Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

97%+ of all scientists accept abiogenesis and evolution as supported by falsifiable hypothesis that natural causes, and natural laws cause life to form and evolve over billions of years. If they are Theistic Evolutionists like myself than we believe God used natural processes and natural laws to Create our physical existence. In fact God is responsible for Creating the Natural Laws.

If you are a Metaphysical Naturalist, such as atheists than they would believe that the Laws of Nature are the eternal and infinite cause of everything. They would only accept the scientific evidence for anything.

Is there any relevant difference between human and non human design?

Wouldn't astrobiologists use the same methods that archeologists use to detect design in other planets?


Ok i'll read the article that you cited

Here's another opinion about life outside of this Earth.
"Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut" See? They could be "living among us."
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut

 

[YoursTrue]

Another comment about evolution from that same article:
"There are so many billions of stars out there in the universe that there must be all sorts of different forms of life," she went on. "Will they be like you and me, made up of carbon and nitrogen? Maybe not." Maybe not. But, like others figure, maybe so. With the odds maybe so. May-be so.

Here's another opinion about life outside of this Earth.
"Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut" See? They could be "living among us."
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut

 

[YoursTrue]

So why all the evidence that the world is far older?

Good question.

 

[gnostic]

isn't it obvious that we were created by some supreme being? isn't it just as obvious as that a car was designed and manufactured. no one is going to say that a car was not designed and manufactured so how can anyone say that the world was not designed and manufactured.

Sorry, but you are talking about man-made car manufacturers, which we can go see and meet the people who designed vehicles, manufactured them, distributed them and sell them.

There are real people involved, so you can easily find evidence that link people who are involved in the company. You can check each person’s personal records, employment records, tax records, etc, you can meet with them, talk to or interview them.

The same cannot be said about “God”, “Creator” or “Designer”.

You cannot find physical evidence for God or this Intelligent Designer, because you cannot observe him, measure him or test him. Without being able to find real physical evidence for God or Designer, then it is not possible or probable to claim that God was responsible for creating the Earth or creating life, including human.

When you accept something you believe in, without evidence, that’s call “faith”. That’s what religions, rely on, including your Islam. Islam relied on faith that Allah is real and and your belief in Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Science don’t rely on personal belief or personal faith, chris baron. Science rely on falsifiable explanatory model (eg hypothesis and scientific theory), and being able to test the falsifiable model through observation (eg evidence and experiments).

If you cannot observe, measure or test Allah, then there are no evidence for Allah. But you do have belief and faith in Allah. So that mean religions (including Islam) don’t use science.

 

[chris baron]

When you accept something you believe in, without evidence, that’s call “faith”. That’s what religions, rely on, including your Islam. Islam relied on faith that Allah is real and and your belief in Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Science don’t rely on personal belief or personal faith, chris baron. Science rely on falsifiable explanatory model (eg hypothesis and scientific theory), and being able to test the falsifiable model through observation (eg evidence and experiments).

If you cannot observe, measure or test Allah, then there are no evidence for Allah. But you do have belief and faith in Allah. So that mean religions (including Islam) don’t use science.

when you see a work of art you don't see the artist but you see the work of his hands. if someone tells you that the work of art doesnt have a creator are you going to believe him? you have to accept that there is an artist who painted the painting even though you have never seen him. is this irrational?

 

[gnostic]

when you see a work of art you don't see the artist but you see the work of his hands. if someone tells you that the work of art doesnt have a creator are you going to believe him? you have to accept that there is an artist who painted the painting even though you have never seen him. is this irrational?

You are talking about man-made objects, chris.

Of course, art were created by people. You can actually meet the artists, which you would have confirmation those artists are real.

There is however no evidence for gods, spirits and angels; their existences are only based on belief, and belief alone.

Belief doesn’t equal to physical evidence.

Science requires evidence to be something that you can -

1. observe or detect,
2. quantify,
3. measure,
4. and test, eg to compare, verify or refute

If you cannot do any combination of those points, then those beliefs are not supported by evidence.

Can you see a god?
Can you measure a god?
Can you quantify a god
Can you test a god?​

If you cannot do any of the above, then what you have is belief without evidence.

And if you cannot verify the god exist, then how can you possibly say god created the Earth or created life?

If you use the cause-and-effect, then...

(A) you will need to find evidence for CAUSE,
(B) you will need to evidence for EFFECT,
(C) and lastly you will need to find evidence for the “cause” BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR the “effect”.​

If you are missing EVIDENCE for point (A), then your whole cause-and-effect argument falls apart.

That’s the problem with theistic religions, including Islam. There are beliefs for Allah, but no evidence for Allah.

 

[chris baron]

You are talking about man-made objects, chris.

Of course, art were created by people. You can actually meet the artists, which you would have confirmation those artists are real.

There is however no evidence for gods, spirits and angels; their existences are only based on belief, and belief alone.

Belief doesn’t equal to physical evidence.

Science requires evidence to be something that you can -

1. observe or detect,
2. quantify,
3. measure,
4. and test, eg to compare, verify or refute

If you cannot do any combination of those points, then those beliefs are not supported by evidence.

Can you see a god?
Can you measure a god?
Can you quantify a god
Can you test a god?​

If you cannot do any of the above, then what you have is belief without evidence.

And if you cannot verify the god exist, then how can you possibly say god created the Earth or created life?

If you use the cause-and-effect, then...

(A) you will need to find evidence for CAUSE,
(B) you will need to evidence for EFFECT,
(C) and lastly you will need to find evidence for the “cause” BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR the “effect”.​

If you are missing EVIDENCE for point (A), then your whole cause-and-effect argument falls apart.

That’s the problem with theistic religions, including Islam. There are beliefs for Allah, but no evidence for Allah.

what about a dead artist you can't meet a dead artist, you might not even know the artist's name or his nationality or anything but you do know with absolute certainty that he created the sculpture. there is no question about it. the sculpture did not come into existence through evolution and a long string of coincidences. it would be absurd to suggest that the sculpture came into existence on its own without a creative hand.
so when you look at a beautiful natural landscape with flowers and trees and aromas and critters, marvelling at the excellence of the night sky and the glittering stars (which you can't see anymore because of advances in science) you are looking at the work of its creator's hand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but you are talking about man-made car manufacturers, which we can go see and meet the people who designed vehicles, manufactured them, distributed them and sell them.

There are real people involved, so you can easily find evidence that link people who are involved in the company. You can check each person’s personal records, employment records, tax records, etc, you can meet with them, talk to or interview them.

The same cannot be said about “God”, “Creator” or “Designer”.

You cannot find physical evidence for God or this Intelligent Designer, because you cannot observe him, measure him or test him. Without being able to find real physical evidence for God or Designer, then it is not possible or probable to claim that God was responsible for creating the Earth or creating life, including human.

When you accept something you believe in, without evidence, that’s call “faith”. That’s what religions, rely on, including your Islam. Islam relied on faith that Allah is real and and your belief in Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Science don’t rely on personal belief or personal faith, chris baron. Science rely on falsifiable explanatory model (eg hypothesis and scientific theory), and being able to test the falsifiable model through observation (eg evidence and experiments).

If you cannot observe, measure or test Allah, then there are no evidence for Allah. But you do have belief and faith in Allah. So that mean religions (including Islam) don’t use science.

I am quite certain I do not agree with every believer as to who or what is God, but here is an interesting article about Antony Flew, an avowed atheist who later became a believer.
Antony Flew - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

You are talking about man-made objects, chris.

Of course, art were created by people. You can actually meet the artists, which you would have confirmation those artists are real.

There is however no evidence for gods, spirits and angels; their existences are only based on belief, and belief alone.

Belief doesn’t equal to physical evidence.

Science requires evidence to be something that you can -

1. observe or detect,
2. quantify,
3. measure,
4. and test, eg to compare, verify or refute

If you cannot do any combination of those points, then those beliefs are not supported by evidence.

Can you see a god?
Can you measure a god?
Can you quantify a god
Can you test a god?​

If you cannot do any of the above, then what you have is belief without evidence.

And if you cannot verify the god exist, then how can you possibly say god created the Earth or created life?

If you use the cause-and-effect, then...

(A) you will need to find evidence for CAUSE,
(B) you will need to evidence for EFFECT,
(C) and lastly you will need to find evidence for the “cause” BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR the “effect”.​

If you are missing EVIDENCE for point (A), then your whole cause-and-effect argument falls apart.

That’s the problem with theistic religions, including Islam. There are beliefs for Allah, but no evidence for Allah.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am quite certain I do not agree with every believer as to who or what is God, but here is an interesting article about Antony Flew, an avowed atheist who later became a believer.
Antony Flew - Wikipedia

What does that have to do with the content of that poster's post??

 

[gnostic]

what about a dead artist you can't meet a dead artist, you might not even know the artist's name or his nationality or anything but you do know with absolute certainty that he created the sculpture. there is no question about it. the sculpture did not come into existence through evolution and a long string of coincidences. it would be absurd to suggest that the sculpture came into existence on its own without a creative hand.
so when you look at a beautiful natural landscape with flowers and trees and aromas and critters, marvelling at the excellence of the night sky and the glittering stars (which you can't see anymore because of advances in science) you are looking at the work of its creator's hand.

There are art works that survive whom we don’t know who the artists were, but there are no reasons to think they were painted or sculpted or molded by any other beings (eg gods, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, fairies, aliens, etc) other than by human painters or human sculptors or human potters.

It would be beyond reckless stupidity and dishonesty to make assumptions that these man-made objects or man-made structures (eg houses, palaces, temples, tombs, cities, roads, bridges, etc) were made by any supernatural/mythological or extraterrestrial beings.

Of course, there have been idiots in recent times, conspiracy theorists, who believed that pyramids were built by non-humans, but by extraterrestrials, hence aliens. These people are not archaeologists, who make outrageous claims that cannot be supported.

But this thread is about “Evidence for or against Evolution”, hence about the biodiversity of population over time, not about people making cars or arts.

Both creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. The believers of these two will have other people believe of supernatural causes over natural phenomena.

No matter what natural science, be it one of the fields and branches of physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy, the explanatory models (eg scientific theories or falsifiable hypotheses, or even theoretical models) always go for natural phenomena or natural processes/mechanisms, not the supernatural and mythological ones (eg created by gods, spirits, fairies or aliens).

 

[night912]

when you see a work of art you don't see the artist but you see the work of his hands. if someone tells you that the work of art doesnt have a creator are you going to believe him? you have to accept that there is an artist who painted the painting even though you have never seen him. is this irrational?

It's irrational to accept that there is an artist who painted that artwork before examining it. Upon examining that colorful artwork up close, I realized that it was a white and greyish color rock on top of a some green grass. There are also some brow mud along the bottom edge of the rock. It's a colorful piece of artwork, but after examining it, i didn't find any sign that indicate a person had place a rock on top of some green grass. Nor did I find anything to suggest that a person painted the rock.

So in conclusion, i cannot accept that there was a person who created that piece of artwork based on lack of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I am quite certain I do not agree with every believer as to who or what is God, but here is an interesting article about Antony Flew, an avowed atheist who later became a believer.
Antony Flew - Wikipedia

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

I know who Flew was.

I don’t care if Flew was theist, atheist or former atheist, Flew is philosopher, not a scientist, and I really don’t have time of what philosophers say, because there are many philosophies, east and west, modern and ancient, which many of them used flawed reasoning.

Flew is one of those who believe in conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are all crap.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's another opinion about life outside of this Earth.
"Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut" See? They could be "living among us."
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut
Aliens definitely exist and they could be living among us on Earth, says Britain's first astronaut

Not a good option based on the evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know who Flew was.

I don’t care if Flew was theist, atheist or former atheist, Flew is philosopher, not a scientist, and I really don’t have time of what philosophers say, because there are many philosophies, east and west, modern and ancient, which many of them used flawed reasoning.

Flew is one of those who believe in conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are all crap.

. . . and he is not a Theist, his view more of Deist.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am quite certain I do not agree with every believer as to who or what is God, but here is an interesting article about Antony Flew, an avowed atheist who later became a believer.
Antony Flew - Wikipedia

Believer in what? He is at best a Deist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well support your assertion, pick an argument that is commonly used by apologetics, (kalam, teleological, resurrection etc.) and explain. Why the argument lacks objectivity

Apologetic argument you listed make assumptions in the argument that God exists. They are very very circular, and yes lack independent objectivity..

 

[shunyadragon]

isn't it obvious that we were created by some supreme being? isn't it just as obvious as that a car was designed and manufactured. no one is going to say that a car was not designed and manufactured so how can anyone say that the world was not designed and manufactured.
there really is no option but intelligent design. random chance even over billions of years can not create the flora and fauna of the earth or the properties of matter.

No it is not obvious, God is a Creator and not an engineeer.

the bible is simply the true narrative of human history.
God created the world 6000 yrs ago, He chastised the world with a massive global flood 4400 yrs ago and humanity has continued to degenerate.
every day is just another page in the biblical narrative.

A bizzaro assertion not based on any objective evidence. In fact in contradiction with ALL the objective evidence of the nature of our physical existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not obvious, God is a Creator and not an engineeer.



A bizzaro assertion not based on any objective evidence. In fact in contradiction with ALL the objective evidence of the nature of our physical existence.

Realizing that many will not explain why they believe in God, why do you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Realizing that many will not explain why they believe in God,

Who is many?!?!?! Virtually all that I know believe in God has has reason and explain it, based on the religion or belief system they believe in, and of course, there are many diverse conflicting version of what they 'explain why they believe.'.

why do you?

I believe in God, because the natural nature of our physical existence reflects the attributes of a universal God beyond the beliefs of any one religion nor belief system.

God is the Creator, and not an engineer nor designer. God's Creation would not be in contradiction with the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of our physical existence.