The Question That Evolutionists Can't Answer

[renewedfaith1964]

This question surely isn't intended to inflame. It's just something that I can never get an answer too. Whenever I ask it, people usually point me to an article or book. I want anybody who believes in evolution to tell me five things about evolution that you know is true.

[romansh]

Science does not deal in truth.

But for fun

1) Darwin brought to fruition an idea (evolution) that had been brewing for decades.

2) Darwin would likely be astounded at the predictions that evolution would make and would pan out in the field of genetics.

3) Darwin was wrong in certain subtle details of his theory of evolution.

4) Evolution is based on the hypothesis that Earth is a bit older than six thousand years and is by and large consistent with radiochemical dating.

5) Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

 

I'll repeat - asking for scientific truths is a typical apologist tactic. Usually by people who have a very poor understanding of science. And those that do understand science, I have concerns about them. I would give an atheist a similar hard time for saying science is the truth. Science strives for the truth but never attains it.

 

Perhaps we could have five truths about the transcendent now?

[renewedfaith1964]

Science does not deal in truth.

But for fun

1) Darwin brought to fruition an idea (evolution) that had been brewing for decades.

2) Darwin would likely be astounded at the predictions that evolution would make and would pan out in the field of genetics.

3) Darwin was wrong in certain subtle details of his theory of evolution.

4) Evolution is based on the hypothesis that Earth is a bit older than six thousand years and is by and large consistent with radiochemical dating.

5) Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

 

I'll repeat - asking for scientific truths is a typical apologist tactic. Usually by people who have a very poor understanding of science. And those that do understand science, I have concerns about them.

 

Please don't take this wrong. However, your five responses tell me nothing. For example:

 

2. Darwin would likely be astounded at the predictions that evolution would make and would pan out in the field of genetics.

 

This is the typical hyperbole I hear, but there's no substance. What specifically have "the field of genetics" shown? Not trying to harp on you, but I typically get these overly generalized statements. Where is reference to actual genetic findings?

 

4. Evolution is based on the hypothesis that Earth is a bit older than six thousand years and is by and large consistent with radiochemical dating.

 

Poking fun at the extreme Christian view that the earth is 6 thousand years doesn't move the needle to help prove evolution.

 

Also, what particularly about "radiochemical dating" are you referring to. Again, it's a buzz phrase that sounds important but says nothing.

[PaulS]

More important that arguing 5 individual points that I am certain you will counter with some point or another, I rely upon this premise for supporting evolution:

 

Quote: "It is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, palaeontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved".

 

It's not the missing link, or certain fossils that prove evolution, but the fact that our sciences are based on this supposition and continually come up trumps because they have considered and applied evolutionary theory.

 

Perhaps you could explain to me what science has been used to confirm creationism or indeed, demonstrate any scientific understanding that has been achieved through the belief in a creator God?

 

Cheers

Paul

[renewedfaith1964]

More important that arguing 5 individual points that I am certain you will counter with some point or another, I rely upon this premise for supporting evolution:

 

Quote: "It is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, palaeontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved".

 

It's not the missing link, or certain fossils that prove evolution, but the fact that our sciences are based on this supposition and continually come up trumps because they have considered and applied evolutionary theory.

 

Perhaps you could explain to me what science has been used to confirm creationism or indeed, demonstrate any scientific understanding that has been achieved through the belief in a creator God?

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Paul, thanks for your thoughts Again, I certainly don't mean for this to be contentious. I certainly haven't gotten that feeling from you. I just want you to know that I am writing in the same spirit.

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

1. Ex Nihilo, nihil fit. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing. No atoms, protons, neurons, etc. Nothing. There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing. To me, it's just common sense. If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.

2. It defies logic. How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach? It doesn't. Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power. And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

3. The first cell. A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts. Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order? Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out. Also, a cell burns energy. What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running? It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas. Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two. And here's the real kicker: the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself. Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

4. The Cambrian Explosion. 99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed. There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this. Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium." That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record. That is hocus-pocus to the highest order.

5. How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs? When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it. How did it all come back in such a short time?

[matteoam]

1. Okay well the idea of ex nihilio creation is contentious because the Hebrew of the Book of Genesis doesn't support that.

 

2., 3. And 4. you started out as a single cell being and then grew. What you think evolution is from the paragraph is illogical. That and anything is possible for God.

 

5. Evolution is not an agent as your paragraph suggests. It is a process. The reality is that no one knows how it works fully but there are enough clues in which a reasonable enough idea can be given. If any scientist can offer other theories then that can be tested and the theory will change. Darwin's initial theory was not new and is not orthodoxy from what I know. Like all science it is a stepping stone.

 

I personally believe that the material universe was created by God in six days and it had been taking him billions of years to do it. He is still doing it by the way. And also believe that God really isn't a being so really isn't an agent. God is Being itself. If I'm wrong them well ... so what? I believe. It doesn't matter if its true or not. Belief and faith are more real in truth. Faith is all everyone had all the time.

[renewedfaith1964]

Here is how I sum up evolution, just to show how ridiculous it truly is:

 

Let's look at humans. One day, there was a cell. Nobody can explain how it built itself. Suddenly, it started dividing (for reasons unexplained). Eventually, there were 3 trillion cells in one area. Even though these cells had no cognitive ability, they hatched a plan. "Let's all 3 trillion of us hold hands and turn ourselves into a human. You 500,000,000 cells go up top and turn yourselves into the brain. Make yourselves super smart. You 200,000,000 turn yourselves into the heart. You 100,000, 000 turn yourselves into a liver. We're going to need to eat (even though there's no food), so we'll need to have a system in place than can filter our food. You 250,000,000 turn yourselves into a stomach. Make sure you teach yourselves how do break down food. Then, make sure you have 3 trillion waiters ready to feed every cell in our new body, because we all need to eat. As for you remaining cells, make yourselves useful and turn yourselves into eyes, a nose, a mouth, teeth, hands, feet, toes, etc. Oh, and make sure to make yourselves aesthetically pleasing. Any questions? Okay, go for it."

[matteoam]

I am not a evolutionary biologist but this seems to be a very superficial understanding of the process that you think they have about the process.

[matteoam]

As opposed to the abracadabra that a literal reading of the creation stories show? I don't expect those who wrote the creation stories to know science and I don't presume to expect God to expect them to. If you accept that God reveals truth to humanity why wouldn't you think that God did this through Darwin and down the line of evolution despite some people not believing? That to me limits God. Who are any of us to question how God does anything? I take every aspect of the natural world as proof of God. That means diversity. That means natural selection. That means process over time which we are restricted by. Fundamentalism (theological or secular) makes presumption and presuppositions about God that have no basis in truth. I for one presume nothing about God and expect nothing other than His enduring grace and mercy. Everything else is window dressing. I try to be a good skeptic and consider all possibilities and try to not judge. In that I can only have faith.

[SteveS55]

As long as we are expressing opinions, I must say I am much more inclined to come down on the side of evolution and adaptation to changing environmental influences to explain the origin of the species. I don’t find it necessary to posit a creator deity for the fact of our existence, but I think it’s fine if others do. Ironically, I think belief in a creator deity is an artifact of “cultural” evolution!

 

Admittedly, I am not familiar with all of the evidence in support of evolution, or the arguments against it. But, to discard something because we cannot “personally” prove a theory by way of evidence is to enter into an epistemological wasteland. Even those who claim the Bible is the inerrant “word of God” must rely on some fundamental human understanding of how knowledge is acquired.

 

My personal view is that it doesn’t matter to me if I arose from green slime, that 100,000 generations ago my cousin was a fish with jaws, or that I was fashioned by the hand of God Almighty. The beauty, meaning and truth of life are found in the “being” of it, not thinking about how it came to be. We humans are so clever, but often miss the point entirely.

 

Maria Rainer Rilke said that “Being here is so much!” And, John O’Donohue, the great contemporary Irish poet and mystic claimed: “We are here. We are wildly and dangerously free.”

 

Peace.

Steve

Edited November 13, 2013 by SteveS55

[renewedfaith1964]

As opposed to the abracadabra that a literal reading of the creation stories show? I don't expect those who wrote the creation stories to know science and I don't presume to expect God to expect them to. If you accept that God reveals truth to humanity why wouldn't you think that God did this through Darwin and down the line of evolution despite some people not believing? That to me limits God. Who are any of us to question how God does anything? I take every aspect of the natural world as proof of God. That means diversity. That means natural selection. That means process over time which we are restricted by. Fundamentalism (theological or secular) makes presumption and presuppositions about God that have no basis in truth. I for one presume nothing about God and expect nothing other than His enduring grace and mercy. Everything else is window dressing. I try to be a good skeptic and consider all possibilities and try to not judge. In that I can only have faith.

 

What's more abracadabra: believing that somebody built extremely complex entities, or they built them themselves?

[matteoam]

Well I believe in intelligent design but to call God a "body" an "agent" an " intelligence" is to idolize God. Even calling God a god is diminishing God because it evokes images which are graven. Any language is inadequate to even discuss attributes. That being said this uses evolution as Its tool. It is ksomething to be known as itmanifests through us and to the extent that we are conscious of it. Even then we fail to truly realize it. It manifests in and through and as all things. It is not something science can or should attempt to prove. That bring said as Steve says it may not even be necessary to posit it at all.

[JosephM]

 

What's more abracadabra: believing that somebody built extremely complex entities, or they built them themselves?

 

Perhaps it is not an either or. Perhaps the question is flawed and as Mateo points out that evolution is a tool or perhaps better yet the process by which God manifests creation. It seems to me evolution is intelligent design. Believing in evolution doesn't negate God except to those who possibly view the one exclusive of the other. Or try to define God or evolution in limited terms or with inadequate knowledge.

 

Just musing,

Joseph

[PaulS]

 

 

Paul, thanks for your thoughts Again, I certainly don't mean for this to be contentious. I certainly haven't gotten that feeling from you. I just want you to know that I am writing in the same spirit.

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

1. Ex Nihilo, nihil fit. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing. No atoms, protons, neurons, etc. Nothing. There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing. To me, it's just common sense. If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.

2. It defies logic. How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach? It doesn't. Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power. And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

3. The first cell. A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts. Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order? Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out. Also, a cell burns energy. What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running? It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas. Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two. And here's the real kicker: the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself. Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

4. The Cambrian Explosion. 99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed. There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this. Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium." That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record. That is hocus-pocus to the highest order.

5. How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs? When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it. How did it all come back in such a short time?

 

 

1. By your own logic CP, God cannot exist as the creator, because something must have created God as nothing can come from nothing. God couldn't exist without being created, according to this view.

 

2. Who's logic? I think the logic (and science) is pretty sound and the evidence for a scientific understanding of evolution makes perfect sense. Green slime didn't turn itself into a sophisticated life form just like that, it took millions & billions of years, with changes that wouldn't even be noticeable millions of years apart. The reason you don't see it happening every day is because the evolutionary process is slow and takes billions of years. We do see adaptation and cross breeding today creating new breeds and animals with new behaviours - extrapolate that over millions of years and I don't see it far fetched at all to expect major changes to the animal landscape.

 

3. This argument is disingenuous because if you credit the cell with not be able to exist unless it was created, then the same must go for your God - how could that God exist if it wasn't created by something else. My guess is you will accept that that God somehow already just existed without explanation/understanding, but you can't extend that thought process to the first cell life. This is a bias and not evidence.

 

4. The 'Cambrian Explosion' is explained by SOME as punctuated equilibrium, but you shouldn't throw all evolutionists into the same basket. There are other analyses amongst scientists. There are in fact dozens of different factors that may have come into play during this period which scientists debate as to why the fossil record displays a profundity of these more complex life forms, which incidentally contains many that are totally different than any living animal (evolution at work!).

 

5. Evolution didn't stop during the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Admittedly, 3/4 of life was obliterated, but that means 1/4 continued - animals such as avian dinosaurs, birds and fish. And I wouldn't call 66 million years a short period of time. As Wikipedia explains "In the wake of the extinction, many groups underwent remarkable adaptive radiations — a sudden and prolific divergence into new forms and species within the disrupted and emptied ecological niches resulting from the event. Mammals in particular diversified in the Paleogene,^[16] producing new forms such as horses, whales, bats, and primates. Birds,^[17] fish^[18] and perhaps lizards^[10] also radiated." That seems quite logical to me.

 

The above arguments to me make a lot more sense than a creator God somewhere simply 'popping' advanced life forms out of thin air and making them appear whole on earth.

 

Cheers

Paul

Edited November 14, 2013 by PaulS

[PaulS]

 

What's more abracadabra: believing that somebody built extremely complex entities, or they built them themselves?

 

The former, IMO.

[SteveS55]

Both Matteo and Joseph referred to the doctrine of “intelligent design”; something I think is subject to a little scrutiny. There is another possibility, rather than the universe exhibiting anything at all which would be subject to an “intelligence” behind (or within) its design. That possibility is simply that the universe we observe and experience is exactly what you get given the nature of its constituent components after processes which began 14 billion years ago. And life, as we know it, is exactly what you get on this particular planet after millions of years of evolution, adaptation to environmental change, mutation and genetic drift.

 

The reason we claim that it is “intelligent” is simply because we have evolved to a point where we are able to survive and flourish (relatively speaking). In a sense, we understand it and we know how to manipulate our environment. We are aware of it. It is our home, and it makes sense to us – it seems to be designed in an intelligent manner. Ironically, this view is a source of our discontent. I think we have lost the excitement and amazement with the fact of our existence. When we look we don't see, and when we listen, we don't hear. We are not "in relationship" with our world.

 

There is “suchness” about reality that we haven’t quite grasped. It is something that requires a radical acceptance of the way things are, and a clarity of mind and purpose that requires a bit of development.

 

Of course, this is all merely my opinion – as Joseph said, they are my “musings”.

 

Peace.

Steve

Edited November 14, 2013 by SteveS55

[romansh]

 

What's more abracadabra: believing that somebody built extremely complex entities, or they built them themselves?

 

With all due respect ... Evolution and the underlying genetics gives us a glimpse of how these things came to be.

 

Abracadabra ... god did it. Does not work for me. I am sorry renewedfaith, Not understanding something is not the equivalent of god did it.

 

I did not catch your five transcedent truths.

[PaulS]

 

 

I did not catch your five transcedent truths.

 

I didn't actually catch any scientific discoveries, advances or theories that have been formulated because of a belief in God either!

[romansh]

 

Please don't take this wrong. However, your five responses tell me nothing.

 

 

Fair enough - can you give an example of an answer that would tell you something? An answer where you would say yes, that is evidence in support of evolution?

Edited November 14, 2013 by romansh

[renewedfaith1964]

 

Fair enough - can you give an example of an answer that would tell you something? An answer where you would say yes, that is evidence in support of evolution?

 

Here's a very simple question that no evolutionist can ever answer. When I have asked it on non-Christian websites, I typically get the response, "You're an idiot." However, I am simply trying to show that people really haven't put any of their own brain power into this. They presume that all scientists have no agenda and have completely proven evolution. Having said that, I would like someone to tell me IN THEIR OWN WORDS how the first cell supposedly assembled itself. Please, don't point to articles or YouTube videos. I want someone to explain this phenomenon to me.

Edited November 14, 2013 by renewedfaith1964

[romansh]

 

Here's a very simple question that no evolutionist can ever answer. When I have asked it on non-Christian websites, I typically get the response, "You're an idiot." However, I am simply trying to show that people really haven't put any of their own brain power into this. They presume that all scientists have no agenda and have completely proven evolution. Having said that, I would like someone to tell me IN THEIR OWN WORDS how the first cell supposedly assembled itself. Please, don't point to articles or YouTube videos. I want someone to explain this phenomenon to me.

 

I take it the answer is no.

In your own words, what does abiogenesis has to do with evolution?

 

Your question is poorly worded. AGAIN science does noy deal in truth ... ultimately its theories and laws are predictive descriptions. It is like asking are Newton's laws true.

 

And the nothing from nothing argument - just perhaps the sum total of energy of the universe is nothing?

 

Even if there is a god - there is no sensible evidence that it is a Christian god.

Edited November 14, 2013 by romansh

[matteoam]

There is something disingenuous about what want to hear from people but are unwilling to accept what is given as an opinion. I think everyone in this conversation speaks in their own words according to their understanding of molecular and evolutionary biology. Including yourself. I am not knowledgeable about these sciences. All I think I know is the God is the source of all creation. But I also think that the notion of what or who God is differs. Even those here who present a more atheistic view are as correct in their understanding of the process of evolution. I think what you want to do here is present a dialectic in which you come to the table already presuming that if you are an atheist or if your theology differs from anyone's them you are right and they are wrong and you seem to want to convince us of our errors. That's fine. Whatever. Maybe you need to study evolutionary vilify and molecular biology to see what these sciences say about cell growth. Maybe you should also study paleantology and physics without judgment that what some experts in these fields think theologically. If you expect an answer without any reference to outside doyrces then that is impossible. You cannot express an opinion without knowledge from another source. In your case it will be the Bible. So are you willing to not refer to scripture to explain science? That's absurd. One has nothing to do with the other. I can't explain the phenomena of cell growth. Are you willing to listen to a person more knowledgeable in that field without critical judgement of them if they don't say well its God?

[PaulS]

 

However, I am simply trying to show that people really haven't put any of their own brain power into this.

 

Having said that, I would like someone to tell me IN THEIR OWN WORDS how the first cell supposedly assembled itself. Please, don't point to articles or YouTube videos. I want someone to explain this phenomenon to me.

 

There are a number of theories that science is still trying to work out. Humans are still yet to determine the exact process that started all this some 4 BILLION years ago.

 

Simply because the exact answer is yet to be scientifically determined doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

As far as I am aware, no religious person has ever provided a credible explanation of how God got started. "He just always was" is apparently a perfectly satisfactory answer.

[matteoam]

Paul

 

Exactly.

[romansh]

 

This is the typical hyperbole I hear, but there's no substance. What specifically have "the field of genetics" shown? Not trying to harp on you, but I typically get these overly generalized statements. Where is reference to actual genetic findings?

 

 

 

 

If you are truly interested in seeing why evolution may have some validity I suggest the video below.

I know you did not want a youtube reply .. Professor Miller gives three examples of where people get it wrong regarding:

No intermediate fossils

Complexity

How humans have a common ancestor with apes.

 

The latter is amazing - the great apes have 24 chromosone pairs where as humans have 23. The only way we could be related is if two of the chromosone pairs fused. The telomeres can be found in the center of chromosone. Go to the 35 min mark. But the whole video is amazing.

 

Plus it goes into whole bunch political and emotional aspects around the Intelligent Design debate.

 

Edited November 16, 2013 by romansh