Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[brunumb]

Oh, I get...so no one living yesterday saw it happen...no one living today will see it happen...and no one living in the future will ever see it happen....yet..

"it happens".

If you don't see the con, the scam, the deceit there...then I don't know what to tell ya.

You should apply the same argument to the flood story. "It happened".

[We_Are_VENOM]

So, instead of going to all the bother of having Noah and family construct a boat, gather representatives of every living organism on earth, including mushrooms, moss, and microbes; then flooding the entire world just to get rid of the relatively few sinners on earth, why not simply kill them off at the outset and be done with the whole rigamarole of ark---animal and plant gathering---and flood waters? To me this is a pretty bone-headed approach to a problem that could be resolved by a simple ZAP of his finger.

Well, when you become God, feel free to deal with mankind however you see fit.

You're confusing concern with incredulity.

Not at all. But what I am saying is that sentient life from nonlife is naturally impossible. That, should concern you.

Ouch! Seems like I've inadvertently poured water on someone's sand castle here: "Stop playing in MY sandbox and just go home."

My bad. I didn't mean to come across like that lol. But abiogenesis is a concern for the naturalist, and instead of dealing with it, they would rather attack religious claims.

Backwards if you ask me.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No ... you missed the point entirely. We have the fossil record so we can indeed see what happened in the past without having to be there ourselves.

There is no fossil record. When you find a fossil and you determine anything besides "this once living organism has been dead a long time", then you are doing some serious speculation.

In fact, the amount of faith it takes to believe such a thing will make a religious man jealous.

I think I just invented a new saying; the day Christian believers place as much faith in God as atheists place in the theory of evolution, it will be an excellent day (something like that) lol.

Anyways, you don't know if those fossils had ANY children, and you certainly don't know if it had DIFFERENT children.

Not only don't we have any missing links, but the entire chain is missing.

The only thing fossils prove is that this once living thing has died, nothing more, nothing less.

It is irrelevant whether or not there were humans around to see dinosaurs wandering around and evolving, the fossil record provides direct evidence that we can investigate today.

Do you have a complete fossil record? No. Do you have a partial fossil record? No.

Two no's don't make a yes.

As for the future, we can confidently assume that if animals and plants evolved over time in the past (from the fossil record, and genetics), they are likely to continue doing that in the future. It is a logical assumption.

Any conclusions based on faulty premises makes the entire argument...fallacious. You do know that, right?

No need to tell me anything. There is no con, scam or deceit. Just scientists analyzing evidence for some 150 years now that support the theory. It is really very simple and straightforward ... if you aren't blinded by religious tall tales.

150 years? Well, we have over 3,000 years of knowing that animals only produce their own kind...and so far, we have never witnessed any exception to this.

You are right, it is very simple and straightforward; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. Through billions of live births witnessed, we have no reasons to conclude that in a hundred million years, that there will be exceptions.

Nope ... see above. We have the fossil record so we didn't "miss it." And the fossil record extends back several billion years through to modern times. There are certainly many gaps because fossils are rare and there is no complete record of every living thing that ever existed on Earth.

So basically, "we lack sufficient evidence for the theory, but we will keep hope alive and continue to believe in it as though it is true".

That's what I got out of it.

But it is sufficient to outline the big picture of how modern plants and animals came to be, and in many cases there are nearly complete histories. Plenty of data there to support the theory of evolution, and none yet that falsifies it. Or do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Here is what I know; dogs produce dogs..

It is just another ancient "holy" book written by humans who invented yet another god among the thousands of other gods humans have invented.

Guess what else was invented? The theory of evolution.

What does the fossil record say about this? From single-cell organisms to modern animals and plants in around 4 billions years. Not bad, and some things do take a very long time. I doubt that "anything" can happen, but what has happened has been pretty remarkable.

What does the Cambrian Explosion have to say about this evolutionary process of hundreds of millions of years?

[We_Are_VENOM]

You should apply the same argument to the flood story. "It happened".

But here is the difference; I admit that my belief in the Global Flood is based on religious faith, and my belief isn't being taught in classrooms across America at tax payers expense.

Can't say the same about evolution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So your answer to all of the insurmountable problems associated with the great flood amounts to nothing more than God-magic.

Pretty much, yeah. I have evidence that a supernatural being created the world from nothing. And if this being can create from nothing, craming X amount of animals onto a boat is child's play.

Why would an allegedly intelligent being resort to an impossible method to eradicate a few pesky humans and then have to prop it all up with countless miracles.

Impossible to who? Impossible to you?

That aside, where is your evidence that God did anything behind the scene anyway. It's pretty easy to make up whatever you like to fill in the plot holes but that doesn't mean that any of it must be true.

Good question. Here is my answer..

1. I have evidence that God exists
2. I have evidence in the historical Resurrection of Jesus
3. I have evidence that the Bible is reliable

So, put all three together; I have evidence in the soundness, validity, and truth value of the Biblical God and the stories which the books are comprised of.

Oh, you asked "where" is my evidence. Well, I reckon we will get to all of that as time goes on.

And when you can't provide satisfactory answers to the problematic questions regarding the flood, create a diversion by switching to another issue. Problem solved.

"Satisfactory" answers is subjective. The answers are satisfactory to me, but you, not so much.

[Miles]

So, instead of going to all the bother of having Noah and family construct a boat, gather representatives of every living organism on earth, including mushrooms, moss, and microbes; then flooding the entire world just to get rid of the relatively few sinners on earth, why not simply kill them off at the outset and be done with the whole rigamarole of ark---animal and plant gathering---and flood waters? To me this is a pretty bone-headed approach to a problem that could be resolved by a simple ZAP of his finger.

Well, when you become God, feel free to deal with mankind however you see fit.

You're confusing concern with incredulity.

Not at all. But what I am saying is that sentient life from nonlife is naturally impossible. That, should concern you.

Ouch! Seems like I've inadvertently poured water on someone's sand castle here: "Stop playing in MY sandbox and just go home."

My bad. I didn't mean to come across like that lol. But abiogenesis is a concern for the naturalist, and instead of dealing with it, they would rather attack religious claims.

Backwards if you ask me.

You do understand, do you not, that evolution is NOT concerned with any first cause, be it abiogenesis, god, pamspermia, or whatever one may come up with. Within the scope of evolution it's immaterial what the first cause was.

Evolution is ONLY concerned with change among living organisms.

As an FYI, this is a very common mistake among those who don't have a good grasp on evolution, so you're far from being alone in your mistake here.


.

[brunumb]

But what I am saying is that sentient life from nonlife is naturally impossible.

It obviously isn't. You just have to look all around you to see that.

[brunumb]

Any conclusions based on faulty premises makes the entire argument...fallacious. You do know that, right?

On the other hand ancient stories written by anonymous superstitious people constitutes an air tight argument. Too funny.

[brunumb]

Guess what else was invented? The theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution wasn't invented. It was the culmination of countless observations that led to one conclusion. Since it was formulated by Darwin (just beating Wallace by the way) the evidence in its favour has continued to pile up. We don't need to rely on the limited fossil record any more since DNA technology has provided another line of support.

What does the Cambrian Explosion have to say about this evolutionary process of hundreds of millions of years?

What is the basis for your acceptance of the Cambrian explosion?

[brunumb]

I have evidence that a supernatural being created the world from nothing.

Please present that evidence, otherwise all you have is faith. Faith is something that allows you to believe in what is false as easily as it allows you to believe in what is true. What you need is something that will unquestionably distinguish between the two.