I'm not sure I see why you find it funny; robots can't reproduce and thus can't mutate or be selected for, but beetles can. In fact, mutation and selection processes in computer programming have made some of the best computer processors the world has seen; that's right, blind chance made a better computer than an engineer could have.
On the surface your argument would appear to be quite the trump card. However, consider this in regards to your mutation and selection processes in the computer programming world: The mutations and selection processes did NOT create the source code. In fact, the only way the processes could occur was for the source code to be created first! ...
Evolution does not make predictions about how life got here, only what happened once it did; abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is an explanation of adaptation and biodiversity, not the origin of life.
You're right to a point, but you must understand that a thorough study of evolutionary theory entails a study of origins. Evolution does not make predictions about the absolute origin of life, but it does lay claim to the origin of species (i.e. all species evolved from single celled organisms ... which came from?)
Now for the great weapon of science: I don't know. Which is perfectly fine to say. Isn't that great? To have a question for which to seek an answer? But wait! You can't invoke an answer without evidence. Two thousand year old books that are a dime a dozen and all of which say THEY are the right one are not a valid source for this evidence. Especially when their archaeological validity is questionable. Chemical stews randomly forming proto-cells in labs ARE pieces of valid evidences, however.
... If the popular notions of abiogenetic/evolutionary processes was absolutely true, it would be akin to writing random 1's and 0's to a blank hard drive, plugging it into a power source, and subjecting it to random read/write operations and power spikes in hopes that over time the 1's and 0's would align in such a manner that would eventually produce a logical instruction set. ...
... I suppose that you could then take the simple instruction set and run it repeatedly through a processor so that random mutations and selection processes could cause an evolution of the code into something useful.
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, it is no less ridiculous to believe that random molecules subjected to random environmental influences linked together to create and evolve into the complex, logical system of life on earth.
Evolutionary processes are not blind. Mutation is blind (your random 1s and 0s). Natural selection IS NOT BLIND and DOES NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM. Randoms 1s and 0s would never form themselves into a processor if only random output was displayed. If the current process favored things with more 0s, then more 0s would appear. That's natural selection at work. Random mutation gives something long hair; that it lives in the cold makes long hair more likely to be something favorable. It's that simple.
Yes, but to take evolutionary theory to it's logical starting point, you must envision a random supply of amino acids (1's and 0's) deposited throughout the earth (the hard drive). These amino acids, being subjected to a random series of environmental changes (power spikes, read/write operations), linked together over time to create a logical instruction set.
... From there, the amino acid chain (instruction set) formed for itself a basic processor (cell) where random mutation AND SELECTION processes went on to form a complex logical system of life (i.e. origin of species).
My scenario simply takes your computer programming scenario and applies the evolutionist view on origins. The adaptive computer program could not write the source code or build the machine. How then could the adaptive genetic code write itself or build the organism?
"random chance events" are only half of evolution, you are forgetting natural selection which filters out the bad mutations. and the reason why robots don't "evolve" is because engineers require(with good reason) that a mechine be built exactly to spec, in biological reproduction its quite different. and evolution dosn't talk about the creation of life, that abiogenesis.
Contrary to popular belief, Christians are not a group of simple minded buffoons brainwashed by a lifetime of religious indoctrination. Many of us, Roger and myself included, studied fervently the various secular world viewpoints before allowing our hearts and minds to be opened to the truth of the Word of God.
The theories/hypothesis of evolution and abiogenesis are founded upon and supported mostly by supposition and conjecture. In fact, the odds against the supposed events required for abiogenesis and the ensuing evolution of life occurring in any kind of workable order are so astronomically high that it would take much more than the billions of years estimated by the so-called scientists who preach the atheist gospel ... eternity might work ... no wait, let's stir quantum theory into the mix ...
you are incorrectly using probabilities, because odds estimates are used to determine the likely hood of events happening AGAIN. and applying them to history can grossly stack the odds against occurance. roll six dice, record the resualts, what are the odds of you rolling them again in the same exact order? extremly unlikely, but does that mean you cheated when you rolled those resualts the first time? NO!
"you are incorrectly using probabilities, because odds estimates are used to determine the likely hood of events happening AGAIN."
I'm sorry, but by this reasoning, the process of evolution was a one-time "historical" event that I suppose triggered some sort of natural auto-pilot continuing on for the next XX hundreds of billions of years. The fact is, the innumerable processes required to sustain the simplest creatures would require countless recurring evolutionary events. The odds apply.
im not entirely sure what your point is in regard to:
"the innumerable processes required to sustain the simplest creatures would require countless recurring evolutionary events. The odds apply. "
what processes are you talking about?
and finally evolution is always happening, i think you might be getting confused by thinking about it as some entity. random mutations(copy errors) cause differences, differences that help the creature survive cause more kids for that creature, thats evolution
also in science a theory is more than a hypothesis. evolution carries tons of genetic fossil and observational evidence, it also has predictive power. if evolution was incorrect than how do you explain the appearence of antibiotic resistance bacteria? or the fact that the same flu shot dosn't work every year?
atheism dosn't have anything to do with evolution or abiogensis(notice that these are two different things) had god created universe it says nothing about either "abio" or "evo".
Yes, I know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. However, I was referencing both a theory (evolution) and a hypothesis (abiogenesis). Hence the reason I structured my sentence to read "theories/hypothesis" followed by "evolution and abiogenesis."
Those who staunchly support the aforementioned theories/hypotheses are overwhelmingly atheist. In fact, the trend today is to belittle and berate anyone who would question these different yet interdependent scientific notions.
Finally, regarding the fossil record: The only thing the fossil record proves is adaptive micro-evolution. With the 100's of millions of fossils on record, there is no evidence of a transitional creature (i.e. from one species to another). In fact, all scientifically observable evidence confirms that chickens come from chickens, apes from apes, humans from humans, etc.
I have no problem with adaptive micro-evolution. It seems like a brilliant design to ensure the survival of species to me.
there are several transitional fossils, to say they arn't is either admitting your own ignorance or lieing. now you seem to define macro evolution as speciation(the creation of a new species from an old one) this has in fact been observed several times, to understand how it happens evolutionarily you should read about "divergant evolution".
An excerpt from an online course study posted by Brown Univeristy says it best: "We must rely on strong inference to properly understand speciation. This inference is in many cases very rigorous and scientific although it is historical, i.e., requires an interpretation of what has gone on in the past."
Again, we see clearly that what most people acccept as cold hard fact is really based upon supposition, inference and interpretation.
... This is, in fact, the same thing that evolutionists say about creation theory (yes Virgina, there is a comprehensive theory of creation based upon scientifically and historically observable evidence).
The only hard fact in all of this is that there is compelling evidence presented by both sides. All I can say is that it takes the Spirit of God to open our eyes to the truth that what seems right by man may not be right by God.
you just commited the fallacy of adhoc rationalization, as well as an ad-homenim attack. be that as it may, give me a simple list of 3 so called 'evidences' that are presented by creationism, give me a challange, show me the best 3 you can find, i hope im wasting characters by saying this but the evidence must be logically valid. you can expect the same from my refutation of said evidences.
Look, I sincerely apologize if you felt I was attacking your character. If it was the "Yes Virginia" comment, please forgive me for being glib. If it was my reference to God providing divine insight, then please understand, I don't consider myself to be any better a person than you.
I don't quite see where I am errant in wanting to end a tiresome, endless debate. To put my "ad hoc rationalization" another way ... let's agree that we disagree ...
ad hoc rationalization simply means that you are making a conclusion fit the premises. and your adhomeniem attack was implying that scientists can't be right because some of them don't believe in a god, or restrict their inquirey to things actually testable.
Ok, well again, I don't consider myself any better than scientists either. However, I do believe that God is better than mankind, period. And yes, from personal experience, I can tell you that a relationship with the living God gives you a world view that is entirely different from and quite foreign to the view of the secular authorities. How can man better what God reveals?
As for your evidence, see my last post (replied to my own post).
i would debate the greater world view with you. what does science tell us, every atom in our body was forged in a star by evolution we are distant cousins, by chemistry we are brothers, as neil degrasse tyson says "not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us", whats more inspireing than that?
Ah, yes, the grand and alluring world view of my lifetime past (about 4 years ago by the way). The universe in us, god (or the higher power) in us, in everything. Ultimate oneness, Zen, Nirvana, the possibilities are endless. What could be more inspiring?
I can only speak from personal experience. All I can say is that all the thrill of "enlightenment" I gained in my secular life does not equal a fraction of a percent of the joy I have in knowing my creator and experiencing his divine love.
By the way, a surprisingly large number of notable scientists fully support creation theory. The list includes molecular biologists, geneticists, nuclear physicists, etc., etc. If you're suggesting that cannot be a theory because there is no testable evidence, then you're discounting people who's career integrity relies upon the scientific process. I guess I'm not the only one guilty of an ad-hominem attack.
an adhominem attack is justified if it is relevent, for example i would question the validity of a nuclear physicist's opinion on evolution no matter what his position is. now your arguement is from authority, just because someone has credentials dosn't mean they can't be mistaken. also there is ad populum, popularity dosn't impact truth(and the list is less than 1% of scientists, and finally science tends to place more importance on actual evidence, its not a democracy.
My point is that the scientists who support creation theory cite verifiable, observable evidence (i.e. the scientific process). And you're right, science is not a democracy. Just because a majority of people with credentials support a given theory doesn't mean they can't be mistaken.
To answer your challenge, if you truly want to study the concepts of creation theory with an open mind, then there are a plethora of websites and literature in support of the notion. However, if you're looking to continue a debate where you refute me and I respond in kind ad infinitum, then I'm not your guy.
You're obviously an intelligent, interesting person, and I would enjoy further discussion with you in some other forum (i.e. PM, etc.) if you wish.
the reason why i asked you for three evidences because i have already seen numorous claims that don't even pass the smell test. i was wondering if you could provide some logical ones
If you can't get past your senses, then what can I tell you that you will not simply discount? As I stated before, I admit that there is strong evidence to support many aspects of evolutionary theory. However, the concept of macro-evolution, from bio soup to life as we know it is based upon supposition rather than verifiable, factual information ... continued ...
... The same can be said of Creation theory. There is strong evidence that supports species being created as whole, complete and in their present form with minor variations due to adaptive (micro) evolution and genetic degradation. Much (if not most) of the evidence comes from a closer study and reinterpretation of the results of the exact same studies used to support evolution! ... continued ...
... The difference being that Creation Theory is based upon the supposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
The bottom line is, you choose the suppositions of the secular scientific world as the foundation of your beliefs. I choose the suppositions of what I believe is the very word of God himself as the foundation of my beliefs. Can either of us prove one another wrong? No.
My only hope is that the video messages I post here on behalf of Roger Oakland will cause people like yourself to open your mind and think about the alternative to what you have been taught all your life. My prayer is that you will not be one who laughs off the possibility of a living creator God simply because the majority of secular scientists and popular world view directs you to do so.
its one thing to have an open mind, its another thing to have a mind so open that your brain falls out. occamz razor, you are using one extra unknowen than i
becasue macro evolution is science it CAN be proven wrong, all you have to do is demonstrate that mutations can't accumulate, or show that the fossil record is static(unchanging), or show the existance of chimeras, or show the existance of spontanious gereation(might be hard considering pastuer disproved the most common beliefs about it)
Spontaneous generation is not creation. In fact, spontaneous generation is a requirement of evolution (it had to start somewhere). And when I said we can't prove one another wrong, I was referring to proving one another wrong at present within the confines of current scientific evidence. I'm a Business Analyst, not a scientist, and I have no intention of changing my career in order to continue a debate with you. ... continued ...
Finally, your implication that anyone who believes in special creation has lost their brain is not only an outright, school-yard level attack, but it brings to light your true motives in this discussion: to incite discord rather than come to any kind of understanding. This is also apparent in your lack of willingness to acknowledge any point of validity in my viewpoint, even when I draw the conclusion that we cannot come to agreement in this forum.
Look, my friend, for the last time, I'm tired of this thread which is turning into something that resembles a pseudo-intellectual comparison of phalli rather than an open, heartfelt discussion. As I stated (implied) before, my purpose here is not to debate with people until I win (or vice versa). If you don't like my views, don't watch my (Roger's) videos. If you want a discussion, PM me anytime. If you want a debate, join a debate team. ... end of thread (for me anyway) ...
spontaneous generation refers to COMPLEX creatures arising from matter, for example maggots in dead meat(this was the original hypothesis before we knew flys layed the eggs). abiogensis and common decent, depend on the creation of life being that of simple creatures, not complex ones. so if a complex creature is created from simple chemicles it would throw larg doubt on abiogensis and common descent.
it is sciences requirements of testability and repeatability that prevent these interpretations from becomming to complacent in the presence of contradicting evidence.
interdependant how? if life where to be created specifically by god(this is the only statement in this hypathetical scenario) there is no reason why such a fact would disprove evolution. conversly if evolution was disproved it would say nothing about the validity of abiogensis.
As I implied in an earlier comment, I am compelled to speak out against those with atheistic viewpoints who insist that to believe in a creator is foolhardy. For those people, abiogenesis and evolution are very much interdependent, at least in the sense that you have to have a start to the process.
what atheists think about evolution and abiogenesis is IRRELEVENT, in science abiogensis is not required for evolution, and evolution is not required for abiogensis, proving one does not prove the other, conversly disproving one dosn't disprove the other.
it is logically fallacious(on several different levels) to conclude that they both must be true, or both must be false, because someone thinks they are related.
How come these engineers cannot equip the robot with the means to "evolve" as needed? Is it that "Nobody" is smarter than they are? I am amazed at the mental gymnastics you evolutionists undertake to deny the patently obvious.
equiping a robot with the means to evolve as needed would drastically increase the cost of said robot, the bottom line is that manufacturers are looking for bots to lift things of a specific weight, move them at a specific speed, and in a specific way. they don't need "adaptive robotics" they need something to fill asembly line labor(repetitive, and specific tasks).
what makes "living things" capable of evolving cheaply is that they reproduce at a molecular level, cell by cell. sense most of a robot's structure is pure steel the robot would need to collect enough steel to make another one(not to mention motors, CPU, and a power source), analize its design, and randomly fudge the deminsions here and there(mutate its offspring) and than actualy build another one, not so easy with nonreplicating molecules.
Interesting. Who would have thought a common insect would be so amazing??
prodigalseven 3 years ago
I'm not sure I see why you find it funny; robots can't reproduce and thus can't mutate or be selected for, but beetles can. In fact, mutation and selection processes in computer programming have made some of the best computer processors the world has seen; that's right, blind chance made a better computer than an engineer could have.
jumpmonkey03 4 years ago
On the surface your argument would appear to be quite the trump card. However, consider this in regards to your mutation and selection processes in the computer programming world: The mutations and selection processes did NOT create the source code. In fact, the only way the processes could occur was for the source code to be created first! ...
srobertw 4 years ago
Evolution does not make predictions about how life got here, only what happened once it did; abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is an explanation of adaptation and biodiversity, not the origin of life.
jumpmonkey03 4 years ago
You're right to a point, but you must understand that a thorough study of evolutionary theory entails a study of origins. Evolution does not make predictions about the absolute origin of life, but it does lay claim to the origin of species (i.e. all species evolved from single celled organisms ... which came from?)
srobertw 4 years ago
Now for the great weapon of science: I don't know. Which is perfectly fine to say. Isn't that great? To have a question for which to seek an answer? But wait! You can't invoke an answer without evidence. Two thousand year old books that are a dime a dozen and all of which say THEY are the right one are not a valid source for this evidence. Especially when their archaeological validity is questionable. Chemical stews randomly forming proto-cells in labs ARE pieces of valid evidences, however.
jumpmonkey03 4 years ago
... If the popular notions of abiogenetic/evolutionary processes was absolutely true, it would be akin to writing random 1's and 0's to a blank hard drive, plugging it into a power source, and subjecting it to random read/write operations and power spikes in hopes that over time the 1's and 0's would align in such a manner that would eventually produce a logical instruction set. ...
srobertw 4 years ago
... I suppose that you could then take the simple instruction set and run it repeatedly through a processor so that random mutations and selection processes could cause an evolution of the code into something useful.
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, it is no less ridiculous to believe that random molecules subjected to random environmental influences linked together to create and evolve into the complex, logical system of life on earth.
srobertw 4 years ago
Evolutionary processes are not blind. Mutation is blind (your random 1s and 0s). Natural selection IS NOT BLIND and DOES NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM. Randoms 1s and 0s would never form themselves into a processor if only random output was displayed. If the current process favored things with more 0s, then more 0s would appear. That's natural selection at work. Random mutation gives something long hair; that it lives in the cold makes long hair more likely to be something favorable. It's that simple.
jumpmonkey03 4 years ago
Yes, but to take evolutionary theory to it's logical starting point, you must envision a random supply of amino acids (1's and 0's) deposited throughout the earth (the hard drive). These amino acids, being subjected to a random series of environmental changes (power spikes, read/write operations), linked together over time to create a logical instruction set.
srobertw 4 years ago
... From there, the amino acid chain (instruction set) formed for itself a basic processor (cell) where random mutation AND SELECTION processes went on to form a complex logical system of life (i.e. origin of species).
My scenario simply takes your computer programming scenario and applies the evolutionist view on origins. The adaptive computer program could not write the source code or build the machine. How then could the adaptive genetic code write itself or build the organism?
srobertw 4 years ago
Why are you lying to us? See Job 13:4-12
Desertphile 4 years ago
"random chance events" are only half of evolution, you are forgetting natural selection which filters out the bad mutations. and the reason why robots don't "evolve" is because engineers require(with good reason) that a mechine be built exactly to spec, in biological reproduction its quite different. and evolution dosn't talk about the creation of life, that abiogenesis.
evirus 4 years ago 3
Contrary to popular belief, Christians are not a group of simple minded buffoons brainwashed by a lifetime of religious indoctrination. Many of us, Roger and myself included, studied fervently the various secular world viewpoints before allowing our hearts and minds to be opened to the truth of the Word of God.
srobertw 4 years ago
well you could have fooled me if you actualy believe what is said in this video.
evirus 4 years ago
Splendid response!
pennylaneproductions 4 years ago
The theories/hypothesis of evolution and abiogenesis are founded upon and supported mostly by supposition and conjecture. In fact, the odds against the supposed events required for abiogenesis and the ensuing evolution of life occurring in any kind of workable order are so astronomically high that it would take much more than the billions of years estimated by the so-called scientists who preach the atheist gospel ... eternity might work ... no wait, let's stir quantum theory into the mix ...
srobertw 4 years ago
you are incorrectly using probabilities, because odds estimates are used to determine the likely hood of events happening AGAIN. and applying them to history can grossly stack the odds against occurance. roll six dice, record the resualts, what are the odds of you rolling them again in the same exact order? extremly unlikely, but does that mean you cheated when you rolled those resualts the first time? NO!
evirus 4 years ago
"you are incorrectly using probabilities, because odds estimates are used to determine the likely hood of events happening AGAIN."
I'm sorry, but by this reasoning, the process of evolution was a one-time "historical" event that I suppose triggered some sort of natural auto-pilot continuing on for the next XX hundreds of billions of years. The fact is, the innumerable processes required to sustain the simplest creatures would require countless recurring evolutionary events. The odds apply.
srobertw 4 years ago
im not entirely sure what your point is in regard to:
"the innumerable processes required to sustain the simplest creatures would require countless recurring evolutionary events. The odds apply. "
what processes are you talking about?
and finally evolution is always happening, i think you might be getting confused by thinking about it as some entity. random mutations(copy errors) cause differences, differences that help the creature survive cause more kids for that creature, thats evolution
evirus 4 years ago
also in science a theory is more than a hypothesis. evolution carries tons of genetic fossil and observational evidence, it also has predictive power. if evolution was incorrect than how do you explain the appearence of antibiotic resistance bacteria? or the fact that the same flu shot dosn't work every year?
atheism dosn't have anything to do with evolution or abiogensis(notice that these are two different things) had god created universe it says nothing about either "abio" or "evo".
evirus 4 years ago
Yes, I know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. However, I was referencing both a theory (evolution) and a hypothesis (abiogenesis). Hence the reason I structured my sentence to read "theories/hypothesis" followed by "evolution and abiogenesis."
Those who staunchly support the aforementioned theories/hypotheses are overwhelmingly atheist. In fact, the trend today is to belittle and berate anyone who would question these different yet interdependent scientific notions.
srobertw 4 years ago
Finally, regarding the fossil record: The only thing the fossil record proves is adaptive micro-evolution. With the 100's of millions of fossils on record, there is no evidence of a transitional creature (i.e. from one species to another). In fact, all scientifically observable evidence confirms that chickens come from chickens, apes from apes, humans from humans, etc.
I have no problem with adaptive micro-evolution. It seems like a brilliant design to ensure the survival of species to me.
srobertw 4 years ago
there are several transitional fossils, to say they arn't is either admitting your own ignorance or lieing. now you seem to define macro evolution as speciation(the creation of a new species from an old one) this has in fact been observed several times, to understand how it happens evolutionarily you should read about "divergant evolution".
evirus 4 years ago
An excerpt from an online course study posted by Brown Univeristy says it best: "We must rely on strong inference to properly understand speciation. This inference is in many cases very rigorous and scientific although it is historical, i.e., requires an interpretation of what has gone on in the past."
Again, we see clearly that what most people acccept as cold hard fact is really based upon supposition, inference and interpretation.
srobertw 4 years ago
... This is, in fact, the same thing that evolutionists say about creation theory (yes Virgina, there is a comprehensive theory of creation based upon scientifically and historically observable evidence).
The only hard fact in all of this is that there is compelling evidence presented by both sides. All I can say is that it takes the Spirit of God to open our eyes to the truth that what seems right by man may not be right by God.
srobertw 4 years ago
you just commited the fallacy of adhoc rationalization, as well as an ad-homenim attack. be that as it may, give me a simple list of 3 so called 'evidences' that are presented by creationism, give me a challange, show me the best 3 you can find, i hope im wasting characters by saying this but the evidence must be logically valid. you can expect the same from my refutation of said evidences.
evirus 4 years ago
Look, I sincerely apologize if you felt I was attacking your character. If it was the "Yes Virginia" comment, please forgive me for being glib. If it was my reference to God providing divine insight, then please understand, I don't consider myself to be any better a person than you.
I don't quite see where I am errant in wanting to end a tiresome, endless debate. To put my "ad hoc rationalization" another way ... let's agree that we disagree ...
srobertw 4 years ago
ad hoc rationalization simply means that you are making a conclusion fit the premises. and your adhomeniem attack was implying that scientists can't be right because some of them don't believe in a god, or restrict their inquirey to things actually testable.
im still interested in that evidence
evirus 4 years ago
Ok, well again, I don't consider myself any better than scientists either. However, I do believe that God is better than mankind, period. And yes, from personal experience, I can tell you that a relationship with the living God gives you a world view that is entirely different from and quite foreign to the view of the secular authorities. How can man better what God reveals?
As for your evidence, see my last post (replied to my own post).
srobertw 4 years ago
i would debate the greater world view with you. what does science tell us, every atom in our body was forged in a star by evolution we are distant cousins, by chemistry we are brothers, as neil degrasse tyson says "not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us", whats more inspireing than that?
evirus 4 years ago
Ah, yes, the grand and alluring world view of my lifetime past (about 4 years ago by the way). The universe in us, god (or the higher power) in us, in everything. Ultimate oneness, Zen, Nirvana, the possibilities are endless. What could be more inspiring?
I can only speak from personal experience. All I can say is that all the thrill of "enlightenment" I gained in my secular life does not equal a fraction of a percent of the joy I have in knowing my creator and experiencing his divine love.
srobertw 4 years ago
By the way, a surprisingly large number of notable scientists fully support creation theory. The list includes molecular biologists, geneticists, nuclear physicists, etc., etc. If you're suggesting that cannot be a theory because there is no testable evidence, then you're discounting people who's career integrity relies upon the scientific process. I guess I'm not the only one guilty of an ad-hominem attack.
srobertw 4 years ago
an adhominem attack is justified if it is relevent, for example i would question the validity of a nuclear physicist's opinion on evolution no matter what his position is. now your arguement is from authority, just because someone has credentials dosn't mean they can't be mistaken. also there is ad populum, popularity dosn't impact truth(and the list is less than 1% of scientists, and finally science tends to place more importance on actual evidence, its not a democracy.
evirus 4 years ago
My point is that the scientists who support creation theory cite verifiable, observable evidence (i.e. the scientific process). And you're right, science is not a democracy. Just because a majority of people with credentials support a given theory doesn't mean they can't be mistaken.
srobertw 4 years ago
To answer your challenge, if you truly want to study the concepts of creation theory with an open mind, then there are a plethora of websites and literature in support of the notion. However, if you're looking to continue a debate where you refute me and I respond in kind ad infinitum, then I'm not your guy.
You're obviously an intelligent, interesting person, and I would enjoy further discussion with you in some other forum (i.e. PM, etc.) if you wish.
srobertw 4 years ago
the reason why i asked you for three evidences because i have already seen numorous claims that don't even pass the smell test. i was wondering if you could provide some logical ones
evirus 4 years ago
If you can't get past your senses, then what can I tell you that you will not simply discount? As I stated before, I admit that there is strong evidence to support many aspects of evolutionary theory. However, the concept of macro-evolution, from bio soup to life as we know it is based upon supposition rather than verifiable, factual information ... continued ...
srobertw 4 years ago
... The same can be said of Creation theory. There is strong evidence that supports species being created as whole, complete and in their present form with minor variations due to adaptive (micro) evolution and genetic degradation. Much (if not most) of the evidence comes from a closer study and reinterpretation of the results of the exact same studies used to support evolution! ... continued ...
srobertw 4 years ago
... The difference being that Creation Theory is based upon the supposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
The bottom line is, you choose the suppositions of the secular scientific world as the foundation of your beliefs. I choose the suppositions of what I believe is the very word of God himself as the foundation of my beliefs. Can either of us prove one another wrong? No.
srobertw 4 years ago
My only hope is that the video messages I post here on behalf of Roger Oakland will cause people like yourself to open your mind and think about the alternative to what you have been taught all your life. My prayer is that you will not be one who laughs off the possibility of a living creator God simply because the majority of secular scientists and popular world view directs you to do so.
srobertw 4 years ago
its one thing to have an open mind, its another thing to have a mind so open that your brain falls out. occamz razor, you are using one extra unknowen than i
becasue macro evolution is science it CAN be proven wrong, all you have to do is demonstrate that mutations can't accumulate, or show that the fossil record is static(unchanging), or show the existance of chimeras, or show the existance of spontanious gereation(might be hard considering pastuer disproved the most common beliefs about it)
evirus 4 years ago
Spontaneous generation is not creation. In fact, spontaneous generation is a requirement of evolution (it had to start somewhere). And when I said we can't prove one another wrong, I was referring to proving one another wrong at present within the confines of current scientific evidence. I'm a Business Analyst, not a scientist, and I have no intention of changing my career in order to continue a debate with you. ... continued ...
srobertw 4 years ago
Finally, your implication that anyone who believes in special creation has lost their brain is not only an outright, school-yard level attack, but it brings to light your true motives in this discussion: to incite discord rather than come to any kind of understanding. This is also apparent in your lack of willingness to acknowledge any point of validity in my viewpoint, even when I draw the conclusion that we cannot come to agreement in this forum.
srobertw 4 years ago
quote my words that you think infers such a an immature tactic
evirus 4 years ago
Look, my friend, for the last time, I'm tired of this thread which is turning into something that resembles a pseudo-intellectual comparison of phalli rather than an open, heartfelt discussion. As I stated (implied) before, my purpose here is not to debate with people until I win (or vice versa). If you don't like my views, don't watch my (Roger's) videos. If you want a discussion, PM me anytime. If you want a debate, join a debate team. ... end of thread (for me anyway) ...
srobertw 4 years ago
spontaneous generation refers to COMPLEX creatures arising from matter, for example maggots in dead meat(this was the original hypothesis before we knew flys layed the eggs). abiogensis and common decent, depend on the creation of life being that of simple creatures, not complex ones. so if a complex creature is created from simple chemicles it would throw larg doubt on abiogensis and common descent.
evirus 4 years ago
it is sciences requirements of testability and repeatability that prevent these interpretations from becomming to complacent in the presence of contradicting evidence.
evirus 4 years ago
interdependant how? if life where to be created specifically by god(this is the only statement in this hypathetical scenario) there is no reason why such a fact would disprove evolution. conversly if evolution was disproved it would say nothing about the validity of abiogensis.
evirus 4 years ago
As I implied in an earlier comment, I am compelled to speak out against those with atheistic viewpoints who insist that to believe in a creator is foolhardy. For those people, abiogenesis and evolution are very much interdependent, at least in the sense that you have to have a start to the process.
srobertw 4 years ago
what atheists think about evolution and abiogenesis is IRRELEVENT, in science abiogensis is not required for evolution, and evolution is not required for abiogensis, proving one does not prove the other, conversly disproving one dosn't disprove the other.
it is logically fallacious(on several different levels) to conclude that they both must be true, or both must be false, because someone thinks they are related.
evirus 4 years ago
How come these engineers cannot equip the robot with the means to "evolve" as needed? Is it that "Nobody" is smarter than they are? I am amazed at the mental gymnastics you evolutionists undertake to deny the patently obvious.
pennylaneproductions 4 years ago
equiping a robot with the means to evolve as needed would drastically increase the cost of said robot, the bottom line is that manufacturers are looking for bots to lift things of a specific weight, move them at a specific speed, and in a specific way. they don't need "adaptive robotics" they need something to fill asembly line labor(repetitive, and specific tasks).
evirus 4 years ago
what makes "living things" capable of evolving cheaply is that they reproduce at a molecular level, cell by cell. sense most of a robot's structure is pure steel the robot would need to collect enough steel to make another one(not to mention motors, CPU, and a power source), analize its design, and randomly fudge the deminsions here and there(mutate its offspring) and than actualy build another one, not so easy with nonreplicating molecules.
evirus 4 years ago