Human Evolution

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.



The Creation idea may not require anything physical to exist... but the physical world does exist and typically that is not in doubt.

A spiritual world could exist, but that would not invalidate the physical evidence for evolution.

In addition spiritual explanations for events do not produce hard evidence or testable models so that's a significant disadvantage in demonstrating whether it's true.

Nothing in science is ever 100%, but evolution has been very successful in conforming to the evidence found and as a method for understanding biology and geology.



The ability to split possibilities into two categories doesn't make each equally likely.



That's the belief and I agree that there will probably always be disagreements... but that doesn't mean the justifications are reasonable.

If you accept a Creationist model it is in spite of scientific evidence, it doesn't become scientific evidence simply because it disagrees with scientific theories.

The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.

We have and do collect information .... the information is subject to interpretation (and those vary) .... ie what does the information mean?

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

we have collected information and that information is interpreted in various ways.

A fact is something that's indisputable. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief.

When the scientific community changes the theory of evolution to the indisputable facts of evolution .... lemme know.

It's disputable and will remain so.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.

We have and do collect information .... the information is subject to interpretation (and those vary) .... ie what does the information mean?

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

we have collected information and that information is interpreted in various ways.

A fact is something that's indisputable. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief.

When the scientific community changes the theory of evolution to the indisputable facts of evolution .... lemme know.

It's disputable and will remain so.

Do you hold this sort of contention for germ theory or nuclear theory or the theory of gravity? Or just for the theory of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, "It just is", like magic. And they want to know why I say First Cause is with Intent!
Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause with a mind just is and it could not be otherwise, but not logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause without a mind just is and it could not be otherwise?

And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, "It just is", like magic. And they want to know why I say First Cause is with Intent!
And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe. No God was required to decide that.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause with a mind just is and it could not be otherwise, but not logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause without a mind just is and it could not be otherwise?

And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
A. Because creationists are clueless about science
B. They think it's a killer gotcha.

Haha you don't know the origin of the universe, but I
do and that proves ToE is a buncha hooey.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.

We have and do collect information .... the information is subject to interpretation (and those vary) .... ie what does the information mean?

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

we have collected information and that information is interpreted in various ways.

A fact is something that's indisputable. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief.

When the scientific community changes the theory of evolution to the indisputable facts of evolution .... lemme know.

It's disputable and will remain so.
Strange ideas about facts and evidence, but
stranger is the idea that a theory could become a fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,546
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,278.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe. No God was required to decide that.
" First cause" is where the magic is introduced.

It seems the Projection is strong with our friend.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If there is such a thing as evolutionism, or victims of such an affliction. Which I doubt.
So do I.
Estrid said:
It would be like plate tectonicism, or maybe gravitism.
Or like dynamism, or maybe heliocentrism?

I realize English isn't your first language, but to your credit, it isn't science's either.

Science prefers Greek and Latin -- it keeps the common people from understanding what they're saying.

Just so you won't make that mistake again:
-ism is a suffix in many English words, ... It means "taking side with" or "imitation of", and is often used to describe philosophies, theories, religions, social movements, artistic movements and behaviors.

SOURCE
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
So do I.
Or dynamism, or maybe heliocentrism?

I realize English isn't your first language, but to your credit, it isn't science's either.

Science prefers Greek and Latin -- it keeps the common people from understanding what they're saying.

Just so you won't make that mistake again:


SOURCE

Funny how the 'theories' in your source links to what a theory means in non-scientific language, not in scientific language. AKA Not what you think it means.

Also, even if science does prefer to use Greek and Latin for their classification, acting as a lingua franca for all nations across the world, it doesn't stop people being able to learn what words and phrases mean.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Funny how the 'theories' in your source links to what a theory means in non-scientific language, not in scientific language. AKA Not what you think it means.

Also, even if science does prefer to use Greek and Latin for their classification, acting as a lingua franca for all nations across the world, it doesn't stop people being able to learn what words and phrases mean.
Then science can either learn something from Genesis 11, or it can walk the planck.

When these high horses speak in tongues, you can be sure something is amiss.

Even I have to use their lingo to clarify things to them (e.g., creatio ex nihilo vs creatio ex materia), but they can't understand.

In other words, they can't take what they dish out.

Yet they think correcting us for using suffixes is doing us a favor?

I think not.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Then science can either learn something from Genesis 11, or it can walk the planck.

When these high horses speak in tongues, you can be sure something is amiss.

Even I have to use their lingo to clarify things to them (e.g., creatio ex nihilo vs creatio ex materia), but they can't understand.

In other words, they can't take what they dish out.

Yet they think correcting us for using suffixes is doing us a favor?

I think not.

I honestly don't believe you think on these sort of things at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I highly doubt that.
Actually I do too.

But Paul did warn about it.

If I did wax scientific though -- (say God called me to be one) -- then I most certainly wouldn't embrace evolutionism.

So technically I'm safe.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Actually I do too.

But Paul did warn about it.

If I did wax scientific -- say God called me to be one -- then I most certainly wouldn't embrace evolutionism.

So technically I'm safe.

Though since evolutionism isn't actually a thing...
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Though since evolutionism isn't actually a thing...
Oh, ya ... back to that. :doh:

Are you trying to make brownie points with Estrid?

You know? telling Wikipedia to take a hike and all?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Oh, ya ... back to that. :doh:

Are you trying to make brownie points with Estrid?

You know? telling Wikipedia to take a hike and all?

No, just telling you that the sources you use don't say what you think they say.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums