Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Meowzltov]

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

When you begin your post with something this silly, I don't bother reading the rest.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you begin your post with something this silly, I don't bother reading the rest.

Proof is for math and whiskey. Science uses evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you begin your post with something this silly, I don't bother reading the rest.

Then here's something else you may not bother to read:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.

SOURCE

 

[Meowzltov]

Proof is for math and whiskey. Science uses evidence.

Oh, oh oh. I see what you are saying. I thought you meant something completely different.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, oh oh. I see what you are saying. I thought you meant something completely different.

The other problem is sloppy language. Scientists will talk about "proving" theories, or that such-and-such has been proven. In these cases they are using the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It is important to differentiate between tentative "proof" and absolute proof. No theory or conclusion in science is considered absolute. All theories and conclusions are considered tentatively true.

 

[ecco]

I think the first fish were eels. Their resemblence to worms is obvious.

Here is a picture of the worm (Pikaia gracilens) from which all fish (and therefore humans) evolved:

Sea Life predated land life.

 

[Meowzltov]

No theory or conclusion in science is considered absolute. All theories and conclusions are considered tentatively true.

Of course. Such is life.

 

[Meowzltov]

Sea Life predated land life.

Of course. Not that this had squat to do with what I said.

 

[As I was saying]

You are taking it by faith that the Bible is God speaking to you. You don't know it for a fact. Same for me.

Just because you don't know doesn't mean someone else doesn't know.

 

[As I was saying]

I'm sorry you're not as familiar with your favourite book as you seem to want us to think.

I am not aware that I want you to think anything. What you think is of no concern of mine. The only thing that interests me is what I know and don't know. When I want to know and don't know, I delve into the topic with enthusiasm and read widely to get as many viewpoints as I can. The last topic I studied included reading what the bible said about it, reading articles on the internet and reading over 40 books on the subject. In all it took me two years of study.

I am currently studying Islam and so far this year I have read numerous books on the subject, mostly written by muslims. Plus I have read books written by people who are experts on Islam.

 

[gtmyers]

The bible is accurate on the creation story. Notice I said story. It was a good story to tell to children during the last 6000 years give or take. It made people feel secure knowing god created it. They just didn't understand science like we do today. It's been evolving since God created it whenever that was. God created the universe in his way in his timing and included evolution in this process. Science does not have all the answers but it's learning.

 

[ecco]

Open HeartL

Here is a picture of the worm (Pikaia gracilens) from which all fish (and therefore humans) evolved:​

ecco said: ↑

Sea Life predated land life.​

Of course. Not that this had squat to do with what I said.

You did say that all fish (sea life) evolved from worms (land life). So, yeah, it has everything to do with what you said.

 

[Cearbhall]

All this to say that there are MANY ways to believe in God yet also believe in evolution.

Thank you so much for starting this thread. I love the way that you stated it all. I'm so appreciative of the fact that I was raised as a theistic evolutionist rather than being taught to think that one side is a threat to the other. Any event can be attributed to divine providence. Fundamentalists need not deny evolution to keep their faith.

 

[Armoured]

I am not aware that I want you to think anything. What you think is of no concern of mine. The only thing that interests me is what I know and don't know. When I want to know and don't know, I delve into the topic with enthusiasm and read widely to get as many viewpoints as I can. The last topic I studied included reading what the bible said about it, reading articles on the internet and reading over 40 books on the subject. In all it took me two years of study.

I am currently studying Islam and so far this year I have read numerous books on the subject, mostly written by muslims. Plus I have read books written by people who are experts on Islam.

Funny then you never noticed the bit about Adam being made from dirt.

 

[As I was saying]

Funny then you never noticed the bit about Adam being made from dirt.

Non sequitur

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundamentalists need not deny evolution to keep their faith.

That's right.

But when evolution starts to deny our faith, then we should deny evolution.

Microevolution is one thing, but then it goes too far and needs to be put in its place.

Psalm 104:9a Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;

God has set boundaries that nature cannot cross -- including time.

 

[Armoured]

Non sequitur

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Meowzltov]

But when evolution starts to deny our faith, then we should deny evolution.

Microevolution is one thing, but then it goes too far and needs to be put in its place.

There is nothing about evolution that denies out faith.

The only difference between Microevolution and regular Evolution is TIME. Take Microevolution and give it an ancient earth, and it will evolve from one species to another. And life has been around on earth from between 3900 million years to 2500 million years--that's certainly enough time for regular evolution. All the geologic evidence supports an ancient earth (radiometric dating, fossil evidence, gradual processes of rock).

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing about evolution that denies out faith.

The only difference between Microevolution and regular Evolution is TIME. Take Microevolution and give it an ancient earth, and it will evolve from one species to another. And life has been around on earth from between 3900 million years to 2500 million years--that's certainly enough time for regular evolution. All the geologic evidence supports an ancient earth (radiometric dating, fossil evidence, gradual processes of rock).

QV please:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-19#post-68693331

And QV my answer:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-20#post-68693355

 

[bhsmte]

Thank you so much for starting this thread. I love the way that you stated it all. I'm so appreciative of the fact that I was raised as a theistic evolutionist rather than being taught to think that one side is a threat to the other. Any event can be attributed to divine providence. Fundamentalists need not deny evolution to keep their faith.

Fundies do need to deny and demonize evolution, to hold onto and protect, their literal interpretation of biblical creationism.

Some can't let go of the black and white thinking and literal interpretation and there are ample examples of that on this site.