Evolution how does it stand these arguments?

Question

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel student edition
The Quantum theory states a space vacuum sometimes spits out objects for a brief amount of time then it is destroyed. The Kalam cosmological argument states these three things: every thing that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and the universe has a cause. Experiences suggest that the first part of the Kalam argument is true. A research professor William Lane said, “The subatomic particles the article talks about are called ‘virtual particles.’ They are theoretical entities, and it is not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.” Still we have to answer where the quantum vacuums came from. It appears step one of the Kalam held up. Early Christian Scientist used mathematical reasoning to show an infinite past is impossible. Imagine you have an infinite number of marbles and you gave me an infinite number of marbles. This would leave you with zero marbles. Infinity minus infinity equals zero. Or you only gave me the odd-numbered marbles. This would give both of us infinity. Infinity minus infinity equals infinity. Or you could give me all the marbles numbered four and higher leaving you with three. Infinity minus infinity equals three. An infinite number of things lead to contradictory results. Because in the first case infinity minus infinity equals zero, in the second case infinity minus infinity equals infinity, and in the last case infinity minus infinity equals three. Infinity was always subtracted from infinity but each time a different answer came up. The logical conclusion is that science confirms what the Bible says a Creator brought the universe into being. There can’t be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe. In 1990 a biologist named Tim Berra stated if you compare a 1953 and 1954 Corvette side by side it is becomes obvious there has been descent with modification. Unknowingly he opened the door for the possibility for Intelligent Designer rather than undirected evolution. Henry Gee said “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Jonathan Wells said, “I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out ‘Design!’ The Cambrian explosion – the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of ancestors – is more consistent with design than evolution. Similarity across species, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a Designer. None of these things make as much sense from an evolution perspective as they do from a design perspective.” Wells also said “When you analyze all of the most current evidence from cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, and so forth – well, I think you’ll discover that the positive case for an Intelligent Designer becomes absolutely compelling.”

Answer 1

There are quite some contradictions in this argumentation. If you can not accept the existence of infinites, you should not shove the problem aside by substituting it by a creator. Is the creator part of the whole, or outside the whole? If it is outside the whole, then it isn't at all. If it is part of the whole, you have not answered anything.
If the creator existed before the existence of the creation, then he must be either be infinite or must have been created by a supercreator. The same arguments apply to the concept of a supercreator.
If I were to accept the existence of design, I would take exception to the adjective "intelligent". If I bought a mechanism as badly designed as the human being, I would certainly ask for a refund (not that I would get it).
If I compare a Corvette, with the same Corvette at a different coordinate in the space time unverse, I will find a completely different Corvette, but I can hardly infer that there is any design in this phenomena. Only that my imperfectly designed brain can not comprehend it.
The need to blame others for our failures is almost universal, from here the need to invent a creator who is the cause of everything. It is very difficult to live with the absence of knowledge and understanding of the universe that surrounds us. We must understand it in order to control it to the extent that it affects our lives. But this is wishful thinking, and from here the compulsion, not by a purely rational act.

Answer 2

Actually, as written, It's irrelevent to Evolution.

The big bang, nor the creation of the universe, has nothing to do with evolution of life on this planet.

Example:
1) God set off the big bang
2) Something else caused the big bang to occur

That argument is totally irrelevent to life evolving on the planet Earth, orbiting a star in the Mily Way galaxy.

Meaning, if either occured - 1 or 2 - what does it matter to the theory of evolution. If God set it off - or if it was natural - the theory of evolution would be the same, since if God did set "universe guidelines" - what's that have to do with evolution? That has to do with cosmology - not biology on this particular planet in this particular solar system in this particular galaxy of this particular universe that God 'set off' -- that's the main problem with that post. Saying, if you don't understand a particular area of Cosmology or Physics, thus all other sciences are wrong - is silly - and a "God of the gaps" argument. There will always be gaps of knowledge and just because we don't currently understand the way something works doesn't mean that God did it - or we won't find out how it works soon.

Answer 3

You don't have to believe in evolution as it will get along fine without you.

Intelligent Design has been completely debunked - it is without any merit whatsoever in scientific circles. There are no peer reviewed papers on Intelligent Design, because they would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Intelligent Design in essence says "we don't know how it happened so we explain it this way: God did it". That is not science - that is religion.

If you learn about DNA, what it is and how it works, then the case for evolution not only becomes possible, but it becomes inevitable. And to say that evolution is "undirected" is misleading - it is controlled by many forces - weather, and now recently, even mankind itself.

And, try not to publish a book as your question or most people will just skip over it anyway. There are plenty of other things to respond to in the above statement, but it is not worth my time. These myths are just that - myths. Evolution is a fact, and extinction and an even rudimentary understanding of how genetics works proves it. Get over it.

Answer 4

"Similarity across species, in my opinion, is more compatible with design."

Garbage. The knee and the back of upright walking man conserving structures from quadripeds is evidence against design. Ask anyone with knee or back problems.

The Cambrian explosion is well explained by the homeobox genes.

The fact that early Christian mathematicians had problems with the infinite and the infinitessimal means little. People like Newton and Cantor solved it.

Evolution is alive and kicking.

Answer 5

> the positive case for an Intelligent Designer becomes absolutely compelling.

This morning when I woke up, I put on my glasses. Let me repeat: I put on my glasses. An intelligent design of my eyes would have given them muscles to correct their focus without the need for glasses. My eyes are badly designed.

When I was 25, I had two wisdom teeth removed. They had come in at an angle, were pushing the other teeth out of place, and food got stuck on them. An intelligent design would have given all teeth adequate room in the jaw. Our jaws are badly designed.

I met a girl who had had her appendix removed. Appendixes are too easily inflamed, and prior to anesthetics and sterile surgical technique were difficult to treat. The appendix is badly designed.

The positive case for a Really Incompetent Designer is absolutely compelling. Or perhaps there was no designer.

Answer 6

If I even have an limitless variety of numbers (one million, 2, 3...) and gave you all the even numbers (2, 4, 6), i might have given you an limitless variety of numbers. greater helpful, i might have given you the same limitless variety of numbers as I initially had. (this may well be an elementary first-365 days math information: for each variety N on your set of even numbers, there exists a variety N/2 interior the unique set; consequently the two instruments have the same length). So, I start up with an limitless variety of numbers. I provide you the same limitless volume of even numbers, and that i'm nonetheless left with the same limitless volume of wierd numbers... careful with analogies that use infinities. they are in a position to genuinely lead you off course. by using ways, digital debris may well be became to real debris (Stephen Hawkins confirmed one way this could happen), they are greater suitable than mere theoretical constructs, even however very few human beings get to surely see one. by using any incorrect way: evolution has a reason. Environmental situations impression which persons proceed to exist and get to reproduce their DNA in next organisms. consequently, by using the Kalam argument, evolution exists. The existence of evolution isn't a information that a author does not exist. If there's a author, who're we to dictate to Her how She could run the tutor? whether, too many human beings attempt to run down evolution because of the fact their very own self-serving theory of a author demands evolution to not exist. "Early" Christian scientists tried to tutor that the previous (and the destiny) became into limitless. of course, it relies upon on who you hit upon as "early" scientists -- until the 4th century, there have been not many "scientists" between christian leaders. they could have motivated Einstein lots that he had presented a cosmological consistent in this theory, to circumvent the conlusion that the universe became into increasing. After Hubble's discovery (the astronomer, not the area telescope), Einstein bumped off the consistent and mentioned that coming up this consistent have been the main important mistake of his existence. There are fairly some books and papers that describe the place the vacuum skill comes from. actual, they are perplexing to comprehend for many non-scientists. whether, they do make experience and are perplexing to disprove (some scientists spend their occupation attempting to disprove such issues -- that's how technology works).

Answer 7

It's an interesting point you are making... This summer I read a book which I personally found helpful which talks about ID and evolution and young earth creationism too. You can read the book free online as a PDF, I think it will answer your question better than I can do:

http://www.lifesway.net/christian_books/Christianity,%20Evidence%20and%20Truth.pdf

Answer 8

It constantly amazes me that people actually waste time on this argument. You believe in something based on faith or on science. Your choice. But don't try to push your beliefs off onto me. I have the same freedom of choice that you do because if I don't (according to your beliefs) then there seems to be something very limiting about what you believe in. If that's the case, then your 'argument' contains the seeds of its own destruction and all of the pseudo-scientific doggerel that you throw at it to shore it up is a trivial exercise in stupidity.


Doug

Answer 9

You are missing the whole point of evolution, why would intelligent design create whole species, just to have them disappear from earth. What evolution tells us is that from different things some work and some don't.

Answer 10

I'm going to read this but first let me say I am not surprised that you don't have a girlfriend...