The way to refute evolutionary science is with science.
God and Science: The Basics
Science is the study of Nature & Natural Phenomena. All phenomena amenable to scientific inquiry are natural, meaning they consist of space, time, matter or energy; all causes investigated by Science are also natural. Where does this leave God?
God precedes Science. He is the Creator. It's God before the Big Bang; scientific inquiry starts at the Big Bang. But what about how God has affected His Creation since the Big Bang?
What God has done since the Big Bang in the created universe is not a legitimate aspect of scientific inquiry. It's real and true of course, but it's not Science; it's either Theology or Philosophy. This is because God is not a part of Nature, He's its non-physical Creator.
This means that Creation Science or Intelligent Design are not Science.
I am glad you recognize that these are not science. It is questionable however that they are true, even philosophically or theologically. I consider the theology of ID to be anti-Christian as it is little more than god-of-the-gaps and depends on identifying some parts of nature as not being created by God.
I don't understand how you can say that ID is a god-of-the-gaps. What are these gaps you allude to?
So what does Science show regarding Creation and Evolution?
Bryson, W. 2010. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Anchor Canada documents the scientific gaps regarding both the origins of life (361) and the evolution of species due to the absence of intermediate species (487-489).
If a species leaves no fossil record, how can you know of its existence?
We actually have a good many intermediate species in the fossil record, but most connect groups larger than species themselves; they connect orders or classes. So we may not have the immediately preceding or immediately following species in fossil form, but we do have a good idea of where the intermediate species connects in terms of its ancestral group and of groups which are derived from it or its close cousins.
Again to cite Johnson's Darwin on Trial, According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years. Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next. (51)
Connection of supposed pan-specie intermediate groups is mere speculation.
The final phrase is incorrect. This phenomenon does not make the assembly of life-forms from pre-existing molecules impossible. It does make it necessary to determine how the preference for L-amino acids became established. I have a vague recollection of some progress in this area, but can't put my finger on it. Perhaps some of the scientists on this forum can help.
If it were not impossible, it would have occurred in the last 60 years.
The life version of amino acids are all left molecular rotations. The preference was obviously established by God.
No, he does not document the origin of species in an abrupt manner, but the first appearance of species in the fossil record in an abrupt manner--a very different matter. It is also a misrepresentation of the work done by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge to say there is a virtually complete absence of intermediate species. This is only the case when looking for an transition from one species to the immediately following species. That is a very fine-grained transition which is almost impossible to capture on scales of geological chronology. Intermediate fossil species in a larger time-frame are not uncommon at all.
What is the difference between the origin and the first appearance of a species. To say the first appearance is not the origin is mere speculation.
You have actually left out a significant qualifier here. Mitochondrial Eve is a single female who is the common ancestor of all LIVING human women, and Chromosome-Y Adam, likewise the common ancestor of all LIVING human men. Mitochondrial Eve was not the ancestor of all human females for she was not the ancestor of her own mother or aunts or sisters or cousins or any human females contemporaneous with her or preceding her. Same goes for Chromosome-Y Adam.
It should also be noted that these individuals lived centuries apart and so are not to be confused with the biblical Adam and Eve.
The biblical Eve was also a single female without mother or aunts or sisters.
It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by "evolution across species". I know you think this is impossible, but I wonder if you could pretend to be an evolutionary biologist for a moment and provide a biologist's explanation of what would be happening if evolution across species is possible. If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?
Horses and donkeys is the best known example of human-attempted cross species evolution: mules are sterile.
kenblogton
Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.
Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.
My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?
In Love,
Aman
Reply to gluadys
You misunderstand me. It is unreasonable to assume that the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution is an appeal to gaps in the theory.
Similarly, you cannot assume that because there is no evidence of intermediate species, that there ever was any.
Hypothetical intermediate species are not solid evidence for evolution.
To say that life requires left molecular rotation amino acids is not gaps thinking.
If God had chosen spontaneous creation and evolution as how to bring about life and different species, I would accept it.
If that were the case, there would be corroborating scientific evidence.
gluadys said:If you were a teacher in a biology class who believed in evolution across species how would you explain it to your students?
kenblogton said:Horses and donkeys is the best known example of human-attempted cross species evolution: mules are sterile.
Reply to gluadys
It is completely unreasonable to assume the complete absence of concrete evidence of evolution. This theory has one of the most complete bases of evidence of any scientific theory. To describe it as a "complete absence of concrete evidence" is either ignorance or deceit.
When people tell me they have never seen evidence of evolution, I wonder just what they think evolution is (or is supposed to be) and what evidence they think would be needed to show it is happening and has happened.
Can you describe what you think scientists say evolution is?
There's lots of paleological evidence of past species. Past species are not evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution, which states that all species are evolved from prior species, provides NO demonstrated evidence of evolution. Darwin maintained there must be many intermediate species; there is no such evidence, as I showed in my original posting. Evolutionary logic tells us intermediate species would not be fit enough to survive.
You believe in evolution and so are unable to, in a scientifically unbiased manner, assess the evidence, because you believe it to be true and will not entertain any alternative.
We can on two or three grounds.
First, although instances of species-to-species transitions are rare in the fossil record, they are not non-existent. So, since we know that there were some cases of species-to-species transitions, we have no reason to rule that out in cases where it did not get recorded in the fossil record.
Second, we also have instances of species-to-species transitions in the present, so we cannot rule them out in the past.
Third, we do have a good number of intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels, whose existence implies the existence of numerous species-to-species transitions on either side of this fossil.
Obviously, in all these cases, we are inferring the existence of unrecorded species-to-species transitions, rather than observing them directly, but it is a logical inference that what happens in the present and what we sometimes find a record of happening in the past was probably occurring even when we don't have direct evidence of it.
1./2. Name one documented instance of species to species transitions, both past and present, with references.
3.To take intermediate fossils at higher taxonomic levels as evidence of evolution of species is fanciful speculation - a indicator of how desperate evolutionists get.
Science without evidence is speculative hypothesizing.
Actual fossils which you can go see in a museum are not hypothetical.
What fossils in what museums are proven intermediate species?
True, but to say the preference was "obviously established by God" is.
The physical universe did not arise spontaneously, but was created by a non-physical entity, which I choose to call God. The fact is, all life forms consist of left-rotation amino acids.
To say that it was God is not science, but it is philosophical truth. Science is unable to explain the cause of the big bang because, since it precedes the existence of the physical, it is not a matter for scientific inquiry.
Well, He did. Everything we know about biology present and past makes the case for that.
The established scientific basis for your assertion is non existent, as my original posting documented. You, of course, are free to conjecture as you will regarding spontaneous creation and evolution.
There is. Lots of it, if you choose to study it.
There is no solid evidence, as my original posting documented. You make grandiose claims for evolution, for which you do not specifically provide documentary evidence.
By the way, there was a question in my last post which you did not reply to; I would like to know what your answer is. So I repeat it here with the introductory conversation that instigated it. The question is in bold.
Do you think biologists explain most evolution as a consequence of hybridization?
I'm sure they don't. They would no doubt use the same dishonest data manipulation to which you subscribe.
kenblogton
Since the bible tells us what happened in very broad terms, one can believe that THE WAY man was created has been through a directed evolutionary process. God created man in a certain way, perhaps with limited versions of him created first.
Father Eugen Spierer
Genesis 1:27, 2:7, 21-23 speak of the creation of Adam & Eve. Acts 17:26 speaks of Adam as the original man, as the first sinner in Romans 5:12-21 & 1 Corinthians 15:45-50, and as a literal ancestor of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38. But what about scientific evidence for the biblical Adam and Eve?
From the mitochondrial or non-chromosomal DNA of cells in women, which is passed down from generation to generation of women, it is known that all women on earth are descended from a common ancestor, called mitochondrial Eve, based on a study published by scientists Cann, Stoneking and Wilson in 1987. The best estimates today are that she originated not more than 70,000 years ago in the area encompassing Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East. Based on a study of the Y-chromosome of men, which is passed on from generation to generation of men, it is known that all men on earth are descended from a common ancestor, called Y-chromosomal Adam, based on a study published by scientists Dorit, Akashi and Gilbert in 1995. The best estimates today are that he lived not more than 50,000 years ago in the same region as Eve. So there is genetic support for the biblical Adam and Eve in the general location and during the general timeframe suggested by the Bible, thus generally supporting where and when the Bible suggests they originated.
Your treatment of the biblical account of the creation of humankind is popular but inadequate both biblically & scientifically.
kenblogton
You say "it is possible that a few family branches that have since died out were still in existence" This is speculation. I gave you evidence and you gave me speculation. Without evidence, my comments still stand without serious challenge.
kenblogton
Dear Readers, Genesis 2:4-7 clearly states that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Some theistic evolutionists teach that we evolved from creatures which lived before man.
Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day which was billions of years AFTER the 3rd Day, in man's time.
My question is HOW can TEs continue to teach that we evolved from creatures which existed before us, when Scripture clearly shows that this is impossible?
In Love,
Aman