Empirical Evidence for Evolution

scientists

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is a discussion I am having with someone on YouTube. Since evolutionists claim to have science on their side and they also claim that evolution is so sure that it is FACT, shouldn’t they have overwhelming observable non-controvertible evidence to support it? But what do they have? Read the following to find out what evolutionists have for supporting their side.

Writing to Mark Ryan: What empirical evidence do your rely on that convinces you evolution is true?
Reply ·

Writing to Evidence Press: Foxes and wolves are related. By blood.
Reply ·

Writing to Mark Ryan: How does your evidence account for the evolution of all of life? Do you not believe that life began from a primitive life form, evolved into something else, eventually gaining more complexity all the way up to humans? How do you empirically, in a falsifiable manor, account for evolution to be true?
Reply ·

Writing to Evidence Press: You are shifting the goalposts know. First you were asking about evolution. Now that I settled that debate, you shift it to “origin of life”. Yes, we know for a fact that foxes and wolves are related. Evolution.
Reply ·

Writing to Mark Ryan: First, the word “related” is not a precise term. Some people would say humans are related to amoebas and in some ways that is true. All living creatures have DNA, RNA and proteins, so we are “related”. But this hardly gives convincing evidence for evolution. It is far better evidence for a single, all powerful designer to have made all of life.

Secondly, I did not mention “origin of life”. I was just making clear what we are arguing about. I am arguing that primitive life (notice I said “life”) did not evolve over billions of years to become more complex organisms and through common descent eventually evolved into humans. I believe that is what you are arguing for.

Evolutionists claim that they offer “science” while we offer “religion”. So pony up. I am asking for some scientific empirical evidence that can be falsified as evidence for simple-life-to-humans evolution. Evolutionists claim it is a fact, so it certainly should be easy to provide some good solid evidence. Right?

Unless evolution is actually a bait and switch. Is it possible that evolutionists bait the public with snippets like “organisms change over time therefore evolution is true”. Well I believe organisms change over time too. But so will a fence post, even the wire on the fence post will change over time. In fact, just about all objects if not all objects change over time but that is not evolution. So starting with the bait of change over time does not confirm organisms-to-humans evolution. That is the switch. You are trying to use the same bait and switch with foxes and wolves which for me is saying nothing anyway.

So what do you have for empirical, falsifiable evidence for organisms-to-humans evolution?

Challenged by Jack

I have a video on YouTube with my interview with Dr. John Baumgardner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcLmHtCjqw I get a number of people making comments.

Jack44M wrote:
+Evidence Press — maybe you can back up your claims: What is the scientific definition of kinds and what is your scientific source?
Where is your scientific evidence for the existence of God? Remember, the category is science….not philosophy. ….and as far as the “empirical evidence for abiogenesis”, are you being dishonest by trying to claim it’s part of the theory of evolution? Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life. Evolution is the study of the diversification of existing life. They are separate fields of study.

“I am a young Earth creationist.” Perhaps you can provide verifiable scientific evidence that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old (the usual Young Earther claim) A few peer reviewed scientific journal publications that show no rock is older than 10,000 years old would seal the deal.

My response:

Evidence Press wrote:
+Jack44M Well gee Jack you are boxing me in.

The term “kinds” is a biblical construct similar to “family” in the evolutionary classification system. Though secular scientists may have commented on it. I am not about to look for a source just to say I found one. Think of it as family in classification then it becomes scientific.

Evidence for the existence of God: OK, first I don’t claim proof for God’s existence. I will provide lines of evidence:
1. The finely tuned universe. It is so finely tuned that it is a huge problem for astronomers. This is a great video to watch on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
2. As already mentioned the complexity of DNA. Multiple messaging within genes called duons is amazing to think about even for design. For it to come by natural causes is preposterous.
3. The making of proteins requires numerous protein-based machines, sophisticated code and usable energy, the kind the cell can use. How do you get the first protein when DNA is made up of protein, the conversion of energy requires protein and the transcription factors and ribosome also have protein?

This is not just a chicken and the egg, this is a slam dunk, evolution by way of abiogenesis never happened. You may say, this does not necessarily mean God did it. Yea, it could have been really smart aliens. Then you are getting way outside of science.

I could mention more evidence but let’s keep this to a manageable size. There are only two possibilities for our existence: 1. natural causes and 2 design causes. The three above items point to a design cause. I believe the designer is the God of the Bible.

In regard to abiogenesis I understand this does not strictly fall under the classification of evolution. However, every basic biology text book which promotes evolution either assumes abiogenesis or tries to provide evidence for it. If there is no abiogenesis there must be a designer. You have to deal with it.

I can get into the age of the Earth another time. But I want to see if you will answer my questions first:
1. Provide your best evidence for evolution. I would prefer empirical data as I have provided.
2. What is your problem with God? Does the thought of Him make you angry for some reason?

The Proof of God

YouTube user +al gore at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBEwgdCHUWo has challenged me to empirically prove that God exists by emperically proving He created or did something. The following is my answer:

Christians do not claim that God can be reduced to a scientific experiment. Though the preponderance of evidence points to God (finely tuned universe, origin of life, order, biogenesis, DNA information, genetic entropy) we do not claim that we can prove Him. In contrast, atheism claims empirical science as its foundation. Atheists claim that evolution is a fact. Darwin described evolution as “common descent with modification”. What empirical, falsifiable evidence do you offer for evolution as common descent with modification?

If a death of a person is investigated, there are ultimately only two possible causes for that death or for any death: a natural cause or a design cause. If all the evidence leads to a design cause but all design causes are ruled out before hand then the evidence will be made to fit the natural cause. Do you deny that this analogy fits what we are talking about?

God of the Gaps and Empirical Evidence

View the video and dialog here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBEwgdCHUWo

A viewer on YouTube feels that our video on Proteins requiring proteins is a God of the gaps argument and simplistic. I wrote back:
I think it is interesting that the USA secular educational system ignores the LAW of biogenesis (life only comes from life and is seen every day) and assumes abiogenesis which has never been observed.

So in our secular educational institutions the only possible cause for the origin of life is a natural cause. So no matter what the evidence, that evidence is made to fit the natural cause. So when you hint that “complexity” points to God as simplistic I will take that over the myopic view of secularists who force the evidence to fit their naturalistic cause (while not allowing a design cause in the door).

The viewer responded with Abiogenesis is new and science is about nature. He also challenged me to provide empirical evidence for creation. So I responded:

I appreciate your comments and questions. First, I deny that this is a God of the Gaps argument. It only is when design or God is not considered an option. If design is considered an option, then where does the evidence better lead, design or a natural cause? For me the clear answer is design.

You wrote, “Science is the study of nature.” That is true. However, the essence of science is the search for knowledge. There is nothing inherent in the study of science that mandates that the cause of a natural thing is a natural cause. That requirement is inserted by materialists who are unwilling to allow a level playing field to seekers of truth. Instead their way is indoctrination without consideration of design as a cause.

Your question is a good one. But as I answer it, what will you have to offer to show empirical, testable data that we are here as Darwin wrote, by “common descent with modification”? And do not give me the standard answer by changes observed in bacteria and viruses. The fact that organisms change fits the creation model as well. Rather, demonstrate bacteria evolving a functional organelle that prior bacteria did not have, or something of the kind.

I can offer several lines of evidence for creation. In doing so I am not trying to prove the existence of God, rather I am offering evidence that creation better fits the evidence than evolution by natural causes.

1. As the above video states, conundrums such as proteins requiring (maybe hundreds or even thousands of proteins) in order to create a protein. This is not simply a chicken or egg issue. We are talking multiple high tech nano machines, with communication, transportation, mechanics (folding of the protein) and who knows what all is going on in order to create a single protein. This is observed, it is repeatable and the best explanation is design not a natural cause.

2. The Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. It is observed every day. Never has life been observed to come from natural causes even with the intense help of evolutionary scientists around the world trying to drum up evidence for it.

3. I don’t want to get into an argument about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being limited to closed systems and we are supposedly in an open system. So, let me refer simply to order instead. Again order is observed every day in a variety of locations and situations. Intelligent orderers are statistically observed (vastly more so) to be the cause of order than order from natural causes. I do not deny that order does at times come from natural causes. I am saying the vast majority of order coming from an intelligent source far exceeds order coming out of chaos.

I could go on to talk about predictions, information, the finely tuned universe and other sources of evidence such as genetic entropy (search YouTube for Dr. John Sanford). However, it is time for you to respond. I would like to see you provide two or three sources for empirical evidence for “common descent with modification”.

Dinosaurs On Trial — How Old Are They?

Do you know about Sue? I mean the dinosaur named Sue. At the end of June, 2014 I will be embarking on an exciting adventure. Evidence Press is working with the Creation Research Society to produce a documentary about the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs. Evolutionists are amazed that soft tissue in dinosaurs can survive 65+ million years. Well, there is another possibility, that dinosaurs are not millions of years old as evolutionists claim.

The problem with that idea is that if the correct age of dinosaurs was in the thousands and not millions of years then the geologic time scale evolutionists depend on for dating fossils is dramatically wrong. If the geologic time scale is dramatically wrong, then evolution never happened. Soft tissue in dinosaurs is just one line of evidence which supports the notion dinosaurs lived recently, not millions of years ago. In total we will be presenting at least five lines of evidence. I hope you find this to be exciting.

I will be traveling to Montana and South Dakota for filming several interviews. I expect it to be a fascinating journey. I will provide pictures and tell a few stories along the way. I hope you will tune in. For now I would like you to check out this movie trailer about the T-Rex named Sue coming out later this year: http://www.dinosaur13movie.com/

Dinosaur 13

Interview with Erin

In one moment Erin asks me if I believe that God created us as we are. She was so incredulous, her expression looks like she thought she was talking to a child or someone not very bright. In response, I think I actually look defensive as I replied, yes, to her query. I do believe God made humans fully formed. In fact, that is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Young Earth Creationists.

There is great power in incredulity. I believe it is used against creationists in colleges and universities across the nation. Atheists Richard Dawkins uses it often as weapon of shame for believing such a naive thing as creation in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. But as we examine this video interview, the intelligent person should ask, which of us is the naive one? Which of us is so militant in their beliefs that the person could not stand to hear the arguments of the other.

Your constructive comments are welcome.

Interview Edgewood Students

I really enjoy interviewing people about creation and evolution. When people are not rushed, have some science background with logic skills, it makes the conversation all the more interesting. These two Edgewood College students are both studying science, both have some religious background and both were interested in the topics of our discussion.

We discussed the creation topic and then the heaven topic. The entire time they were engaged. It was a very good interview for me. My disappointment was one of my cameras was “seeking focus” and so I was not able to use it much. Secondly, the cameras shut down at the end of the interview so the last few minutes are missing the video portion but the audio is good.

As always, I appreciate constructive comments.

Roberto and Natalia

Talking to people about creation and evolution is an interesting process. We start off by defining the scientific method. Then we define evolution as Darwin defined it. This leads to talking about the evidence. I usually like to help people understand the concept of “inference to the best explanation” as shown in this interview. Where it goes from there is always unique and always interesting.

Crying Rocks Ministry — Evidence for Creation

The evidence for creation is compelling, logical and consistent throughout the scientific disciplines. Helping people see the evidence for creation takes prayer, planning and patience. Why? Because this issue is not just about logic and evidence; it is tied up with world view and what an individual wants to be true. Guy and Cindy Forsythe have a unique ministry to the residents of Sedona, Arizona. They mail out a newsletter four times a year to every home in Sedona!

In this interview with Guy we discuss the newsletter and how it came about. We also discuss the local geology and how it provides evidence for rapid water deposition rather than millions of years. We discuss the debate Ken Ham had with Bill Nye, magnetic field decay and other topics.

Canyon Ministries — An Interview with Tom Vail

Tom Vail, Founder of Canyon Ministries has been involved in rafting and giving tours of the Grand Canyon for the past 30 years. He has some fascinating insights into what the geological evidence reveals.

One of the most talked-about issues related to the Grand Canyon is how the layers were formed and subsequently how the canyon was carved. Evolutionists accept the uniformitarian model and believe the layers were laid down slowly over many millions of years. For example, they claim that the sand which formed the Tapeats Sandstone, which covers the vast majority of the North American continent, was deposited at the bottom of a calm and placid sea. If that were true, what accounts for the fact that the formation is also found across Europe and Northern Africa? In this video, Tom reveals evidence that the Tapeats Sandstone does not fit the secular model.

Tom also shares the interesting story of how he came to have a relationship with Christ later in life. In Tom’s case it resulted not only in a new way of life; it resulted in a new way of looking at geology.