Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

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




Thoughts?

.

[brunumb]

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

Until you can present that evidence for scrutiny you have nothing but rhetoric. I'm guessing that is all we are going to get.

[brunumb]

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

Answering your own questions to your own satisfaction is somewhat meaningless. You might as well just talk to yourself rather than engage in a forum discussion.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Actually, on atheism (and even agnosticism, to a certain degree), evolution absolutely DEPENDS on abiogenesis being true. If you don't have a viable, testable theory as to how life originated from nonliving material, then you cannot logically have a theory as to how life "evolved".

If abiogenesis is scientifically false (life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material), then evolution, by default, becomes false.

Life can't get to the point of evolving, if it can't get to the point of originating.

Now, of course, this is where evolutionists will respond to this by giving any variation of...

"Look, evolution is true, even if God used evolution as a means of creation, that would still make evolution a true fact in natural reality".

Ok, fine, but if God used evolution as a means of creation, that would still...

A. Mean that God exists
B. And if A is true, that would mean atheism is false

So either way, atheism loses.

So, if you are open-minded enough to posit God in the whole "evolution" business, just know that you cannot remain true to your atheism when you do so.

However, if you are closed-minded and do not want to posit God, then you still are left with the daunting task of having to explain how you can naturally get conscious life from inanimate material, which is a task that is, at worse, naturally impossible, and at best, something that has yet to be proven in science...which means that it could be false..and if it could be false then evolution, which is wholly dependent upon life originating at some point (without God, on atheism), could also be false...and therefore not this brute fact of nature as the evolutionist would like to believe.

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.

Ya know, in my mind, I predicted this from a mile away.

It just never, ever, ever, EVER fails. It will occur about 90% of the time whenever there is a debate pertaining to the truth value of evolution.

Whenever someone disagrees or calls into question the truth value of evolution, the person will ALWAYS, eventually get accused of not understanding the theory...

"You just don't understand evolution!!"

"That's not what evolution says!!"

And in your case..

"You don't have a good grasp on evolution!!"

As if the evolutionists are so smart, and the naysayers are so dumb.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't believe in evolution; not because of what I don't know or understand...but rather, I don't believe in evolution because of what I DO know and understand.

If abiogenesis could be false, then evolution (without God), by default, is also possibly false.

Now, if you are sort of a "soft" agnostic and you are willing to posit the existence of God, then that changes the whole conversation.

But there is no way that you can be an hard atheist and maintain that evolution is true without knowing conclusively whether life can originate from nonliving material...which is exactly what would have had to happen, on atheism.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

Answering your own questions to your own satisfaction is somewhat meaningless. You might as well just talk to yourself rather than engage in a forum discussion.

Um, you do realize that there are other people in this world/forum...people of whom agree with my position. You do realize this, right?

My answers are satisfactory to many people, not just myself.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

I've looked around and from what I can tell, Genesis chapter 1 does an excellent job of explaining what I see.

So basically, "God did it"...which seems to be a more plausible explanation than a mindless, blind process (nature) being able to create life permitting universes with conscious inhabitants.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Sure, and nothing is superstitious about a reptile evolving into a bird (voodoo), a once land dwelling mammal migrating to the sea and evolving into a aquatic animal (voodoo), and dead, inanimate matter suddenly and/or gradually coming to life and beginning to talk, think, and have sex (voodoo).

But none of that is superstitious, though. Nothing at all.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

We don't have any observations of "evolution" (macro). We have countless observations of fossils, and fossils do not prove evolution...fossils prove "death"...anything beyond that is speculation.

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

The basis is simple..

1. It contradicts the long, falsely-believed idea that there was this long, gradual process in the divergence of species.

2. Natural-selection is not the best explanation for the sudden divergence of species, and if we appeal to the best explanation, creationism is the best game in town.

3. I have reliable sources that I appeal to, which includes other more educated apologists in the field of biology, of whom I trust...and they endorse the Cambrian explosion and confirms the theory as scientific.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #53]

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.

There is no fossil record? Then how can I "find a fossil" if they don't exist? Fossils do exist, and fossils can be dated by various means. The collection of fossils and their dates constitute the fossil record, which most definitely does exist. And conclusions can be drawn from this fossil record, which supports the theory of evolution. Unlike religious belief, there is nothing subjective about the analysis and interpretation of the fossil record. Fossils are physical things that can be touched, measured, dated, etc. independent of any belief system.

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

There is no need to know if the living version of the fossil had any children, only that the population that it was a member of had offspring. And that we can determine from the fossil record. Evolutionary change is usually very slow and requires many generations of small changes. A fish did not suddenly produce an amphibian in one generation, but some people seem to think evolution works that way.

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

No it isn't. That is simply false, and can be proven so by the fossil record itself. No guesswork needed.

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

No, fossils can be dated. That tells you approximately when it lived which is crucially important. You can't deny that fossils can be dated, which provides a great deal of information when the entire fossil record is analyzed and the puzzle is pieced together. So fossils provide far more information than simply that something died. Making statements to the contrary don't help your argument because, again, this is not a subjective topic where opinion is important like the value of a piece of art. We have fossils, we can date them, and this tells a very clear story about how evolution works in the real world.

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

You got the second part wrong. The answer to that is definitely YES. We do have a partial fossil record. I don't personally have it, but "we" (humans) have it and it is well documented. So you've made another false statement that can be positively shown to be false because there is, in fact, a large collection of dated fossils that exists.

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.

And yet another demonstrably false statement. Homo sapiens have been around a lot longer than 3000 years, so human knowledge didn't start when monotheism came along and "holy" books like the bible were written. We can watch evolution in action for bacteria and other fast reproducing organisms, and obviously artificial selection changing the genetic makup and phenotype of plants and animals has been carried out for millennia. So why would you think that natural selection such as geologic events that may separate a population, new predators coming into an area, changes in vegetation or food sources, etc. would not have the same type of effects? Of course it can and does, and is one thing that can cause evolutionary change. It should be simple to understand this basic process, and we can watch it happen.

Guess what else was invented? The theory of evolution.

Invented? It is an explanation of observations that makes so much sense and is supported by so much evidence that it has become a formal scientific theory in the same way that many other scientific theories are confirmed. Denying it because it contradicts some old "holy" book does not change the fact that evolution is the correct description of how life diversifies on this planet. It is not an invention, but an explanation of observations. These are two very different things.

Actually, on atheism (and even agnosticism, to a certain degree), evolution absolutely DEPENDS on abiogenesis being true. If you don't have a viable, testable theory as to how life originated from nonliving material, then you cannot logically have a theory as to how life "evolved".

If abiogenesis is scientifically false (life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material), then evolution, by default, becomes false.

Life can't get to the point of evolving, if it can't get to the point of originating.

Most theists try this argument but it is another total failure. As was already pointed out, evolution has no dependence whatsoever on HOW life originated on this planet, only that it did by some means. But you seem to not grasp that basic fact. Obviously, life had to take hold by some mechanism before evolution had something to work with, but that in no way means that evolution has to explain that mechanism. Yet you are trying to claim exactly that as a weak argument against evolution. Evolution doesn't care whether it was an act of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, etc., and it has no dependence on whatever mechanism was involved to create life in the first place. If you don't understand this fundamental point then you indeed do not understand even the basics of evolution and need to brush up on your understanding of the subject.

However, if you are closed-minded and do not want to posit God...

This has nothing to do with being closed minded. Not one of the thousands of gods humans have invented has ever been demonstrated to exist, never been seen or heard or made itself known in any way, and gods are no longer needed to explain nature and the unknown as was the case thousands of years ago when science had not provided answers to most questions concening nature and how it works. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in gods, and I lack that belief because I've never seen any convincing evidence that any of the thousands of man-made gods exist. That is actually an open-minded view because it takes all of the available evidence and finds an explanation that is consistent with everything we know about all of the gods that humans have invented. Obviously, all of the gods and religions humans have invented can't all be true. Another option is that only one of them is true, but if that were the case then which one is it? Sit down with a Hindu and argue with her on whether her religion is the one, true religion, or is it yours (Christianity I'd assume from your comments). I expect that would end with both of you unconvinced that the other is correct. Then take the third option which is that none of the gods or religions humans have invented are real. Now you have an explanation that is perfectly consistent with all observations and evidence. Atheism wins.

[Miles]

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.

Actually, on atheism (and even agnosticism, to a certain degree), evolution absolutely DEPENDS on abiogenesis being true.

Not at all sure what "on atheism" means. It's a rather odd phrase. If you're saying that the concepts of evolution depend on abiogenesis then it's obvious you don't know the first thing about evolution.

If you don't have a viable, testable theory as to how life originated from nonliving material, then you cannot logically have a theory as to how life "evolved".

Why not?

If abiogenesis is scientifically false (life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material), then evolution, by default, becomes false.

Why?

Life can't get to the point of evolving, if it can't get to the point of originating.

Yup, but as I said, FIRST CAUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.


GOOD GRIEF MAN, STOP DISPLAYING YOUR IGNORANCE HERE AND PICK UP A BOOK.

OR ASK SOMEONE WHO'S GONE TO COLLEGE TO HELP YOU OUT.


.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not at all sure what "on atheism" means. It's a rather odd phrase.

Basically, it means "on the atheistic worldview"....or, "according to atheism".

If you're saying that the concepts of evolution depend on abiogenesis then it's obvious you don't know the first thing about evolution.

It is fine if you didn't understand what I meant when I said "on atheism", but I said much more than that...and I explained my position as to why the truth value of abiogenesis is fundamental to any belief in evolution (on atheism).

So, please address my explanation as to why it is fundamental, instead of dismissing it and using the typical "you just don't understand evolution" quip that seems to be the evolutionist "go to" line when it comes to discussing this subject.

Why not?

Because life can't evolve if it can't originate.

Why?

Because life can't evolve if it can't originate.

Yup, but as I said, FIRST CAUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

If God doesn't exist, then evolution is false.

If your position is "God does not exist", then please explain how life originated naturally from nonliving material.

If you can't do that, then you don't have a viable theory for evolution.