I’d say despite the ‘creation vs evolution’ debates, in reality evolution proves creation, not just logically, but empirically. So if anything evolution should be the atheists’ nightmare, not Ray Comfort’s banana. Here’s why:
*The evolutionary process logically resembles the creation of human technologies. Humans didn’t create computers by just waving a magic wand and making them appear out of thin air - computers evolved over a series of eras from simple calculators, all the way to complex supercomputers. Just like how life on earth evolved over many years increasing in complexity all the way from simple single-celled organisms to humans.
So unlike the literalist creationists arguments in which everything just appeared in its present state; we now have empirical evidence of creation, since we can see humans creating and evolving technologies in a way which very much logically resembles the evolutionary process.
While the pure atheist argument would be entirely illogical, like assuming that calculators evolved into supercomputers completely ‘own their own’ without the need of any programmers, computer factories, computer scientists, etc.
Now this doesn’t prove a specific religion or God, but definitely proves that the universe was created, whether by a historical deity, an undiscovered one or by… aliens.
And the “well who created God” rebuttal still doesn’t discount this; if humans created a super-intelligent robot which knew it was created by humans, but wasn’t able to logically understand who created humans, this doesn’t mean it couldn’t understand humans still created it.
Empirical evidence means things which can be directly observed.
We can directly observe humans creating technologies such as computers, which evolve with increasing complexity over the ages.
So no, there isn’t empirical evidence of the creator of life on earth, but there is indeed empirical evidence of humans creating things in a very similar process to evolution.
The evidence for a creator is therefore logical evidence; just as we don’t have empirical evidence of alien life in the universe, but since we do have empirical evidence of life on earth, we can logically assume life exists elsewhere in the universe on other earth-like planets.
Do computers reproduce? That is, do computers have babies? No, they don’t. Humans create computers, computers don’t create themselves.
This is different than how organisms are created. A bacteria divides to create two bacteria, which can divide to make four, and so on. But computers don’t reproduce.
So organisms have a method of creating more copies of themselves, by converting various environmental inputs into themselves.
However, this process of self-copying isn’t 100% faithful, only 99.99% faithful. Sometimes errors creep in. So sometimes the copy isn’t an exact duplicate of the parent.
And of course, more organisms are created than can be supported by the environment, and so some organisms don’t ever get a chance to convert the environment into copies of themselves. Instead they get used as raw materials for other organisms to copy themselves.
And so we have variation, we have an excess of organisms, which means we have selection. So organisms are better at making copies of themselves, and those that are better produce more copies in the future. Repeat this process for 4 billion years and see what happens.
This process of reproduction and natural selection is nothing like the process huans use to improve objects.
If you’re worried that if evolution actually existed it would disprove God, maybe you should do some reading? Turns out there are people who believe in both evolution and God, so you don’t have to disprove evolution to continue to believe in God, unlike what your youth pastor told you.
I think you are confusing the analogy with the actual process. Saying that evolution proceeds from less complex organisms to more complex ones does not imply that it does so in the same way or for the same reason.
If I say that a paper airplane can glide like a bird, this does not mean that paper airplanes hatch from eggs.
Is that how we build new laptops? Put a pair of laptops in a pen full of components, and watch them reproduce, and then pick out the best ones to use?
But sure, the molecular machinery used by life to replicate itself is analogous to the demonstration you linked.
And so? Do you think every time a baby is born, God has to sit down at his workbench and design a new human from scratch? Or does the process happen by regular material processes?
Sure, but hypothetically as the article pointed out, humans could eventually develop self-replicating robots or technology.
So this would mean that if we have a creator, then we are essentially self-replicating technologies ourselves, obvously our own technology just isn’t that advanced yet.
Plus as I mentioned my argument doesn’t prove a specific God or religion, just that there’s ample evidence for some creator, whether it’s a God, whether it’s aliens, that’s not the point.
The original post is too wrong to be correctable. Evolution simply is the best explanation to explain the diversity of current and past life on this planet.
But as a Christian and ontological creationist, I’ll simply quote Mark 12:28-30,Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ ”Emphasis added.
Note that evolution works even if organisms never die. A variation that has 1% more offspring per generation will be 99% of the population after about 500 generations, even if all organisms continue to live. Early growth of bacterial colonies can experience evolution under this condition.
Edit on preview: numbers not accurate, but the point is valid.
That’s your problem then. The evolution of human beings was a process that took millions of years. The evidence that it happened is still around to be seen but you can’t watch it happen.
If you refuse to believe in something because you can’t directly see it, how do you explain chemistry?
