15 Questions for Evolutionists

[betsy]

That's ridiculous. The theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the creation of matter and the germ theory doesn't have to explain the creation of microbes. Other theories do that.

Evolution does not have to explain the creation of life, other theories like abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. have that task.

Matter was proven. Microorganisms are proven.

Yes, evolution definitely has to explain the origin of life - since it's from that very origin of life that evolution is supposed to have begun.

Interestingly, somebody responded to Creation Ministries that abiogenesis was not relevant to evolution!

And here's Creation Ministry's response:

No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it.

Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004).

Notice also that, as we stated clearly above, creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Supernatural cause then?

If the answer cannot be found in the natural - they've had more than a century to find it - then perhaps science would be humble enough to admit that it's possible the answer could come from the supernatural.

How about not supernatural either, what about 'other' ?

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 1:


http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

if the answer cannot be found in the natural.

Then we don't have the right technology to find the answer at the current time.

[GostHacked]

Then we don't have the right technology to find the answer at the current time.

We developed technology to understand the electromagnetic spectrum. A good deal of it we cannot see with our own eyes.

[GostHacked]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 1:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU

This site is a hoot.

[Sleipnir]

We developed technology to understand the electromagnetic spectrum.

But not 200 years ago when we retorted to religious texts when 'we don't know'.

[GostHacked]

Here we go.

There can be no argument between creationism and evolution. There can be no debate as to which one is right. They deal with two different topics.

Does creationism deal with how life started? Yes.

Does evolution deal with how life started? No.

[betsy]

Then we don't have the right technology to find the answer at the current time.

But we do have the technology. Except that advancing technology keeps negating or challenging evolution! Advancing technology shows no mercy to evolution.....

But yet we see the "facts" of neo-Darwinism constantly being revised. Last year alone:

• Archaeopteryx was challenged as an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds
• Theropod dinosaurs were challenged as the ancestors of birds
• Ardi was hyped as human ancestor based upon questionable evidence
• Ida was the "link" that went bust

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat030621.html

....and yet it shows support for the theory of Intelligent Design.

The famous atheist philosopher ANTHONY FLEW reluctantly converted to DEISM because he got convinced by the evidence for Intelligent Design.

[GostHacked]

But not 200 years ago when we retorted to religious texts when 'we don't know'.

The Ancient Greeks understood light in some aspects, and in the 1800s, the discoveries of much of the electromagnetic spectrum was found. So yes, it was about 200 years ago.

[GostHacked]

But we do have the technology. Except that advancing technology keeps negating or challenging evolution! Advancing technology shows no mercy to evolution.........and yet it shows support for the theory of Intelligent Design.

The famous atheist philosopher ANTHONY FLEW reluctantly converted to DEISM because he got convinced by the evidence for Intelligent Design.

Advancing technology in of itself is a proof of evolution. However this is evolution through the creator if you will. The creator being man. However machines cannot evolve on their own. There is a fundamental difference between mechanical and biological. Biology has the mechanisms to procreate. Mechanics do not.

Well good for Mr. FLEW. Hope he is comfortable in his choice, does not affect me really.

[BubberMiley]

Except that advancing technology keeps negating or challenging evolution! Advancing technology shows no mercy to evolution.........and yet it shows support for the theory of Intelligent Design.

You said science was unwilling to admit to the possibility of creationism and in the next post claim that it shows support for the theory of intelligent design.

If you really want to debate this topic, you should at least have an inkling of where you stand.

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 2:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0

[GostHacked]

Oh these guys on creationism are awesome, talking those 10 to the nth power. Seems to be a trend with these guys to tray and win you over with big-ness numbers like that.

I must also note that Creationism.com does not like you commenting on their videos. All comments are disabled. That is always a sign of an open minded community who could accept criticism .. right?

Edited March 18, 2013 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

As long as Creationism stays out of the public classrooms of our schools and universities...not a problem. But censorship of science in favor of betsy's particular brand of mythology just isn't going to happen...no matter the passions displayed by her. There's a billion Chinese with no such idiocy...and billions more who'll simply not accept the 6 Day Creationist's version of how it all went down. Go back to the Dark Ages at your own peril....please.

[Sleipnir]

But we do have the technology. Except that advancing technology keeps negating or challenging evolution!

Betsy, part of science is continually try and challenge what we know by analyzing whatever comes to our attention. When it comes to evolution, there are absolutely no credible or solid information that remotely contradicts the idea of evolution.

However, not all aspect of evolution are easily explained and requires further understanding in the said aspect. Example, I recall from my textbook that natural selection do not easily explain sexual dimorphism in birds - I know there are people currently looking into this phenomenon.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Sleipnir

[g_bambino]

But we do have the technology.

What technology do we have to find the origin on life and what is the answer that technology helped us discover?

[A]dvancing technology keeps negating or challenging evolution! Advancing technology shows no mercy to evolution...

Er, good. That's exactly how the scientific process works: keep challenging theories and conclusions with new evidence, theories, and conclusions until the most irrefutable answer possible is found.

[g_bambino]

You said science was unwilling to admit to the possibility of creationism and in the next post claim that it shows support for the theory of intelligent design. .

Well, of course. I mean, science is garbage but science has proven parts of the Bible to be true. How can you not get that?

[Sleipnir]

What technology do we have to find the origin on life and what is the answer that technology helped us discover?

The concept of evolution is not meant to find the origin of life - but rather focus on how life changes through evolutionary history.

[GostHacked]

Science and technology makes a pretty damn good fishing rod too.

People can't really be that ignorant, can they?

Edited March 18, 2013 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

What technology do we have to find the origin on life and what is the answer that technology helped us discover?

Er, good. That's exactly how the scientific process works: keep challenging theories and conclusions with new evidence, theories, and conclusions until the most irrefutable answer possible is found.

Yes...science is actually geared to disprove things. No sacred cows...no expert opinions. Both Higgs and Hubble are examples of "upstarts" knocking over the apple cart.

[g_bambino]

The concept of evolution is not meant to find the origin of life - but rather focus on how life changes through evolutionary history.

Very true, and that was said in the original post in this particular thread of the conversation; a fact betsy chose to ignore.

[DogOnPorch]

Very true, and that was said in the original post in this particular thread of the conversation; a fact betsy chose to ignore.

We have a couple of good candidates for life right in our own Solar System. Europa and Titan....perhaps even Triton out orbiting distant Neptune.

[betsy]

Betsy, part of science is continually try and challenge what we know by analyzing whatever comes to our attention. When it comes to evolution, there are absolutely no credible or solid information that remotely contradicts the idea of evolution.

However, not all aspect of evolution are easily explained and requires further understanding in the said aspect. Example, I recall from my textbook that natural selection do not easily explain sexual dimorphism in birds - I know there are people currently looking into this phenomenon.

Let me remind you that when I say evolution, I'm talking about common descent/random, macro evolution.

[betsy]

What technology do we have to find the origin on life and what is the answer that technology helped us discover?

How did they know that the universe is stretching? That the universe had a begining? How did they know that there are mountain ranges and trenches under the ocean? How did they find out what a human body is made of? How did they find out how fine-tuned the universe is? The complexities of the cells, the dna, etc.,

All those lend support to design by a Designer rather than just existing by pure accident! Like what was said in the video rebutt, science is actually vindicating the Biblical accounts.

Er, good. That's exactly how the scientific process works: keep challenging theories and conclusions with new evidence, theories, and conclusions until the most irrefutable answer possible is found.

Yeah, and usually they throw the theory out when they see that it's a real dud. A dead-end. Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy