Science/Evolution

tjguitarz said:
I glanced at the first of what he said, and the guy obviously didn't read the book very closely. I don't hold much merit to a guy who posts a website like that. All he is doing is attacking. The spells "too much time" and a personal grudge.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of other sites out there, but somehow, I don't think you're interested in a critique, are you?
 
ok a few thigns to state


evolution, by my science definition, is na unconfirmed hypothesis, much like dark said.

and, most scientists (as far as ive heard) are evolutionists and will try there best to pick on u and turn u into one of them.

and about the whole darwin recanted his theory on his death bed is a lie. i read that it was started by a Widow of a navy general (i believe) who said he recanted his theory to her on his death bed. darwins daughter later said the the woman was not even there. now she could be lying to cover up the truth, this tory itself could be a rumor, OR it could all be right idk.

and ty dark, happy to know evolution hasnt changed much since 2k4 lol

i only read a little bit about it. I read about the fossil record,the geological column,the cambrian explosion, structural homology, and molecualr biology, and learned a little bit about his book. at the end of the chapter it said that they jsut scratched the surface and there was much more. i want to learn about the much more, my corriculum suggested reading Evolution: The fossil record still says no! so i prob will buy that book, but im looking for others that talk about different subject on evolution.
 
There is a organization out there, I will put the link on here later, that is offering $500,000 to someone who can provide even the littlest evidence of evolution. So far they have never had to pay out.
 
Also, I have been doing some research of this, and Darwin recanting his theory on his deathbed, or anything to that effect is not true.
 
XionTawa said:
There is a organization out there... offering $500,000 to someone who can provide even the littlest evidence of evolution. So far they have never had to pay out.
Click to expand...

I heard the same thing too. And it's really kind of funny that there's NO evidence. It provides me a chuckle during sad times.
 
I think the rational place to start with any discussion on evolution is with a definition:
ev·o·lu·tion: any process of formation or growth; development
Click to expand...
Source: Dictionary.com

The next point to address is whether we're discussing macro-evolution or micro-evolution. Most Christians I've spoke with won't raise a fuss about micro-evolution. The point of contention is the origin of man.

Finally, in any discussion on evolution involving Christians, the question should be raised: Is the theory of evolution incompatible with Christian belief? Not all Christians interpret all Scripture literally. Is it at least possible that God used evolution to create life on earth? I know the theory is controversial, and I personally don't subscribe to it, but it's at least a point of discussion.
 
Dark Virtue said:
There are plenty of other sites out there, but somehow, I don't think you're interested in a critique, are you?
Click to expand...

I was interested. I read through the entire critique. the author is 95% right about his critique of the Jonathan Wells chapter, as very few serious evolutionary scientists use the icons Wells brings up. However, the author does a horrible job of "debunking" the arguments made by Dr. Collins about the improbability of the universe even existing. We can mathematically approximate the improbability of the Universe, but his argument is that no matter what the improbability of the Universe having these exact laws happens to be, the improbability of God is even greater... based on what appears to be only opinion (but perhaps I'm misreading his statements).

I agree with his statement that the rare earth argument really has little to do with creation vs naturalism, but is rather just a quirky scientific fact. The sources quoted for debunking Michael Behe's chapter obviously show a complete lack of understanding about what "irreducible complexity" is. The example of the crude paddle being better than no paddle still implies design-- the paddler intelligently recognized the paddle and intelligently chose to pick it up and use it in that manner. The bacteria has no such intelligence with which to identify and properly put to use a flagellum, no matter how likely or unlikely the existence of said flagellum. The very argument against design unintentionally makes another point for it.

A quote from the critique regarding the seeming incompatibility between the improbability of the fine-tuning of cosmic forces and the improbability of natural creation of life:
For if both lines of argument are correct, the Designer fine-tunes the world to allow life to appear without divine intervention, but doesn't fine-tune the world so that life will appear without divine intervention. That seems very odd indeed. And of course Strobel didn't even try to reconcile these two conflicting lines of argument.
Click to expand...
This argument is easily reconcilable-- it points to a God who, by this design, points to Himself as the only possible explanation while still giving us the freedom to choose to believe something else. The fact that Strobel did not address it is simply an oversight on his part, not that it is unexplainable.

Also, this statement makes clear that the author doesn't follow his own advice. When he quotes the book at the end (I'm not sure how to quote the quote of a quote of a quote, but it originated with Bert Russell), Bert says something to the effect of pointing out that how we want things to be is not important, and that it does no good to try to explain away the way things are. However, the author then demands an explanation for the stated facts. The fact that he spends time pointing out perceived inconsistencies based on God's character rather than the facts belies his own bias.

I could go further, but suffice it to say that although the author makes several valid points about the weaker arguments, his arguments fail in many cases. I give him a B for effort, a D for execution. I'd much rather hear from a true agnostic on the issue than either an atheist (weak or strong) or theist. Unfortunately, what causes most people to look into the issue is not a desire for truth, but a desire to be proven true.
 
Last edited:
XionTawa said:
There is a organization out there, I will put the link on here later, that is offering $500,000 to someone who can provide even the littlest evidence of evolution. So far they have never had to pay out.
Click to expand...

I've heard of a guy who did that with 10 grand, but wow that's cool
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff;210951 said:
EVERYTHING
Click to expand...

Mad props to you WBK. Thanks for reading it for us and providing us cliffnotes. I have to agree on your last statement. I prefer the persuit of the truth rather than trying to be proved.
 
XionTawa said:
There is a organization out there, I will put the link on here later, that is offering $500,000 to someone who can provide even the littlest evidence of evolution. So far they have never had to pay out.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see this challenge.

I couldn't find any information on it on the net. I did, however, find a $10,000 "Life Science Prize Challenge" that seeks to have the debate refereed by a judge in a courthouse.
 
I know they have it, I am just trying to see if I can find it online... The organization is called Answers in Genesis...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top