In any case you shouldn’t be talking about things you know nothing about, and it’s pretty darn obvious you know nothing about evolutionary biology.
In what way? What are you basing that off of? That statement is about as vague as evolution itself. I probably don’t know a lot about evolutionary biology when considering the vastness of the theory, but I bet I can guess what you know. So, let me try and take a crack at this so I can impress you, Bobxxxx. By the way, I won’t bother to use a lousy Youtube video. I’ll call it my “Ode to Bobxxxx”.
First, we have to get to the source of the question. Your position, like all Darwinist, is very problematic when you can’t even offer an explanation for the first source of non-living matters/chemicals – and far more than that — an explanation for life itself. If there is no God/creator/life-giver, why is there something rather than nothing at all, Bobxxxx? But, let us move on because that can turn into a new thread of its own. In fact, it probably will now.
You are not talking about evolutionary biology, Bobxxxx. You are conjecturing. You can not present or point to any evidence in order to be scientific. It is obvious you do not know where the universe came from. So, you and your Atheist brethren create the myth that there is a war against religion and science, the Bible and science, or faith and reason when a debate such as this arises. When in fact it is really a fight between bad science vs. good science. It is about reasonable faith confronting unreasonable faith.
As humans we know there are two types of creations: intelligent and non-intelligent. We encounter the proof everyday. Think here of the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore. It would be absurd to compare the two and rule out intelligence design on the part of Mount Rushmore but by using your formula and “science” that is exactly what is done. Your conclusions are preloaded into your assumptions. If you lived on a different planet, and had a giant telescope in which to view earth, you would assume Spontaneous Generation (SG) by natural laws created Mount Rushmore because you consider no other options. Of course, SG is not supported by empirical observation or forensic science principles. You just know that life exist and things happen solely from time and chance, and since intelligence design is ruled out before hand, there are no other options left. Is that progress, Bobxxxx?
A notable scientist and Darwinist, Chandra Wickramasinghe admits that Darwinist adheres to a strong faith in SG. “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth, is merely an article of faith that scientist are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time. Indeed all attempts to create life from non-life, starting with Pasteur, have been unsuccessful” (on line: here)
Here is another damning admission from Darwin/atheist, Michael Denton: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept the such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 264).
So to sum up your first point, your idea of evolutionary biology is based solely on faith. Without any proof, you dogmatically believe in non-living matter and material as an explanation for life. The belief that earth and life arose from non-living matter is the strong acknowledgement of reductionism and solely based off prepositions from Darwinist ideology.
Ironically, you have proven that by charging me with the crime.
As more discoveries are made, especially in molecular biology, the tree of life is going to be modified. That’s called progress. Are you against progress?
The basic facts of evolutionary biology are the strongest facts of science. For example the idea that people and chimps share ape-like ancestors who lived more than six million years ago has been repeatedly proven beyond any doubt. Your wish for “the entire theory of evolution” to be thrown out is a cowardly wish. You’re obviously terrified of reality.
The ape-man theory is old and boring. Beside any amateur can debate it. Let’s go a little further without discussing ape-man progression in particular and instead take a look at the theory itself. Just you and I, Bobxxxx.
I’m assuming by us evolving from ape-like ancestors, which according to you has been proven beyond any doubt, we must have first evolved from the same common cell? And of course this happened by natural selection. Great. But, since this process is of evolution, meaning without intelligence being involved, than there is no “selection” taking place. It is a blind random process. We now have a circular argument, Bobxxxx. The creature survives so what? Bacteria sometimes survive an attack from antibiotics and mutate (though they are rarely beneficial but sometimes are) the surviving bacteria multiplies and dominates. All logically sound to me.
But, this is where things get hokey. You say that that bacteria then grows, evolves, and becomes a different life form. Presumably, a human life form sometime later. According to an important principle of the scientific method: Observation tells us that the surviving bacteria will always remain bacteria. This is where Darwinist like to combine macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Of course, it is worth pointing out that macro-evolution has never been observed much less proven. Darwinist have to use observable cases of micro-evolution to justify using unobservable theories about macro-evolution. Thus, Darwinist invented the theory that any observable changes in any organism can prove that all life forms evolved from a common single cell organism. And you say I’m the one who believes in magic, Bobxxxx!
Your ape-like ancestor theory runs face first into a concept called Genetic Limits. Darwinist used fruit flies because of their short life spans which allowed them the opportunity to test hundreds of generations over a short time. This was their big break to prove macro-evolution. Except, it only resulted in crippled fruit flies.
Charles Darwin said this, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Of course, Darwin was a caveman when we compare what we know now to what was available to him then.
We do not have to look any further than the “simple” cell. In his day it was known as the “black box” a blur in his microscope with no way to see into it. Obviously we can see into this cell and have discovered that activity and life on the molecular level is far more complex Darwin could have ever known. The cell is composed of several highly developed interacting parts that all work together towards a basic function. As any system comprised of moving parts, damage or removal of any of these parts would cause it to stop functioning. This is called irreducible complexity. (paraphrase of Michael Behe’s definition) Darwin did not have the technology of today or he would have never published his theory. The basic cellular level destroys its basic precept.
Then you have that other problem of the pesky fossil record that shows no sign of Gradualism. Darwin knew it didn’t exist even in his own time and stood ready that that fact may derail his theory also. We’ve seen the cell theory crushed and we are about to see this part of his theory crushed too.
Darwin assumed (he started that legacy you might say) that future fossil discoveries would prove his theory true. It hasn’t and to put it flatly, it has been a big embarrassment and a source for PR setbacks to the Darwinist religion. We have found not one single transitional fossil. In fact, science shows us that almost all species exhibit no changes on earth. They appear in the fossil record exactly as they were when they lived until they went extinct. And they usually suddenly appear, not rise gradually or from a steady transition. They are fully formed and recognizable as they are or were.
Don’t sweat it. You are a firm believer in progression as you stated. So are the other Darwinist. This is where Punctuated Equilibria (PE) comes in to save the day. Again, this isn’t observable but since ID is out of the equation it will have to do.
There is no proof in the fossil record and certainly nothing offered that could “prove beyond any doubt” that we are a result of past ape-like ancestors. The fossil record that is proven, observable, and tangible, hardly supports macro-evolution. There are no missing links…instead the entire chain is missing. Indeed, nonexistent would be a more suitable term.
Do I believe in evolution? Yes. Do I believe in natural selection? Yes. But not to the degree that Darwinist do. Absoultely not. I believe in them insofar as they work inside of the natural laws we know to exist. I believe that ID formed the universe and the life forms in it to function by certain parameters. I’ve pointed out genetic limits, irreducible complexity, and the fossil record that crush a lot of Darwinist theories. In fact, there is positive evidence that many Darwin theories have never occurred. Yet, you want to insult and ramrod others that this is science and those who do not agree are barbarians and should “grow-up.” I happen to think I am the grown up. I am open-minded on this issue. That is why I can believe that something created our universe. You appear to be empty headed. There is no half-way point between intelligence and non-intelligence. Either some form of intelligence was involved in the process or it wasn’t.
There must be an intelligent explanation that created all of the countless intricacies that scientist are observing. We have to assume that ID is responsible for the world and the complex life forms that exist.
**To be fair, Bob, I will post any rebuttal on your part should you choose to respond. You can email it to me and I will post it unedited.