Posted on 06/13/2005 6:23:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
What evidence?
Show me your proof.
"Now why would a God who was all-powerful enough to have created something (in fact everything) from nothing want to bother with evolution? Doesn't make sense."
The same reason that God needed mud to create Adam, and then needed Adam's rib to create Eve, and then needed men to write the bible, and then needed Noah to build the Arc, and then needed Mary to bear a son... and then... well God in general does a lot of things that don't make sense given that he is supposed to be all powerful.
And what do you mean change doesn't equate to evolution? I get the impression that there is a lack of understanding of evolution on your part.
But I don't like termites - not even chocolate covered ones.
LOL!
The condescending liberals and evolutionists have infested academia and allow no criticism of their dogma. Christians have had to defend their views for 2000 years. Evolutionists have enjoyed a monopoly view in academia for quite a while now and are a bit spoiled. Evolutionists should be held to account to defend their dogma especially when they propose to ram it down our kids throats. Its also healthy for science in general.
There are a lot of transitional fossils, say, between horses and horses. Likewise there are a lot of living intermediates between dogs, and, say, dogs. However, creationists believe very much in speciation, and in fact a more rapid one than evolutionists. However, we believe that there are limits to change, while evolutionists believe in unlimited change.
If the fossil record is used to posit unlimited change, you have several issues:
1) How do you know that two similar kinds are descended one from another, except by assuming that there is a transition between them? This is why creationists want a very gradual sequence, because otherwise one could simply take similar, but independently created kinds, and call it a transition.
2) The answer to #1 is usually that one appears after another in the fossil record. That makes two assumptions:
* that the order of the fossil record is necessarily time-based
* that even if the order is time-based, that the fossil record accurately records the beginnings and endings of certain species
However, the fossil record, even if the time-based interpretation is accurate, is so astonishingly bad at recording natural history, that there is no reason whatsoever to believe any sequencing within it. There are species alive today whose last appearance in the fossil record was, by evolutionary thought, over 100 million years ago. So, any timelines drawn would have to assume that there could be at least 100 million years of uncertainty, and probably more. That makes any attempt at sequencing such things entirely moot.
Anyway, if you want to talk about transitional species, you should be aware of both Talk.Origin's essays on transitions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
As well as some replies by the NWCreation group to some of those sequences:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Transitional_forms
(see bottom of page)
Personally, I think the evolutionists hold on so firmly to evolution is not so much becaue they really believe it, but because they have not come up with any evidence disproving creation/ID or a different alternative explanation.
I admit to being a christian who believes in Creation/ID. It is not just the evidence for it, but also the lack of any other current explanation. Unlike some Christians, I'll admit that my position does require an element of faith since Creation cannot be duplicated, but neither can evolution; which I think requires far more faith.
LOL!ROTFLMAO! And again, no - science is not about proof. Scientific theories are supported by evidence and can be falsified (ie disproven), but they are never proven.
What evidence. Behe's "Darwin's black box' pretty much dispels the evolution myth.
Also, is there a hypothetical observation that could disprove creation/ID?
I'm not aware of one, but would be interested in hearing what you might have to offer.
And why would you assume that those who accept evolution do so on the basis of your creation myth and no other?
I never said that disproving evolution is proof, or even evidence of creation/ID, did I? As a logical point, disproving evolution simply establishes that there must be another explanation for how life came into existence in its current forms; nothing more, or less. I've agreed that disproving evolution is not proof of creation/ID.
On the other hand, I think there is substantial evidence for ID. Whether one deems the evidence to be sufficient to reach the level of 'proof' is certainly open for discussion. I personally think that the evidence for ID, and the absence of a third explanation for life, leads me to the conclusion that creation/ID offers the best explanation for life.
Whether you agree or not is up to you. As a minimum, an honest believer in evolution would admit they don't have all the answer for the problems of evolution and that part of their belief in it requires some element of faith; wouldn't you agree? If not, please explain the complete lack of transitional life forms?
If you accept the punctuated equilibrium explanation, do you really think that a male and female of a species would be transformed at birth at the same time, in the same manner, in the same proximity, survive to adulthood, and then meet and successfully mate? It does not take a scientist to realize that the odds of such events occurring would be statistically impossible.
Not only can you not carbon date a fossil, but you can't even carbon date a shell, bone or old charcoal if it is more than about 50000 years old. The half life of C-14 is too short to be useful beyond about 50000 years.
1. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, so this arguement is specious.
2. Fallacy of origins here. Association of someone with a belief that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion has no impact on the truth or falsehood of the topic being debated.
3. See #2.
4. The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, so this argument is specious. However, just to educate you, the big bang violates no laws of physics. The correct conservation law is the law of mass/energy. The primeval universe was very high in energy, and some of this energy was converted into matter, according to Einstien's E=mc^2 equation.
5. No real argument with you there, except what evidence is there that God has had anything to do with the universe. If you want God to be accepted scientifically, you must come up with observation A such that observation of A implies that God tinkered with the universe and observation of "not A" implies that God did not tinker with the universe. Such evidence is lacking, and is furthermore not even in principle possible. What observation would lead to the logical conclusion that God doesn't exist? God could cause us to observe anything that He wants us to, even something that would lead us to believe that He doesn't exist. Therefore, any statement involving God is not falsifiable and hence is unscientific.
What fossil record? DNA lines? You actually believe that garbage?
Read Behe's book and you will understand, assuming you can comprehend a bit of scientific writing.
No one has ever presented a reasonable falsification criteria for ID.
As for the link you provided, the author assumes evolution to be true. A conclusion based on a false premise has no merit. Think that might be a clue?
That's why it is a fundamentally worthless explanation. If there's no possible way that it could be shown to be false, it has no meaning.
I never said that ID was a theory, did I. You claim that evolution is a theory, but it is actually a model since it cannot be replicated. In spite of that issue, evolution is falsifiable and there is much evidence that it is false and none of the modifications to the evolutionary model has helped the cause of evolutionists.,P> Given that evolution has been established to be false to a large degree, what other alternative do you have to offer. Creation/id does offer an alternative, and absent any other suggested explanation, it is not an unreasonable or irrational position to take, is it?
What complete lack of transitional life forms?
You'd win a Nobel prize if you could actually find some evidence of them.
As for the link you provided, the author assumes evolution to be true. This a very weak attempt at reasoning. If the premise is false, the conclusion has no merit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.