Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

This is where our perspective on evolution really matters

That's like saying dropping bombs or building schools is where our perspective on gravity really matters.

So from my perspective, the ethics issue is not where we can improve normal people (as we our design will always be inferior to God's), it is more about when we mess up, how do we deal with the defective products (in this case they are actual people).

Most people with things like muscular dystrophy don't think of themselves as "defective." They just have medical problems. And yes, that kind of thinking is an issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. We have no evidence of design whatsoever. But we have a massive amount of evidence for random mutation and natrual selection.

Hypotheses for science must be testable. Your guess is not. It's a perfectly valid religion, but it can't be science.

How are you repeatably test/verify you can evolve some primate to human?

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, says that one way is the series of hominid transitionals, which he calls "Very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Another would be genetic data. And it's been tested on organisms of known descent, so we know it works. Yet another is evolutionary development, which shows how the same genes are modified to produce new functions from old structures. Yet another would be observed evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Lots more. Do you want to see more?

Did you also put massive amount of assumption as well?

Evidence. Science works on evidence.

As you have learned, they said their solution is Pareto optimum, they know their solution.

They know what it is. They just don't know precisely why it's the optimum. So you are totally wrong on this one. Not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand this.

 

[dcalling]

They know what it is. They just don't know precisely why it's the optimum. So you are totally wrong on this one. Not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand this.

This is the most laughable response ever
Of course they know why it is the optimum, they know all the conditions (and that is why they can model it with algorithms), and how all is calculated (f(x) is known), and all they are doing is using a different optimizer for it. Which part of my statement do you disagree?

 

[The Barbarian]

This is the most laughable response ever

Well, let's take a look...

Of course they know why it is the optimum, they know all the conditions

Actually, there's still much that isn't known about how turbulence affects burning in diesel cylinders. This is why they use genetic algorithms.

(and that is why they can model it with algorithms),

You have it backwards. They start with a problem, and end with a solution.

 

[dcalling]

Well, let's take a look...



Actually, there's still much that isn't known about how turbulence affects burning in diesel cylinders. This is why they use genetic algorithms.



You have it backwards. They start with a problem, and end with a solution.

You are mixing the modeling and solution.

They setup their model (algrithm design) after known data (and maybe assumptions). All they are trying to do there is to archive their set goal (a balanced fuel efficiency and emission). All other factors (such as turbulence effects) are factored out already.

Only computer illiterates believe computer can solve real world solutions that does not have a well defined model without real world testing.

So given that, now do you know why they know their solution?

 

[2tim_215]

People design algorithms, they don't design them themselves. What you may be thinking of is AI and trying to associate it with evolution.
There are number of meanings of evolution according to the dictionary:

Dictionary Definition of evolution (m-w.com)
1a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.— Stephen Jay Gould also: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.— Nature In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.— Pamela Weintraub

b: the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) :PHYLOGENY

2a: a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING

b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION

c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH

(2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance

d: something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4: the extraction of a mathematical root

5: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

6: one of a set of prescribed movements
2c1 which I'm sure is not how you view it but as far as mankind's knowledge is concerned, it certainly has evolved, and in a very rapid pace in recent years. This not chimps evolving into people however, no matter how much mumbo jumbo science you might supply us with, which I must say, is impressive in terms of your knowledge of the subject. Yes, man has evolved to a great extent in terms of his knowledge, but not the way you claim it has. There is no natural selection, it's God selection and how a man of science can claim that there is no intelligent design in this universe, is beyond me. All this does is give atheists a God alternative for their non-belief.

What it seems you're doing is giving a fancy name ("Genetic Algorithm") to a programming design technique similar to AI which uses recursive programming and step wise refinement techniques, a common method in software design methodology.

 

[NobleMouse]

I don't think anyone has a problem with "evolution" in the sense of variations of life forms - it is observable that there are variations of horses, humans, dogs, mice that write in forums, etc... but suggesting that humans haven't always been "human" or dogs haven't always been "dogs" and so forth, and that all life arose from a single common ancestor, is a conclusion that is 1) primarily based on inferences, assumptions, and biased interpretations of data, and 2) cannot be observed or repeated by experiment - hence it fails the very definition of being a scientific theory. Further, this notion of biological evolution from a common universal ancestor is in direct contrast to what is written in God's word and is the practical application of placing man's word above God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

1) primarily based on inferences, assumptions, and biased interpretations of data, and 2) cannot be observed or repeated by experiment - hence it fails the very definition of being a scientific theory.

That's wrong. If you were right, there would be no astronomy, no geology, no forensics. The notion that we can't know anything that we didn't personally see, is to deny that giant redwood trees can grow to maturity from a seed. If you learn nothing else about science, learn that.

Further, this notion of biological evolution from a common universal ancestor is in direct contrast to what is written in God's word

It's in direct contrast to the modern revision of God's word by YE creationists. But it's completely consistent with His word as it is. YE creationism is the practical application of placing man's word above God's word.

 

[NobleMouse]

All support in favor of evolution beyond adaptation of life simply adapting to its environment, but never ceasing to be what it has always been from the beginning (birds have always been birds, fish have always been fish, humans have always been humans, etc...) is not based on anything beyond speculation, assumptions & conjecture.

In light of the fact that there is no unequivocal evidence of what happened in the beginning, seems reasonable for the Christian to trust God's word... at least for those who consider His word more authoritative than their imaginations.

 

[The Barbarian]

All support in favor of evolution beyond adaptation of life simply adapting to its environment, but never ceasing to be what it has always been from the beginning (birds have always been birds, fish have always been fish, humans have always been humans, etc...) is not based on anything beyond speculation, assumptions & conjecture.

Comes down to evidence. Even honest creationists admit that the evidence supports common descent.

In light of the fact that there is no unequivocal evidence of what happened in the beginning, seems reasonable for the Christian to trust God's word..

Instead, YE creationists support man’s revision of God’s word... they consider His word less authoritative than their imaginations.

 

[2tim_215]

An old earth doesn't prove evolution nor disproves the Bible.

 

[NobleMouse]

To all: belief in evolution is a faith and a religion - the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. And worse still to the folly of many it is the word of man (never claims to be otherwise), and is given authority, by some, over the word of God (which the Bible claims to be the word of God).

Here is a great illustration showing the extent of unjustified speculation and unchecked imagination at work within the evolutionary community (on the topic of whale evolution and the development of echolocation):

"...four prerequisites: the ability to produce the sounds, the ability to receive them, the ability to interpret them, and the ability to act on the information. If any one of those traits were missing, echolocation would not work. Think of just a few of the parts involved: phonic lips, sealed chambers, expanding storage sacs, a melon with the right audio characteristics and muscles to focus the sounds, a jaw with teeth and specialized tissues to amplify the echoes, a specialized cochlea that can hear high frequencies, and a brain that knows how to process all that information. How many coordinated mutations would that take?"

Excerpt from: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/early_whale_ech/

On top of all of this, nowhere has it ever been observed, measured, repeated, or results validated where say phonic lips develop, expanding storage sacs emerge, or tissues with specialized to amplify echos materialize. No, no, and no. No to all of it, scientists never ever e-v-e-r observed or have been able to reproduce these results using things like random mutation and natural selection... retaining beneficial changes and discarding useless functions - all orchestrating the ability to perform echolocation. All of it... imagined.

@The Barbarian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since your view of God is that He operates confined within the realm of methodical naturalism, I'm going to pose to you the same question I posted in another thread:

How did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead when He called him out of the tomb? My view is that God can and will work in supernatural ways and can create a universe that is billions of light years wide in a day, can create life in a day, can raise the dead to life, and does all with His living and all-powerful word... so while I cannot explain it in human scientific terms, I believe Jesus simply only had to call out, "Lazarus, come out!" that this is what raised Lazarus to life... but let's see how you scientifically explain this for everyone here - or perhaps like others you will waffle back and forth: that Jesus did do miracles, but used only natural means for all of creation - even though His word tells us that creation was just as miraculous as raising the dead to life and both are written as matter-of-fact, it happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus and every OT/NT author in the Bible all affirm the events of Genesis as historical so this isn't some desperate grasping at straws by a few weirdos in the theological community. It was what was always believed until some started to stray from this understanding. You seriously think that the 4th commandment about the Sabbath was written (by God... on stone... twice) because creation was a period that spanned billions of years?? Here is the 4th commandment:

“the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates” (Exodus 20:10).

Moving onto the next verse:

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11).

So, from the very beginning when God revealed this truth, it was understood that God made heaven and earth and this was all in 6 days (regardless of what Darwin or Lyell believed... or what you believe).

 

[The Barbarian]

To all: belief in evolution is a faith and a religion

Scientists don't "believe in" in evolution. They accept it on evidence. As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise says, the many fossil transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Here is a great illustration showing the extent of unjustified speculation and unchecked imagination at work within the evolutionary community (on the topic of whale evolution and the development of echolocation):

"...four prerequisites: the ability to produce the sounds, the ability to receive them, the ability to interpret them, and the ability to act on the information. If any one of those traits were missing, echolocation would not work. Think of just a few of the parts involved: phonic lips, sealed chambers, expanding storage sacs, a melon with the right audio characteristics and muscles to focus the sounds, a jaw with teeth and specialized tissues to amplify the echoes, a specialized cochlea that can hear high frequencies, and a brain that knows how to process all that information. How many coordinated mutations would that take?"
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/early_whale_ech/

Your guy is stuffed with prunes. Humans, for example, can echolocate. Go to a large, empty space like a gymnasium. Go to the center of the court. Close your eyes, and walk forward, slapping the soles of your shoes on the floor. You will find that you can detect your rough distance from the walls. This was used by the Vikings:


Seven-year-old blind boy 'uses echoes to see'

Lucas Murray, a seven-year-old blind boy, is thought to be the first in Britain to use echoes to visualise his surroundings.
Seven-year-old blind boy 'uses echoes to see'

"Echo Sailors" Navigate in fog...
Popular Mechanics

Vikings navigated in fog-wrapped coastal waters by shouting and listening for the echos off fijord walls.

So none of that stuff is necessary for echolocation. All of it is useful to refine and increase the acuity of echolocation. Which is why we see all sorts of levels of echolocation in mammals and whales.

It was once thought that only toothed whales echolocate. But in fact, at least some baleen whales can use a rudimentary form of echolocation which isn't as good as that of toothed whales, but is better than ours.

Would you like to learn some of the details?

Since your view of God is that He operates confined within the realm of methodical naturalism

If you have to make up opinions and then claim that I hold them, isn't that a clue that your position isn't very solid? God does most things by nature in this world. If you believe that He is "confined" to natural processes, then you and I disagree on that point.

If you claim that God is "confined" to natural processes, how did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead when He called him out of the tomb? I don't think you've considered this very well. So I'll give you a start:

The fact that God does so many things by natural processes in this world does not in any way mean that He is "confined" (your term) to doing things by natural processes. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Jesus and every OT/NT author in the Bible all affirm the events of Genesis as historical

I just took a look. And there doesn't seem to be one verse in which He says the Genesis account of creation is historical. If you depend on man's revision of His word as the YE creationists do, you'll be continually misled. Even most ancient Christians realized that the creation story wasn't a literal history. That is a very modern revision by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.

 

[NobleMouse]

Scientists don't "believe in" in evolution. They accept it on evidence. As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise says, the many fossil transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I don't care what Kurt Wise says, I care what God says - moving on. Also, evolution proponents do NOT accept evolution on "evidence" there is no evidence... there are inferences, speculations, abstract thinking, etc... evolution is not based upon evidence, it is based upon metaphysics - it is an abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Your guy is stuffed with prunes. Humans, for example, can echolocate. Go to a large, empty space like a gymnasium. Go to the center of the court. Close your eyes, and walk forward, slapping the soles of your shoes on the floor. You will find that you can detect your rough distance from the walls. This was used by the Vikings:

Not even a response. Stop, and think about what you just wrote: I referenced all these beneficial mutations that would have to happen, together, harmonized to form an effective system that whales use to echolocate and your only response is to point out that humans can "echolocate" (which is not the same - whales use different organs and muscles to do this than humans). In your exaggerated bent of abstract thinking you failed to actually connect any concrete observable evidence about how this ability arises from nowhere. I'm going to just completely skip your reference to the blind boy as that is nothing more than a rabbit trail that does nothing to answer how the ability to echolocate would ever allegedly arise from nothing.

Looks like you spent most of your post beating an already dead horse into the ground so I'll skip further down. By the way, the simple answer to how whales developed the ability is that God created them on day 5 with the ability from the beginning.

If you have to make up opinions and then claim that I hold them, isn't that a clue that your position isn't very solid? God does most things by nature in this world. If you believe that He is "confined" to natural processes, then you and I disagree on that point.

My position is solid because it is what God's word says - if God said it took long ages then I would believe long ages - if He said it took only 1 day I would believe it was 1 day. Your position is a joke because 1) it's not supported by the Bible, and 2) is also not supported scientifically - it's nothing more than conjecture sprinkled with a few factual observations that happen here in the present. You simply imagine what it would take to produce the evidence you see, but you cannot repeat what you are imagining... in the real world. Nice try.

The fact that God does so many things by natural processes in this world does not in any way mean that He is "confined" (your term) to doing things by natural processes. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Already off to a false start, you make the false pretense of "the fact that God does so many things by natural processes", but then add no support scripturally (like maybe if you just ran out of the starting gate sounding confident then maybe it would be true). I can cite all of Genesis 1 to show that when a being makes the command and things like light is separated from dark, that stars are created, vegetation sprouts, etc... is not something we observe in the natural world today and this is evidence (real evidence) of a miraculous creation.

I just took a look. And there doesn't seem to be one verse in which He says the Genesis account of creation is historical. If you depend on man's revision of His word as the YE creationists do, you'll be continually misled. Even most ancient Christians realized that the creation story wasn't a literal history. That is a very modern revision by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.

I don't care what the Seventh-Day Adventists believe either, I'll stick to what God's word says... and Jesus stated we were made male and female in the beginning, referring to creation - haven't you read? Jesus also refers to the flood of Noah's time... all the things you keep at arm's length from accepting for what it says. Have you not read?? ALL THINGS were made through Jesus and He said, "have you not read" - get a clue Barbarian, this is because it is authoritative: you-read-it-then-you-gain-understanding. Genesis describes people, places and events that were real and Jesus cited it (He was there).

You will always be at a disadvantage here Barbarian because your position is not factually supported, only by inferences and abstract views that have no connection to reality, and neither do you have the faith to trust God at His word. You failed to make any comment regarding the days of creation and the fact that God wrote it down as a commandment. The reason, I believe, is because this directly confronts and challenges your faith in evolution and you haven't found a way to weasel your way around it, yet. People can believe in anything, and defend it, so I'm sure you'll come up with something. But what God said and what you believe are not the same thing so remember that a 100 posts from now and a 1,000 posts from now when you're still meandering around in here insisting that scientists have proof in things that have never been observed, cannot be recreated, are not measurable... and because of this inane belief, that God's word can't mean what is written.

This ridiculous belief in evolution is just as terrible, and sad, as the nonsense where radiometric dating doesn't work on rocks of known age but yet magically is correct on rocks of unknown age. What a bunch of garbage.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't care what Kurt Wise says, I care what God says

You say that, but you prefer the modern doctrine of YE creationism to God's word in Genesis.

Also, evolution proponents do NOT accept evolution on "evidence" there is no evidence...

Even honest YE creationists say that there is. No point in denying it. As you learned, Darwin's theory made a number of predictions, and today, most of them have been confirmed. Such evidence is considered compelling in science.

On the other hand, for YE creationism, there are inferences, speculations, abstract thinking, etc... YE creationism is not based on scripture, nor is it based on evidence, it is based upon metaphysics - it is an abstract religious belief with no basis in reality.

(Barbarian demonstrates that specialized traits are not necessary to echolocate)

Not even a response.

It destroys your argument. You claim all those specialized adaptations are necessary for echolocation, and I showed you that your belief is false. We've found all sorts of degrees of echolocation in living things. And you just learned that the "melon" of toothed whales is not even necessary for whale echolocation. Baleen whales can do it without such a structure.

Stop, and think about what you just wrote. You claimed that all these beneficial mutations that would have to happen, together, harmonized to form an effective system that whales use to echolocate and I showed you that many other organisms, including whales that lack such adaptations, can echolocate.

Your only response is to deny the obvious; those adaptations are useful, but not essential, even in whales.

I don't care what Adventists believe either,

You clearly do; you keep repeating their new doctrines.

I'll stick to what God's word says... and Jesus stated we were made male and female in the beginning, referring to creation - haven't you read?

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So not in the beginning of creation. There was neither male nor female. Jesus was referring to the creation of humans, not the beginning of God's creation. Haven't you read?

Jesus also refers to the flood of Noah's time...

Your argument is that if Jesus mentions a parable or allegory, that makes it a literal history? How so?

You're unhappy with God's word as it is. I get that. And He won't send you to hell for not approving of the way he created things. But disparaging the faith of orthodox Christians is a very dangerous thing for you to do. Avoid that.

 

[2tim_215]

Earth Age is really all the Atheists can really hang their hats on when it comes to Evolution and is a fruitless argument for Christians to take. It has no bearing on the Bible and what it teaches in Genesis.
1 Timothy 1:4 (KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Barbarian, let's say that Christians who believe in a young earth are wrong, then what? An old earth does not prove evolution, does it? It just proves an old earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Earth Age is really all the Atheists can really hang their hats on when it comes to Evolution

Scientists, on the other hand, have genetics, the numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, embryology, observed evolution, and so on.

and is a fruitless argument for Christians to take. It has no bearing on the Bible and what it teaches in Genesis.

Good point. The Bible neither refutes nor supports evolution.

Barbarian, let's say that Christians who believe in a young earth are wrong, then what?

They're just wrong. God won't send you to hell for being a YE creationist. It doesn't matter to your salvation.

An old earth does not prove evolution, does it?

Evolution is demonstrated by all those other things I mentioned.

 

[mark kennedy]

Earth Age is really all the Atheists can really hang their hats on when it comes to Evolution and is a fruitless argument for Christians to take. It has no bearing on the Bible and what it teaches in Genesis.
1 Timothy 1:4 (KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Barbarian, let's say that Christians who believe in a young earth are wrong, then what? An old earth does not prove evolution, does it? It just proves an old earth.

I've always thought that.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's no record of any of them indicating that Genesis is a literal history.



It does, of course, contradict the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.



The view of most Bible scholars is consistent with that of most early Christians. Genesis is not a literal history.

Augustine was the most influential Christian theologian prior to the Middle Ages. He demonstrated that the text itself shows that Genesis is not a literal account. And no one in his time argued with him over it.

No different today. Most Christian theologians admit that Genesis creation account is not literal.

But it's not dogma; there are Christians on each side of that. Neither view will cause one to lose salvation.

This is actually pretty interesting.

Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

Saint Augustine of Hippo (/ɔːˈɡʌstɪn/; 13 November 354 – 28 August 430 AD)[1] was a Roman African, early Christian theologian and philosopher from Numidia whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity and Western philosophy. He was the bishop of Hippo Regius in north Africa and is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathersin Western Christianity for his writings in the Patristic Period. Among his most important works are The City of God, On Christian Doctrine and Confessions.

"In City of God, Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings.[89] In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days as a literal interpretation of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach18:1, creavit omnia simul ("He created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[90] As an additional support for describing the six days of creation as a heuristic device, Augustine thought that the actual event of creation would be incomprehensible by humans and therefore need to be translated.[91]

Augustine also does not envision original sin as causing structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall.[92]"

 

[The Barbarian]

Augustine wasn't just brilliant; he was a very practical man.

While he was on his deathbed, a man came to him asking him to heal a family member. Augustine replied that if it was in his power to do so, he would have done it for himself. The man then recounted a dream in which he was told to come to Augustine for healing.

Convinced, Augustine prayed for the healing, which was done.

It should be noted, about Augustine's view of creation, that he thought the universe was created in an instant, in a primitive state, from which all other things developed, God having created the potentiality for them to appear in due time.