The evidence for Evolution.

[Kylie]

You actually talked about the dust thing.

Here is your post..

"If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science."

God formed man from the dust of the earth long before there was any science. Those who think otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

So scientific principles didn't apply? Then the forces that held atoms together to form dust didn't apply, and there was no dust.

You can't just handwave away science when it gets inconvenient.

 

[Kylie]

I have eternal life NOW. Those that believe will never die. The moving on from the old physical body is like clipping a fingernail, and it falls to the ground. We are not that fingernail...or this body. Both served a purpose and were a part of us for awhile.

You're not in Heaven yet...

Let me ask you, if you were crossing the road and you saw a huge truck speeding towards you, would you get out of the way?

 

[Kylie]

You actually talked about the dust thing.

Here is your post..

"If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science."

God formed man from the dust of the earth long before there was any science. Those who think otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

You are the one who brought up the different state past thing. I never said anything about what state it was in, so I can only assume you were trying to muddy the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me ask you, if you were crossing the road and you saw a huge truck speeding towards you, would you get out of the way?

If I'm crossing the road, I'm already in the process of getting out of the way.

 

[Kylie]

If I'm crossing the road, I'm already in the process of getting out of the way.

You know exactly what I mean. Do I have to spell it out for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Can you?

 

[Kylie]

Can you?

You are walking across the road. You see a truck speeding towards you and if you keep walking at the same rate it will hit you and kill you. You can avoid this by either stopping or moving faster. Do you do either of these?

Next time I won't humour you.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are walking across the road. You see a truck speeding towards you and if you keep walking at the same rate it will hit you and kill you. You can avoid this by either stopping or moving faster. Do you do either of these?

Next time I won't humour you.

Yes.

I would move faster.

 

[The Barbarian]

If she wants us to cater to evolution because others say it has occurred, when in fact it has never been observed, then she has another thing coming.

Barry Hall observed bacteria evolving an irreducibly-complex enzyme system.

Not only did a new enzyme evolve, but somewhat later, a regulator evolved.
A True Acid Test

 

[The Barbarian]

She seems miffed that Christians are challenging Darwin's theory;

Keep in mind, most Christians don't see any problem with Darwin's theory. Most of the world's Christians have no problem at all with it.

A few sects do, but they don't represent us as Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Barry Hall observed bacteria evolving an irreducibly-complex enzyme system.

I have no idea what this means.

Not only did a new enzyme evolve, but somewhat later, a regulator evolved.

What?

 

[AV1611VET]

Keep in mind, most Christians don't see any problem with Darwin's theory.

I'll admit I don't know what all it says; but as I understand it, even scientists have some trouble with it.

And I don't know what you mean by "Darwin's theory."

Are you talking about evolution? fight or flight? natural selection? what?

Most of the world's Christians have no problem at all with it.

I doubt most of the world's Christians would even know what you're talking about.

(Okay. I just Googled it and got DARWINISM and DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION. So take your pick, I guess. Science is one smorgasboard of confusion.)

I also found this: Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis, which I'm sure others here will either autodeny it, or rant about the site being associated with ICR or DI or some other blackhole they like to say isn't qualified to make paper planes.

A few sects do, but they don't represent us as Christians.

Now what in the world is that supposed to mean?

Even autodeniers here rant about 38,000 different sects of Christianity representing Christianity as a whole.

Are you saying anyone who would DARE claim "Darwin's Theory" is rubbish is some kind of rogue Christian that has been ostracized from the rest of the sect?

 

[dad]

I try to adopt the standards of science, which has no absolute certainties or proofs outside the analytic (mathematics and logic).

Math represents something. Whether the c in e=mc2, or the t in some formulas that represents time, and etc etc. Math therefore is most often religion! It is true that science has no proofs though...being a big lie that is the way it must always be for manscience. Ever learning but NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

For me, a fact is something that corresponds to a state of affairs that exists or has existed in the real world beyond reasonable doubt.

When one religiously uses only what exists to determine what did exist or will exist, there can be no fact involved.

To establish something beyond reasonable doubt requires a high standard of evidence.

And there is none of that for the bogus little anti bible creation fabricators that have fraudulently called themselves science.

No, it's not circular at all - we model aspects of the observable world,

Bingo! What we observe now, when superimposed onto the future or far past is circular reasoning. (unless and until you prove that they are the same .. and remember you can not use the present to determine that!)

If I was looking at God creating in the six days, and based everything on what was before the creation started, then I would be out of luck. You see He created, rather than molded something that was. Brand new earth...sun...universe...people..etc etc.

verify the model by making novel predictions and confirming them,

Circular once again. You cannot imbed assumptions and laws of the present INTO models of a different future or past!

then use the model to predict what we should expect to find if it applies in circumstances to which it has not previously been applied (e.g. the past). The more predictions our model makes that are satisfied in the real world, the more justification we have for confidence that it is a good model of those circumstances.

You insert bogus present state factors into the mix, so that whatever happens, the outcome will involve them, and be based on them...religion!

Come on over to the fair minded and open minded, informed side! The side that has truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Math represents something. Whether the c in e=mc2, or the t in some formulas that represents time, and etc etc. Math therefore is most often religion!

You're thinking of applied mathematics. Not all maths is representational (e.g. pure maths). Unlike religion, applied mathematics is a useful tool for producing practical real-world results through engineering, etc.

It is true that science has no proofs though...being a big lie that is the way it must always be for manscience. Ever learning but NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Well, no. A lie is a deliberate falsehood. The results of science are generally models that are extremely close approximations to how the world is observed to behave. If science is a lie, then all close approximations to the truth are lies, which would make translations (in fact all interpersonal communications) lies, which would make the scriptures lies. Oops...

When one religiously uses only what exists to determine what did exist or will exist, there can be no fact involved.

You mean like when you religiously use scripture, e.g. the bible, to determine what did exist or will exist?

We can only use what exists - trying to use what doesn't exist won't get you very far. This is the contrast between science and religion.

What we observe now, when superimposed onto the future or far past is circular reasoning. (unless and until you prove that they are the same .. and remember you can not use the present to determine that!)

I already explained how it is done without circularity. You are in exactly the same position yourself - you only have what you observe, know, and remember now to describe what may have happened in the past and what may happen in the future - and humans being what they are, that's a pretty unreliable basis. The scientific method explicitly addresses such unreliabilities.

If the physical laws of the distant past were not the same as those we observe today, the predictions science makes about what we should expect to observe today, based on the assumption that they were the same, would not be accurate - but they are accurate; and that's how we know the physical laws of the past were the same as they are today. Call it circular if you wish, but it works.

...You cannot imbed assumptions and laws of the present INTO models of a different future or past!

Of course you can - and if those assumptions turn out to be wrong, your predictions based on them will not be correct. If those predictions are consistently correct, you can be pretty sure your assumptions were correct.

Come on over to the fair minded and open minded, informed side! The side that has truth.

LOL!

 

[Ophiolite]

Keep in mind, most Christians don't see any problem with Darwin's theory. Most of the world's Christians have no problem at all with it.

A few sects do, but they don't represent us as Christians.

I suspect most, if not all, of the atheists and agnostics who participate in these threads understand this is the case. I appreciate you taking the time to remind us all that we are dealing with a minority who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to reconcile evidence with their beliefs.

 

[dad]

You are the one who brought up the different state past thing. I never said anything about what state it was in, so I can only assume you were trying to muddy the issue.

To bring up the past is to bring up one state or another. In any case you have no proof for it.
As for Jesus forming man from the dust of the earth, there is no reason to doubt it.

 

[dad]

You're not in Heaven yet...

Let me ask you, if you were crossing the road and you saw a huge truck speeding towards you, would you get out of the way?

Eternal life is a gift of Jesus to all that ask. We have it now. We will continue to have that gift when we leave our bodies.

 

[dad]

So scientific principles didn't apply? Then the forces that held atoms together to form dust didn't apply, and there was no dust.

You can't just handwave away science when it gets inconvenient.

The forces that govern atoms indeed may have been different. How would we know whether there was other forces at work also that affected the atomic world? How would we know if the nuclear forces were exactly the same and etc??

 

[Subduction Zone]

The forces that govern atoms indeed may have been different. How would we know whether there was other forces at work also that affected the atomic world? How would we know if the nuclear forces were exactly the same and etc??

Because human life itself would not be possible if the changes that you want to happen occurred. And you need to show that there would be no evidence of such a change. Actual scientists disagree with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll admit I don't know what all it says; but as I understand it, even scientists have some trouble with it.

I know a few engineers who don't understand it. A chemist. No biologist has trouble getting it.

And I don't know what you mean by "Darwin's theory."

Not knowing what you're talking about can be a disadvantage.

Are you talking about evolution? fight or flight? natural selection? what?

Might be useful to read the book so that you could contribute something to the discussion.

I also found this: Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis,

Michael Denton, who wrote that book, has since changed his mind about a lot of things...


it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.


In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Are you saying anyone who would DARE claim "Darwin's Theory" is rubbish

I don't know why you inserted "DARE" into this. Sounds like a strawman building...

is some kind of rogue Christian that has been ostracized from the rest of the sect?

I have no idea what a "rogue Christian" might be. I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of Christians belong to sects that acknowledge evolution is consistent with our faith.