Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution? By Byron York

[Carling]

I know that evolution is real because I have seen the visible proof and the visible proof supports my belief.

I feel the same way.  Where we differ is you apparently knowing how evolution works, when it's never been scientifically proven in a lab, while I'm not afraid to say I don't know how it works, and what the factors are behind it.

It's off-putting when posters state their beliefs as fact, which is what you appear to be doing in this thread.

Simple question.  How did the very first organic cell originated?  Then, go prove it in a lab.   

[Dexter]

But, it helps to be familiar with a subject if one is interested in pursuing debate in that area.

 

[ABX]

I would suggest everyone who is interested in this subject, pick up this book. It is a great read reconciling faith and science and it shows one doesn't not have to reject faith to accept current scientific knowledge. Written by the head of the human genome project.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416542744/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416542744&linkCode=as2&tag=matthewnehrli-20&linkId=K3ZKOYMTJ32DVUXR

[truth_seeker]

I feel the same way.  Where we differ is you apparently knowing how evolution works, when it's never been scientifically proven in a lab, while I'm not afraid to say I don't know how it works, and what the factors are behind it.

It's off-putting when posters state their beliefs as fact, which is what you appear to be doing in this thread.

Simple question.  How did the very first organic cell originated?  Then, go prove it in a lab.   

But modern science is working steadily and finding more knowledge along the way. Complex knowledge.

But very few people understand complexities of the sciences, so some settle for simplicities from young earth cons.

[GourmetDan]

Why don't you enlighten us with your thoughts on evolution.  My position is that obviously it exists, but there are questions.

First question.  Have you been able to witness evolution in a controlled scientific setting?

What is observed is adaptation.

It is defined as being evolution and then held up as proof of evolution using the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent.

[GourmetDan]

But modern science is working steadily and finding more knowledge along the way. Complex knowledge.

But very few people understand complexities of the sciences, so some settle for simplicities from young earth cons.

This is the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy for believing that abiogenesis is true pending unknown future scientific discoveries...

[Dexter]

It wouldn't surprise me if Dan believes in geocentrism and a flat Earth.

[GourmetDan]

     

[Dexter]

Responding with that image really makes me wonder; Dan, do you believe in geocentrism and/or a flat Earth?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I feel the same way.  Where we differ is you apparently knowing how evolution works, when it's never been scientifically proven in a lab, while I'm not afraid to say I don't know how it works, and what the factors are behind it.

It's off-putting when posters state their beliefs as fact, which is what you appear to be doing in this thread.

Simple question.  How did the very first organic cell originated?  Then, go prove it in a lab.   

We're discussing evolution here, not abiogenesis.

That's possibly the most common error made in any evolution vs creationism discussion.

Abiogenesis: How life began

Evolution: Everything that happened after that.

So, the real question being debated is whether God created man and everything exactly as we see man and everything today, or whether the spark of life gave birth to the evolutionary process.

I believe in the evolutionary process, I'm still pondering on the nature of the spark.

God = Universe = God

My Trinity.

P.S. Read about Darwin's finches.

[GourmetDan]

P.S. Read about Darwin's finches.

What is observed is adaptation.

It is defined as being evolution and then held up as proof of evolution using the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent.

[Dexter]

Dan, I am both disturbed and amused by you electing not to answer my question.

[Carling]

We're discussing evolution here, not abiogenesis.

 If you're going to 100% know evolution, you had better know how the first living cell originated, and then be able to prove scientifically how that cell ended up being every creature known to earth throughout its history.

That's possibly the most common error made in any evolution vs creationism discussion.

Abiogenesis: How life began

Evolution: Everything that happened after that.

Yes, I know this.  You're not answering my question about the first cell, because you can't answer.  You also can't take a one species, and watch it develop into another species.  Darwin was the first to point out this troubling part of evolution, so don't feel bad because you obviously don't have the answer.

So, the real question being debated is whether God created man and everything exactly as we see man and everything today, or whether the spark of life gave birth to the evolutionary process.

I'm not a creationist.  How many times do I have to post this before you and a few others stop bringing up god?  I don't  believe in god, either, but I can't disprove its existence.  I tend to believe in evolution, but I can't scientifically verify it.  It's like blaming mankind for temperature changes, IMO.  True Evolutionists who aren't willing to discuss the holes in that theory are really no better than Global Warming Alarmists.  It's a faith-based belief.

I believe in the evolutionary process, I'm still pondering on the nature of the spark.

Correct.  The process of evolution is a  belief.  It's not knowledge.  Claiming to know exactly how evolution occurs hasn't been done yet.

P.S. Read about Darwin's finches.

That's an example of adaptation, not a new species.  Bigger beaks, blah blah blah. 

Why are humans so afraid to admit that they don't know everything about the universe? 

[Dexter]

I'm not a creationist.

I tend to believe in evolution

Why are you so insistent on arguing with people that believe in evolution when you apparently agree that it is probably how advanced life has come to be? I don't think anybody here has argued that they can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that evolution is real. I'm pretty sure they have just agreed that based on the evidence it is most likely the case. Your argument that it is equivalent to religious faith is wrong however, because unlike religious faith there is a lot of evidence backing the theory of evolution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you're going to 100% know evolution, you had better know how the first living cell originated, and then be able to prove scientifically how that cell ended up being every creature known to earth throughout its history.

I'm not answering the question about the first cell because it is a entirely different subject.

Evolution is the process that took place once life sparked.

There are many theories about that, but it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.

Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm

[Carling]

Why are you so insistent on arguing with people that believe in evolution when you apparently agree that it is probably how advanced life has come to be? I don't think anybody here has argued that they can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that evolution is real. I'm pretty sure they have just agreed that based on the evidence it is most likely the case. Your argument that it is equivalent to religious faith is wrong however, because unlike religious faith there is a lot of evidence backing the theory of evolution.

I mentioned linear evolution and was mocked for two pages of this thread, which included the guy who posts about "Chaos Theory" as if he is treating it as fact.

As for evidence backing the theory of evolution, where is that evidence.  Where has species-to-species evolution been observed, literally, to the point that proves evolution to a level other than it being an educated guess?

[Carling]

I'm not answering the question about the first cell because it is a entirely different subject.

Evolution is the process that took place once life sparked.

There are many theories about that, but it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

Are you going to respond to the two posts bringing up your example of adaption that you tried to pass off as evolution?  I can guarantee you this, too.  GourmetDan and I are both skeptical, but for very different reasons.  It seems that the Evolutions like to make it a binary debate of creationism vs. evolution, and they ignore the many gray areas when they frame the debate in those terms. 

[DCPatriot]

So.

Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution?     

[Dexter]

As for evidence backing the theory of evolution, where is that evidence.

Seriously? Evidence doesn't need to be able to demonstrate that something is 100% true. Evidence is an observation that suggests something is probably true. Fossil records and DNA are evidence.

[Carling]

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm

You're quoting atheism.com and using one person's opinion as part of your proof?  Of course atheistic evolutionists are going to ignore the origin of life, because of the simple fact that not once in recorded human history has "life" been creating from inorganic matter.  Evolution hasn't been observed, either, but there is a fossil record that gives some scientific validity for evolution.  A fossil record filled with many holes. 

I wonder what I could find on a creationist site, not that I've ever visited one.

Also re:abiogenesis, why isn't that something that occurs still to this day?  Was it a one time thing based on special circumstances, like a quickening in Highlander?

[Carling]

So.

Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution?     

Well played!!!   

[Carling]

Seriously? Evidence doesn't need to be able to demonstrate that something is 100% true. Fossil records and DNA are evidence.

Fossil records and DNA are evidence of those species, not how or why they evolved to be those species.

 

Evidence is an observation that suggests something is probably true.

Evidence is observation of that species and its DNA.  Suggesting something is probably true is making up a reason.  Now, it may be an educated reason, but since it's never been proven via the scientific method, it seems rather arrogant to state something is "probably true," and then mocking those who question your "probable truth."   

[Dexter]

Also re:abiogenesis, why isn't that something that occurs still to this day? 

We discover new forms of life all the time. It's completely possible that is does still occur.

[GourmetDan]

I'm not answering the question about the first cell because it is a entirely different subject.

Evolution is the process that took place once life sparked.

There are many theories about that, but it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

That must mean that in the version of evolution that you prefer, the first cell miraculously appeared out of non-life and did not 'evolve' from something else.

Given the complexity of single-celled organism, no rational scientist believes that anymore...