[Sabertooth]

• What is the evidentiary basis for the Evolutionists' faith in the god named "random?"

• How is the presumption of random causation anything other than a dogmatic leap of faith?

[Sabertooth]

(((ping))))

[RaceBannon]

Their evidence is soley in the pictures they draw, and the theory they espouse. There is no scientific evidence for evolution of life from non-life. Life is always found where life always was before.

To state otherwise is to embrace the rule of faith. We creationists cannot scientifically prove Creation from observations of creation, we have to infer it from observed processes and from the results of processes unobserved in the past that happened after creation: The fossil record, geographic formation of rock layers, sedimentary deposits, observed changes in the speed of light (If this proves true). We also infer it from observations of decay that we can measure and compare it using the same method evolutionists use: uniformatarianism; Magnetic field decay, radiogenic helium, the lack of evidence of starting rates of K-AR, C14, and the like.

Either way, both systems rely on faith as regarding origins, but I believe only Creation is the accurate system that is proved through observed processes, and is the only rational answer for unobserved process results.

[Rudder]

One of self-admitted limitations of science is that is does not investigate unanswerable questions. Thus, questions concerning God are not found in science. Based upon evidence science has created theories about--not human creation--human evolution. It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

[Torie]

Is that part of the canvas that science cannot fully explain at present the realm of God? Or is it only that portion that science can never explain? How does one know what science will never be able to explain? And how do we know that what science will never be able to explain is the handiwork of some sentient force? Isn't that a leap of faith?

[Dave S]

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Why do they? When you get back to a singularity, you are outside of time. Time does not exist. Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time. Thats an area that is unknowable. Its a matter of faith. You dont have to be an athiest to belive in Evolution. In fact, Darwin was a Christian.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I'm of the opinion that the question is not able to be answered as of right now, because we don't have the tools it would take to be able to approach the question in a useful way. Consider the science of fractals, and what it can do for certain tasks, like a computer rendering a realistic image of a sunny sky, with clouds and everything. Before fractal equations were available the only way to render an image like this would have been to access huge databases of various clouds, each one digitally encoded as an enormous file, with millions of bits representing the image of a single cloud. Now give the computer a few fractal equations instead, filling up less than a single page of code, and that will be enough to render a better image of a summer sky than the one you would create using gigabytes of database data and billions of computations.

There is a new science that is taking shape, the science of "cellular automata" as presented by Stephen Wolfram. I'm of the opinion that this new science just might hold the keys to understanding many things, possibly even the origins of life itself. His forthcoming book, "A new kind of Science" will address the subject of "cellular automata". I look forward to it being published.

[The Raven]

Creation vs. Evolution....That's it??? No third choice?

Assume there are infinate explanations for the beginning of time - including an explanation that there never was a beginning.

Then you can easily say...."It's too complicated for us humans right now."

[Khepera]

Plump

[Quila]

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation." Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

here

[Quix]

For sure!

Or given the old notion of the monkey and the typewriter . . .

Even if

20vasl;kq3wly4asd908kj_()&*_)$# turns into

Fourscore and

It's very quickly got to turn into

qopqwremnavdcp9q87w439l;as;^%$#(&()& Fourscore and q;lewkrujaopxicgln9087)(*&^%#^%$@^%$#654

[LibKill]

OK. I have my asbestos suit on. Here goes.

Genesis tells us that he did it in 7 days. But I seem to remember another part of Holy Scripture that said that 'A 1,000 years are but a day in the sight of the Lord.'

Forgive me if I did not get that quote letter perfect.

How about a billion years? What if this Creator G-d exists outside of normal time and space as well as within it? How if he exists in an eternal Now that makes all of time meaningless?

Who is to say that Evolution is not his paintbrush?

[cinFLA]

One time it was considered truth that the world was flat since science could not prove otherwise.

[Junior]

Bump.

[vikingchick]

bump

[garbanzo]

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks...

i.e. let's start off by ignoring the physical evidence...

[P-Marlowe]

I fail to see any adequate explanation from the usual suspects. The evolutionists all insist that life began as a result of spontaneious generation, but of course they have no explanation of how the mechanism of life "evolved" in the first place. They always dodge that question and then try to go from A to C by skipping over A and B.

It appears that from a naturalistic perspective, the only adequate explanation for the emergence of life is that there was a "supernatural" cause.

[max61]

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

When human lifetimes span 10,000 years maybe we will get to see directly observable evidence of evolution.

Where has the existence of G-d been observed or demonstrated?.

---max

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Bummer. The "Is Human Evolution Over" thread got pulled. You naughty boys and girls.

I wanted to say that human evolution can't be over yet because our brains are still too small.

[dsb]

Clever...very clever.

[Age of Reason]

at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Nope. Not needed.

Just because cause and effect happens in our experience is no reason to suppose there has to be an ultimate cause outside of our experience.