Replies

mbj: "Non sequitur. Adaptation demonstrates an amazing set of flexible designs, but it does not even begin to explain the creation of life."

I'll say it again: the basic theory of evolution, first proposed by Darwin some 150+ years ago, and confirmed many times since is that species evolve (or adapt, if you wish) through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

These are facts which are not even disputed by anti-evolutionists.

Where evolution and "adaption" part ways is in anti-evolutionists claim that "adaption" can never produce a new species.
Their "proof" is to assert that nobody has ever seen a new species created through evolution.
They say that what has not been seen cannot be proved and is therefore necessarily untrue.

In response, I make several points:

The basic processes of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) are observed, confirmed facts, not theory or hypothesis.
Definitions of scientific words like "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", "family", etc., are more-or-less arbitrary scientific constructs, which can and have changed over time, as our knowledge of biology improves.
So various critters have changed in classification, as knowledge or standards change.
Human experience, DNA analysis and fossils show: the numbers of generations required to produce a new "breed" (i.e., dogs) is relatively small -- perhaps a few dozen.
However, those changes can be very significant -- for example, comparing the smallest dogs to the largest -- if we didn't already know otherwise, scientists might well classify them as different species or even different genera.
Analysis (DNA, fossils & physical ranges) of living sub-species and species shows that the longer the period of separation, the less able different groups are to interbreed.
Examples abound (i.e., zebras) of sub-species which easily interbreed, versus species which normally don't, and genera which can't, even if forced.
These tell us that even though a strikingly different breed might develop in a few dozen generations, they can continue to interbreed for thousands of generations.
But, if separated long enough -- hundreds of thousands of generations -- then interbreeding becomes increasingly unlikely and finally impossible.
Along that sliding scale of difficulty, scientists more-or-less arbitrarily set standards for separating biological breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, etc.
Point is: small changes in either standards or biological data can result in movements of groups from sub-species to species or genus, and visa versa.
Among many millions of identified species world-wide, it happens every day.

mbj: "Evolution "science", falsely so called, simply cannot reproduce the beginning."

Non sequitur.
First of all, regardless of how often you say the words "falsely so called", evolution remains science -- a fact which you have no authority or power to change.

Second, evolution is science because, first and foremost, it meets the basic criteria for the word "science": natural explanations for natural processes ("methodological naturalism").
"Creationism" does not meet that criteria, and is therefore not science.

Third, basic evolution theory refers to observed, confirmed and undisputed facts of 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection.
Evolution simply theorizes that when these go on long enough, then separated groups eventually become less able to interbreed and are therefore re-classified as different sub-species, species, genera, etc.

This highly useful theory makes any number of falsifiable predictions which have been confirmed over the past 150+ years.

Fourth, beyond confirmed evolution facts and theory are any number of unconfirmed scientific hypotheses, such as abiogenic or panspermic origins of life itself.
These may or may-not ever be strongly confirmed, but remain today a sort of scientific "holy grail" in some laboratories around the world.

Key point: the fact that some scientific hypotheses remain unconfirmed does not negate the validity or usefulness of those theories (i.e., evolution, "old earth") which are confirmed.

mbj: "Of course, you can't see nature's God although you see his works.
And because you won't accept the truth, you claim some other phrase describes it: not the Creator, but some as yet unexplained force of nature."

Of course, you misunderstand my religious beliefs just as thoroughly as you misunderstand the theory of evolution.
I believe that God created the Universe, more-or-less as described in Genesis and for purposes laid out in the Bible.
I also think that science can tell us how God wishes us to understand it happened.
From scientific perspective: evolution appears to be God's method for creating the kinds of life we see today, as well as the fossils of those which went before.

interbreeding becomes increasingly unlikely and finally impossible

So, even you acknowledge that interbreeding between different species is impossible. And therefore a dead-end according to your model. Thank you, I do feel we are finally making some progress towards truth! :-)

The problem with any non-repeatable, unobservable, highly abstract theorizing like this is that it is simultaneously untestable and proves nothing. Such a theory, even if false, might still have a feeble value if it could predict or model what we actually observe. (Such a limited scientific value would be similar to prior incorrect models of the heavenly bodies.) But the abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible theory of evolution across species has been found of little worth in improving men's lives and also does not even help us begin to understand the creation of life.

Contrast that with a scientific approach pursued by a God fearing Louis Pasteur (a contemporary of Darwin) who concretely benefited all of mankind.

Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time.

I've heard it said "A frog plus a kiss = prince"...such a thing is clearly a fairy tale. But "An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince", this is "science". No, it's only science falsely so called.

What we see in truth is a marvelous panoply of intricate designs that vary in tiny ways to form the individual, within set limits of the species. Species that men can't even begin to duplicate from scratch! Amazing, wonderfully complex (yet spectacularly adaptable!) designs that reflect the splendid brilliance of nature's God!

Evolution cannot even begin to explain the genesis of life!

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

My original point still stands: it is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life, perhaps like aerodynamics supersede gravity.

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.