Here is a response I posted to a bizarre comment I saw on CNN.com about Mike Huckabee.
Response to
“Everything Huckabee says or does became irrelevant the minute he raise his hand to signify he didn’t believe in evolution. America will not, and cannot, elect such a dunce.”
What? You didn’t know that man did not evolve from apes or anything else? You didn’t know that “evolution” does not explain the origin of life? You did not know that God created everything?
That stuff is all so obvious. What was wrong with all of those candidates who couldn’t see it?
ThirstyJon
Oh yes!! ThirstyJon, you nailed that one. The person who calls those who believe in creation a dunce show their incredible ignorance even as we speak.
Note to self..get on CNN and start commenting. Thanks!
Hey ThirstyJon
You know when we say there isn’t more deaf than the one who does not want to hear. The same goes for those who DO NOT WANT to see what God has created. Isn’t it amazing that even some of the most denying scientists are now wondering if their theories were not a bit far fetched. You think the blinds will see (or recognize) Him when they depart from this world?!!!
In your question for the survey, another answer could be: “neither, evolution is denying the awesomeness of creation”.
Brilliant response, totally devoid of any meaningful evidence.
And I do like how other repsonders here are acting as though all who accept evolution as a valid explanation are atheists. Not surprising; I’ve observed that creationists are generally shameless, brazen liars.
Response to Dimensio:
Welcome to Freedomthirst! 🙂
I have never met a Creationist who fits the description of your insult at all. In fact, I haven’t met any evolutionists who fit either.
I have also met evolutionists who also are religious. Most often I have met evolutionists who say “Creationists offer no evidence” while offering no evidence themselves either.
I have never once in my brief journey on this planet heard any evidence that would even come close to persuading me to put faith in the theory of evolution.
I am amazed that anyone believes it.
🙂
ThirstyJon
Perhaps you could actually explain your objections to the theory of evolution.
Regarding my statement about creationists, look to Lyne G’s posting.
Response to Dimensio:
I don't agree with your questioning of Lyne G's honesty. You can disagree with her, but you do not know her. 🙂
ThirstyJon
Dimensio, I am not ThirstyJon but I will tell you what I think and know:
There is zero proof concerning evolution, Darwin notwithstanding. There are now a multitude of scientists that do believe that creation is possible, logical and likely. Those who do believe in evolution, please prove your beliefs. I have never heard of one that actually could do so.
As for creation, fairly easy. You breathe. How? Accident of nature? Yeah right. You have a body that is rather complicated. The evolutionists believe that the body sort came out of the primordial ooze and became this incredibly complicated machine. Okay, if that did actually happen and we showed up evolving from an amoeba, how did the body manage so much exactness?
There has never actually been any way to prove evolution because there are a couple of gaps in the theory, meaning the cromag dudes didn’t show us the middle guys. Isn’t it odd that no scientist can show that there was a real bridge between the monkeys and the human? Maybe when we see that primordial ooze again, it’s somebody coming or going? Nah.
Lyne G’s response is very good, interesting and believes what she says. Your statement on creationists is bigoted and comes from a point of ignorance. Isn’t it interesting that all creationists are liars? Wow! In my experience, it’s difficult to get many people to agree on anything, atheists included actually. Are all evolutionists atheists? Doubtful. Are all creationists liars? Really doubtful.
Dude, you need to get a life and maybe at least believe what you say.
Thank you Jaz – your just made my day (rather my night…)
Dimensio,
First of all, if you would refer to the life of Darwin, you probably would find that at the end of his life, he admitted that most (if not all) of his works were fake. Try also to throw a puzzle up in the air. Chances are it will not fall to the floor completed.
As a journalist for the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel believed that everything happened by chance – no God, no creation…just evolution, until 1981 when he started discovering that what he had been fed with in through his school years was only half the picture…In The Case for Christ, as he felt compelled to put God on trial and literally disprove His existence, the more he conducted interviews the more he discovered that YES! God is real and so is His son Jesus Christ. In The Case for a Creator, again questioning whether or not the world evolved by itself or came to be with the held of an Intelligent designer, he stumbled upon very strong evidence that everything did not come together alone. Lee Strobel brings about very good examples of his search. In 2001 for instance, PBS presented a 7-part series called “Evolution”. What was not bragged about then was the fact that over a hundred scientists had written a 151-page document criticizing the network for not presenting accurately the controversy that exists among scientists regarding evolution. In his book, one of his interviews was with Dr. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Wells discussed amongst other things the Miller’s experiment which ended up being discredited because most geochemists since the 60’s have believed that the athmosphere was not what Miller had stated to be. Haeckel’s embryos as another topic (the problem: early stages similarities faked, not all species were represented…)
The Case for a Creator is quite interesting, through and through. Makes for good reading, especially written by someone who once was a self-professed atheist!!
Maybe some mud would be beneficial to open some people’s eyes.
First of all, if you would refer to the life of Darwin, you probably would find that at the end of his life, he admitted that most (if not all) of his works were fake
Please provide a citation to support this assertion.
As a journalist for the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel believed that everything happened by chance – no God, no creation…just evolution, until 1981 when he started discovering that what he had been fed with in through his school years was only half the picture…In The Case for Christ, as he felt compelled to put God on trial and literally disprove His existence, the more he conducted interviews the more he discovered that YES! God is real and so is His son Jesus Christ.
This has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution.
In The Case for a Creator, again questioning whether or not the world evolved by itself
The theory of evolution does not suggest that “the world evolved by itself”. The theory of evolution addresses only the mechanism by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry.
or came to be with the held of an Intelligent designer,
This is a false dichotomy.
he stumbled upon very strong evidence that everything did not come together alone.
What, exactly, are Strobel’s credentials on the subject of biology?
Lee Strobel brings about very good examples of his search. In 2001 for instance, PBS presented a 7-part series called “Evolution”. What was not bragged about then was the fact that over a hundred scientists had written a 151-page document criticizing the network for not presenting accurately the controversy that exists among scientists regarding evolution.
What, exactly, is the “controversy”? Please explain it, and provide citations to support your assertions. I am unaware of any significant “controversy” amongst the field of biologists.
In his book, one of his interviews was with Dr. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Wells discussed amongst other things the Miller’s experiment which ended up being discredited because most geochemists since the 60’s have believed that the athmosphere was not what Miller had stated to be.
This is wholly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Miller’s experiments addressed biogenesis, not diversication of extant biodiversity.
Haeckel’s embryos as another topic (the problem: early stages similarities faked, not all species were represented…)
Haeckel’s embryionic drawings were exposed as fakes by his contemporaries. That Haeckel falsified his drawings to lend support to his unpopular hypothesis that all embryos show morphology of ancestral forms during development does not affect the validity of the theory of evolution.
The Case for a Creator is quite interesting, through and through. Makes for good reading, especially written by someone who once was a self-professed atheist!!
As the theory of evolution is not synonymous with atheism, your statement has no relevance.
There is zero proof concerning evolution,
This is true of all scientific theories. Theories are supported by evidence, not by “proof”. To borrow a phrase, proof is for mathematics and whiskey.
There does exist extensive evidence for the theory of evolution. If you wish, I can reference a subset of it.
There are now a multitude of scientists that do believe that creation is possible, logical and likely.
Please define “creation”. Be specific, and reference the “logic” that supports it.
Note that a claim being “possible” is not logically equivalent to showing that a claim is likely to be true.
Those who do believe in evolution, please prove your beliefs. I have never heard of one that actually could do so.
Nothing in science is ever proven. You are holding the theory of evolution to a standard not applied to any other scientific claim.
As for creation, fairly easy. You breathe. How? Accident of nature? Yeah right. You have a body that is rather complicated. The evolutionists believe that the body sort came out of the primordial ooze and became this incredibly complicated machine.
The theory of evolution says nothing regarding “primordial ooze”. You are referring to abiogenesis, which is not a part of the theory of evolution. Moreover, you appear to be appealing to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Your personal refusal to accept a claim is not evidence that the claim is false.
Okay, if that did actually happen and we showed up evolving from an amoeba, how did the body manage so much exactness?
Please define “exactness”.
There has never actually been any way to prove evolution because there are a couple of gaps in the theory, meaning the cromag dudes didn’t show us the middle guys.
Your statement, in addition to appealing to the false notion that scientific claims are “proven”, appears to make little logical sense. Please explain what you mean by “gaps” in the theory. Also explain the relevance of your “cromags” reference.
Isn’t it odd that no scientist can show that there was a real bridge between the monkeys and the human?
Are you suggesting that primate evolution has not been studied and documented? A simple web search shows that your claim is demonstratably false: http://www.theprimata.com/evolution.html
Maybe when we see that primordial ooze again, it’s somebody coming or going? Nah.
This statement makes no logical sense.
Lyne G’s response is very good, interesting and believes what she says.
That Lyne G believes what she says has no bearing on the validity of her statement.
Your statement on creationists is bigoted and comes from a point of ignorance.
Actually, my statement is a result of conversing with creationists online for many years. I have observed a disturbing level of dishonesty from a disproportinate number of creationists. If you like, I can provide you with many specific and undeniable references.
Isn’t it interesting that all creationists are liars?
I did not say this. I said that creationists are “generally” liars. There may be creationists who do not lie, but my observation has been that they are the exception, not the rule.
Wow! In my experience, it’s difficult to get many people to agree on anything, atheists included actually. Are all evolutionists atheists? Doubtful. Are all creationists liars? Really doubtful.
As I did not claim that “all” creationists are liars, your above statement is meaningless. It would appear that you would rather attack me for a claim that I did not make than to address my actual statements.
Dude, you need to get a life and maybe at least believe what you say.
Evolution is dumb, seriously It’s been proven wrong nearly a century ago. The government is blinding people today to hide the evidence. If you disagree with me try to explain this:
Theory:
The “big bang” started from nothing but suddenly came from somewhere and it was a SPINNING thing that exploded. It created all the planets and everything.
Fact 1: If something is spinning clockwise and explodes or breaks apart all the particles that fly from it should be spinning clockwise too.
Fact 2: All the planets are spinning, yet in different directions.
Conclusion: Why? God made it that way so it would make the evolution theory look dumb.:)
And the part that you say that he should get a life is unreasonable because according to your religion… I mean your theory you don't have a life your just a mistake, a natures coincident. Please write back to me, and don't just say something mean, show some proof of evolution, and I will disprove it.
email: seim7ya@yahoo.com
First Dimensio, you have no sense of humor. That is evident. Some of those things were simply because I DO have a sense of humor. Primordial ooze being one of those statements that was to be laughed at. Get it? Clue?
You remind me of all those intellectual snobs that I have run up against. You want it all laid out on the table for you to bash and put down because that is exactly what you want, to put down other people’s beliefs.
I do realize that you will think this story to be meaningless like everything else I said, but I thought I would tell it here anyway and risk it. There was a preacher who said that if he were to put a Rolex into a bag and pound it with a hammer, then leave the bag alone for..say..a couple thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand years…then open it, he would expect to see a complete watch based on the evolution theory. That seems to follow the way that works.
If evolution is true, then why doesn’t everything evolve? The only thing that I know that truly evolves is our thought process. That tends to evolve but not always in a positive manner. I could be wrong here.
Exactness…what I mean by that is that the body is an awesome machine. It does exactly what it was designed to do. Funny though. No human has ever been able to build one of their own. The body is close to perfect in what it is capable of without thought. People do not think to breathe, they do it because the body does it.
Uh, there is that one thing about when the body dies that it weighs one thing before death, then after death, it weighs less. Scientists believe that there is the possibility that there might just be a soul in there after all. Shocker. (nuther joke for those who didn’t get it)
Do I have to prove anything? No. But I have YET to read any “evidence” of evolution because, no matter how they try, the scientists cannot bridge the gap between the monkey and man and that would be a must. Supposedly, we have evolved from monkey to man. How? Where are the individuals that would be the in betweens. I see monkeys here. I see man here. Where are the other guys????
Please show me some evidence that they exist. Oh yeah, one thing. They have to be living now, not some dried up bones that anyone can say proves the in between. Know why? Because if we can see the monkeys and we can see man, then the in betweens should be here too. See?
So, where are they?
Creation.. from the dictionary (which pretty much says it all anyway. Got the definition at Dictionary.com. Take note, even the dictionary people acknowledge original Creation. Yes, I know. Doesn’t mean anything. Sure is a lot of that around though.)
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.
6. creatures collectively.
7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
Did that do it for you?
One tiny thing about man not being able to build a body of their own, that includes growing clones. I am talking about the fact that man cannot take chemicals and build from scratch. They even needed a body to replicate a body. But clones are not working out either. Even if they do, which I doubt will actually happen, they still will not be ORIGINAL material, just a copy of Someone else’s work.
And that’s the rest of the story. Good day!
“And I do like how other repsonders here are acting as though all who accept evolution as a valid explanation are atheists.”
Even though I’m sure many who accept evolution are not atheist, they are unwilling to believe God because if they did believe Him then they would accept creation as valid. Further, if people Believed God, they would be Christians. Not all creationists are Christian while all Christians accept creation.
“Not surprising; I’ve observed that creationists are generally shameless, brazen liars.”
That statement applies equally well to most humans, regardless of their stance on creation vs evolution. They’ll lie about anything given the least bit of justification that it somehow helps someone (usually themselves). Christians on the other hand will actually avoid lying.
“Theories are supported by evidence, not by ‘proof’.”
Semantics. Evidence constitutes ‘proof’
“Please define ‘creation’.”
See the creation story related in Genesis chapter one.
“The theory of evolution says nothing regarding ‘primordial ooze’.”
Perhaps, however it does require us to believe that life began in an extremely simple form and through a string of mutations and changes occurring by random chance, became more and more complex over time. This is in direct opposition to the fact that the level of entropy (disorder) in a system will tend to increase. Evolution requires entropy to decrease spontaneously.
Examine just one cell, any cell. There are literally thousands of chemical reactions required in order for it to exist in a living state. Evolution requires us to believe that this all happened by accident. The explanation that God created everything is much more believable… That cell exists with all of those chemical reactions in just the right balance because God designed and created it that way, no highly improbably series of random accidents required.
First Dimensio, you have no sense of humor. That is evident. Some of those things were simply because I DO have a sense of humor. Primordial ooze being one of those statements that was to be laughed at. Get it? Clue?
A sense of humuor is not a logically valid reason for introducing irrelevant concepts into a discussion. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by discussing unrelated concepts and then laughing.
You remind me of all those intellectual snobs that I have run up against. You want it all laid out on the table for you to bash and put down because that is exactly what you want, to put down other people’s beliefs.
It is not responsible for you to use unsupported assumptions regarding my motives as an excuse for not properly discussing a topic.
I do realize that you will think this story to be meaningless like everything else I said, but I thought I would tell it here anyway and risk it. There was a preacher who said that if he were to put a Rolex into a bag and pound it with a hammer, then leave the bag alone for..say..a couple thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand years…then open it, he would expect to see a complete watch based on the evolution theory. That seems to follow the way that works.
The apocryphal preacher’s analogy is invalid. The components of a Rolex watch do not posess the same properties as those of the components of biological organisms. Biochemicals tend to self-arrange in predictable patterns. The components of a watch do not. Moreover, the theory of evolution does not claim that biochemicals spontaneously self-assembled into complete organisms, much less in a vaccuum with no external energy inputs. The entire analogy is invalid.
If evolution is true, then why doesn’t everything evolve?
Only entities capable of imperfect self-replication can evolve. This is because imperfect self-replication is a key mechanism of the process of evolution; entities that do not tend to replicate imperfectly cannot evolve as a necessary mechanism of the process of evolution is not occuring. Your question suggests that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution at all.
The only thing that I know that truly evolves is our thought process. That tends to evolve but not always in a positive manner. I could be wrong here.
You are incorrect. Thoughts do not self-replicate as biological organisms do. As such, thoughts do not “evolve” in the sense of biological evolution at all.
Exactness…what I mean by that is that the body is an awesome machine. It does exactly what it was designed to do.
You are assuming that the body is “designed”. Please show that your assumption is correct.
Funny though. No human has ever been able to build one of their own.
This is meaningless.
The body is close to perfect in what it is capable of without thought. People do not think to breathe, they do it because the body does it.
I fail to see how this supports any claim that you are attempting to make. Please demonstrate a logical connection.
Uh, there is that one thing about when the body dies that it weighs one thing before death, then after death, it weighs less. Scientists believe that there is the possibility that there might just be a soul in there after all. Shocker. (nuther joke for those who didn’t get it)
You are referencing an urban legend with no basis in any legitimate research: http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
Moreover, even if a conclusive loss of weight upon death were shown (and MacDougall did not demonstrate this, as his sample size was far too small and his reseach methodology far too imprecise to obtain reliable results), it would show only that some mass was lost upon death. It would not logically follow that this mass was in fact a “soul”.
Finally, none of that has anything to do with the theory of evolution. The existence or lack thereof of a “soul” is completely irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
Do I have to prove anything? No.
You should provide evidence to support assertions that you have made.
But I have YET to read any “evidence” of evolution because, no matter how they try, the scientists cannot bridge the gap between the monkey and man and that would be a must.
Please explain what you mean by the above. How, exactly, would this “gap” be “bridged” to your satisfaction.
Supposedly, we have evolved from monkey to man. How? Where are the individuals that would be the in betweens. I see monkeys here. I see man here. Where are the other guys????
I have already referenced a website on primate evolution. You are free to dispute the claims made by researchers of the subject, but to claim that the research does not exist at all when you have been directed to the research is dishonest of you.
Please show me some evidence that they exist. Oh yeah, one thing. They have to be living now, not some dried up bones that anyone can say proves the in between. Know why? Because if we can see the monkeys and we can see man, then the in betweens should be here too. See?
Your statement is illogical. There is no reason to expect that a common ancestor species between currently extant monkeys and homo sapiens should still exist today.
So, where are they?
They are extinct. Your suggestion that they should still be extant is wholly unjustified.
Creation.. from the dictionary (which pretty much says it all anyway. Got the definition at Dictionary.com. Take note, even the dictionary people acknowledge original Creation. Yes, I know. Doesn’t mean anything. Sure is a lot of that around though.)
That a definition of a concept exists is not evidence that anyone who writes out the definition accepts the concept. Your conclusion is illogical.
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.
6. creatures collectively.
7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
Did that do it for you?
You have provided multiple definitions for the word. Which is the applicable definition for the context of your previous statement?
Even though I’m sure many who accept evolution are not atheist, they are unwilling to believe God because if they did believe Him then they would accept creation as valid.
Why? Please support your assertion.
Further, if people Believed God, they would be Christians. Not all creationists are Christian while all Christians accept creation.
Ken Miller and Francis Collins exist as counterexamples that show your claim to be false. Moreover, your statement implies an assumption that a “God” exists and that it is the Christian God. Both are unsubstantiated assertions. You cannot use them as the premise of an argument until you show both assertions to be correct.
That statement applies equally well to most humans, regardless of their stance on creation vs evolution. They’ll lie about anything given the least bit of justification that it somehow helps someone (usually themselves). Christians on the other hand will actually avoid lying.
I have observed a disproportionate level of dishonesty from self-professed creationists. If you like, I can provide multiple specific references, with documentation.
Semantics. Evidence constitutes ‘proof’
This is incorrect. Evidence can lend credibility and confidence for a scientific claim, but no scientific claim is ever “proven”. All scientific claims are tentative, subject to revision or even outright falsification in the light of a contradictory observation.
See the creation story related in Genesis chapter one.
Why that specific religious creation story, and no other?
Perhaps, however it does require us to believe that life began in an extremely simple form and through a string of mutations and changes occurring by random chance, became more and more complex over time.
You are incorrect. The process of evolution is non-random. Natural selection acts as a filter, resulting in a deterministic outcome.
This is in direct opposition to the fact that the level of entropy (disorder) in a system will tend to increase.
This is an oversimplification. This is only absolutely true in closed systems, or in systems where energy usage is greater than outside energy input.
Evolution requires entropy to decrease spontaneously.
Please support your assertion. Show that the proposed descent of Equus from Hyracotherium required a net decrease in entropy within the solar system.
Examine just one cell, any cell. There are literally thousands of chemical reactions required in order for it to exist in a living state.
It would appear that you are appealing to incredulity, which is a logical fallay.
Evolution requires us to believe that this all happened by accident.
This is false. Whether or not it is an “accident” is not addressed by the theory of evolution.
The explanation that God created everything is much more believable…
To which “God”, out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that specific deity and one specific creation account over all others?
Please note that merely declaring that your position is “more believable” is not evidence that you are correct. Your personal incredulity is not a logical argument.
That cell exists with all of those chemical reactions in just the right balance because God designed and created it that way, no highly improbably series of random accidents required.
Please support this assertion. Merely asserting the above is not evidence that your claim is true.
Dimensio , my case has been proven by you. You ARE one of those intellectual snobs . You love to play word games and absolutely nothing will ever satisfy you no matter what the argument, no matter how much proof given.
I am not interested in your games. I have had such discussions in the past and it never ends. You will always question something. There will always be one more thing to say in order to be the last one talking. I used to have a dog like that. Infuriated my father no end. The dog had to have the last say with a “woof woof” every time.
You want everything documented and piled up neatly. Sorry. I won’t play anymore. You can say what you like about me. I do not do well with intellectual snobs. Woof woof!
Response to all:
I have been told that “most” “scientists” believe in evolutionary theory. I cannot personally testify that this is or is not true.
Assuming that it is true I would offer the following. In the debate amongst “scientists” it is practical for the minority to work hard to prove their case. I am enthusiastically for Creationist “scientists” throwing themselves into the fray with honest and thorough debate.
For me personally, the burden of proof rests on the Evolutionist. This is simply because I have never heard one good reason to believe that life originated as a result of evolution, or that “kinds” of animals/plants/etc. came into being through evolution.
I have heard good reasons that species change and adapt (“evolve?”) and can observe that to some degree myself. I have heard that extremely rarely a genetic mutation is beneficial.
So, it appears to me that species change, but new “kinds” do not appear. In other words, Alligators don’t become dogs. Dogs just become new kinds of dogs with a significant amount of variety.
I do not have the faith to believe that Evolution explains the Origin of the Universe, the Origin of Life, or the Origin of any Species.
🙂
ThirstyJon
Dimensio, noticed one other thing I wanted to point out. When you have no answer for something in your snobbery and vain babbling, your answer is that it’s meaningless. Of course it is TO YOU. Nothing has meaning that you didn’t cluck out. Everything is illogical. Who the heck are you, Spock? Excuse me, but that is a character in a television show and you aren’t him.
You are a non-believing, self interested person who will never believe anything anyone here tries to say. Your comments run in circles and, frankly, I do not believe that you are the intellectual person you wish you were. Your arguments are without merit.
By the way, I am pretty tired of your put downs so I am finished here. Yes, your egotistical self will now declare you a winner. WRONG but you won’t see that either. I feel sorry for you and I will pray for you.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Dimensio It’s obvious that nobody is going to satisfy your argumentative line of questioning. Probably because you simply do not WANT to believe in any God and most especially you don’t want to believe in the Christian God and you will argue and find fault with any number of points that people try to make in your effort to avoid accepting God for who He is.
Why would anyone do this? Simply because accepting God for who He is requires you to acknowledge that as His creation you are answerable to Him. You don’t want to do that because you know that doing so means admitting that you have committed sin and must answer to Him for that sin.
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
There is an answer for this situation, however it requires faith, not science or argument.
Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
Response to Dimensio:
It always makes one appear wise to take the role of questioner and teacher, and you have done a good job of appearing in such roles here.
You are welcome to continue to do so and I will let others decide what they may.
I for one am not impressed with what appears on first glance to be “line by line” refuting of everyone else’s arguments. For me, the burden of proof is on the the “evolutionist.”
I am not claiming to be a qualified biologist, but I am honest and open and sufficiently intelligent. My faith in God is not threatened if He chose “evolution” as a mechanism for His work, but I haven’t observed good reason to believe so.
I remember hearing the presentation on evolution in my college biology class. The teacher presented the scientific method, which involved the need for theories to be testable and provable, and then taught that life never comes from non-life.
In the next lecture she taught us about evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of different species from a common ancestor.
I asked her (politely) if what she was teaching didn’t contradict the scientific method and the statement that life never comes from non-life?
She then informed me “this is just the curriculum that I have to teach.”
?????
My journey on this topic has been a long one. I am still not persuaded.
I asked my brother, who is a qualified biologist (his college degree is in that field and he has a genuine love there) to observe what he learned over the years and to let me know if he sees any good scientific evidence for the theory of evolution as presented in schools around the country (and the world).
He has not testified to the same faith and religious belief that I have, but has informed me that he has never heard any evidence that persuaded him regarding the theory of evolution.
I could go on and on, and I hope you enjoy picking it apart.
I remain open, but at this point unmoved. Evolution causing life and different “kinds” (I know species can “speciate” but that is not different “kinds”) of life still seems absurd to me. I have a difficult time understanding why folks buy into it.
ThirstyJon
P.S. Here are some links for those who want to read info from scientists who are not evolutionists.
discovercreation.org
answersingenesis.org
Response to all:
I understand why folks get discouraged, frustrated, or even angry with us “intellectual” types. I also have observed how presenting oneself as “more intelligent” or “smarter” can be offered as an argument in and of itself. Not a fair argument in my opinion, but one that our culture often accepts. I believe evidence should generally be understandable to a 10 year old to be considered truly persuasive.
Imagine being in a room full of people who actually just wanted truth! Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
I, for one, intend to be patient with my ultra-intellectual friends and trust God to be the judge of the matter. I am tempted to get upset if someone is good with words or tries to make me look like a fool. (Only God can judge if that is someone’s motive, but I know the feeling)
I am delighted to be considered a fool for Jesus. I am delighted to be considered a fool for stating the obvious. God is as plain as day. Evolution is very hard to believe and would require great amounts of faith. I am amazed that everyone doesn’t just see it. It is like debating whether or not there is a sun or whether or not air exists. Yep. God is that obvious to me, and so is His creation.
So I invite all believers, scientists, bloggers, etc. to join me in being patient with those who don’t see it. Let’s be proud to be fools together.
🙂
ThirstyJon
Dimensio , my case has been proven by you. You ARE one of those intellectual snobs . You love to play word games and absolutely nothing will ever satisfy you no matter what the argument, no matter how much proof given.
Your dismissal of my rebuttal as “word games” does not constitute a logical response. Additionally, arrogantly proclaiming that I will not accept evidence for a claim is not a valid rational substitute for actually supporting your claims with evidence. In fact, it creates the impression that you do not actually have evidence to support your claims, and that you are using your arrogant presumptions about actions that I have yet to take as an excuse for hiding this fact.
You want everything documented and piled up neatly. Sorry. I won’t play anymore. You can say what you like about me. I do not do well with intellectual snobs. Woof woof!
Your utter refusal to support any of your claims with evidence demonstrates only the weakness of your arguments. Insulting me is not a logically valid substitute for substantiating your assertions.
Dimensio, noticed one other thing I wanted to point out. When you have no answer for something in your snobbery and vain babbling, your answer is that it’s meaningless. Of course it is TO YOU. Nothing has meaning that you didn’t cluck out.
I stated that certain things that you claimed were “meaningless” because you made no logical connection between the statements and any actual logical point. It appeared as though you wished to argue your own personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
Everything is illogical. Who the heck are you, Spock?
Your attempts at ad hominem will not make your fallacious claims become valid. If you engage in logical fallacies in your arguments, it is not an invalid response to point out that your claims are based upon faulty reasoning.
Excuse me, but that is a character in a television show and you aren’t him.
I have never claimed to be any character in a television show. This does not validate any claim that you have made previously.
You are a non-believing, self interested person who will never believe anything anyone here tries to say.
Your arrogant presumptions will not validate your claims. Declaring that I “will not believe” you is not a valid substitute for providing evidence for your claims.
Your comments run in circles and,
If you would actually provide evidence for the claims that you make, I would not have to repeat myself in asking for evidence.
frankly, I do not believe that you are the intellectual person you wish you were. Your arguments are without merit.
How can you conclude that my arguments are “without merit” when you demonstratably refuse to address them?
By the way, I am pretty tired of your put downs so I am finished here. Yes, your egotistical self will now declare you a winner. WRONG but you won’t see that either. I feel sorry for you and I will pray for you.
I am sorry that you consider a request that you actually support your claims with evidence as a “put down”. Please try to understand that it is not my intent to insult you when I suggest that your statements are not perfect and above question, which appears to be what you believe.
It always makes one appear wise to take the role of questioner and teacher, and you have done a good job of appearing in such roles here.
I am merely asking that people who make specific claims provide evidence in support of their validity. I do not see how this makes me a teacher; if anything, I am asking to be a student by requesting information. I find it puzzling that so few, if any, are willing to actually provide evidence in support of their claims and a few have even outright declared that they will not provide any evidence to support their claims.
I for one am not impressed with what appears on first glance to be “line by line” refuting of everyone else’s arguments.
Are you suggesting that I should ignore claims and statements, even if they are apparently unsupported or based upon faulty reasoning?
For me, the burden of proof is on the the “evolutionist.”
This is an illogical position. The burden of proof should be upon anyone who is making a specific positive claim, regardless of their opinion on the validity of the theory of evolution. Should I make a specific claim regarding evidence for evolution, I should be expected to provide references. For example, if I were to claim that DNA evidence supports established lineages of evoltionary descent, I should be expected to provide a reference such as this one: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
If I were to counter a claim that no transitional fossils have ever been found, I should be expected to provide a reference such as this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
If I were to counter a claim that speciation has never occured, I would be expected to provide a specific reference such as this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Selif made a specific claim that the theory of evolution ran counter to established properties of entropy. I requested evidence in support of this claim. I do not see how my request is unreasonable; if an individual claims that the theory of evolution contradicts known propeties of entropy, that individual should be expected to be able to demonstrate this alleged fact.
Jaz claimed that a common ancestor species between the various monkey suborders and homo sapiens should still be extant. As such, the burden of proof is upon Jaz to show that the theory of evolution logically leads to such a prediction, though he (or she) has already admitted a refusal to provide any evidence for any previously made claim.
I am not claiming to be a qualified biologist, but I am honest and open and sufficiently intelligent. My faith in God is not threatened if He chose “evolution” as a mechanism for His work, but I haven’t observed good reason to believe so.
I am not a biologist either, which is why I rely upon the work of biologists when referencing statements, rather than referring to any research that I have done myself. What information have you studied as a means of drawing conclusions on the subject of evolution?
I remember hearing the presentation on evolution in my college biology class. The teacher presented the scientific method, which involved the need for theories to be testable and provable, and then taught that life never comes from non-life.
Either you are remembering incorrectly, or your teacher was misinformed. Theories are not “provable”. Nothing in science is ever “proven”. Scientific explanations are always tentative, and subject to revision or falsification in the light of potential contradictory observations.
The claim that “life never comes from non-life” has not been established. While an event of “life” emerging from “non-life” has not been observed to date, no evidence has shown that such an event is actually impossible.
In the next lecture she taught us about evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of different species from a common ancestor.
I asked her (politely) if what she was teaching didn’t contradict the scientific method and the statement that life never comes from non-life?
She then informed me “this is just the curriculum that I have to teach.”
?????
Your story is apocryphal , and cannot be evaluated in any meaningful way. Additionally, the only contradiction that you have implied is in suggesting that your instructor first informed you that life “never” comes from non-life — an undemonstrated claim — and then taught on the subject of abiogenesis. As the theory of evolution does not address abiogenes and as the theory is testable, there is no inherent contradiction.
My journey on this topic has been a long one. I am still not persuaded.
What research have you done on the subject?
I asked my brother, who is a qualified biologist (his college degree is in that field and he has a genuine love there) to observe what he learned over the years and to let me know if he sees any good scientific evidence for the theory of evolution as presented in schools around the country (and the world).
He has not testified to the same faith and religious belief that I have, but has informed me that he has never heard any evidence that persuaded him regarding the theory of evolution.
Has your brother studied the fossil record? If so, what is his impression of it? What is your brother’s impression of Endogenous Retrovirus markers in primate DNA, and the fact that such markers appear in patterns across species consistent with previously established (through the fossil record) lineages of descent? What does your brother make of the broken Vitamin-C synthesis gene common amongst primates, in that it is “broken” in essentially the same way in all primates, including humans (contrasted with the “break” in the gene in guinea pigs, where the alterations are significantly different than in primates)? The similarities in the break has suggested to many biologists that all extant primates share a common ancestor species wherein the break occured originally, and then was perpetuated through the species that branched from this ancestor, maintained because the diet of primates meant that the break did not constitute a reproductive disadvantage.
I could go on and on, and I hope you enjoy picking it apart.
You have made few specific claims that I could actually “pick apart”.
I remain open, but at this point unmoved. Evolution causing life and different “kinds” (I know species can “speciate” but that is not different “kinds”)
Please define “kinds” within the context of biology. Explain how it differs from “species”.
of life still seems absurd to me. I have a difficult time understanding why folks buy into it.
You appear to be appealing to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. That you find a claim “absurd” is not evidence that the claim is false. There are many who would say that the claim that a divine creator entity manifested itself in some fashion in human form and allowed that manifestation to be killed, then resurrected, as a means for allowing for the atonement of all of the misdeeds of humanity is “absurd”, but their belief in the absurdity of the claim is not, in any way, evidence that the claim is false.
I believe evidence should generally be understandable to a 10 year old to be considered truly persuasive.
Are you suggesting that medical science should be discarded unless it is easily understandable by an average ten year-old child? Such a requirement would require the abandonment of many recent life-saving treatments. Such a burden would also eliminate any field of engineering, as most ten year-olds would have a difficult time grasping the intricacies of calculus. The computer that you have used to compose your posting is also almost certainly based upon research that is beyond the understanding of an average ten year-old child.
Dimensio It’s obvious that nobody is going to satisfy your argumentative line of questioning. Probably because you simply do not WANT to believe in any God and most especially you don’t want to believe in the Christian God and you will argue and find fault with any number of points that people try to make in your effort to avoid accepting God for who He is.
The existence of deities, including the Christian God specifically, is not relevant to the theory of evolution. I mentioned the Christian God only in response to an individual who made a specific claim regarding alleged actions by the Christian God, and I responded only to ask why the person making the claim referenced that specific deity and excluded all others. I made mention only of the Christian God in response to another who brought up the subject. Had the subject of the Christian God not been brought up by another, I would have made no reference. I am not attempting to argue against the existence of any deity; I am only attempting to address claims regarding the theory of evolution and I am responding to unsubstantiated assertions with requests for evidence.
The theory of evolution exists independent of claims of the Christian God. I do not understand why you have responded by changing the subject in this way. Your changing of the subject is not a valid substitute for providing evidence of your previous claim that the theory of evolution somehow suggests a contradiction of the properties of entropy.
Response to Dimensio:
You said: “This is an illogical position.” in response to your quote of me : “For me, the burden of proof is on the the ‘evolutionist.’”
My reponse: I stated that for me the burden of proof is on the “evolutionist.” There is nothing illogical there. I can choose to put the burden of proof for my own persuasion anywhere I would like. So can you. I was careful (if you check the context of what I said) to differentiate between what would need to be proved for others and what would need to be proved for me. It still remains that I have never personally heard a good reason to believe either that evolution explains the origin of life or that it has caused the different kinds of life as descended from a common ancestor.
If someone tells me they can fly without an airplane, if they want to persuade me, the burden of proof is on them. 🙂
You also said “You have made few specific claims that I could actually ‘pick apart’.”
My Response: That is right. I didn’t write the article to prove or disprove evolution, creation, intelligent design, or any other theory. I wrote the post to respond to someone calling Mike Huckabee a “dunce” for not believing in evolution. I have stated that I do not believe in evolution as an explanation for the origin of life or the origin of different kinds of life. Again, I don’t believe it because it sounds silly and would require much faith for me to believe it. It is easier to believe God created. It takes less “faith.” Even if someone did prove to me that evolution explains the origin of life and different kinds of life, I would then simply believe that God did it that way. So far in my life, I have never heard a good reason to believe God did it that way.
So, in the public debate amongst scientists, perhaps (and I say “perhaps” because I have never personally researched if most scientists truly do believe in evolution, I have only heard it claimed) the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe the theory of evolution.
But for me personally, I reassert my claim. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist.
🙂
ThirstyJon
More response to Dimensio:
As far as appearing “wise” or like a “teacher” is concerned, NO, I am not suggesting that you stop asking people to prove what they say. I will let others stand on their own two feet in however they chose to respond to your questions.
I only mentioned those things so that any readers would consider the fact that asking questions doesn’t support one side or the other of an argument. My observation of human beings is that they tend to be more impressed with “questioners” than “answerers”, so if someone gains the position of “questioner” they can “win” a debate without providing any evidence for their position, or perhaps without taking a position at all.
I do not assert that you are motivated to do that, only that it is a dynamic any reader should take into consideration.
In other words, questioning the logic (or faulty logic) of people’s assertions doesn’t prove or disprove evolution or anything else for that matter. I am not saying that you are saying it does.
That part of my response should have been titled “Response to all.”
🙂
ThirstyJon
Response to Reasonable Robinson:
Interesting Thoughts.
Wouldn't it be interesting if we could all sit down for coffee and have tons of questions and answers between the lot of us?
Sounds fun to me.
ThirstyJon
Surely its not about about whether ‘questions’ are better than ‘answers’ or vice versa. Both play equivalent and important roles in our exploration of social truth. Q&A operate as a ‘system’ . Over emphasis on Qs without A’s predisposes the indiviudal to a state of , continually ‘knocking’ and ‘destructive ‘picking apart’ of alternative points of view, however Q’s keep us critically aware, innovative, and open minded. Over emphasis on A’s predisposes us dogmatic thinking and behaviour, it is stultifying and can be abused by shutting out (and in extremis killing) the alternative (heretical) voice. However answers are important because they demand rogour and ‘responsibility’ .
If we are all questions we find no answers
If we are all answers we deny all questions
Religious or Scientific polarisation in either of these modes is unhealthy for human being.
So, in the public debate amongst scientists, perhaps (and I say “perhaps” because I have never personally researched if most scientists truly do believe in evolution, I have only heard it claimed) the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe the theory of evolution.
The burden of proof is upon anyone who makes a specific claim. While those who advocate the theory of evolution do have a responsibility to provide evidence for the theory, I have seen no lack of evidence presented, and evolutionary biologists cannot be faulted when some refuse to examine or acknowledge the evidence — which I have seen happen.
However, when an individual claims that some specific aspect of the universe, such as a claim based upon universal entropy, shows that the theory of evolution is false, they have the burden of proof in showing that their claim regarding that aspect of the universe as it relates to the alleged impossibility of evolution is viable. In such a case, the individual is making a specific claim about the universe and drawing inferences from it. It is therefore the responsibility of the individual to show that their claims about the universe and the implications thereof are accurate. Suggesting that evolutionary biologists have the “burden of proof” regarding every claim that creationists make in their attacks on the theory is fundamentally dishonest.
Response to Dimensio:
You said:
Do you think that I am suggesting that? Or are you just throwing that out there for free? I am not suggesting that.
I am using the term “burden of proof” in a very simple way. If someone does not believe in God, and I wish to persuade them about the existence of God, the “burden of proof” is on me. If someone believes in God and I wish to prove that there is no God the burden of proof also is on me.
I am referring to “burden of proof” to persuade someone.
I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying.
ThirstyJon
I am using the term “burden of proof” in a very simple way. If someone does not believe in God, and I wish to persuade them about the existence of God, the “burden of proof” is on me. If someone believes in God and I wish to prove that there is no God the burden of proof also is on me.
I was addressing the theory of evolution. I made no statements about any deities.
Response to Dimensio:
You missed the point completely. I am explaining “burden of proof.” The mention of God is an illustration.
ThirstyJon
Dimensio tends to miss the point quite a lot. Closed minds are like that.
Sorry Jon, I could not resist that one. (she backs into her little corner of the world and sits down to mutter to herself.)
Case closed!!!
You missed the point completely. I am explaining “burden of proof.” The mention of God is an illustration.
I am aware of the intent of your statement, however I recommend refraining from bringing the issue of “God” into a discussion of evolution, as too many wish to conflate acceptance of evolution with rejection of God, when the two are completely seperate concepts.
Regarding what you perceieve as a lack of evidence for evolution; what, exactly, have you examined? I referenced a number of lines of evidence in a previous posting. You did not respond to any of those references.
Case closed!!!
Please explain and justfy your statement in the current context.
I note that you have ignored my response to your previous posting. Were you unable to address the statements that I made therein?
Dimensio tends to miss the point quite a lot. Closed minds are like that.
Please justify your assertion that I have a “closed mind”.
I note that you have ignored my response to your previous posting. Were you unable to address the statements that I made therein?
you know…when nothing else is left to be added to a no-nonsense never ending conversation, CASE CLOSED!!!
As for “refraining from brigning up God in the concept of evolution”, one does not go without the other. Believing in God is a matter of the heart. Some people have it, some people don’t. The decision is entirely yours. Hence, evolution too in a sense is the same. How can one accept the fact that everything we see in creation just happened by chance. Can you see germs – NO but they still exist. Can you see God, NO but some of us know because of what He has done in our life or around us. The choice is yours…
Dimensio, I admit that I do not have the education that you are trying to flaunt here. I do not have the command of the English language that you are showing off here. And that is what you are doing, isn’t it.
You are basically a pompous individual (I stopped myself from putting the word that usually follows that word…I was being kind to Jon.) who likes to try and make others feel inferior to you by your language skills. You must be a professor of something somewhere meaning that this is the way you talk to students as well.
No wonder. Ah well. Do I have answers? Yes, but you have proven that you do not, in fact, read what was written. You do not choose to see what is so obvious to others. You are closed minded and nothing is going to change that until God gets a hold of you, if He ever does.
There is nothing any of us can say to change your mind. You have made that abundantly clear. At this point, you are simply enjoying the argument, isn’t that right? Yes, it is.
You are a debater and you love to make everyone dance to your tune. Trouble is, we don’t want to dance. I have no idea how tired of your crap everyone else is but I am tired of it.
This is a useless waste of our time since you obviously are not seeking answers. I choose to no longer cast pearls before swine. If you do not get that reference, buy a Bible.
Cheers to you Jaz…I’m not gonna dance to that beat either anymore!!
and Jon the Moderator too of course
Response to Jaz and Lyne G.:
I understand how you feel about things that sound like a kind of elitism. I deal with people all the time who try to impress me or intimidate me with their words.
My choice is to believe the best. I don’t claim to know what Dimensio’s motives or background are. Perhaps he will reveal them as we continue to discuss.
ThirstyJon
Response to Dimensio:
Of course you are free to recommend what you wish about bringing up God in a discussion of “evolution.” I don’t know if I’ll take that advice. We’ll see.
Regarding any listed “evidences” of evolution, I choose to let the original post stand to make it’s own point.
It was a response to a comment calling Mike Huckabee a “dunce” for believing in “Creation.”
Perhaps in the future I’ll post a more serious article about my beliefs and arguments regarding evolution as an explanation for the origin of life and the source of all different species via a common ancestor. We’ll see.
In the mean time, do you have a blog or website you’d like to invite me to consider? (I specifically mean one of your own?)
God Bless and you are welcome here.
🙂
ThirstyJon
Dimensio, I admit that I do not have the education that you are trying to flaunt here. I do not have the command of the English language that you are showing off here. And that is what you are doing, isn’t it.
I am not attempting to showcase language skills. I have merely made inquiries regarding specific claims that others have made.
You are basically a pompous individual (I stopped myself from putting the word that usually follows that word…I was being kind to Jon.) who likes to try and make others feel inferior to you by your language skills. You must be a professor of something somewhere meaning that this is the way you talk to students as well.
I am not a college professor. I notice that you have chosen to complain about my writing style rather than to actually address any questions that I have asked or to justify any previous assertions that you have made. It would appear, to me, that you are using my writing style as an excuse to evade the actual topic of discussion. Why is this?
No wonder. Ah well. Do I have answers? Yes, but you have proven that you do not, in fact, read what was written.
You are appealing to a presumptious claim that I will ignore answers that you have yet to give as an excuse for not giving a response to my inquiries. I am familiar with this tactic. If you believe that this does not present the impression that you do not actually have evidence to justify your previous claims, then you are mistaken.
You do not choose to see what is so obvious to others. You are closed minded and nothing is going to change that until God gets a hold of you, if He ever does.
Your assertions regarding my character do not constitute evidence for your previous claims. You have made specific claims about the theory of evolution. You do not appear credible when you go out of your way not to justify those claims. In fact, your credibility is negatively impacted when you attempt to justify your refusal to provide evidence for your statements.
I understand how you feel about things that sound like a kind of elitism. I deal with people all the time who try to impress me or intimidate me with their words.
I am not attempting to impress or create intimidation. I have chosen my tone for the specific purpose of avoiding the injection of unnecessary emotion into my statements. I have found that when engaged in a discussion of facts, it is often best to avoid becoming emotional and allowing personal emotions to cloud judgement and, in so doing, deflect attention away from the actual topic of discussion and onto those engaged in the discussion. My initial posting in this discussion could itself be considered a very good example of excessive emotionialism — my own, to be specific — detracting from a discussion of fact.
I do not wish to intimidate others by unemotionally requesting justification for their unsubstantiated assertions. However, I must express puzzlement; I cannot understand exactly how requesting evidence for a claim could be intimidating.
In the mean time, do you have a blog or website you’d like to invite me to consider? (I specifically mean one of your own?)
I have created no personal blog or webspace. I am afraid that I lack the patience or creativity for such a pursuit.
Response to Dimensio:
I would like to highlight – “things that sound like a kind of elitism.”
The key word is “sound.” In other words, I was not accusing you of elitism, I was just addressing those who are offended by your style, letting them know that I understand how they feel.
I have had many conversations with those who try to sound logical and un-emotional about something in order to appear superior.
Again, I am not claiming you are doing that. I just work with people a lot, that is all. I know a lot of intelligent human beings who get offended by what it could appear that you are doing.
Your style could easily communicate that you are the teacher and others are the students who must prove their assertions.
I am not asking you to change anything. You are free to communicate and question however you see fit. I am just clarifying that I also understand those who will not like it.
I am a very relational person. I am first interested in where you (or anyone) is coming from. Secondly I am interested in whether or not your arguments or information is logically sound.
I have had many intellectual discussion with a lot of people in the world. Some have been pleasant. Of course, there is not always agreement.
When there is mutual respect there is often learning, however.
I don’t know if you are a truth seeker or a person with an agenda.
Either way you are free to read, comment, and question here at freedomthirst.
If you ever start your own blog I’d love to check it out. I did happen to notice your digg account.
🙂
ThirstyJon
P.S. You could always try a wordpress.com account with one of their templates and just post your comments and questions with links to the places you made them. That would be fun. 🙂
Yes evolution is dumb, seriously It's been proven wrong nearly a century ago. The government is blinding people today to hide the evidence. If you disagree with me try to explain this:
Theory:
The "big bang" started from nothing but suddenly came from somewhere and it was a SPINNING thing that exploded. It created all the planets and everything.
Fact 1: If something is spinning clockwise and explodes or breaks apart all the particles that fly from it should be spinning clockwise too.
Fact 2: All the planets are spinning, yet in different directions.
Conclusion: Why? God made it that way so it would make the evolution theory look dumb.:)
Even the greatest scientists are starting to discover things that point to a Creator. God does not need to prove Himself. His point is already made in the magnitude of all that we see around us. Not one human being would have had the ability to fabricate such.