortheDeclaration: "We know from the Bible that life was much longer before Noah's flood, so, you are assuming that everything is the same now as it was in the past, and have to use that assumption as your basis to make pronouncements on what you can't prove."

So write up your evidence, submit it for scientific peer-review and publication.

fortheDeclaration: "Now, once again, stop sending me your condescending posts."

Now, once again, stop sending me your condescending posts, sir.

[fortheDeclaration]

Since you are the one initiating the contact, it is you who keep posting to me.

I am just responding.

Actually, science does prove things to be true, that is why we know what we know about how the world operates.

Those are called facts

What science can't prove is how the Universe came into being or how life began.

If raw material existed with God, it would be eternal like God is, that is just logical thinking.

It might be too simple for you.