Questions from a Deist

[watchinginawe]

Personally I do not understand how life originated so I trust the people who've dedicated their lives to understanding it.

Hello Rocket. Actually, I think you are trusing a lot more than just the origin of life to others. For example, is the following illustration of yours an explanation of how the formation of the eye MIGHT have happened (if evolution be true) or is it what has been offered to you by those you trust which you subsequently accepted as fact?

Quite obviously you haven't read the original theory of evolution but heres an explanation of how a primitive eye was formed:
1. Skin cells are normally slightly photosensitive, the first step is making them slightly more photosensitive. Now the organism is able to tell whether light is falling on the area of these more sensitive cells.
2. The skin cells that are more photosensitive will be subject to a slight impression akin to a dimple. Now the organism will be able to tell approximately where the light is comming from.
3. The small indent will become deeper, untill it will look like a circle or an oval with a pinhole to let light in. Now the organism will be able to tell with much better accuracy where the light is coming from and will be able to see a very poor picture.
4. A privative lens will be formed by mucus expelled from these cells which will build in the pinhole of the privative eye. This lens will be able to focus light much better than the simple pinhole and the organism will be able to make out a slightly better picture.

There, you have a pinhole eye. Each step which I've said here exists in at least one genies in the animal kingdom. We did not suddenly mutate an optic nerve, a retina, a lense or anything we currently possess in our eyes. Our eyes are the end product of millions of years of evolution.

You claim the above is "how a primative eye was formed". Since you suggest this is truth (as confirmed in your last sentence quoted above), then I suggest you have read too much into what is known. All that you have done is to suggest that this is how the eye might have evolved IF evolution by random mutation and natural selection is the process. The IF states the paradigm for how you look at variations of eyes in the aniimal kingdom. Think on this. If you were to bring Bible contradictions to me and I was to hold that the Bible was inerrant (a paradigm) then my explanations would be a result and in support of my paradigm. I could even say things like "that may seem contradictory with what we know right now, but eventually we will have an answer", or "I trust others who have devoted their life to the study of the scirptures", etc. I'm not knocking your paradigm or the value of employing such in the study of things, but rather just trying to point out how it affects your interpretation of observations.

What you have provided is nothing more than: There are variations of eyes in nature that are heriditary and the eyes expressed in different animals show a progression in complexity of the eye; therefore the eye evolved completely naturally. That doesn't convince me of the evolution of the eye. The conclusion seems out of place to me. Now, if I thought evolution might be a fact, I might be swayed to further persuasion from your presentation. I hope you can see the difference.

Also, please note that all of the "actions" of evolution you suggested are purely speculative. There is no evidence that any of that actually happened, but rather that it must have happened in a sequence something like that if evolution were to be responsible.

Lastly, where did the skin cells that are "normally" photosensitive come from? Or even any kind of skin? These kinds of huge contradictory gaps are explained away as "it had to have happened". Believing that "it had to have happened" even without proof is faith in the means of "how it happened". The faith in "how it happened" overcomes any obstacle or objection.

God Bless!

[tt1106]

Hello, I'm a Deist and I've come to ask some questions to some people who believe in the bible(Do you capitalize "bible"?). At the moment I am seriously considering Christianity but I have many qualms with it. I've organized a meeting with a pastor to discuss my problems that I would be unable to discuss in this forum.


#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

1. I'm assuming you mean anything other than the Bible. We believe in lots of things with far less proof than this. There is no other secular proof of many things from history. As a matter of fact, none of history can be proven with science. So by secular, do you mean, historical proof that is other than the Bible, by non-believers for instance?

2. The evolution you speak of is not Theistic evolution. I would say, I trust the things I have seen more than a scientist's theories.You adhere to it in it's entirety, even though it is still unproven. I choose to put my faith in something that, I feel, has been proven through thousands of years, by millions of people. The proof of either is still subjective. I can say that I have seen incontrovertible proof of God in my life, which is why I am no longer an Atheist. You would probably say the proof is anything but God.


3. I would suggest any of these....
More than a carpenter
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist
The Grand Weaver
the end of reason

[tango]

Hi Rocket, you're right in that I rather blended evolution and abiogenesis, simply because if we are to accept that life appeared and evolved without any form of divine Creator then we need to accept both.

Parts of the atheistic theories of creation can be demonstrated in a laboratory but only very small parts. We can demonstrate adaption but not macro-evolution - we cannot demonstrate one species becoming another even when we start with very simple life-forms. We cannot create life from non-life - we can theorise about how it might have worked but cannot replicate it from any one of our theories.

Looking at your theory of how the eye might have evolved from nothing, if skin cells are photosensitive it would seem to offer a greater evolutionary advantage for our entire bodies to be able to see - having two eyes grants binocular vision but doesn't allow us to see predators approaching from behind, and so on. If our skin was photosensitive why didn't we simply develop a covering of eyes that would let us know everything that was going on around us? Why only two highly developed eyes?

You mentioned gravity - we might struggle to categorically prove the formula of -gMm/R^2 but we can see the effects of gravity in our day to day life. With evolution we can see things around us and theorise but you cannot prove that it happened any more than I can prove it didn't. If either side could produce categoric proof then the other side would soon crumble. So it boils down to what you want to believe, and I find it easier to believe in a Creator than in a succession of cosmic flukes.

[Rocket]

Hello Rocket. Actually, I think you are trusing a lot more than just the origin of life to others.... What you have provided is nothing more than: There are variations of eyes in nature that are heriditary and the eyes expressed in different animals show a progression in complexity of the eye; therefore the eye evolved completely naturally... Also, please note that all of the "actions" of evolution you suggested are purely speculative. There is no evidence that any of that actually happened, but rather that it must have happened in a sequence something like that if evolution were to be responsible.

Lastly, where did the skin cells that are "normally" photosensitive come from? Or even any kind of skin? These kinds of huge contradictory gaps are explained away as "it had to have happened". Believing that "it had to have happened" even without proof is faith in the means of "how it happened". The faith in "how it happened" overcomes any obstacle or objection.

God Bless!

Thank you for your feedback but this is not a piece of writing proving evolution, it is just me writing about Tango's blog entry. If you would like me to write a piece of work citing evidence and observations I can(And I think I'll spend longer than what I did writing this).

1. I'm assuming you mean anything other than the Bible. We believe in lots of things with far less proof than this. There is no other secular proof of many things from history. As a matter of fact, none of history can be proven with science. So by secular, do you mean, historical proof that is other than the Bible, by non-believers for instance?

I never even mentioned science in the question... Secular means separate from religion. Without this how can I believe in the Bible whilst not believing in the Eddas?

[watchinginawe]

Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, deplored interpreting the Bible's texts as scientific statements rather than religious teachings, adding:

"New scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

From this you can see that the Catholic faith no longer believes that the book Genesis is historical, it is to be interpreted as a religious text not one holding any merit in science. I don't think that the Catholic faith is going anywhere soon just because it adopted this viewpoint toward science, I think that it was strengthend by this adoption.

Hello Rocket. In the above statement by the Pope, one would assume that he is agreeing with the scientific viewpoint of evolution (non-teleological). However, evolution is one of those terms that is hard to pin down. Indeed, as you have rightly pointed out, evolution of life from non-life has nothing to do with the Darwinian evolution. Following that thought, it is apparent that the Pope also is not talking about Darwinian evolution, or at the least is proclaiming the same confusion of terms. Consider (from the same statement in 1996):

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

What is it that the Pope seems to be getting at? Well, in the next section, the Pope offers what he means. Consider:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

So we see that the Pope dissects theories according to their philosophical foundation. The Pope excludes compatibility with Darwin's version of evolution which is devoid of purpose and proclaimed to proceed wholly by natural means.

Were you aware of those aspects of the Pope's statement?

Personally, I think the Pope just blurs the issue in a way that must be carefully examined to get at the truth.

God Bless!

[Rocket]

Were you aware of those aspects of the Pope's statement?

I could not find his complete address, no(I didn't go out of my way to find it either). I didn't know that the Pope using the 'theory of evolution' to mean the broader subject of evolution and not what the theory of evolution points at(Darwinian evolution). It would've been much less confusing if he just said evolution or evolutionary theories instead of theory of evolution. Thanks for the insight.

However it is quite obvious that the Catholic faith has adopted Darwinian evolution over the Genesis account.

[markedward]

#1: Without any secular evidence of the Jesus's life and miracles, how do you justify his existence? (this is a big issue with me becoming a Christian)

Two things to say:

1. Two first-century historians (one Jewish, one Roman, neither Christian) verify the existence of Christ. The Jewish source, Josephus, mentions Jesus in two instances. (The first instance is generally accepted to have been corrupted from what Josephus originally wrote in favor of Christianity, but cross-referencing the various translations of his writings from history do show that he did say something regarding Jesus, including that He was crucified under Pilate.) Tacitus mentions the followers of a person identified as "Christus", and that these people were called the Christians.

2. Why is it that the Biblical accounts of Jesus' existence don't count in His favor? Just because something speaks in favor of Him doesn't mean it's inaccurate or untrue. "Well, we have numerous documents dating back to the first-century, written by people who knew Christ or knew people who knew Christ, and they say He existed. Let's discount it as evidence!" That's exactly the opposite of how data-gathering works. It's not like we would do the same thing with George Washington. "Well, we have numerous documents dating to the late eighteenth-century, written by people who knew Washington or people who knew people who knew Washington. Thus, what they say is false." It's a pure double-standard.

#2: Darwinian evolution(If by theistic evolution you are actually talking about Darwinian evolution then by all means do not answer this question. I have no intention of breaking your forums rules) is something that I adhere to in its entirety, is it crucial for Christians to not 'believe' in evolution?

Although very many Christians would point out that the Bible, in many places, explicitly states that God created the heavens and earth in six days, you've still got quite a few Christians who believe those six days were Biblical symbolism of six "ages", and that God did create life through evolution. (I'm a young-earth individual, but there are old-earth/evolutionists out there who are Christians.)

#3: I'm looking for some literature which inspires people toward your religion. I have read a few books in the bible but I haven't read every book. Would you be able to suggest for me anything?

I'm not huge on recommending books, mostly because I don't know what you're looking for. Just a tip for you, though (since this seems to be in your alley); the Bible isn't a science book. It was not intended to convey science, nor is it intended to be read scientifically (don't throw the Bible out just because it says the "sun stood still in the sky"; we still say "sunrise" and "sunset"), and, most of all, recognize the fact that if something seemingly contradicts science, that doesn't mean it was impossible. That's the whole point of miracles; they defy the natural. (Jonah was swallowed by a giant sea creature, yet nothing exists that could do it? Um... miracle. People can't seem to get it in their heads that miracles, by definition, defy the natural workings of the universe.)

[Rocket]

Parts of the atheistic theories of creation can be demonstrated in a laboratory but only very small parts. We can demonstrate adaption but not macro-evolution - we cannot demonstrate one species becoming another even when we start with very simple life-forms. We cannot create life from non-life - we can theorise about how it might have worked but cannot replicate it from any one of our theories.

It isn't an atheistic theory, it's a scientific theory. I'm a Deist and I cannot come up with any qualm with evolution that cannot be answered by someone more educated in the area. We have observed speciation, many times. Just search Google for "Observed Instances of Speciation". You're right on the attack on abogenisis as the hypothisies that they present are very young and only parts of them have been experimented.

Looking at your theory of how the eye might have evolved from nothing, if skin cells are photosensitive it would seem to offer a greater evolutionary advantage for our entire bodies to be able to see - having two eyes grants binocular vision but doesn't allow us to see predators approaching from behind, and so on. If our skin was photosensitive why didn't we simply develop a covering of eyes that would let us know everything that was going on around us?...

Obviously not... However we do see creatures that have embraced a covering of eyes, such as 'Ophiocoma Wendtii'. In the Cambrian it wasn't uncommon to find creatures covered with eyes. However for some reason or another they found it to be more of a hindrance than a help.

Why only two highly developed eyes?

We have two eyes because it is optimal for what we are, spiders have eight because it is optimal for what they do... Two eyes are the norm, because one eye doesn't offer depth perception whilst two will do the job. Three eyes will offer nothing of value in humans... Darwin tackles this in 'The Origin of Species' as well.

You mentioned gravity - we might struggle to categorically prove the formula of -gMm/R^2 but we can see the effects of gravity in our day to day life. With evolution we can see things around us and theorise but you cannot prove that it happened any more than I can prove it didn't. If either side could produce categoric proof then the other side would soon crumble. So it boils down to what you want to believe, and I find it easier to believe in a Creator than in a succession of cosmic flukes.

You are pointing to the law of gravitational attraction, not the theory of gravity. And if you look up the definition of "theory", "law" and "hypothesis"(I hypothisised how the eye could've evolved, I didn't theorise) then you'd soon find your argument that with proof one side would concede.

[tango]

It isn't an atheistic theory, it's a scientific theory. I'm a Deist and I cannot come up with any qualm with evolution that cannot be answered by someone more educated in the area. We have observed speciation, many times. Just search Google for "Observed Instances of Speciation". You're right on the attack on abogenisis as the hypothisies that they present are very young and only parts of them have been experimented.

I've called it an atheistic theory because in the absence of God we have to come up with some kind of alternative explanation as to why we are here.

You say you are a Deist, what do you believe in regarding God?

I looked over a couple of articles from the search you mentioned and found that in all but one case a hybridization occurred between two species within the same genus. We can see this in any form of cross-breeding. The only one that raised my eyebrows was this one:

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

The article doesn't say what he had to do to achieve such a cross but does suggest that although the plants were technically capable of reproducing with each other the end result appears to offer no benefit. Whether such a species would ever have arisen without human interference is unclear, as is whether it would have survived for more than a generation or two even if it had.

Obviously not... However we do see creatures that have embraced a covering of eyes, such as 'Ophiocoma Wendtii'. In the Cambrian it wasn't uncommon to find creatures covered with eyes. However for some reason or another they found it to be more of a hindrance than a help.

We have two eyes because it is optimal for what we are, spiders have eight because it is optimal for what they do... Two eyes are the norm, because one eye doesn't offer depth perception whilst two will do the job. Three eyes will offer nothing of value in humans... Darwin tackles this in 'The Origin of Species' as well.

I don't know about you but I have to think that having at least one eye in the back of our heads would be a useful defence against predators. Of course having two rear-facing eyes would give us the binocular vision required to gauge the distance of the predator. Perhaps eyes in our feet would help us spot things like snakes before they got too close, and so on.

Starting from the idea of skin cells being photosensitive, the first human to have that extra eye would have a clear advantage over their peers, so such a feature would be more likely to appear in us as a species.

Having a face covered in eyes wouldn't help us, but to be able to see above us and behind us most definitely would.

You are pointing to the law of gravitational attraction, not the theory of gravity. And if you look up the definition of "theory", "law" and "hypothesis"(I hypothisised how the eye could've evolved, I didn't theorise) then you'd soon find your argument that with proof one side would concede.

But we're still back to two competing theories of how we got here, neither of which can be proven. In a scientific world theories wouldn't be taught as facts until they are proven - in your example we would be better off explaining in physics lessons that gravity is a theory rather than using that example as an excuse to gloss over other aspects of teaching being theoretical.

Otherwise science lessons take on the same status as religious education based on faith, which the Bible tells us is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 1:11, ESV)

[jesuslover1968]

Hello, I'm a Deist and I've come to ask some questions to some people who believe in the bible(Do you capitalize "bible"?). At the moment I am seriously considering Christianity but I have many qualms with it. I've organized a meeting with a pastor to discuss my problems that I would be unable to discuss in this forum.

Hi there. I wanted to touch on something that I don't think anyone else did.

I am glad that you are going to talk to a pastor, but let me just say a thing...or maybe two...knowing me, it'll be more like three.
You said you were 'seriously considering' christianity. Christianity is not just a "religion you can pick out of the many different religions out there" Christianity is more than that. It is not so much a religion. It is a belief. Religion is a manmade concept where the person tries to earn his way to God. That cannot be done. There is nothing that you can do to earn your way to God, and there are NO good people...no not one. Only by the sacrificial death on the cross of Jesus Christ can you or any of us be saved. It is not to be approached scientifically, but spiritually. God gave us an intellect, this is true, but we use it for our own devices. As I do not believe in evolution, it is a theory only..which scientifically means it doesn't really exist...you obviously have the ability to have faith if you believe in evolution because you believe something that is not proven...yet you require proof of God? The one who gives you the breath that you breathe? ( even if you deny God, that does not change the fact that He gave you life and continues to do so through His will, not yours...)
You are also mistaken in thinking there is no "secular" proof in God. There is. People just refute it and deny it to be true...just like they do with God...doesn't mean it isn't so no matter how hard people try. Every person knows God is God. He hard-wired us ALL that way. If you don't believe in God, it is because you made a choice. That choice will either send you to be with Jesus for eternity, or be without Jesus for eternity. Just the fact that you say you are seeking Christ is proof that you believe in God, or you wouldn't be seeking. God Himself gives us the knowledge that we are a fallen being and need something ( HIM ) to restore us back to Him, or to restore us back to the way we ( Adam ) were really created, as a non-fallen being who had fellowship with God and lived eternally. ( not as gods, for there is only one God...)
Anyway, this is the kind of talk that you will get from Christians. If you aren't ready to deal with that, then it isn't your time. You see, God calls YOU. No matter how much YOU decide you want to be a Christian, if God doesn't call you, you cannot respond to Him in reality because we are ALL born dead. SPIRITUALLY. If He doesn't give us the ability to respond to His call, then we cannot come to Him. ( miracle....)
If you truly seek to be in relationship with Jesus Christ, then call on Him, pray to Him. Ask Him to give you life. If he doesn't, worship Him anyway because He IS WORTHY.

[Rocket]

I've called it an atheistic theory because in the absence of God we have to come up with some kind of alternative explanation as to why we are here.

You say you are a Deist, what do you believe in regarding God?

I've expressed my feelings about a Deistic god before. To be honest, I don't know. But there is some reason that animals have cognitive thinking that can be used to deduct truths about the universe. Curiosity is what drives forward technology(not to imply that we're moving toward utopia because of it, utopia cannot be created by mankind) and knowledge.

I looked over a couple of articles from the search you mentioned and found that in all but one case a hybridization occurred between two species within the same genus. We can see this in any form of cross-breeding. The only one that raised my eyebrows was this one:

No, I haven't found an instance of a new genus being created either. But a new species is quite common. We could wait until we see evidence of an unassisted creation of a new genus but then we'd have to wait it out again on the creation of a new family and so on... If we don't observe the creation of a new genus I'm sure that some people will play devil's advocate.

I don't know about you but I have to think that having at least one eye in the back of our heads would be a useful defence against predators. Of course having two rear-facing eyes would give us the binocular vision required to gauge the distance of the predator. Perhaps eyes in our feet would help us spot things like snakes before they got too close, and so on.

Well, you don't have to have eyes in the back of your head to be able to see behind you. Also humans are predators not prey(to most things that is). I'm unsure about this but I'm fairly certain that 1/3rd of our brain is taken up by optical processors. If we had a set in the back of our eyes not only would we need to process more optically we'd also need to process more for mechanical functions. Three eyes would be a detriment for most predators and prey because of the loss of coordination.

But we're still back to two competing theories of how we got here, neither of which can be proven. In a scientific world theories wouldn't be taught as facts until they are proven - in your example we would be better off explaining in physics lessons that gravity is a theory rather than using that example as an excuse to gloss over other aspects of teaching being theoretical.

All science is theoretical. However if you look up the definition of theory the practicality of understanding said theory does not go out the window because we haven't observed every possible instance that the theory relates to in the universe. Theories require hard evidence to be considered, without evidence they're a mere hypothesis. If one piece of evidence contradicts said theory, it is thrown out the window or rethought. Newtonian mechanics has been found to be fallacious when acting under extremes(we're working to correct this but in the meantime the current theory works for all earthly calculations), evolution has never had once instance of a piece of evidence contradicting it in 150 years.

The difference betwixt science and theology is massive. Theology is the study of gods while science is the study of our god's world. And as Thomas Paine thought, science is the true theology.

Otherwise science lessons take on the same status as religious education based on faith, which the Bible tells us is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 1:11, ESV)

No. Theories must first be observed and must explain all previous observations and predict future observations(I can see how this last part ties up with the quote, being human we're going to have faith that our predictions are correct, however we shouldn't if we're to adhere to the true method of science).

Hi there.

Hi. Nice to meet you

God gave us an intellect, this is true, but we use it for our own devices. As I do not believe in evolution, it is a theory only..which scientifically means it doesn't really exist...you obviously have the ability to have faith if you believe in evolution because you believe something that is not proven...yet you require proof of God?

Theory != Hypothesis. Here's a quick run down: Theory = (proven)Why, Law = (proven)How, Fact = (used to prove)What, Hypothesis = (unproven)Could. I believe in a god. Not specifically Yahweh, as I take most of the bible to be an allegory.

...Anyway, this is the kind of talk that you will get from Christians. If you aren't ready to deal with that, then it isn't your time. You see, God calls YOU. No matter how much YOU decide you want to be a Christian, if God doesn't call you, you cannot respond to Him in reality because we are ALL born dead. SPIRITUALLY. If He doesn't give us the ability to respond to His call, then we cannot come to Him. ( miracle....)
If you truly seek to be in relationship with Jesus Christ, then call on Him, pray to Him. Ask Him to give you life. If he doesn't, worship Him anyway because He IS WORTHY.

This has been touched on quite a bit by some of the church(do you capitalise church?) goers.

Just a little bit of info on what's actually happening. I've began to go to church(I've done so twice now) and I'm beginning to feel good whilst worshiping. I guess I should ask you to pray for me .

[tango]

No, I haven't found an instance of a new genus being created either. But a new species is quite common. We could wait until we see evidence of an unassisted creation of a new genus but then we'd have to wait it out again on the creation of a new family and so on... If we don't observe the creation of a new genus I'm sure that some people will play devil's advocate.

So in 150 years of the theory of evolution we still don't have specific examples that prove it.

Well, you don't have to have eyes in the back of your head to be able to see behind you. Also humans are predators not prey(to most things that is). I'm unsure about this but I'm fairly certain that 1/3rd of our brain is taken up by optical processors. If we had a set in the back of our eyes not only would we need to process more optically we'd also need to process more for mechanical functions. Three eyes would be a detriment for most predators and prey because of the loss of coordination.

I'd say if I was out hunting dinner with my club while avoiding sabre-toothed tigers and snakes I'd appreciate a few extra eyes so I could make sure I didn't become dinner for something else.

All science is theoretical. However if you look up the definition of theory the practicality of understanding said theory does not go out the window because we haven't observed every possible instance that the theory relates to in the universe. Theories require hard evidence to be considered, without evidence they're a mere hypothesis. If one piece of evidence contradicts said theory, it is thrown out the window or rethought. Newtonian mechanics has been found to be fallacious when acting under extremes(we're working to correct this but in the meantime the current theory works for all earthly calculations), evolution has never had once instance of a piece of evidence contradicting it in 150 years.

Has the belief that God created the world and everything in it had one instance of a piece of evidence contradicting it in 6000 years?

When a theory is believed to be true things that are observed are seen in the light of the prevailing belief. When people believed the sun revolved around the earth the fact it rose in one direction and set in the other was considered proof to them. With regard to the theory of evolution, how would you go about falsifying such a theory? If you cannot, you have to accept it is as much a belief of faith as believing in creation.

No. Theories must first be observed and must explain all previous observations and predict future observations(I can see how this last part ties up with the quote, being human we're going to have faith that our predictions are correct, however we shouldn't if we're to adhere to the true method of science).

So if I drop something from a height onto the ground and leave it there, someone can come along later and observe it for some time. They observe it does not move. Over time they come to conclude that it never moves, and therefore that it is completely immobile. Future observations prove their hypothesis, so it is now "known" that the object in question has never moved. Without information preceding the first observation of the object how would anybody know the truth of how the object got there?

[Rocket]

So in 150 years of the theory of evolution we still don't have specific examples that prove it.

Throughout our little debate I've given you little pieces of evidence that prove evolution. Such as several Endogenous Retro-Viruses that imprint our DNA(which we share 98.4% with chimpanzees). One of our chromosome being a fusion of two great ape chromosomes... The list goes on and that's just for the development of our genus.

I'd say if I was out hunting dinner with my club while avoiding sabre-toothed tigers and snakes I'd appreciate a few extra eyes so I could make sure I didn't become dinner for something else.

I could simply state "evolution doesn't work that way". But in some situations it does. The short answer is it would give the person with extra eyes a disadvantage. Perhaps one day it will be possible to cram another brain into our current. But more likely our eyes would move to the sides of our head to allow 360 degree vision.

Has the belief that God created the world and everything in it had one instance of a piece of evidence contradicting it in 6000 years?

So you mean I can't use evidence from early Sumer, Jericho or from any civilization that existed before 4000bc? OK, back to being serious. You can't disprove or prove the supernatural. Because it is an unknown. You can't prove or disprove the unknown. Page one of Genesis can disprove Genesis, specifically the word "Firmament".

When a theory is believed to be true things that are observed are seen in the light of the prevailing belief. When people believed the sun revolved around the earth the fact it rose in one direction and set in the other was considered proof to them. With regard to the theory of evolution, how would you go about falsifying such a theory? If you cannot, you have to accept it is as much a belief of faith as believing in creation.

Finding fossilized species that remain replicas of what they are today in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, etc periods. In fact finding one species that has remained the same across these periods and I'd send it immediately into a scientific journal of opinion and watch them rip the theory apart(I wouldn't have to do anything after I sent it in). Finding a species that doesn't have adaptation. Anything that doesn't adhere to the theory, it's instantly out of the window. Science doesn't defend the status quo. Science advances by attacking the status quo, it has to use its findings no matter what they are. The problem is all evidence we currently have has been intellectually fought out and in every case has been found to be supporting evolution.

So if I drop something from a height onto the ground and leave it there, someone can come along later and observe it for some time. They observe it does not move. Over time they come to conclude that it never moves, and therefore that it is completely immobile. Future observations prove their hypothesis, so it is now "known" that the object in question has never moved. Without information preceding the first observation of the object how would anybody know the truth of how the object got there?

We can never be 100% about any theory(as it's impossible for us to 've observed everything as you've kindly pointed out).