PLAYER57832 wrote:To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence. When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.
#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.
This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.
So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.
Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.
There is evidence that proves the existence of God. It is logical and flawless evidence but if a person does not want to accept it then they simply don't want to accept it.
I said scientific evidence.
If you have it, please illuminate us all. You seem to know more than the most intelligent and learned of Biblical scholars. And please note, this comes from a believer.. not someone in opposition to Christianity.
Viceroy63 wrote:If you showed me the skeletal bones of a man and say to me, "this is what is inside of you," and then I say, "Prove it" And you start with the head and show that the head is hard like bone is hard and that the eye socket and the whole shape in general and even the teeth of the skeleton look similar to my own and I say, "NO, your wrong because first of all I have falsies and just because the shape of the skull looks similar and I have a hard head just like the bone is hard but that still does not prove it to me, then the problem is with me not wanting to accept that the skull that you show me is the same thing that is inside of me.
What is this example to prove?
I mean, its a load of garbage. What actually happened is that people saw what the bones looked like in dead people. Leonardo got a lot of his detailed drawings of anatomy by raiding graveyards. Today, doctors rely upon donated bodies for a lot of their training.
That you think the above even comes close to anything science would do shows how little you understand science. Its about observation and proof. Scientists can have all kinds of ideas.. and many disagree with each other, but proof comes from mounting evidence and nothing else.
Viceroy63 wrote:Or if one saw a head, gushing blood, roll by and refuse to accept the fact the the head was just decapitated just then, that is the problem of the person who refuses to accept the evidence of what they see. The fact that we did not see the actual decapitation occur because we were around the corner of the wall does not mean that it did not just happen. And if we go around the corner and see a headless body also gushing out fresh blood from the neck over a chopping block and say, "I refuse to believe it because I did not see it, it could be some other logical explanation." Then the problem is with the person who refuses to accept the evidence because they did not see it.
Another irrelevant example.
Viceroy63 wrote:This is the way that Atheist are. You present them the logical evidence and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it and then say things like, "anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs." Yet the Holy Bible states that anyone not able to accept the fact that God exists is a fool. The evidence is simple yet atheism wont accept it because it simply does not want to believe it to be true.
Apparently you have not talked to many atheists... and you still show you know very little of science.
The FACT is that you cannot provide irrefutable proof that God exists. It is a belief. I agree that there is evidence. But evidence and irrefutable proof are not at all the same thing.
And.. evolution very much does have evidence to support it. That is why the theory keeps standing up to criticism. It is why your cronies rely so heavily upon simply saying that scientists are lying.. .becuase they cannot actually refute the data that exists. So, instead they just call everyone else a bunch of liars. The trouble is, unlike proof that God exists, the evidence for evolution is actually available for any who wishes to see it.
Viceroy63 wrote:The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer.
What evidence and why?
In fact, if you want to get down to it many aspects of human construction are pretty much NOT sensible.. I mean, look at how close our breathing and eating tubes are togetheer. Humans choke very readily... I won't get into the whole litteny, but there are quite a few oddball issues. NOTE.. I am not disputing that there is a designer, I am saying you cannot prove it and the claim that our structure makes a designer evident is just plain false.
Viceroy63 wrote:And if we say for now that the Intelligent Designer of Human Life could have been extra terrestrials, then who Designed them when the same criteria applies. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the original designer could not have been by design. That you are either the design or the designer. But you can not be both.
You have not proven anything, nor are your statements even logical.. sorry, but you need to talk more with people who disagree with you, you have been duped into placid thinking.
Viceroy63 wrote:"Oh, but Man creates?" One may Argue, but man has yet to create something at par with himself.
This is of absolutely no relevance in the evolution debate.
No one is saying that humans steer evolution. All humans can do is show that certain things are possible
. Humans have bred dogs and livestock into phenomenal diversity in just a short period of time, so it shows that such strong differentiation is very much possible. Note, a lot of dog breeds are just a few hundred years old, yet the diversity we see is so great that many biologists say they approach unique species. After all, a chihuaha cannot readily breed with a Great Dane. Inability to breed is one of the hallmarks of differentiation of species. It is not enough, alone, but that they cannot breed on their own any longer shows that they are beginning to diverge. How, exactly is it so illogical to think that this same process, given the right external forces and criteria, could have happened naturally? How is that outside of the realm of possibility?
Viceroy63 wrote:We may create artificial intelligence and even robotic bodies but never would we be able to create the spirit in man; The soul! So we can only create something inferior to ourselves and never something at our level and we would not even want to.
Now you get into something not addressed at all by evolution. Evolution deals with the biological differentiation of species. The soul, what it even entails is not yet something quantifiable by science. It is a purely theological question.
By-the-way, I absolutely agree that God added something "extra" when it came to humans, most Christians do, but even then.. how he did it is a big question.
Viceroy63 wrote:But the Intelligent Designer of humans did so with an aspect of growth.
This is meaningless. You are stepping outside of what the Bible details and adding your own personal opinions, then claiming that as some kind of proof.. and of what its not even clear. It is utterly irrelevant to evolution, anyway.
Evolution is possible whether there is or is not a designer.
Viceroy63 wrote:Eternal growth implies an eternal plan for man.
Why? You seem to be talking young age stuff here.. Its not Christianity.
Viceroy63 wrote:And no I am not talking about heaven and hell. But if the designer created us in the first place then he can recreate us even after we die and have disintegrated into dust of the earth in order to fulfill His eternal plans for us. That is what is meant by being God. To do anything and all things despite the logic of the limited mind.
If that explanation suits you, fine, but its not specified in the Bible and has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote:The case for Intelligent Design is very simple. It is even simpler then seeing a blood gushing head roll by and then seeing the headless body laying over a chopping block. It goes like this....
The argument that there is one is simple, sure. The scientific proof of that, the tangible and replicable and irrefutable evidence of that is purely absent. It just doesn't exist, not in the scientific sense.
Viceroy63 wrote:No information creates itself. Information has to be created. DNA is information and this information had to be created because information can not create itself. The odds of that happening is Impossible. If DNA had to be Created then it demands a Creator. Thus God exist because DNA had to be Created.
Nothing is impossible, given infinite time and infinite space.. nothing at all.
Viceroy63 wrote:This is scientific evidence! Information can not write itself or put itself together any more than falling snow can produce a snow man all on it's own. This is true whether you choose to accept it or not!
Theoretically, given infinite time, and a purely random system, a snowman could just form. The reason it doesn't is that we don't have infinite time, and also, snow is not a random process.
Your failure to understand basic concepts like this is why I and others say you need to educate yourself in reality before you launch into any kind of science criticism.. or you, like most young earthers will be laughed at and belittled... because science is real and exists, because facts are true and are not malable to whatever form you wish them to take.
Any arguments and explanations you wish to put forward inevitably fail because they are not backed by evidence, and evolutionary theory, despite your claims to the contrary very much is.
I have told you before I am happy to take any of your assertions and show you why they are wrong or not proof against evolution. So far, your arguments mostly stem around "there is God", therefore evolution is wrong. I could accept that a time or two, but then you keep on with that even after I and several others have made clear that the presence or absence of God is irrelevant to evolution. That is just the beginning of your errors, they descend from there.