Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution Proof?

All you have to do is watch Ben Steins portral of their first case of "discrimination", i.e the Sternberg peer review issue, then read The rest of the Story to understand how Stein is distorting events in a biased fashion. Sternberg peer reviewed himself, then refused to name the other the alleged reviewers. This is not exactly consistent with the peer review process.

There's nothing to respond to. Three out of context quote mines does not make an argument against the entire body of genetic research.

The finch example was an example of a selective force. I made no claim the selective force itself introduces the new genetic variation.

Believing in evolution has never require a disbelief in a Creator of the universe.

God and Evolution
Copyright � 1994-1998 by Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

3. Evolution and God
Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?
No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.
Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?
While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.
Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?
Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.
Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?
No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.




�The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.�
― Carl Sagan

You can't use a reloading manual to make cookies, you need a cookbook to make cookies. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects. If you wish to change subjects we can do that.

How much genetic diversity was there after the flood?

How much genetic diversity is there among humans now?

How many species were on the Ark?

How many species are there on earth now?

There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. Over 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."
Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.

Somewhere upwards of five-percent of all the species that have ever existed. The rest are gone for good, along with their genetic information, except in Speilberg movies.

You are really good at obfuscating and not answering Rob's pertinent questions Snipe, so I'll ask again. What proof is there that macroevolution produces new genetic material, IE, new-gene codes, not just a different expression of an existing set of genes, IE, peppered moths, etc?

This right here is the reason some go to such absurd lengths to deny the obvious. It threatens their belief system.

This is absurd. It only makes a simplistic understanding of God, i.e., the sort of understanding propagated in children's books, implausible.

God ... the real God ... is the master even of probability and chance, i.e., he's capable of truly throwing dice to roll while, 1) knowing the outcome beforehand, yet 2) having the outcome of the roll truly be 100% random in the natural order of things.

The creation equivalent being that he commanded the earth by fiat to bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and commanded the waters by fiat to bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth, and the earth and the waters brought them forth abundantly in accordance with his command. Yet he didn't determine their developing forms, even though he knew beforehand every step and stage thereof, and knew from the start by means of divine omniscience, the moment he issued the command, that it was good, i.e., in accordance with his will.

PS Fiat is Latin for let it be done. When God said "Let the Earth bring forth abundantly ... etc," and "Let the waters bring forth abundantly ... etc," he was issuing a command to the earth and the waters in the fiat form.

Its been demonstrated many times, But for a reference read Nasvall etal Science (2012) 388 pp384-387

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: � the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
� adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
� the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
� evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
� modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
� evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

As for proof of macroevolution and new genetic diversity, here's 29 proofs:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Correct, but many who recite that fact wrongly believe that it's down 95% from some high point at the beginning. That's not the correct interpretation of that fact. It refers to the fact that most species that have come to exist have also disappeared, but they came to exist at various times over billions of years, and disappeared at various times over billions of years. There was no starting point when they all existed. Another way to put it is that, although that is a true fact, there are about as many species alive today as there were six million years ago or sixty million years ago. Species came and left, but the number of species remains roughly the same, apart from the geologically short periods directly after mass extinction events.

This being the case, speciation by evolution would seem a no brainer, unless one meant to suggest that God was busy snapping into existence new species to replace the species that have been disappearing throughout time.

Well, I guess we'll find out who's right when we die.

One thing for sure, evolutionary dead-ends do not fit into the Bible story of Creation.

How so?

These creatures start as bacteria. Into what did they macro evolve?

After reading the article I realized the author didn't say anything with the multiplicity of words.

You're starting with your belief in evolution to support your idea. What observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence do you have the 100% didn't live at the same time?

Common sense tells me that with Creationism there is no purpose for live forms that go nowhere.

Yet they came and went in a process of evolving.

Smarter men than me have said the same thing.

�The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer.�
Carl Sagan

This is pretty amazing. I never expected that this would turn into such a huge discussion.

My take on this is

Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give into God what is Gods. The same goes for science. The origin of the species is a matter for science and the scientific method. Your deceiving yourselves if you think this isn't true. Just consider all the amazing things that science has provided us from airplanes to nuclear power to cures for diseases. Science works and is the correct way to solve scientific problems.

The bible was written be wise men who knew a lot about people and that is the reason the it has value. They may have been inspired by God but they didn't have any knowledge of science or the scientific method which is the only way to determine scientific facts. So you can't rely on the to provide facts about science. What they did in regards to the origin of life was provide the best answer that they could to something they had no knowledge about other than myths from the past.

I think that it helps for you to consider that it would have been impossible for them to provide answers to any scientific questions. No one could think that they could have provided answers to any of the basic and funamental scientific facts that we have discovered. E = MC^2 is fundamental to the understanding of the universe but the men who wrote the bible had no way of determining it. They also didn't know about how our solar system is structured or of the universe of almost unlimited stars. They lacked the knowledge of chemistry and nuclear physics. They couldn't conceive of the nuclear bomb and its massive power. They had no way to determine scientific facts and the origin of life and species is a matter for science.

However, some people tie their faith in their religion to believing that the unscientific authors explanation of the origin of life and species. If they were wise the would realize that God works in mysterious ways and it's only after hundreds of years of study using the scientific method that we are starting to find out some of his methods.