There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

[Heisenberg]

Evolution does not make claims about life's origins. Evolution does not attempt to disprove god. Pay attention. Apply yourself.

 

[Scrooge]

Did you watch the videos I posted on phylogeny?

Here's an example from Catholic biologist Ken Miller explaining a finding in the genome that is PREDICTED by common ancestry with chimpanzees. Listen closely as he explains that evolution could have been disproved with just this one falsification.

[video=youtube;zi8FfMBYCkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/video]


Answer this. When will enough gaps be filled to satisfy you? How many will it take?

mindphuk:

Dr. Miller belives as I do: I’m a Roman Catholic, a Theist… in the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in One that would try to fool us. Therefore I think this is authentic and tells us about our ancestry …

 

[guy incognito]

So to sum this whole thing up. The base for all life is unknown to man. We can not account for the origins of life. The whole premise of science is based on observation of data to reach conclusions. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously. Christians have faith that it was created. Without being able to provide data your argument falls apart in the eyes of science. This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis.

Wow. So let me get this straight.

Evolution: We don't know how life got here, but clearly life is here. With that out of the way here is a theory that explains how complex life forms, and why we share genetic material with every other living thing, and we can observe evolution happen in real time, and across a geologic time scale, here is mountains and mountains of evidence supporting this theory.

Creationism: We do know how life got here. God did it. Even though this has NOTHING to do with the proven process of evolution, it still somehow discredits all that evidence with no new evidence to back up my claim.

I don't like to resort to name calling, you if you don't believe in evolution or the big bang you are a bonafide ratard. I don't even feel like tearing up all the terrible logic in the rest of your post because I doubt your ability to even comprehend it at this point. Seriously man, ratard.

 

[mindphuk]

mindphuk:

Dr. Miller belives as I do: I’m a Roman Catholic, a Theist… in the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer but I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in One that would try to fool us. Therefore I think this is authentic and tells us about our ancestry …

Okay, but where is the design? Since evolution is an unguided process, which Dr. Miller will agree with, then except for the initial life that started evolving, what exactly is designed? Did God sent the Chicxulub asteroid to earth to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could get going? What about all of the other chain of events that had to occur for us to be here? If you believe that there was more than a Deistic approach, that of a God that interferes in the natural order of the evolutionary process, then you aren't accepting evolution at all. Non-naturalistic evolution is not evolution, its magic. Most Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible which is what contradicts science.
Did you see Religulous?

This guy gets it.
[video=youtube;Sk0el9nH6Q4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk0el9nH6Q4[/video]


Coyne, is as always, very good at getting points across.

[video=youtube;ReV0nCuObcs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs[/video]

 

[Heisenberg]

We can not account for the origins of life. With such a major gap in data evolutionists must still rely on faith that life evolved spontaneously.

Evolved spontaneously...you mean began, emerged? "Evolved" is what happen after life began. Evolutionists do not have to rely on faith because they do not draw conclusion about the beginning. You are arguing against a claim that evolution DOES NOT MAKE. Fact is, there is currently no scientific consensus on how life began, just proposals. Even if there was, it would have nothing to do with evolution. This fact has been explained to you over and over, why do you reject it?

When people make claims that evolution disproves God than I want to investigate. And during those investigations I have come across what I see as major flaws.

So your problem is with certain people who make those claims, and not evolution, which makes no such claim. The flaws you found seem to be in those people's logic, a logic which did not make it into evolutionary theory. Some people see evolution and conclude that it disproves god, and I agree that concept is at best, an assumption. Thank god for the scientific method!

This is the same concept as the big bang theory. It's not a theory until you can test it and validate it. So until we create a universe through the same means as the big bang, it is just a hypothesis.

Creating a universe is far from the only way to gather evidence of the big bang. Also, once a theory is validated, it becomes a law. Doesn't happen very often.

So you heard some outrageous claims evolution was making, and those didn't sit right with you. Once investigated you found those claims were based on conclusions and logic that didn't make sense. Your conclusion was that evolution has some serious problems to make claims like that. Upon further investigation you are finding that evolution doesn't make those claims, they were based upon some other peoples misunderstanding of the theory. Why do these misunderstandings happen? Because of mistakes of logic, because of ignorance, and because humans are fallible.

 

[mindphuk]

Creating a universe is far from the only way to gather evidence of the big bang. Also, once a theory is validated, it becomes a law. Doesn't happen very often.

Big misconception. A scientific law is not a theory that has been validated. A scientific theory is a model of the mechanism of something and it consists of facts and laws and based on hypotheses that have been verified. It is the explanation of WHY something happens rather than just a statement about what IS. Scientific theories are considered fact and their baseline assumptions are true until they can be falsified, which is the goal of new hypotheses.
A scientific law is merely a set of rules that can be derived by observing something. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation never attempted to explain what caused massive bodies to attract one another. It only codified observed phenomena into a mathematical model. They are accepted as is without extensive reasoning only because they are always observed to be true.

 

[Heisenberg]

Big misconception. A scientific law is not a theory that has been validated. A scientific theory is a model of the mechanism of something and it consists of facts and laws and based on hypotheses that have been verified. It is the explanation of WHY something happens rather than just a statement about what IS. Scientific theories are considered fact and their baseline assumptions are true until they can be falsified, which is the goal of new hypotheses.
A scientific law is merely a set of rules that can be derived by observing something. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation never attempted to explain what caused massive bodies to attract one another. It only codified observed phenomena into a mathematical model. They are accepted as is without extensive reasoning only because they are always observed to be true.

So a law is just a simplified expression of what is happening, and doesn't attempt to explain why. We call it a law because it always happens the same way, and has never been observed to be false. Really has nothing to do with validation of a theory. Very different than what I had thought, thanks for the lesson. My apologies to Cracker.

 

[Tym]

Let's give him a chance. He proposed some reasons as to why he feels life and evolution is unlikely to be a fully natural process. Evolution is not an easy subject to grasp. It is not intuitive and can be quite complex with a few areas we still don't understand. Given that not everyone is trained in science and for some the most exposure they ever had was H.S. biology where often the explanations of how we know what we know is brushed over and lost amongst the need to learn the material on the next test. It is reasonable to try to answer his objections in a calm, clear and professional manner as long as he (and anyone else) is willing to listen.

That shouldn't make any difference at all, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. It still wouldn't prove a creator.
Attacking the leading theory in no way makes your hypothesis any more valid. Evidence is what I require, and I dare say, any rational thinking intelligent person will require evidence.
Posting links to youtube videos of creationist and ID propaganda is not evidence.

Further more, there is no evidence anywhere in this thread, he has no evidence to give. It is obvious that since he bought in to the propaganda, he lacks the critical thinking skills to acquire any evidence there may be. BTW, if he did actually have any evidence what ever, even the smallest amount, he would be the first person in history to have found some.

 

[crackerboy]

I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution. I only refute the claim that evolution disproves a creator. In my opinion, from the data that I have reviewed from many different sources. I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life. It only explains how life diversified once it came into being. Or as I would like to say created. I am not in any way saying that all forms of evolution are false. I fully believe that there is sufficient evidence of certain forms evolution. So with that said there are many other topics of interest on the subject of a creator such as the concept of fine tuning. Lets please move past the evolution argument and maybe try to address some of the other topics mentioned in the video's.

I would also ask that if you do not have an argument or counter argument that you refrain from posting your insults. It is really easy to just jump into a post and call someone a retard and say that there logic is wrong, but if you can't give some kind of explanation that makes that logic wrong than don't bother posting. It is just noise. There are plenty of other threads that welcome such B.S. I created on of them myself, its called "Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt". This thread was created just for you people that only want to insult and rant. So feel free to post whatever you want in that thread.

 

[crackerboy]

Evolution does not make claims about life's origins. Evolution does not attempt to disprove god. Pay attention. Apply yourself.

you are correct, I see the point that you and mindphuk are making. But I am confronted constantly by people saying "how can you believe in a creator when there is so much evidence of evolution". The general thought process of most people I meet is that you can't have both a creator and have evolution at the same time. My argument is, how does evolution account for the origins of life? I am paying attention and that is why I have put together a counter argument stating that in order for someone to claim that evolution disproves God than they must first account for how the first life forms evolved. Other wise you are just showing me how life diversified.

 

[Tym]

I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution. I only refute the claim that evolution disproves a creator. In my opinion, from the data that I have reviewed from many different sources. I have come to the conclusion that evolution falls short of disproving a creator since it fails to account for the origins of life. It only explains how life diversified once it came into being. Or as I would like to say created. I am not in any way saying that all forms of evolution are false. I fully believe that there is sufficient evidence of certain forms evolution. So with that said there are many other topics of interest on the subject of a creator such as the concept of fine tuning. Lets please move past the evolution argument and maybe try to address some of the other topics mentioned in the video's.

I would also ask that if you do not have an argument or counter argument that you refrain from posting your insults. It is really easy to just jump into a post and call someone a retard and say that there logic is wrong, but if you can't give some kind of explanation that makes that logic wrong than don't bother posting. It is just noise. There are plenty of other threads that welcome such B.S. I created on of them myself, its called "Why is it that when ever you mention God people get all but hurt". This thread was created just for you people that only want to insult and rant. So feel free to post whatever you want in that thread.

Nobody here is saying evolution disproves a creator. Just that a creator is not needed to explain the complexity of life forms..
Evolution does not address a creator, in order to verify or dismiss the possibility of one. Nobody is claiming it does. You misunderstand evolution. It's not supposed to explain where life originated (abiogenesis).
You brought up evolution. I agree it has nothing to do with it, that's what I've been saying the entire time.

I am not going to spend hours watching creationist propaganda that has all be thoroughly refuted and holds no scientific merit. Tell me what you believe and why.. Then we can talk about that..
As for having an counter argument, I don't need one. I don't have to disprove anything you say. You are making the claims, the burden of proof is yours alone.
To quote the late and great Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Tell me what you believe, and why you believe it. And we can talk about it.

 

[crackerboy]

Okay, but where is the design? Since evolution is an unguided process, which Dr. Miller will agree with, then except for the initial life that started evolving, what exactly is designed? Did God sent the Chicxulub asteroid to earth to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could get going? What about all of the other chain of events that had to occur for us to be here? If you believe that there was more than a Deistic approach, that of a God that interferes in the natural order of the evolutionary process, then you aren't accepting evolution at all. Non-naturalistic evolution is not evolution, its magic. Most Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible which is what contradicts science.
Did you see Religulous?

This guy gets it.
[video=youtube;Sk0el9nH6Q4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk0el9nH6Q4[/video]


Coyne, is as always, very good at getting points across.

This is a very good post. I like this guy. I feel he represents a lot of my own views. +rep for this one. I have said many times before that I think that science is just a way of discovering God's work.

 

[Tym]

Guess you don't want to talk to me about it eh?

 

[crackerboy]

Nobody here is saying evolution disproves a creator. Just that a creator is not needed to explain the complexity of life forms..
Evolution does not address a creator, in order to verify or dismiss the possibility of one. Nobody is claiming it does. You misunderstand evolution. It's not supposed to explain where life originated (abiogenesis).
You brought up evolution. I agree it has nothing to do with it, that's what I've been saying the entire time.

I am not going to spend hours watching creationist propaganda that has all be thoroughly refuted and holds no scientific merit. Tell me what you believe and why.. Then we can talk about that..
As for having an counter argument, I don't need one. I don't have to disprove anything you say. You are making the claims, the burden of proof is yours alone.
To quote the late and great Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Tell me what you believe, and why you believe it. And we can talk about it.

That's not the purpose of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the topics that where posted then you are in the wrong thread. There is another thread named " this is why I believe" that discussion would better fit what your asking.

 

[Tym]

That's not the purpose of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the topics that where posted then you are in the wrong thread. There is another thread named " this is why I believe" that discussion would better fit what your asking.

No no, the title of this thread is:
There is scientific proof of a creator. Evolution can be disproved


Well, Where is the proof? Tell me, please I want to know. Also Please tell me how evolution can be disproved.
The videos you posted have nothing demonstrable, they have no evidence. Please just tell me what you believe and why you believe it.. It's ok if you just believe it because you were convinced by the creationist propaganda and you don't know why you believe it. Just say that... But you make a claim like "There is scientific proof of a creator" and "Evolution can be disproved", one would think you have a good reason.. Please tell me what that reason is..

I'm not being a jerk, I just want to know what evidence there is.. Please just tell me. Don't avoid the question. You brought this topic up, you must want to discuss it. refusing to talk about it is just childish..
Please just tell me what makes you think there is scientific evidence of a creator, and what that evidence is. And please tell me why you think evolution has been disproved, and what evidence there is.

I'm not being unreasonable, If you make a claim, you have to be able to back it up.

 

[crackerboy]

I have already made my points on evolution. And since then I have mentioned another topic. If your not going to watch the video's and discuss the topics within them then don't bother. Also I have now introduced the new subject of fine tuning. If you would like to address this subject than feel free.

 

[mindphuk]

This is a very good post. I like this guy. I feel he represents a lot of my own views. +rep for this one. I have said many times before that I think that science is just a way of discovering God's work.

It's just a shame that you elected to try to represent your views with the posting of the first videos rather than someone like Coyne.

I think that people are misunderstanding my point about evolution. As stated several times, I don't refute all evolution.

Well there's your problem. The people in the videos you selected DO refute evolution. They also happen to refute significant parts of astronomy and cosmology as well.

If you liked the Coyne video, you might really like Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Here's an excerpt http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

 

[crackerboy]

It's just a shame that you elected to try to represent your views with the posting of the first videos rather than someone like Coyne.

Well there's your problem. The people in the videos you selected DO refute evolution. They also happen to refute significant parts of astronomy and cosmology as well.

If you liked the Coyne video, you might really like Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Here's an excerpt http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Yeah as far as the video's and the title of the thread for that matter, I was for the most part trying to spark the conversation and post something that would get peoples attention. It's the discussion that was important to me. I will check out the links.

 

[Tym]

I have already made my points on evolution. And since then I have mentioned another topic. If your not going to watch the video's and discuss the topics within them then don't bother. Also I have now introduced the new subject of fine tuning. If you would like to address this subject than feel free.

I am willing to address the topics in the videos, but they offer no evidence, you claimed there is evidence.. Show it please..

And yes I will address fine tuning. Please make a statement that I can address... I don't want to make any assumptions, but if you're not going to tell me what you believe how can I address it?
I think you have no idea what you believe, you listen to talking heads and agree with everything they say without understanding any of it.. If I'm wrong tell me what it is you believe..

We have already established you were wrong about evolution, you said it can be disproved, then admitted you believe in it, So you move the goal post and start some other topic.. Please admit you were wrong before you move on.

You said there was scientific proof for a creator, when asked to present the evidence you try to change the subject again, please admit you have no evidence before you move on to a new topic, or present your evidence.
This is not a constructive discussion if you just keep jumping around and not providing evidence for your claims..

I would be more than happy to discuss fine tuning if you first concede that you were wrong about your first two claims, or present evidence for them. Failure to do so is an automatic failure on your part to present evidence for your assertions.. Thus making your claims baseless and invalid.. It's a non starter. If you make a claim you must back it up or admit defeat.

 

[crackerboy]

We have already established you were wrong about evolution, you said it can be disproved, then admitted you believe in it, So you move the goal post and start some other topic.. Please admit you were wrong before you move on.

No actually if you read the rest of the thread and not just the first and last page. I clearly stated that I was only debating chemical evolution. Which is the concept that all life formed in the ocean by natural means. I countered that concept by explaining evolution does not demonstrate the mechanism that accounts for such a process.