<p>
</p>
<p>If you are going to make that claim, then the burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why does Naturalism care about things that cannot be epirically verified, such as the original cause of the existence of causes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The initiation of biological life has nothing to do with origins. It is, according to Naturalism, just another effect of another cause. It tells us nothing about the cause of causes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an excellent example of the well grounded and experimentally verified theory of Natural Selection. It tells us nothing about evolution. Before the above scenario could take place, the possibility of resistance to antibiotics had to exist in the bacteria’s genome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This “vacuum fluctuation” is either arbitrary, in which case it is indistinguishable from an act of god, or works by some mathematical principle, in which case that principle needs to be explained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This same infinite regress occurs when attempting to explain the universe by Naturalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have documented witnesses? Does it have a positive influence on people’s lives?</p>
<p>I accept Christ and not the Flying Spagetti Monster because of my experiences. This isn’t based on rational science, it is based on faith.</p>
<p>But the issue of origins and Naturalism are a different issue. I would still have faith in Christ if I knew evolution to be true. I’m not trying to scientifically prove Christianty true, I’m trying to scientifically prove it possible, and prove Naturalism logically inconsistent.</p>
<p>allah allah alalalalallaalala!!</p>
<p>MM: Why do you stick to your position when there have been so many arguments that show it to be false or at least HIGHLY improbable? Your religion isnt founded on a basis anymore factual than other faiths. Why do you just assume that youre correct - there is ZERO evidence for your position. And why so against scientific evidence that show your beliefs to be wrong? Its clear that the earth isnt 6,000 years old and that evolution is FACT and all the goofy ideas that go along with those beliefs are false. Theres nothing wrong with beliefs being overturned especially when they didnt have any foundation to begin with.</p>
<p>^ The 6,000 year old age of the earth is not part of my main worldview. I am not even certain of it myself. I consider it a likely possibility, but my main argument is not based on it and would remain true were I convinced of a different timeframe.</p>
<p>My main argument is against instantly rejecting anything called “god” or any idea of an intelligent mind behind the existence of the universe.</p>
<p>That the earth is 6000 years old isn’t a possibility. it’s off by 4.54 billion years. You just aren’t willing to accept the scientific evidence that proves you wrong just like you won’t accept evolution as fact. You can’t get around it regardless of what you want to be true.</p>
<p>^ My reasons for rejecting Evolution:</p>
<p>1: No valid mechanism. We know of no way that new genetic traits can be added to the genome, aside from random copy errors. It would take numerous errors to produce a change signifigant enough for natural selection to have an effect, and all of these errors must take place without any destructive errors occuring along the way. A species which mutated frequently enough to evolve would also have a proportionately higher rate of harmful mutations, and would be more likely to be replaced by a less volatile species due to natural selection than to develop into a new life form.</p>
<p>2: Precious little fossil evidence. Of all the fossils we have found, none show partly formed structures. We cannot form a gradual line of fossils for any species’ development without filling in huge areas (the areas where all the change supposedly took place) with guesswork. If evolution is true, the should have been a vast number of intermediary forms. The odds of none of these being found after centuries of searching are not good. If you claim that this is because there were still vaster numbers of non-transitional forms and “very few fossils are preserved”, then you must explain why, with a rate of change that small, evolution ever happened at all. If it takes 1000s of generations for one copy error to pile up into another, then the odds of the errors being preserved through all those generations until they had a significant positive effect on the creature’s survival odds are infitisimal. If you claim “punctuated equilibrium” you must then explain what caused the sudden changes in mutation rates, and why the acceleration of harmful mutations didn’t inflict lethal damage at the same time.</p>
<p>3: No conceivable evolutionary explanation for certain structures we can observe. Symbiosis is the best example: There is absolutely ZERO possibility of the cleanerfish-grouper relationship developing from natural selection. In ALL cases, the instinct of a prey fish to swim into a predator fish’s mouth will be rapidly eliminated by natural selection. In ALL cases, the instinct of a predator fish to allow prey fish to swim into and out of its mouth unharmed will be eliminated. Even if both instincts developed at once, they would have to occur in the entire population of both species at the same time. Otherwise, the cleanerfish with the swimming into the mouth instinct would be rapidly eaten by the predators without the allowing fish to swim into the mouth instinct, and the predators with the instinct would be vastly less able to compete as numerous food sources would be ignored.</p>
<p>This is merely one of literally millions of incredible traits that, according to Evolution, must have developed by chance.</p>
<p>Even 4.54 billion years would not be remotely long enough for all of this to happen, even assuming there WAS a mechanism. Even assuming that, the theory would need to be supported by evidence (either fossils or observed evolution) before it became credible. In 100s of years of observation, we have not observed a single case in which new genetic traits developed through chance. All observational evidence supports the belief that evolution proceeds in a lateral and downward direction, not an upward one.</p>
<p>^thats not right at all. You agree with natural selection - that is evolution. I’ll let mifune refute the rest.</p>
<p>^ Natural Selection != Evolution.</p>
<p>Natural selection is the mechanism by which the best genes are allowed to survive and the less good ones are eliminated. It is observeable, repeatable, and allows us to make useful predictions about the world.</p>
<p>However, before natural selection can occur, there must be traits to select.</p>
<p>Evolution is the theory that these traits can and did emerge by random chance. I do not find it to be supported by the evidence. Rather, I find that the evidence supports the theory that a large number of species with large gene pools to draw upon were created at some time in the past, and that they have since been subdivided into the diversity we see today by natural selection.</p>
<p>Look: If troggles have a skincolor gene that can be either green or blue, and they are eaten by wolibirds, and their habitat is broken into a green and a blue area by a disaster, then the green troggles in the blue area and the blue troggles in the green area will be eaten. We will then have two different kinds of troggle, each of which live in a different area.</p>
<p>If troggles have a skincolor gene that is alway blue, and their habitat is split into a green area and a blue area, the troggles in the green area won’t turn green. They will die off, leaving only the blue troggles in the blue area.</p>
<p>Natural selection explains why the population changes in makeup, but can only work on traits that already exist in the population.</p>
<p>Evolution is indisputable. It’s proven by the fossil record that life gets more complex as time goes on. Increasingly complexity is shown by dating the samples they’re in.</p>
<p>And mutations do exist and they change the alleles in a population and cause evolution. THere is NO EVIDENCE that life was created. It’s not supported by the fossil record at all and is just plain ignorant of how life really evolves.</p>
<p>^ See Objection #1 for why I do not consider random mutations a workable process. As for the fossil record, I already stated why I consider radio dating method suspect. But regardless of that, it doesn’t give us a bit of help in showing how evolution could happen: see Objection #2.</p>
<p>Also, you have not addressed Objection #3.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1: No valid mechanism. We know of no way that new genetic traits can be added to the genome, aside from random copy errors. It would take numerous errors to produce a change signifigant enough for natural selection to have an effect, and all of these errors must take place without any destructive errors occuring along the way. A species which mutated frequently enough to evolve would also have a proportionately higher rate of harmful mutations, and would be more likely to be replaced by a less volatile species due to natural selection than to develop into a new life form.
[quote]
There is most certainly a way. DNA can be accidentally duplicated to form longer chains, the cell can produce too many chromosome, or a virus could infect the cell and give it new active genes. One also must consider RNA. There is quite a few ways this can happen. I don’t mean to insult you, but before you venture into the realm of biology, make sure you know enough to make serious discussion. As with viruses, not all of these new genes have to be harmful.</p>
<p>
Mutation rates don’t necessarily change; rather, evolutionary pressure makes those adaptation more beneficial so that the rest of the population is descended from the ancestor having that gene, therefore making it appear as if mutation occurred more, because the mutant genes became standard much quicker.</p>
<p>I can’t answer the third point right now because I don’t have time, but let me assure you that you need to expand your knowledge of biology.</p>
<p>^Youre right hahalolk. But he/she isn’t willing to recognize the right perspective. But there’s always going to be people like that. I think it’s time for mifune to set this thread straight again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am well aware of the way mutations take place. Let me clarify:</p>
<p>1: The vast majority, if not all, mutations either have no effect or are harmful. These will not be perpetuated by natural selection.</p>
<p>2: To make a trait valuable enough to be preserved by natural selection would require a number of highly improbable mutations to occur in sequence, without any harmful mutations occuring along the way, and rapidly, or the mutation would be diluted amoung the non-mutated population.</p>
<p>3: A species that mutated at a sufficiently fast rate to make (2) plausible would have a correspondingly fast rate of harmful mutations, and would thus be as likely to be dominated by a more stable species as to evolve into something better.</p>
<p>4: Even if it were plausible, we have never observed new traits arising from mutations.</p>