Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[Father Heathen]

If evolution was proven false I would run into a brick wall and turn into an accordion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ben Stein is smart? How is that possible?

He always seemed quite intelligent to me before that abortion of a documentary. Then again, a lot of people seem to lose their crap as they get older.

 

[Alceste]

He always seemed quite intelligent to me before that abortion of a documentary. Then again, a lot of people seem to lose their crap as they get older.

Tell me about it. I live with a 92 year old lady. So help me, I fear obsessing about ridiculous minutae all day (and all night) long more than I fear sickness, pain and death. Every dinner conversation has mainly to do with the price of various specific items at the grocery store. I don't know what I'd do without the full use of my brain. I could end up like Ben Stein myself!

 

[rusra02]

If you saw a mountain that looked like an Indian wearing an iPod, would you argue that it was designed as well?

Since rocks are not capable of descent with modification, isn't your example just a little facetious?

Really? Is that your answer to how a rock with "John - 1785" written on it can occur naturally?

If that is where the evidence logically leads, then why does almost everyone who studies the evidence come the exact opposite conclusion?

Let's see now. A few hundred years ago, almost everyone who studied the evidence concluded the earth was flat..that bleeding a person improved their health..., etc.
So because most people drink the ToE Kool-Aid we are to conclude we should all drink it? That's what propaganda does to people.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Another thing that propaganda does is make people think they can disbelieve in a scientific theory backed by evidence

 

[A. T. Henderson]

He always seemed quite intelligent to me before that abortion of a documentary. Then again, a lot of people seem to lose their crap as they get older.

I think it depends on the subject they're talking about, too. There are plenty of people who are brilliant in their own area of expertise, but become ridiculous when they start expounding on a subject they know nothing about.

Just look at Dawkins when he starts up on religion: he argues like a teenager. He has to pick on the most obviously demented fundamentalists to make his case look strong enough to stand up, and as soon as you put him opposite someone reasonable, he quickly descends into flustered attacks on a position they aren't supporting.

I don't know if Ben Stein has an area of expertise, of course.

 

[fossil]

I think it depends on the subject they're talking about, too. There are plenty of people who are brilliant in their own area of expertise, but become ridiculous when they start expounding on a subject they know nothing about.

Just look at Dawkins when he starts up on religion: he argues like a teenager. He has to pick on the most obviously demented fundamentalists to make his case look strong enough to stand up, and as soon as you put him opposite someone reasonable, he quickly descends into flustered attacks on a position they aren't supporting.

I don't know if Ben Stein has an area of expertise, of course.

As far as I know, Stein is a writer, laywer, actor and he was speach writer for Nixon and Ford, so I think he is intelligent. It just a shame that like most creationists, he lets his beliefs get in the way of facts and common sense when reality disagrees with their interpretation of scripture.

Could you point me to any videos of Dawkins getting flustered opposite someone reasonable?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's see now. A few hundred years ago, almost everyone who studied the evidence concluded the earth was flat..

They didn't "study the evidence", flat earth believers trusted in mythical creation stories rather than scientific observation.
As early as the Third Century BC, Aristotle maintained that the Earth was spherical based on physical theory and observational evidence.
(The 'Columbus proving the flat-earthers wrong' story is a myth. There is no historical record of any educated person in 15th century Europe, believing in a 'flat-earth')

But let's not let historical facts get in the way...

 

[camanintx]

Really? Is that your answer to how a rock with "John - 1785" written on it can occur naturally?

No, it is my attempt to illustrate how misguided your example is. A rock with "John - 1785" would not occur naturally because rocks are not alive.

Let's see now. A few hundred years ago, almost everyone who studied the evidence concluded the earth was flat..that bleeding a person improved their health..., etc.

 

[rusra02]

No, it is my attempt to illustrate how misguided your example is. A rock with "John - 1785" would not occur naturally because rocks are not alive.

So a rock with a few letters and number could not occur naturally, but DNA could?
A teaspoon of DNA would be more than sufficient to store all the information for building every person alive today. The Bible speaks about this; "Your eyes say even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them." (Psalm 139:16) These poetic words are true in a very literal sense. The DNA "book" contains all the instructions needed to create a human embryo. And evolutionists would have us believe this came about unaided by any intelligent Maker.

​

​

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So a rock with a few letters and number could not occur naturally, but DNA could?
A teaspoon of DNA would be more than sufficient to store all the information for building every person alive today. The Bible speaks about this; "Your eyes say even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them." (Psalm 139:16) These poetic words are true in a very literal sense. The DNA "book" contains all the instructions needed to create a human embryo. And evolutionists would have us believe this came about unaided by any intelligent Maker.

DNA is not the first product. Its the natural successor to a less complex molecule. One needs to mine iron before one gets all the way to steel, and then, a Maserati.

 

[rusra02]

DNA is not the first product. Its the natural successor to a less complex molecule. One needs to mine iron before one gets all the way to steel, and then, a Maserati.

Right. And who is doing the mining? And building the Marserati?

 

[fossil]

Right. And who is doing the mining? And building the Marserati?

If you're taking about DNA, why does it have to be a who, or what?
A lot of "evolutionists" believe in God too you know.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Could you point me to any videos of Dawkins getting flustered opposite someone reasonable?

There was a particular incident when he was interviewing an Anglican Minister for his BBC show about the God Delusion that I was thinking of. The Minister refused to acknowledge that science was incompatible with religious faith, and made a very good argument for how the two could sit side by side, occupying different spheres. Dawkins ranted at him a bit, basically just repeating "no, they can't, you're wrong".

The documentary ended up cutting quite abruptly away from the interview to Dawkins sitting on his own claiming that the Minister was completely wrong. Watching it at the time, it struck me that Dawkins does similar things pretty regularly. He makes bald statements, repeats them as a form of argument, and then restates them after the interview, having failed to convince the person he was arguing with.

I can't find it online: the BBC is pretty jealously protective of its stuff.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Right. And who is doing the mining? And building the Marserati?

Nobody is in the case of RNA. Things also happen naturally without any necessity of someone doing it.

 

[camanintx]

So a rock with a few letters and number could not occur naturally, but DNA could?

Since DNA is subjected to chemical processes which the rock is not, then yes, it could.

 

[Matthew78]

I used the example in another post of a rock with JOHN-1785 carved into it. No reasonable person would argue that message happened naturally.

How does this answer my question regarding complexity? When creationists say that something is "too complex" they don't specify just how complex something has to be to be intelligently designed. Where is the demarcation line between "complex" and "too complex" that represents nature's built-in limits to how much complexity that is able to rise naturally?

You don't have an answer, do you?

Speaking of evolution in terms of natural law and inevitability raises many questions. What natural law? Why was it inevitable?

If you gave this question even two minutes of serious thought, you would realize that any law involved in chemical reactions is involved in evolutionary change. The laws of thermodynamics, for instance, are involved in chemical reactions. So the laws of thermodynamics play a part in evolution. The laws of enthalpy, gravitation, and any other law that is involved in chemical reactions. Why chemical reactions? Because that is what a mutation is; it is a chemical reaction that results in a change in the genetic information of a genome.

As for why it's inevitable. It's really simple, Rusra. This isn't advanced theoretical physics. The reason why it's inevitable is because evolution is an incidental process. It's just like when a bolt of lightening strikes. When you trace everything that is involved in a lightening strike ranging from the photons that reach your eyes to the clouds from which the lightening strikes from, you will realize that the lightening strike was inevitable because the conditions for the lightening strike to occur were met. A lightening strike is not deliberately planned. It's not as though the clouds are intelligent agents which decide when, where, and how the lightening strike will occur. It's not an accident, either. It's not as though lightening struck at point B when it was deliberately trying to strike at point A and something messed up the plan to strike.

Lightening strikes are incidental. Evolution is incidental. Gravity pulling down a baseball that has been thrown up into the air is incidental. It happens when the conditions for its occurrence are met. It happens whether we want it to or not. It's just something that happens.

What proof is there for such a statement?

Why do you need proof that evolution is inevitable when the conditions are met? That's like asking for proof that a bolt of lightening will strike when the conditions for it are met.

Even a rock with a short message on it bespeaks an intelligent maker. How much more so the overwhelmingly complex living cell. (Hebrews 3:4)

Again, where is the line in the sand between "complex enough" and "too complex"?

Antony Flew, an atheist for 50 years, after studying DNA, began to express belief that intelligence must have created life. Why? He went where the evidence led him.The evidence leads to the logical conclusion that a superhuman intelligent Person,"God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

You realize, right, that Flew didn't convert to Christianity? That is actually embarrassing for creationists like you. Why? Think about it. Your god was bright enough to plant enough evidence in the form of clues that would lead Flew to conclude that there must be an intelligent being but yet he's not bright enough to provide the right kind of clues that would lead him to become a born-again Christian like you? Why not, Rusra? I so dare you to answer that!

 

[painted wolf]

How can something as simple as water just know how to make a snowflake... it's just too complex! And they are all unique!

Clearly god is shaping each one in a factory in the sky. Nothing complex happens in nature by itself.... :cover:

wa:do

 

[Chase200mph]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

Evolution is continually refuted, that’s a part of the scientific process…. If it were ZNOT so, then I wouldn’t have believed it in the first place….it’s only religions that profess you must remain ignorant and follow blindly. Example: Did the men who Jesus used to preach His gospel - men who were, "uneducated and untrained men" - seek to change those characteristics, or teach others to become educated and trained? (Acts 4:13) Why did Jesus say, "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)
You must forsake education and become retarded…..

 

[Chase200mph]

Nobody is in the case of RNA. Things also happen naturally without any necessity of someone doing it.

Like everybody being the product of sisters marrying their brothers as the bible instructs….this could explain a lot.