As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

Except my mechanic doesn't believe my Toyota is going to change into a Mercedes given enough time...... He can be believed.....

You appear confused as to how analogies work.

 

[pitabread]

So let me ask you a question.....

In all your years of research, when have you ever had to worry about any virus, bacteria, etc, changing into something other than a virus or a bacteria??????

For example, the influenza virus has never become anything other than an influenza virus. Oh sure, it may adapt within it's Kind, like a Poodle is different from the Wolf, but you have NEVER IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER had to worry about any virus becoming anything other than the type of virus it started as.... Let me repeat that..... NEVER IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER.....

So why are you even trying to feed people that PR spiel about evolution?????

This is just gibberish and an obvious straw-man. Do creationists think they are being effective by posting stuff that is obviously nonsensical?

 

[Astrophile]

That's a little bit of a short-sighted comment. If God created, he did it for a good reason --in fact, a satisfying reason. If you punish a child for wrong doing, is that bad? If you set roadblocks in the highway so you can repair or add to the highway, is that bad? No, in fact it is good (provided, of course roadblocks aren't more trouble than they are worth).

Vipers are very good. But I would stay away from the sharp end, if I was you.

So if vipers 'are very good', why did Jesus compare 'bad people' to them? Also, do you think that it's a pity that we don't have the scribes and Pharisees' side of the story?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then what is science?

The first thing that pops up on google is close enough: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

 

[Mark Quayle]

So if vipers 'are very good', why did Jesus compare 'bad people' to them? Also, do you think that it's a pity that we don't have the scribes and Pharisees' side of the story?

You are letting words throw you around, I think.

Jesus, and the people he was talking to, knew that vipers have a sharp end, a nasty disposition, and a treacherous existence. This is a common way of speaking. You would not expect anyone to go into a long discourse on the personality and habits of snakes, listing pros vs cons, before calling someone a snake.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So the vipers that Jesus talks about are very good but dangerous people?

In common language, we often use figures to make a point. I don't think the people that Jesus was talking to would have expected him to list pros and cons of snakes, nor to delve into a discussion of the goodness of God in creating the dangerous and deceptive things of life before calling someone a snake.

 

[USincognito]

By "true science" I mean, simply science --just science. Not noise about science, not the scientific community, not pop science, not consensus, not published works, not accepted dogma, not even application of learned beliefs. It really has nothing to do with people's opinions. Only science.

I'm sorry Mark, but to me that's just talking in circles. My experience as a layman tells me that "true science" is merely a buzz phrase that Creationists use to try and eliminate fields of science or scientific proposals they don't like such as evolution or deep time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm sorry Mark, but to me that's just talking in circles. My experience as a layman tells me that "true science" is merely a buzz phrase that Creationists use to try and eliminate fields of science or scientific proposals they don't like such as evolution or deep time.

Perhaps it gets used like that. I have no desire to eliminate any field of science --to the contrary, I promote any science. I will admit to some bias against those who use fields of science merely to oppose what they deem as opposing them, or those who slavishly believe anything that sounds like science (often more counter-intuitive (and therefore intriguing, I suppose) than logical).

This last, I see often as those claiming proof for evolution, global warming, etc. Without studying, they accept noisy consensus instead of studying it for themselves. Admittedly, most of us who believe the Bible have not become masters of the sciences, but neither have those who believe what they are told on the other end of the spectrum. But I am not stupid. If something doesn't make sense to me, I want to hear an honest explanation, not a cacophony of jeers and insults, nor a condescending appeal to my lack of knowledge or resources, nor some pompous reference to my irrelevance.

I am genuinely curious. If I hear of the invention of new math to explain beginnings without God, without myself enjoying the math skills to prove any of it wrong, common sense says that if they must explain away the laws of physics to prove God unneeded, they are fooling themselves, or, more likely, that those actually doing the science are merely pursuing a path of study, and those watching them are putting words to it. So far, I've heard nothing disproving Genesis 1. And yes, I have looked.

I love bones. Specially dinosaur bones. And thoughts about ancient times before recorded history. But so far, what I have been told has been sketchy at best. I admit I don't know much about the genome studies, but what I have heard only proposes possibilities, and proves nothing. So I remain skeptical of what others call PROOF, particularly when science does not admit to proof.

 

[sfs]

I admit I don't know much about the genome studies, but what I have heard only proposes possibilities, and proves nothing. So I remain skeptical of what others call PROOF, particularly when science does not admit to proof.

Well, if you adopt the view that science doesn't prove things(*), then of course comparative genomics isn't going to prove anything. But it does offer very strong evidence for common descent, evidence that has not been explained by any other hypothesis.

(*) This mostly depends on what one means by "prove" and "proof". In the sense that most people mean the words, e.g. in legal settings, science does indeed prove things. That is, it can provide compelling evidence that some things are true and others are false. What it can't do is provide complete certainty in the sense of a mathematical proof, which is probably why scientists avoid the words.

 

[USincognito]

So I remain skeptical of what others call PROOF, particularly when science does not admit to proof.

MQ, I realize that Creationists tend to be terrified of uncertainty and have also had the word "proof" hammered into their heads so many times that they often have trouble grasping why it's not used in a scientific context, but do you happen to know why there is no such thing as scientific proof?

Here's a link and I'd suggest reading the entire thing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

The gist is that proof is a mathematics concept and that proofs are final and unassailable by new information. In science, however, everything from the most vague hypothesis to the most robust theory must have the potential for future falsification in light of new information. That applies to every proposition. From gravity making objects attracted to each other to the earth revolving around the sun. All propositions must be subject being falsified even if they never will be.

And if they could, potentially, be falsified, even if they never will be, they are still considered not to be "proven".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, if you adopt the view that science doesn't prove things(*), then of course comparative genomics isn't going to prove anything. But it does offer very strong evidence for common descent, evidence that has not been explained by any other hypothesis.

(*) This mostly depends on what one means by "prove" and "proof". In the sense that most people mean the words, e.g. in legal settings, science does indeed prove things. That is, it can provide compelling evidence that some things are true and others are false. What it can't do is provide complete certainty in the sense of a mathematical proof, which is probably why scientists avoid the words.

Agreed. But give me a little credit. That use of "proof" really isn't what I was talking about, when it comes to those who slavishly believe science proves. I understand logical proofs, but also acknowledge they have "if - then" statements to begin a logical sequence. I know science has produced much. The cat calls about that are not arguments, but noise.

If one is unable to come up with other explanations for the evidences produced in demonstrating, for example, Darwinian Evolution, it does not show Darwinian Evolution to be therefore compelling, if the evidences produced are few and far between, and the evidences to the contrary are dismissed out of hand. I simply am not convinced, and not because I'm bullheaded (and, believe it or not, not because I think it opposes a literal Genesis 1.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

MQ, I realize that Creationists tend to be terrified of uncertainty and have also had the word "proof" hammered into their heads so many times that they often have trouble grasping why it's not used in a scientific context, but do you happen to know why there is no such thing as scientific proof?

Here's a link and I'd suggest reading the entire thing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

The gist is that proof is a mathematics concept and that proofs are final and unassailable by new information. In science, however, everything from the most vague hypothesis to the most robust theory must have the potential for future falsification in light of new information. That applies to every proposition. From gravity making objects attracted to each other to the earth revolving around the sun. All propositions must be subject being falsified even if they never will be.

And if they could, potentially, be falsified, even if they never will be, they are still considered not to be "proven".

I understand all that and more --that in the end, only the truth remains. I am probably more than most who take the Bible literally (and don't take that to mean what it does not --I know languages and use of language, and the Bible is written in language; I don't take it superstitiously as a book of spells or something to be held at fingertips distance.) accepting of all possibilities except the absurd (which isn't a possibility at all, after all).

When all is said and done, IF the existence of First Cause With Intent is true, science will take us that direction. But the noise may well not.

 

[sfs]

Agreed. But give me a little credit. That use of "proof" really isn't what I was talking about

That's why I put my comments about "proof" in a footnote. Give me a little credit, too.

If one is unable to come up with other explanations for the evidences produced in demonstrating, for example, Darwinian Evolution, it does not show Darwinian Evolution to be therefore compelling, if the evidences produced are few and far between, and the evidences to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.

Well, no, but the point of my post was that the evidences are not few and far between, at least if we're talking about common descent, and that there are no alternatives that even attempt to explain the data.

I simply am not convinced, and not because I'm bullheaded

But you also say you don't know much about genome studies. Have you examined any comparative genomic evidence? Here is one kind of genomic evidence I like to point to, for example. Why is this not evidence for common descent?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's why I put my comments about "proof" in a footnote. Give me a little credit, too.

Well, no, but the point of my post was that the evidences are not few and far between, at least if we're talking about common descent, and that there are no alternatives that even attempt to explain the data.

But you also say you don't know much about genome studies. Have you examined any comparative genomic evidence? Here is one kind of genomic evidence I like to point to, for example. Why is this not evidence for common descent?

You have inspired me to look further into the matter.

Btw, your link does not work for me --I get only "
This site can’t provide a secure connection
biologos.org uses an unsupported protocol."

 

[USincognito]

You have inspired me to look further into the matter.

Btw, your link does not work for me --I get only "
This site can’t provide a secure connection
biologos.org uses an unsupported protocol."

There is no security issue with biologos. Try using a different browser.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no security issue with biologos. Try using a different browser.

I tried new browsers, both Chrome and IE, which is all I have on this computer. Neither worked.

 

[USincognito]

I tried new browsers, both Chrome and IE, which is all I have on this computer. Neither worked.

I'm using Chrome right now and I'm able to access it with no problem. Here's a screen cap and as you can see, it even shows the site is secure.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm using Chrome right now and I'm able to access it with no problem. Here's a screen cap and as you can see, it even shows the site is secure.
View attachment 249567

Weird. Well, I assume similar information is available elsewhere. I will study up some.

 

[USincognito]

Weird. Well, I assume similar information is available elsewhere. I will study up some.

I'll make some screen captures and send to them to you via PM either in a half hour or some time tomorrow.

 

[pitabread]

The first thing that pops up on google is close enough: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Okay. Why would that preclude scientists publishing the results of said observations and experiments?