A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[Sabertooth]

Be fair. Where have you or any living creationist observed God creating life?

You pigeon-hole me unfairly... I'm not a literal Six-Day Creationist, and I don't rule out some sort of evolution as a mechanism for speciation. But no one argues that Creationism doesn't entail a leap of faith.

Yet many Evolutionists adopt the conceit that their thinking is beyond faith. The point of this thread is to call that bluff.

Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?

[Sabertooth]

If God created the universe, and set up everything to proceed according to the natural laws he placed at the moment of creation, then why didn't evolution occur?

I'm not saying it didn't. I'm focusing very specifically on the answers of Evolutionists to the question...

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

[PaulJ]

Isn't most scientific understanding considered "theory"? After all, gravity is considered a theory, isn't it?

[Rudder]

As my professor was fond of saying, "In your entire scientific career, if you discover just one fact, consider yourself lucky."

The last I heard they were still working on a device that was supposed to actually "measure" gravity. Until that happens, I think it's still a theory.

[medved]

bookmark

[Khepera]

Plump

[Torie]

Much of science at present is really the technology of describing how something works, its properties. I don't think we have a clue as to what electricity really is, and what its ultimate origin is, much less gravity, which is a mystery.

[Quila]

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation." Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

here

[metacognate]

The Darwinite Creed* I believe the Universe began in a quantum fluctuation. Out of nowhere came an cosmic explosion of matter and anti-matter, atoms and Laws of Physics. This contradicts the First Law, but never Mind, it is a fact. I believe all the energy the Universe possesses appeared out of nothingness some dozen of billions of years ago. This contradicts the Second Lawof Thermodynamics, but never Mind, it is a fact, fact. I believe that order came out of this chaos. Galaxies, Solar Systems, Suns, and Planets formed from speeding dust. We have never witnessed such structuring but we need no proof for what we want to believe. On top of this impossibility, life arose out of random collision of elements and miraculously developed from blue green algae to ecosystems. It is a fact, fact, fact. I believe consciousness is an illusion. We are only matter. Therefore, Reason is a result of atoms bumping into each other and it doesn't matter what you believe anyway. However, if you do not submit to this Big Science Established State Religion, you are ignorant and will not go to heaven...if there was one. By Saints Darwin and Marx, Asimov and Sagan, [Dis comfort their souls], we swear along with the Prophets Dawkins and Gould that we believe with childlike faith this metaphysical bricolage of spontaneous generation, alchemy and almighty improbability. Rather swallow this camel than admit a Divine Foot on MY pedestal, never ever Mind... Mea Maxima Facto! PS Any devout darwinite interested in buying alchemical perpetual motion machines, contact: mdmadigan1@attbi.com

[Sabertooth]

I scanned your list and it seems you misunderstood the question...

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation." Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

All of the examples given in your source involve selective breeding, hybridization, or laboratory conditions.

Not exactly random.

[Conservative til I die]

In the name of the Monkey-Uncle, the Pond Scum, and the Holy Mutation, Amen.

[Conservative til I die]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true. Now I haven't taken philosophy or ethics since I was an undergrad, but isn't that considered a technical foul or something in debate?

[Quila]

Either way, both systems rely on faith as regarding origins

Evolution started as "How did we get here? Let's look at all the evidence and come up with the best answer that explains it." Creation started as "This book tells us how everything started, let's find evidence to back it up." The two approaches are quite different: the former is science, the latter is religion.

And, no, magnetic decay, attacks on isochron dating, and speed of light changes to the extent you're talking about (not true) do not show a young earth. They are merely attempts at making observations fit the Bible.

[Quix]

For sure!

Or given the old notion of the monkey and the typewriter . . .

Even if

20vasl;kq3wly4asd908kj_()&*_)$# turns into

Fourscore and

It's very quickly got to turn into

qopqwremnavdcp9q87w439l;as;^%$#(&()& Fourscore and q;lewkrujaopxicgln9087)(*&^%#^%$@^%$#654

[Sabertooth]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true. Now I haven't taken philosophy or ethics since I was an undergrad, but isn't that considered a technical foul or something in debate?

To be fair, so do Creationists.

What isn't fair is to base an argument on postulates, and not have the intellectual honesty to conced one's using unprovable or unproven postulates.

Mathematicians do it, why do so many Evolutionists have a problem?

[LibKill]

OK. I have my asbestos suit on. Here goes.

Genesis tells us that he did it in 7 days. But I seem to remember another part of Holy Scripture that said that 'A 1,000 years are but a day in the sight of the Lord.'

Forgive me if I did not get that quote letter perfect.

How about a billion years? What if this Creator G-d exists outside of normal time and space as well as within it? How if he exists in an eternal Now that makes all of time meaningless?

Who is to say that Evolution is not his paintbrush?

[Conservative til I die]

You know what's funny is that St. Augustine dispeled the notion of a literal 6-day Creation about 17 centuries ago. And St. Augustine is considered one of the great religious as well as intellectual thinkers of all time.

Now someone like RaceBannon, from my own experience with him/her, doesn't recognize St. Augustine as anything more special than say, some Christian person off the street.

Of course, I think most evolutionists are pretty arrogant people myself, and do assign to evolution an almost divine quality.

[Dimensio]

There is no scientific evidence for evolution of life from non-life.

There is no scientific theory for evolution of life from non-life. In fact, any theories that involve a transition of non-life to life wouldn't be part of evolution.

[Conservative til I die]

Of course, even that thousand years can be considered largely symbolic, much like when Christ talked about forgiving your friend seven times seventy times (of course, he is not saying we must forgive our friend exactly 490 times), in that numbers like 7, 12, 70, 1000 signify certain things.

See also my post #38.