He made no such statement. He simply asks for you to defend your veiw point. We´ve been defending and arguing our side, but whenever we ask you what your explanation is that fits the evidence better than evolution, you always say "This is what the debate ALWAYS comes down to - Evolution is true only because creation can't be."

We have been giving you constant evidence, and yet you continue to claim there is none. You failed at whale evolution, and you quickly abandoned my points on A. aferensis. For ERVs you simply said that God did it. A few have observed functions, so by your logic, the pother tens of thousands with no fuinction observed dispite nukmerous experiments to determine them for many years (finding out if a gene has a function is quite simple). Yet, you still said that God did it, even if all science can´t find a reason. For hox genes you give us an example of ONE gene that causes negative effects. For evidence of punctuated equilibrium (transitionals in periods of PE, computer simulations, ect), you still said it was faith based. For questions as to how certain organs or features evolved, you quote mine. When that eventually fails, you act like it never happened and move on to a new line of questioning.

Evolution does stand on it´s own merits. We simply asked you to do the same. Is that too much to ask? After all, yo claim that you are suported by science. Back up that statement (you have to do that at least once).

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In regard to your comment,
"But what is your alternative explanation?"

This is what the debate ALWAYS comes down to - Evolution is true only because creation can't be.

Without facts supporting it and evidence substaintiating it, evolutionists still believe that evolution is true because evolution is the only explanation allowable that is in accordance with their faith in naturalism (the belief that ALL phenomena are covered by the laws of science and there can be NO supernatural explanation for anything).

For evolution to be considered science, it MUST stand on its own merit with facts supporting it and evidence substantiating it. Otherwise, evolution is only faith in the unseen and unproven.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

My thanks to the site admin for unlocking the thread.


I have read much of the abiogenisis literature and do not find it at all dishonest or "debunked", but consistent with the claims presented and compelling in its context. On this point, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Perhaps we can also agree that the readers of this forum should read the literature and decide for themselves? At any rate, I am not interested in that discussion.

You misunderstand my question. I am not asking about abiogensis or a broader metaphysical / cosmological question. I am not interested in a religious conversation. I am asking a specific, scientific question about observed phenomena in our world: adaptation and speciation.

More specifically: There are many species on the planet that are very well adapted to their environment. What is your proposed explanation for the mechanisms behind this diversity? From my own studies, evolution is a plausible, well-reasoned and defended explanation -- you disagree, and that is your affair (we can agree to disagree). But what is your alternative explanation?

Regarding the testability of ideas: I wont get into a semantic debate over the meaning of the word "theory", rather I will simply note that neither you, nor I, nor the admins of this site, nor Strobel's authors is arbiter of "Truth". Believe what you like, but you'll have to forgive me if I wont take an assertion as fact. For us to agree, your ideas will have to be predictive and testable; for them to be useful (to me), they will have to be explanatory. There's no other reasonable method with which to evaluate the plausibility and utility of your proposal.

Moreover, I suggest to the readers of this forum the same criteria for judging these issues for themselves.

They are actually compnonets (and important ones) in forming life. However, even if you do debunk the Miller experiments, which were a great leap, you neglect to mention the fact that amino acids have been found in space and must´ve formed abiogenically. Who need experiments of how they formed on earth when they have been observed to literally fall out of the sky?

And what do you mean that the experiments aren´t consistant with what experts believe the early earth atmosphere was? I´m not objecting to your statement, but I would like clarification.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Paul,
I suggest reading The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel. He lays out some of the evidence that you may be looking for. Many things in your current knowledge may be lies the have been perputrated for years. An example is the berkley evolutionary website that claims experiments have created amino acids using electricity and gases simulating the early atmosphere of Earth. They are talking about the Kenneth Miller experiments that were debunked years ago for not using anything close to the original atmosphere that experts now agree would have been present. Many textbooks now say that using the atmosphere now agreed on to do the same experiments don't get amino acids, but they do produce "organic compounds." Sounds good, but they fail to mention that these organic compounds are cyanide and formaldehyde. Certainly not things that will start life.

I know that you asked for testable theories, but just because a theory is not testable, that do not make it wrong.