quote:
Thousands of years do it for me. And yes, it would take astronomical amounts of time if we explain it all as evolution does, but that doesn't PROVE it happened that way. Actually NO amount of time would suffice. That's the real objection to the time scenario.
Faith: Science does not
prove anything. You've been told this time and again, yet you always come back to saying that this or that has not been proven. Science never has and never will prove anything because our knowledge can never be absolute. Science can only provide explanations that fit our current understanding, as that understanding grows science follows suit. Please drop the whole idea that science must provide proof.
Could you perhaps explain your assertion that no amount of time will suffice for evolution? You seem to acknowledge micro-evolution, so I'm rather curious why you can't simply see that process continue given adequate time.
quote:
...He proved that selective processes work in nature and account for the great variety we observe, and genetics has shown the way it happens internally. But none of that proves macroevolution...
(setting aside the proof/prove issue) Here you admit that genetic change occurs and that these are filtered by selective processes to produce organisms better suited to their environment. Basically you are acknowledging The Theory of Evolution. All the pieces are in place for macro-evolution if we add time for the changes to accumulate. No, this doesn't
prove macro-evolution, but the available evidence makes macro-evolution and common descent a more reasonable inference than believing that there is some undiscovered mechanism in place which prevents it.
quote:
And I mean no disrespect when I say that the evidence that appears overwhelming to you has been seriously rejected by me and not out of hand.
In a scientific context, evidence consists of observations and measurements of real (natural) things. Evidence that is reliable (meaning it may be gathered openly and freely) may not be dismissed
at all. A theory must account for all the evidence, or at least enough of the evidence as to provide a practical foundation for experimental prediction. An example might be Newtonian physics which is known to be wrong in many respects, but practical for use at the level where observations can be easily made.
The idea of geologic time can be difficult to grasp. At some point millions and billions just start to blur and...like the proverbial congressman said...pretty soon you're talking about real money. In this case pretty soon you're talking about real time. A prokaryote may reproduce every twelve and a half minutes. The earlies fossils show that life existed on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago
at the latest(these fossils are from the Ishua group discovered in Greenland). That's a whole lot of time for the process which you've acknowledged to work...how do you figure it isn't enough?
quote:
The main objection I always had was that evolution seems to imply a teleology. This is denied, but what the theory actually posits seems to imply it. How do you get anything at all that functions, let alone functions in the complex ways living things function, out of a process that randomly affects genetic material?
Here you're making a crucial mistake. Evolution as posited by the ToE is not a random process. Step through the process in your mind and hopefully you'll see that the moment you apply a selective filter (natural selection) the process begun by a random event (mutation) is no longer random. By the way, there's quite a bit of work that's been done on antler evolution. There's plenty more to be done, but simple observation of deer can tell you that antlers are not primarily deadly weapons and there's no reason to assume they were selected as such.
quote:
How much time would it take a million monkeys to type the works of Shakespeare? Answer: It can't happen. And that will just be dismissed as "the argument from incredulity" as if that means anything.
Argument from incredulity does indeed mean something. An argument from incredulity simply asserts that because I can't imagine that something is possible/true/real/whatever that it
is not possible/true/real/whatever. Our beliefs are not necessarily in tune with reality. Your assertion "It can't happen" above is a statement of belief which, while it may or may not be true, can not be affirmed just because you believe it.
quote:
I know you guys think the evidence is there. I don't, and I didn't before I had a reason to "{reject} it out of hand for philosophical or theological reasons." Long answer but the point is no, I'm not dismissing it out of hand.
From a scientific standpoint you are dismissing the evidence out of hand. The evidence is there to be seen and you must account for it in order to participate in a scientific discussion. Philosophy and theology reasons are not sufficient if you wish to discuss science. The real world does not go away because we want it to...look at the evidence and account for it.
When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
™ Version 4.2
