วีดีโอ

Hey Peter, and thanks for the comment and engaging with the content! If by “evolution” you mean micro-evolution then yes, I would agree with you. Natural selection is the process by which preexisting genetic information is passed down from one generation to the next - it could be redistributed or it could be reduced depending on environment and other adaptive factors - I think we both agree there. However, by definition natural selection cannot account for new genetic information which is why Darwin’s theory on evolution hypothesizes all life coming from a common ancestor and no evidence to back up that claim, hence the continual term “theory” applied to his evolutionary model. I don’t think you will find biblical truth contradicting micro-evolution or adaptation given natural selection. But to claim that someone is “willfully ignorant of the science” when science, by its very definition, can only measure the observable and material appears to be ad hominem instead of addressing the claims on their merit. Science is limited in its scope of testing the observable - there is no observation of macro-evolution today and therefore science cannot affirm (nor deny, to be intellectually honest) that type of Darwinian evolution. I would love to touch base offline if possible and continue our discussion. I’m not one of these guys interested in arguing for the sake of being right and declaring someone else wrong; I’d genuinely like to hear you out and search for truth. I’m not trying to justify what I already believe, I’ve examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that macro-evolution doesn’t make logical sense, but am always open to an honest discussion based on the facts. Wishing you the best, and again, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts!

​@@pastorjgalloway4015Sorry, but you are demonstrating severe ignorance of evolution. Evolution by natural selection is the most well-evidenced theory in science; and it absolutely shows that speciation is not only possible but on-going. Claims about 'micro-evolution' are simply unscientific; there is no delineation or stopping point for evolution. And there is ample evidence that new genetic material is produced by evolutionary processes. Ignorance of science is not an ad hominem- it accurately describes your lack of basic scientific knowledge. We see what you call macro-evolution occurring constantly. Also, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word 'theory' in science. It is not possible to prove anything in science, as can be done in math. A theory is the highest level of proof possible - it indicates that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the conclusion and no evidence contradicting the conclusion. Using common usage, evolution by natural selection is a fact, and absolutely proven. Scientists simply lack the arrogance to claim proof. Read the most basic science text and you will understand that a theory is, in the common parlance, proven fact. What evidence have you found that indicates that natural selection suddenly stops at some random point - your micro/macro claim. Please cite that evidence. And if you read a basic book on evolution, you would find that there is an enormous mountain of evidence showing that all life did come from simpler forms of life. That is not disputed by any competent or reputable scientist.

Again I would agree that micro-evolution is well-evidenced and it does point to changes within species, but I have to point to the fact that natural "selection" is 'selecting' from something pre-existing; it 'selects' out of what already exists and therefore affirming natural selection and speciation is not the same as affirming evolution at the macro level (sand into living organisms into humans). And furthermore, to say there is no delineation is to completely ignore the clear line that was defined, namely selecting pre-existent genetic material (micro) versus the creation of new genetic material (macro). Simply put, evidencing life from no life. If there is ample evidence that new genetic material is produced by this kind of evolution, I would love to see that evidence. I find no evidence widely regarded and accepted that adequately addresses the idea of abiogenesis. And you are correct: pointing out ignorance is not ad hominem, but it wasn't just ignorance that was suggested; it was "willful ignorance." I am willing to admit the study of evolution is not a high priority for me. But that does not mean that - when confronted with claims or suggestions - that I willfully ignore them and choose to remain ignorant. I am willing to investigate and willing to risk being wrong. Where do we see macro-evolution occurring constantly? I've never seen the substantiation of this claim. I have heard the claim made several times but never demonstrated from the fossil record or anything other than inference. I've even read notable scholars and scientists who admit that irreducibly complex systems like both human DNA and the human eye present massive problems to the evolutionist - citing both Darwin and Dawkins. Darwin self-admittedly says such would prove his theory incorrect and Dawkins saying such a leap would require something more akin to a miracle rather than the evolutionary machine. Also, you stated, "Using common usage, evolution by natural selection is a fact, and absolutely proven," but also stated, "It is not possible to prove anything in science" and that "A theory is the highest level of proof possible." If a theory is the highest possible level of proof as you suggest, then by your own admission it is not proof and cannot be claimed as fact. A theory is not a proven fact in common parlance - a theory is an attempt to explain how the facts tie together. And to answer your question as to evidence pointing to natural selection stopping "randomly" at some point - I don't believe that's a fair take because what I suggested was not random. You even stated this yourself in your second to last sentence, "there is an enormous mountain of evidence showing that all life did come from simpler forms of life." Life comes from life; while it appears we would disagree as to the extent of that statement, we both agree that life comes from life. I agree with you that this "is not disputed by any competent or reputable scientist" whether they are a creationist or evolutionist. My two biggest problems with the evolutionary model continue to be 1) the complete lack of consistent evidence as it relates to life coming from no life (and likewise, on a large scale, matter coming from no matter to make evolution possible) and 2) the propensity of disorder over order given simply time and chance acting on matter. I appreciate the time you have taken to write back and how you have encouraged me that there can be disagreement without coming to blows. I don't know your background but I want to commend you on your studies and your diligence!

@@pastorjgalloway4015 There is no distinction in evolution - it is a linear process. Claims of some limited 'micro-evolution' are simply ignorant. And there are many ways that new information is created in genetic material. As I said, if you would read a basic book in evolution, you would understand this, and you could see the enormous evidence proving it. When you say you see no evidence, you have not looked at the actual science. It is massive, and fully accepted. And 'life from no life' has nothing to do with evolution. That is abiogenesis., and evert necessary step of abiogenesis has been recreated in the lab. Again, if you would read the actual science, you would know this. It is clear that you have not availed yourself of even the most basic evolution text; a junior high school book would suffice to dispel the ignorance you display. If you make claims about evolution without even that basic knowledge, your ignorance is willful. No actual 'scholar or scientist' accepts the claim of irreducible complexity. And to use the example of the eye is particularly sad. Not only is there massive evidence of the long evolution of the eye, there is evidence in living animals today of that process. There are animal, alive today, which show 153 stages of eye evolution, from the simplest small patch of light-sensitive cells to the wondrous complex eyes of insects. To claim that the eye is irreducibly complex is to admit that you have done no research whatsoever. And since Professor Dawkins has presented a very detailed and evidenced description of the evolution of the eye, claiming he agrees with you is disingenuous, to be polite. I was, quite clearly, explaining the difference in meaning of 'theory' between scientific usage and common usage. In science, nothing is proven - it is always open to correction. In common language, evolution by natural selection is proven a fact. A person in normal conversation would describe evolution, and every other scientific theory, as facts. Yes, more complex life evolves from simpler life forms. That is the definition of evolution by natural selection. You claim that evolution suddenly stops, at some random point - but you cannot provide a shred of evidence for that claim. As to abiogenesis - the beginning of life - that has nothing to do with evolution. Again, your ignorance is showing. Your first complaint has nothing to do with evolution - abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. And your claim of increasing disorder ignores the fact that that is true ONLY in a closed system. The earth is patently not a closed system; neither is the biological mass of the earth. Since the earth is not a closed system - look up on a sunny day - then there is no basis for your claim of inevitable disorder. I believe you are sincere, and I have tried to suggest, perhaps not gently, that you study actual scientific writings rather than apologetic claims. If you read a basic book on evolution, or watched a documentary on the process and the evidence for it, I think you would, at least, be far less certain in your disbelief. And you would learn, for example, that scientists can show multiple mechanisms for information to increase in genetic material, from random mutation to doubling to repurposing and many other mechanisms. Evolution by natural selection has been proven to be the best explanation for how all life developed on earth. There is more evidence for the truth of evolution than for any other theory - 2 1/2 times the evidence for the theory of gravity, for example. If the theory of evolution is wrong, then all of science is wrong. It is that well=proven. I would suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker, by Professor Dawkins. It is a good, thorough, quite readable introduction to the concepts and processes of evolution, and of the evidence for those concepts and processes. It's readily available, understandable by a non-specialist (which I am also), and very careful to buttress it's claims with evidence. At minimum, you would understand what people are talking about in terms of evolutionary processes and terms.

It's sad, really. Thank you for your comment!

Amen and AMEN!

Thanks, we continue to give God all the glory!