Evolution Cannot be Proven

reply to post by savagediver


From www.talkorigins.org...:

"One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on."

Originally posted by Monsieur Neary
reply to post by savagediver

 

From www.talkorigins.org...:

"One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on."

Agree with what you are saying. My point was to show there are highly intelligent people who do believe in creation. Just wanted to show that not everyone who belives in creation is just some kind of radical religous nut job.Fact is science and religion are two separate disciplines. Most scientists will stay clear of any kind of a public debate on religion period as in can not be scientifically tested.


The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science. Today’s scientific method, which is a philosophy of approach based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science.


www.tufts.edu...


I just wish it could be known by some that there are those who believe in both creation/evolution but I think this leads to even more arguments from some that I dont have the brain power or the energy to use to debate it. I feel I mouthed off a bit or acted somewhat of a smart a$$ in some of my responses yesterday and for that I apologize. I honestly do appreciate the respect and common decency with which yourself , Jaxon and some others have debated with me on this subject without lowering yourselfs to the level of some of the others and to the level of immaturity I was headed as well yesterday. I think the civil discourse that some have shown on here demonstrates some true intellgence and wisdom. Thanks for your response to me and your input.

His point remains. It's not much use making a list of people who believed creation before evolution even hit the scene. It's almost as bad as quote mining.

But there is a problem with believing both creation and evolution. At what stage does god come into the picture? The only place I can see is at some stage before the bigbang.

reply to post by the_watcher

In the very beginning God made animals that all reproduced accorind there kind. In other words God made wolves that breed wolves, lions that breed lions, and dinosaurs that breed more dinosaurs.

I don't understand and am sure you can't answer this question (heck scientist still cannot answer this question). If god made "animals"; humans included, to reproduce according to their "kind", then why is it that I being O-negative cannot reproduce with an rh-positive parter whom according to science; I am of the same spieces (a human). The pieces just don't fit.

I'm sorry, I respect ones beliefs; we all have a right to believe what we want and I do not judge. Really though, what is a more likely scenario? Jesus Christ floating out of the clouds and down to earth? Or aliens coming out of the sky? Yeah, I'm going for the aliens. If science can "prove" all which you've stated, then why can they not "prove" where O-negative blood type originated? Nor can they clone it! Again, the pieces don't fit, IMO.

Hope I'm not to off topic there, and hope all of that made some kind of sence???? Hehe, I'm having some alone time with a bottle of wine, so, maybe the above looks like a bunch of mumbo jumbo rambling. Hopefully some will understand my questioning....

Originally posted by Good Wolf
But there is a problem with believing both creation and evolution. At what stage does god come into the picture? The only place I can see is at some stage before the bigbang.

This might be what you're looking for: Watchmaker Analogy.

It has some flaws but this is essentially what it says and how it ties into the O.P.'s claims how evidence for evolution is evidence of design:

If you come across a watch, a complex object, you will know by examining it that it had an intelligence behind it's creator. However, if you came across a self-running watch making factory, then you'd pretty much say, 'Oh boy! Yes. There is definitely an intelligence behind this factory which produced the watch.'

The watch = any living object (insect, plant, human, or animal).
The factory = evolution.

It can be used as a teleological argument for ID or theistic evolution. We might think a cell or living organism is complex but how much more so complex is evolution. Hence, it too would have required an intelligence that far surpasses the need for an intelligence relying on 'Poofing' things into existence.

reply to post by AshleyD


Which inevitable leads to the aethist comeback of 'Then who created the Creator, as this being is also so complex that it had to be made by something even more complex than it!'

[edit on 21-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I guess. Unless you've moved on past Sunday School level questions and can understand God's relationship to physics.

Dawkins tried to use that question against Lennox in a formal debate. He was pretty much owned.

Edit to add: I stated above there are some flaws with the watchmaker's analogy. Can't remember the specific but it goes something like this:

Actual Watchmaker Analogy:

1). A watch is complex and requires a creator.
2). The universe and life is complex and requires a creator.
3). A creator created the universe.

Fallacy Example:

1). A watch and the universe are both complex and require a creator.
2). A watch was created by a 250 lb. bald man.
3). Therefore, the universe was created by a 250 lb. bald man.

(Something like that but I can't remember exactly how it was stated lol).

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Good Wolf
But there is a problem with believing both creation and evolution. At what stage does god come into the picture? The only place I can see is at some stage before the bigbang.

This might be what you're looking for: Watchmaker Analogy.

It has some flaws but this is essentially what it says and how it ties into the O.P.'s claims how evidence for evolution is evidence of design:

If you come across a watch, a complex object, you will know by examining it that it had an intelligence behind it's creator. However, if you came across a self-running watch making factory, then you'd pretty much say, 'Oh boy! Yes. There is definitely an intelligence behind this factory which produced the watch.'

The watch = any living object (insect, plant, human, or animal).
The factory = evolution.

It can be used as a teleological argument for ID or theistic evolution. We might think a cell or living organism is complex but how much more so complex is evolution. Hence, it too would have required an intelligence that far surpasses the need for an intelligence relying on 'Poofing' things into existence.

Oh dear me. The watchmaker analogy is one of the oldest arguments in the book. I could point out the obvious, like a watchmaker makes watches. Fair enough. Then you discover a shoe. The watchmaker obviously didn't make the shoe, so who did? we need to create a shoemaker.

Lets just skip to end and point out the glaring problem,

If God created everything he must be quite a complex creature to our understanding. As a complex creature, he requires a creator.

What's that? God is infinite and has no beginning or end?

Ok

So why is that such a problem when the same qualities are applied to the universe itself?

reply to post by kegs


I swear you guys read from Dawkins' book The God Delusion during these debates. lol These are parroted critiques from his book.

Anyways, if you take the time to read my first post above, you will see I was not defending the analogy but explaining what it states to answer a question for another member who asked how God could possibly fit in to the theory of evolution. This should be clear by my lack of defending the analogy and even pointing out the fact there are flaws with it.

So, now it is my turn to be a parrot and to mimic Lennox's rebuttal of Dawkins.

While we are on the subject of things that make no logical sense, here is another: Created gods. Of course, the God of the Judeo Faith is not considered a created being. If He was, we'd have a huge problem on our hands. It is not logical to have a God that was created.

My own thoughts: I believe God is outside the bind of physics (causality, entropy, etc.) and is not governed by the laws of this material realm. And of course since I do not believe He is of this material dimension, I also do not believe He is governed by the law of biogenesis. He is not a created God.

That is the cliff notes version. There is a thread entitled, 'ID: The proof the world is looking for' where all of this was discussed in depth if you want to check it out. I'm pretty uninterested in hashing this all out again.

Ashley, what if I told you evolution was a blind watchmaker?



The watchmaker analogy doesn't work because watches aren't alive. They don't reproduce or feed or anything. The watch is a terrible analogy of evolution.

I encourage you to watch all of these.

Computer simulations have used mutation and natural selection and produced more complex (yes, IC systems) life forms than those that were designed.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

Is anyone listening to anything I said? lol

Let me repeat some things from all of my comments to this thread:

It has some flaws

Edit to add: I stated above there are some flaws with the watchmaker's analogy. Can't remember the specific but it goes something like this:

Anyways, if you take the time to read my first post above, you will see I was not defending the analogy but explaining what it states to answer a question for another member who asked how God could possibly fit in to the theory of evolution. This should be clear by my lack of defending the analogy and even pointing out the fact there are flaws with it.

Now I remember why I made the decision to stay out of the O&C forum. It's futile and intellectual discussion is impossible because people only want to argue with their Dawkins and Darwin programmed responses. lol Toodles.

Or that things like the watchmaker argument are tosh. We know a watch is ID because we know humans make them and if we like we can witness it happening, we know it doesn't occur by natural processes. But we can demonstrate how life forms get fine tuned by environment with irreducibly complex systems. They just don't need to be designed.

FYI I haven't read any of Dawkins books and the only time I've seen his work it was a docco on Global Warming.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by AshleyD



Haven't read any of Dawkins books, and to be frank I regretted even trying to reply to your post as soon as I hit send.

None of the points I made earlier in the thread have been addressed, and you won't even try. If it's not in your trained play book or part of your pastors recent sermons about the "ebils of man birthing monkeys", you don't even know where to begin.

You will never look something up for yourself. Looking something up on a creationist website doesn't count by the way.

You can lie to yourself all you want. You can do it for your whole life, you can pretend reality is anything you like. No one really cares. As long as you keep it in your own little bubble.

Where we have a problem is when you want to take your delusions and project them onto the rest of us, and expect us to follow your brainwashed claptrap.

You expect us to allow you to dictate to the rest of the democratic world just because you are so far gone in your delusion you can't keep it up unless you get others to sing along.

You have plenty of ex second hand car dealers and estate agents that have grasped the unique opportunity of tax free profits from the simple task of feeding gullible people BS while taking tithes and "donations"

They are your leaders. Give them all the money you like, believe all the BS they spout, that's your right. Just don't expect anyone else to do the same, and don't be surprised when people don't like it much when you suggest they do.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by kegs]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Or that things like the watchmaker argument are tosh.

I can agree with this. I wouldn't say total tosh but it definitely has some flaws.

Anyways, I'm trying to be careful to not get too involved in this thread because discussing ID/evolution yet again sounds about as appealing to me as spending a romantic weekend with Adolph Hitler's corpse. However, this statement of your intrigued me:

But we can demonstrate how life forms get fine tuned by environment with irreducibly complex systems. They just don't need to be designed.

Are you an advocate of irreducible complexity? I'm curious because that is/was something advocates of ID hail as one of their main champions yet it has some flaws against it as well from evolution. Could you expand on that? I don't want you to debate you on it- it was just surprising to me to see an evolutionist mention such a thing. Thanks.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Your missing the point, Wolfie! She was not using or defending the analogy, which she said was flawed, she was actually trying to help you with the point you were trying to make with the post where you said-

Originally posted by Good Wolf
But there is a problem with believing both creation and evolution. At what stage does god come into the picture? The only place I can see is at some stage before the bigbang.

Think about it. Ashley is a creationist, not a ID supporter! Why would she suddenly support ID?

Wow, 2 posts while I was writing mine!

Originally posted by AshleyD
Anyways, I'm trying to be careful to not get too involved in this thread because discussing ID/evolution yet again sounds about as appealing to me as spending a romantic weekend with Adolph Hitler's corpse.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You kill me!

Originally posted by kegs
None of the points I made earlier in the thread have been addressed and you won't even try.

And you are complaining to me for what reason? I haven't even read the whole thread and haven't seen any of your question. I entered this multi-paged thread just above on this very page. So sorry you feel like you have been ignored in some way or haven't been the recipient of my focused attention and rebuttals. I don't even know who you are nor have I read anything else you submitted previously. Sorry.

I also didn't read anything else you wrote after the above sentence I quoted above. Again, sorry.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by kegs
None of the points I made earlier in the thread have been addressed and you won't even try.

And you are complaining to me for what reason? I haven't even read the whole thread and haven't seen any of your question. I entered this multi-paged thread just above on this very page. So sorry you feel like you have been ignored in some way or haven't been the recipient of my focused attention and rebuttals. I don't even know who you are nor have I read anything else you submitted previously. Sorry.

I also didn't read anything else you wrote after the above sentence I quoted above. Again, sorry.

Thanks for making my point for me.

reply to post by kegs


Are you accusing me of purposely running away from a discussion with you? Well, you're right. It's because I was one of the inspirations for THIS thread by the boss man himself and THIS complaint where I was subsequently post banned, also by the boss man himself. lol So, sorry, I'm no stranger to evo/ID/creationist debates. It's a blast of a topic- ATS is just a place where I no longer feel safe and free to discuss the issue so my involvement dwindled down to casual involvement in random threads.

There just comes a time when you know you're kicking against the grain and make yourself realize things will be the way they are and people will believe what they will believe. I don't want to get post banned again any time soon so I very rarely participate in this forum anymore and when people try to pull me in, I just pull myself right back out. That's why- it's not you personally at all. You can call it, 'learning my lesson.'

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]