Who has the Burden of Proof? Those who believe in evolution or those who believe in creation?

Question

Any comment to the following observation:

Logic dictates that not a single thing comes from nothing. My Adidas shoes did not just magically appear. Someone made my shoes. The Universe, the human body are too complicated, their system thoroughly synchronized that it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPROBABLE for these to just happen by chance.


The onus--the burden of proof-- is on the side of those who believe in Evolution. Now, prove to me how by chance my eyes and hand can coordinate w/ each other?

Answer 1

The scientists have already proved Darwin's theory wrong. Read the book Forbidden Archeology and The hidden History Of the Human Race. They both have heaps of found archaeological artifacts that proof that humans where more advanced and intelligent millions of years ago go to www.krishnaculture.com to get the books. also www.stephen-knapp.com Read Proof of Vedic cultures Global Existence

Answer 2

Let's be very clear. There are three different things you are mixing up here:
1) The creation of the universe (what caused the Big Bang)
2) The creation of first life on Earth (abiogenesis)
3) The creation of the diversity of life, including humans (evolution).

The Creation story from the Bible claims that God did each of these three things.

There is a branch of Physics (Big Bang Cosmology) that provides a very detailed theory of the very early history of the Universe. There are some interesting speculative theories for what might have caused the Big Bang to happen. But at this point there is no way to test those theories, and no credible scientist claims to know.

There is a branch of science that addresses the question of how the first pre-cellular life was created (abiogenesis). This field is largely speculative, but good progress is being made.

Finally, Evolution is a very robust and solid explanation of the diversity of life dating back to the first cellular life based on DNA/RNA.

Now, with all of that being said, your main argument is that something cannot come from nothing. That only applies to the first thing above, the creation of the universe. However, if you postulate a God in order to explain the existence of the Universe, you haven't actually addressed the problem, since know you have to explain where God came from.

Science does not try to address this question at all. Scientists are content to try to learn as much as possible about the natural universe as we can. There is much that we don't know. We try to be as clear as we possibly can about what is not known, and we try to gradually discover what can be discovered at the boundaries of the unknown.

Religion instead says "God did it", and tries to act as if that is a full and satisfactory explanation. I'm sorry, but that answer is totally unsatisfactory. I won't be satisfied with that answer until you can do two things:

1) Define God, and do it in a way that doesn't rely a book full of contradictions.
2) Explain *how* God did it.

Answer 3

well, it is actually inevitable, not improbable. You can easily understand how a virus mutates to become immune to treatments, right? So that virus changes ever so slightly in several years. It is still the same virus, just a little different to be immune to the change in it's environment. Now if you give the virus another 1000 years with changing environments, it seems logical that id could have many changes, and in fact, might even be a little different of a virus then how it started out. Then given 10,000 years, it is much different. This is how evolution works (it has actually been observed). And after billions of years, enormous amounts of change are not improbably, but inevitable.

Answer 4

Evolution describes a mechanism, one that clearly explains the very thing you're asking. So go do some research. Why should I hand it to you on a silver platter?

Science does not work in the arena of proof. It works in the arena of disproof. Science is the accumulation of facts that have been disproved and those we haven't disproved yet. Those that cannot be proved nor disproved are not even an issue.

Let's try this:

"The human hand has five fingers."
"The human hand has six fingers."
"The human hand in general has five fingers but can have more or less."
"The sky is blue."
"The sky is red."
"The sky is black."
"The sky is blue, red, or black depending on time of time and weather conditions."

Can you prove that every human hand has five fingers? No, not without observing every human hand since the beginning of time until the end of time. But we can disprove it easily enough -- I have a friend who lost two fingers in an industrial accident. His right hand has three fingers. That fact is disproved.

Can you prove that every human hand has six fingers? No, for the same reason, but my right hand has five fingers, so I disprove that fact.

That leaves only one 'fact' pertaining to hands.

The same argument can be applied to the color of the sky.

When you ask for proof of science, you prove you have no clue what the heck you're talking about.


-----

Further, your use of God as the prima causa is no longer necessary. Modern cosmology states that the VISIBLE universe had a beginning but that the whole of the universe is in fact eternal, just as you assert your deity is. There is actually scientific evidence of this fact based on quantum vacuum and Heisenburg's Indeterminancy Principle.

In short, I can establish with some scientific credibility the eternal existence of the universe despite the visible portion of it having a beginning. To disprove it, I need to show that the quantum vacuum is variant or that Heisenburg's indeterminancy principle is not inviolate.

Can you establish with some scientific credibility the eternal existence of your deity? That is, how could you, given the ability to test it, disprove your deity?

Answer 5

Your theory is fallacious.
Your argument is similar to St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. You have to allow for God to exist in order for that argument to be valid.
If nothing comes from nothing then there would have to be something in existence before God. And something before that and so on...
The onus is on the one advocating the argument.
Those who believe in evolution must supply evidence that evolution is the case (fossils and the like). It can be argued on both sides as to whether fossil records alone can validate this theory.
Creationism relies solely on the bible as historical record. The bible is NOT historical record unless you believe it to be, at which point your perception is the only argument (i.e. faith).
Read up on logic and try again, kid.

Answer 6

the burden of proof is on the person who makes the affirmative statement. If you say there is no such thing as God you have the burdon of proof. If you say you dont think there is enough proof of God then you are void of that burden. Likewise if you say God exists you have the burden, but if you say I believe God Exists you have voided your self of the burdon. The fact that neither can be confirmed to absolute confirms for me you cant make difinative statements either way which confirms dogmatic thought is ludacris on either side.

Answer 7

those who choose to believe in evolution have no responsibility to a creator. So your not going to change that.
Those who choose to believe in Creation and God will never believe that we just happened. There use to be a saying:
"To convince a man against his will he is of the same opinion still." That is why when people are converted at the end of a sword they still do their previous religon in secret.

Answer 8

Your logic (and I use the term loosely) is critically flawed. A vast fossil record shows a process of ongoing change and increasing complexity. You would propose that all scientific evidence be discarded in favor of magic because you do not understand the vast timescales involved in human evolution. Your argument shows extreme mental laziness.

Answer 9

I'm sorry but what does the above have to do with biological diversity and adaptation of species-you talk about logic but logic dictates if you want to challenge the validity of evolution your argument has to actually be relevant to evolution. The origin of life and the fact that species undeniably undergo biological evolution are two seperate issues.

Answer 10

I am a Christian, so I don't disagree with where you are headed.

However, since there is something, is there a reason to ever think there wasn't something. It seems logical to assume there always was at least something, if not the earth, the necessary elements of life to begin. That is one way to respond to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Answer 11

If I could request anything from creationists it would be to please read a description of common logical fallacies.

If I see one more False Dichotomy between "Random Chance and God" or between "something from nothing" and God. Or Begging the Question that the Universe was created, I think I will scream.