Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Intelligent design and irreducible complexity is a good start. Without that, what is there?

An all powerfull, all knowing Entity appearing out of nowhere might help.

I doubt that a Creator that's capable of creating a universe would have much of a problem proving its own existence.

Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, thinks the odds are so long for evolution, that DNA must have come from outer space.


https://www.panspermia-theory.com/panspermia-theories/directed-panspermia

My youth bible studies said that God was not from earth, since he made it, so doesn't that mean outer space, more or less? miles

My youth bible studies said that God was not from earth, since he made it, so doesn't that mean outer space, more or less? miles

Well, He made outer space too, didn't He?

I have read that there is a huge "missing link" in the chain of human evolution, and some other critters. In other words, for some animals we have un-earthed remains of the critter evolving over the eons into what they are now. A clear chain of development so to speak. But with humans and some other animals, my understanding is there is a huge gap in the fossil record between our believed-to-be ancient ancestors and what we are now. If true that leaves open the possibility that a Creator/God made us, or there was some other outside or Alien source that helped us bridge that gap.

If true it seems that true and un-altered Darwinian evolution does not answer our evolution.

Wow, where to begin. Let's start with your hypothetical construct of God "appearing out of nowhere" as your example of good evidence, along with your contention that God should "not have much of a problem" proving to you and I that He exists.

First, it presumes that God needs to "show evidence" or "proof" that he exists. Where does that come from, I find it rather presumptuous. Personally I never thought God owed me anything of the sort, do you think He owes you incontrovertible proof of His existence? What is your presumption based on? Is your concept of God similar to that of a scientist who publishes in peer-reviewed journals and is subject to the same rules as everyone else? Above you describe Him as "all powerful, all knowing," so why would he be subject to the same "rules" that humans are?

[quote=DBT]
It's as if the three year-old boy next door called you a wimp and challenged your manhood, would you feel the need to throw down and show him who's boss?


Next, you skipped right past my question and went straight to the question of God's existence. Which I suspect is the basis of your opinions but it's irrelevant to my question which was: What would you consider good evidence of God's involvement in evolution?

Let's see if you can stay focused on that one. You've cited intelligent design/irreducible complexity but that's not an answer to my question, those are just men's theories. Disproving them just means that the theories don't fit the evidence. The answer to my question is this: Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.

''Start with the hypothesis that God is involved in evolution. What evidence would you look for in order to prove or disprove it.''

Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, thinks the odds are so long for evolution, that DNA must have come from outer space.


https://www.panspermia-theory.com/panspermia-theories/directed-panspermia

As pointed out before, if there is a God involved with evolution, would you not expect to see some sign of manipulation? Some sign of purpose? So again, justification of belief, if God exists but is undetectable, what reason do we have to be convinced in the existence of a God?

You are imagining things. The statistics prove no such thing. Quoting the beliefs of philosophers offering their views does not negate the evidence for evolution, which is more than sufficient to prove evolution.

Maybe you can back your claim about Crick and 'space aliens?' I think that you are misrepresenting his position.

Introduction

''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].''

Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments

One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.

A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).

In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].

What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''

How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.

We know enough already to know this model will never be developed because we already know it is impossible. We also know that just like liberalism, which is also bereft of sound logic, it will continue to be popular among those who want to believe it.

Science requires the miracle of creation because it has already proven that it cannot start without that pre-existing miracle to have first occurred. In other words science and logic require a start from something that is eternally self-existent in order to provide a starting point for science to have something to study and observe.

Let me see if I've got this straight. The evidence you'd look for to determine if God is involved in evolution is "some sign of manipulation" or "some sign of purpose." In other words, you don't really know what you're looking for.

But you believe that since you haven't found it, it doesn't exist. Does that about sum it up?

Sounds like the scientific method at its finest. Is the absence of evidence evidence of absence,when you don't really know what you're looking for?

When you answer, keep this in mind: I'm not the one trying to prove a point here, you are. I didn't say there was evidence of God's involvement, you said God was not involved and I asked how you knew that. So don't keep asking me what I think the evidence would look like, I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know.