Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-26347028-20170526154117

TheSquidychicken wrote: Okay here we go, for those who believe evolution over the Bible.

There are those who hold a purely materialistic view of the world, believing that the laws of nature are enough to account for the origin of the universe and life on earth, without the need for a creator.

There are those who believe some sort of god used evolution to acomplish its goal.

There are those who think the Bible indicates that God created the Universe but the details are metaphoric and cant be taken literaly.

And then there are those who believe God created the universe in sixe days and rested on the seventh. Six Thousand years ago. Of course there are other views and opinions these are just a few of the major ones.

But having an opinion on something doesnt make it true.

Is it possible to scientifically  prove and demonstrate that one of these opinions must be the case?

I suggest it is possible. I submit that the Bible's account of origins is historically accurate, and that "particles to people" evolution is impossible.

Of course there are many who are so emotionally committed to a belief in evolution that they are not willing to consider any alternative opinions or views. Others may say they fairly examine the argument but with their mind already made up that biblical creation is silly and cant be true.

I may ot be able to help them see the point. I will be able to help those who logically think about all that I will say. Those wh are willing to rationally consider another perspective.

Some bad arguments have been used in creation vs. evolution debates, and many have been persuaded by these fallacies. It would be difficult to fairly consider an argument for creation when there are good arguments against creation. I am about to point out many evoutionary arguments that are actually fallacies (errors in reasoning)

I know evolution is true becouse we see it happining all the time:

One common evolutionary argument is evolution must be true becouse we seee it happeining. Bacteria becoming resistent to antibiotics, fish change in response to selection pressure, and animals adapt to their environment.

This argument is erroneous because it commits the fallacy of  equivocation (shifting the meaning of a word within an argument.) In this case the word evolution means the same thing as change in a general sense (which we do and can observe), and the idea that all life descended froma common ancestor (which we dont observe). But these are two different concepts. The fact that one type of change can occur dose not mean that another type of chnge can occur. In fact, the chang we observe in nature  are in the opposite direction  from what particles to people evolution requires.

Creation vs. Science:

Creation vs. science implies that evolution is scientific and that creation is not, without arguing for this. When rhetorical tricks are used to persuade people  instead of logical argumentation, it is clled the fallacy of the question-begging-epithet. Name calling and vulgar comments are also examples of this fallacy. When the term evolution vs. creationism is used, the "ism" in creationism subtly suggests that creation is simply a belief but evolution is fact.

Some people may argue that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position". Most scientists believe in evolution but this doesnt make it true. There have been times throughout history when the majority of scientists were dead wrong on a particular issue. Thi fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority"

Many arguments for evolution sublty assume evolutionary ideas as part of the argument. This fallacy is called "begging the question" An exmple of this is this: "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural. Scientists must be limited to natural explanations" This begs the question because  whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Antother example would be: How cant eh Bible be right about a 6000 year old earth when we know from radiometrc and carbon dating that the world is Billions of years old. This assumes that radiometric dating constantly gives reliable results, but the creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. The hypothetical critic is merely assuming the very thing he is trying to prove.

Perhaps the most common fallacy s when evidence used to support evolution is just as (if not more so) consistent with creation. For example  "if evolution were true wed expect to find similarity in the DNA of all organisms. And this is exaclty what we find. So evolution must be true." But the problem is this" retionists would also expect to find similarity in the DNA of all organisms since life shares the same creatore, and shares many similar functions. This fallacy is very common in evolutionary culture

Some people may say "the evidence speaks for itself" or "Creationists say this, but science says otherwise." Since these cannot either "speak" nor "say" anything. So, te argument is fallacious.

Scientific evidence for creation abounds.

From the intricacies of a living cell to the majesty of the solar system, the universe confirms biblical creation. As one example, we could discuss the information content in the DNA of living organisms. As far as we know creative information can only originate in a mind. Experience confirms this. We read books with information in them. And although a book is most likely a copy of acopy etcetera, we presume it has an author, no? Books dont write themselves. Likewise, the information in DNA (though it has been copied many times) must have an original author. It stems from an intelligent mind-- just as the Bible teaches. It is all so complex it cannot be the result o chance mutations and natural selection.

We could discuss the fossil record which contains mineralized remains of organisms that once lived on earth. This is exactly what creationists would expect ot find, since the Bible records a global flood which destroyed virtually all life on earth, burying millions of organisms in sediments, which have now hardened into rock. These fossil come in distinct groups or "kinds" which are found  in a somewhat organized order consistent  with the progressive order in which these organisms were buried as the flood waters rose higher to elevtions with different ecologies. Although there is much variation within each kind or taxidomic  family, there is little if any evience of change between those basic kinds-- exactly what creationists would expect, but contrary to the natural expectations of evoluionists.

We could go on and on. Yet devout evolutionists are not convinced by such lines of evidence. Moreover, man yevolutionists eould say that the fossil record actually supports evolution, rather than refusing it. Some would say that science of genetics actually supports evolutionary outlook--not creation. They have suggested explanations for all the lines of evidence that apparently support creation, and have argued that such evidence actually supports evolution instead.

Again this is not meant ot be an insult to anyone. If you dont agree with me it doesnt offend me. I understand many people refuse to believe this or still hav better arguments than mine.

This however is only a portion of what I can write.

Would you like me to continue writing this in the future? Yes! No! Did you find this helpful? Yes! No! Did you find this interesting? Yes! No! Did I write this well, and understandable? Yes! No! You do understand the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, right? Microevolution, while not macroevolution, is still evolution. It is, most definitely, not a fallacy.

You then proceed to dismiss a lot of things as "ridiculous", yet almost all (I cannot speak for all, I don't deal in absolutes) of what you said is simply necessary for science. We do not consider the influence of the supernatural in things such as the origins of the universe, simply because it is irrelevant. We explain it, so that we may learn from it. To learn from it, we use the predictive capability we can garner from it to predict other things. Thus, in terms of learning, a model with more predictive capability is better than one with less. God has no such capability, and so is entirely irrelevant. We cannot learn about our universe through belief in a God, and be able to accurately predict things. As I said, it's irrelevant. That's why scientists don't consider the supernatural in the origins of the universe. It isn't a fallacy, and it certainly isn't ridiculous. It's the damn scientific method.

You then use the argument for causation. Let me ask you a fairly simple question, if the universe can't cause itself, what caused God? If the lack of God caused him to exist, or whatever metaphor you want to use to represent God, surely the lack of a universe, of time and space, can cause the universe?

The fossil record actually does support evolution. You understand how we can use the progressive decay of radioactive elements such as isotopes of lithium (carbon-14 is usually the example, but radiocarbon dating is heavily innacurate so I dislike it) which show how the "flood" you speak of, not only wouldn't create the sorts of geological layers we find, but would also have to be a really, really slow flood. We're talking millions of years slow. Something lasting so long would leave a clear evolutionary footprint on the species left behind, but it doesn't, maybe because it didn't happen?