and please dont give me links to read.
i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.
many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?
Here is one of the best sources that I have found for understanding evolution [not always simple though]:
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
Though not everything in the book is agreeable to biblical creationists (such as myself) there are numerous important items that are discussed. It can also be purchased from the Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org
.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5000/.
.
jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
Atheist Dawkins attacks ID theorist Behe, but comes short (weekend feedback):
Antitheists argue against any challenge to their materialism, but use many fallacies to do so. Richard Dawkins is a prime example in his recent tirade against Michael Behe. More …
jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
Hooberus,
Many of us have asked this question of you on numerous occasions, without an answer as of this moment.
Why did God create a Universe where everything feeds on everything else to survive?
From the smallest microbe, to the largest of mammals everything traps and feeds its prey to survive. Think of a virus or parasite, as it struggles to survive in its chosen host, the fly. Think of a spider sucking the life from its paralysed prey, the fly. Think of the sparrow which picks at the spider and eats it alive. Think of the cat that stalks and captures the sparrow. I think you get my drift.
I guess I thought that if any one sincerely desired an answer (from a biblical creationist perspective) on matters such as these [e.g. death, suffering, parasites, viruses, cancer, germs, fangs, claws, etc.], then they could: 1). simply consult any one of several introductory creationist books: (such as listed here: http://www.trueorigin.org/books.asp or here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4884/113 ) or 2).use thesearch function on any major scientific creationist website.
Given the fact that many of the evolutionists here constantly lecture others about speaking about things before study one would think that they themselves would be a little more well versed on all the origins subjects that they speak of.
Why did God create this self-perpetuating and brutal horror? How does the 'creation' make the 'fool' conclude that God is Love?
Do you have a scripture says that the present 'creation' is to "make the 'fool' conclude that God is Love"?
Furthermore, how can atheists even claim that there is necessarily anything evil or wrong about such things, given that their own belief system doesn't provide an objective means of determining evil, or wrong [that is if such items even truely exists under such a system to begin with]:
It’s often useful to ask a questioner to justify the validity of his question under his own belief system. For an atheist to complain that the Christian God is ‘evil,’ he must provide a standard of good and evil by which to judge Him. But if we are simply evolved pond scum, as a consistent atheist must believe, where can we find an objective standard of right and wrong?
Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely outcomes of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the notions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s? Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3774
jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
Persons who advocate that their brains are ultimately the result of random mutations filtered inefficiently by a gross, non-intelligently guided, purposeless, short term reproductive success only process, [which can be reasonably termed "unintelligent design"] and which is likely incapable of even preserving existing genetic information [due to deleterious effects which can easily overwhelm any hypothetical gain] should perhaps be cautious about calling others "ID-ots" etc.
Furthermore, while it is true that not all intelligent design theorists are also young earth creationists [e.g. Behe], the fact remains that all creationists (obviously) are believers in intelligent design [hense the recommendation of many ID resources by young earth creation science groups such as ICR and the Creation Reseach Society http://www.creationresearch.org]. Therefore, the recommendation or use of some ID scientist resources or certain specific arguments by persons (such as myself) certainly does not mean that a recent creationist position is no longer also advocated.
in another thread, a poster brought up what he called "the red corvette" problem.
the problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you must believe that a red corvette could simply form out of nothing.
if you believe life originated from nothing, then you must believe that a less-complicated machine such as a sports car could also have originated from nothing.
Every chance change to the "children" of the replicator would confer greater or lesser survivability on those children. The ones that "survived" (again, we're not talking life, so these are conceptual terms) would have been able to replicate more, and so pass on those traits to their children.But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes either confer no survivability change* or a lesser survivability? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the very,very rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and degeneration to extinction of this primitive life.
Edited to: But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes confer either no informational level change* or else a reduction in the genomic information level ? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and ultimate degeneration of life.
for how even "beneficial" mutations can cause a reduction in information content see: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp *According to Cornell professor Sanford even most "neutral" changes even today are not really truely neutral but actually slightly informationally deleterious. "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" available from http://www.creationresearch.org
in another thread, a poster brought up what he called "the red corvette" problem.
the problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you must believe that a red corvette could simply form out of nothing.
if you believe life originated from nothing, then you must believe that a less-complicated machine such as a sports car could also have originated from nothing.
A few comments:
Abiogenesis -- if it occurred, and there's no proof that it did -- would not have produced a corvette, or any biological equivalent. It would have produced something that we wouldn't today classify as life. It would have been a rudimentary replicating system. The equivalent of producing a well-rounded stick, as opposed to a sports car. If you came upon a stick that was pretty round and rolled pretty well, you might conclude it was a manufactured dowel rod. Or you might conclude it happened by chance. It wouldn't be such a spectacular find that you'd be all that awfully impressed either way.
I disagree with the phrase "the equivalent of producing a well-rounded stick, as opposed to a sports car", as it underestimates the complexity required of life.
Once this replicator came into being, natural selection would have allowed it to grow and evolve into higher forms.
It not often realized that even if a self-replicating system did somehow once come into being, that any sustained life would not necessarily be a likely result. Things such as hostile environmental factors, destructive reactions, etc, make rapid "extinction" probably a far more likely result for the emergent "life" and/or any small descendent population. The saying by some that "all it takes is for life to form once", overlooks many things.
Every chance change to the "children" of the replicator would confer greater or lesser survivability on those children. The ones that "survived" (again, we're not talking life, so these are conceptual terms) would have been able to replicate more, and so pass on those traits to their children.But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes either confer no survivability change* or a lesser survivability? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the very,very rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and degeneration to extinction of this primitive life. *According to Cornell professor Sanford even most "neutral" changes even today are not really truely neutral but actually slightly deleterious. For more information see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3028 Also see "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" and "The Biotic Message" both available from http://www.creationresearch.org
the world is full of complex biological systems (for one example see below):.
here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision.
when light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal.
Abaddon said:
It is unbelivable that Creationists can think their argument against evolution ("design requires a designer") is NOT a fallacy simply because they say "but in this case our postulated designer doesn't need a designer because we say so".
You are dropping the qualifying characters (which are either explicit or implicit in virtually all ID theories) when you represent the ID argument merely as "design requires a designer".
Note how changes affect the following hypothetical argument:
A. The design of complex electrionic equipment (composed of componet parts), that has an origin requires an intelligent designer.
B. The design of complex electroinc equipment (composed of componet parts), that has an origin requires an intelligent designer.
Note how the dropping of the qualifiers from example A changes the argument of those who advocate A into an caricature (example B.). It is then easier for a design opponet to falsely claim (based on B.) that this design example argument requires either 1.) an infinite regression of designers, or 2.) that the design advocates are engaged in "special pleading" if they then (in response to an opponets attempted inclusion of all designers) try to exclude any designer of any type from also "requiring an intelligent designer".
Rather than vague caricatures ID opponets would do better to respond to specific ID theories like the following one (doing so taking into account its explicit qualifying characteristics [It should again be noted that virtually all ID arguments have either explicit or obvious implicit qualifiers.]: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life" I think that they will find it much more difficult to convince others that "design" arguments require logical fallacies.
the world is full of complex biological systems (for one example see below):.
here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision.
when light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal.
Dantheman said:
Hooberus,
I think you missed my point. Saying that God is some unobserved, unobserveable, non-mechanical something that had no beginning is an unverifiable, untestable, 'because I say so' assertion. It proves nothing.
And the point that you miss is that specific design theory statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex biological systems (composed of componet parts) from non-complexity."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex electronic machines from non-complexity" etc., are not in themselves meant to discuss the characteristics of the designer at all- but instead are testable scientific formulations (often supported by accompanying scientific evidences).
Furthermore, there is nothing in such statements that requires the designer to also share the characteristics of the things in question (such as also being an "electronic machine" themself), hense there is no required infinite regression of "intelligent designers"designers in such arguments.
Now if the proponet of such statements as given above were to attempt to exclude for an irrevelant reason [like color] something that also is either observed to, or believed by them to also share in the above design arguments qualifying characters (such a having an origin and being a biological life)-then they would in fact be engaged in "special pleading". However, if they exclude nothing that is either observed, nor believed to have an origin and biological life [the statements qualifying characters] from the requirement, then they are not engading in any special pleading.
As to the issue of the origin, (or non-origin) of God [which some evolutionists frequently attempt to bring into discussions of the origin of the design of biological systems],- he is not either observed, nor believed by anyone (creationists, theistic evolutionists, and even atheistic evolutionists)*, to share in all the specific characteristics found in the specific design arguments (such as given above). Hense, its not special pleading for creationists (in response to evolutionists attempts to inject God into such biological design requirements) to point out that such specific design arguments are not applicable to God.
*atheistic evolutionists claim to have no belief in a real God at all (hense they don't believe in the existence of a real God being with any specific characteristics).
the world is full of complex biological systems (for one example see below):.
here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision.
when light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal.
dawg said:
Again, this whole argument is a straw man, making up the argument of your opponent so you can easily knock it down... there are those that have addressed the evolution of the eye and don't say one word about the subject of god in the process.
I never said that the "logic" argument that I was answering in this thread was the sole argument that evolutionists use in regards to the formation of complex biological structures- but instead that it is used by some evolutionists. Since some evolutionists (here even) do use this very argument, I was not therefore "making up the argument" of my opponets to "easily knock it down."
