So what we have through “evolution” is:
1. Life from non-life.
Well, *FLASH* + *POOF* doesn't quite explain the origin of life.
2. Spontaneous generation of irreducibly complex systems.
Give an example.
3. Sight from non-sight.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
4. Flight from non-flight.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
5. Intelligence from non-intelligence.
Mechanism explained by evolution.
6. Aesthetic appreciation from previously non-aesthetic beings.
Could you elaborate?
And all through “time, plus chance, plus the impersonal” (Francis Schaeffer).
Anyone who believes that has faith in “random,” or is a total hypocrite in what they assert, believing none of it. I would rather have faith in God, even though He transcends my intelligence. At least He doesn’t insult it.
To call it "pure chance", is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.
You might be able to use the immensity of numbers to confuse others, like “billions” of years (time), and gadzillions of interactions (chance), with no guiding intelligence (the impersonal), however, it won’t work with me.
1. The burden of proof is on you to explain how life came from non-life. Would you please do so and cite your empirical evidence?
2. An irreducibly complex system is one that requires all its parts to work. If one part is missing, the whole system fails. Like an eye. I note the following argument: “Since Darwin’s day, the eye’s ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.” How convenient — just believe — since the evidence is not there. It COULD have happened.
3., 4., 5. Could you demonstrate the development of sight, flight, and intelligence empirically, as you are the one claiming scientific supremacy? Or are you just asserting it COULD have happened. I’d like you to PROVE it DID happen.
6. Please explain the universal religious nature of man, including the scientific and atheistic communities.
You posted: “To call it “pure chance”, is to precisely insult your own intelligence by letting poetic metaphors force you to disregard a distinct possibility. Evolution is not akin to the mere toss of a coin. Each intermittent step, is dependent on the previous. The choices available for operation are basically at the molecular level - implying billions to trillions of interactions every moment, for a useful result to arise out of, in a time span stretching across 4 billion years. The Avogadro number, a quantity describing the number of molecules in a mole of a substance (1 mole of carbon is 12 grams) is 10 raised to 23, just to have a feel of the scale here.”
So you would call evolution “pure chance” to the exponential power.
Instead of one toss of the coin (50/50), you postulate millions, billions, trillions, etc. tosses of the coin with the result of life spontaneously generating and “beneficial” changes taking place — all with no guidance or “force” pushing things in a “positive” direction.
Sounds like “pure chance” to me. If you (because of your intelligence) disagree, could you please explain to me why there is order instead of disorder, and evolution instead of devolution. What is this “mechanism” explained by evolution. Does the mechanism drive evolution, or does evolution drive the mechanism?
As I said, you have faith in the random, or you are being hypocritical.