Is evolution even a theory?

[AV1611VET]

It's not much appreciated anywhere tbh.
But that won't stop me

I just read Psalm 27.

A beautiful Psalm!

 

[Psalm 27]

It's a request you not preach in a thread
about science.
You'd know better than to preach in a
discussion about real estate
Please show the same respect here.



s

Whether it be right in your eyes, or God's, you decide, but I must teach what I know is truth

 

[Psalm 27]

Which might be nice when discussing faith related questions. We're speaking about a scientific theory here. The rules are a little bit different then.

Good fences make good friends, or as the late (and still so inspiring!) Stephen Jay Gould said, religion and science are Not Overlapping Magisteria. NOMA. Fine. Let religion squabble about the nature of the soul, the difference between Purgatory and Hell, the question whether someone can be safed by good works or by grace alone. Let the spiritual be religion’s Magisterium.

Science’s job is to describe and explain the physical. The material, the real world. And science has strict rules when dealing with the physical: empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not authority, not revelation, not disbelieve. Empirical evidence.

You guys want to debate the question of “Once Saved Always Saved”. Good. Fine. But the moment you cross the fence and make statements about the physical world, you enter science’s realm and play by science’s rules.

The Flood? A physical event, hence where is the empirical evidence?

The changing of water into wine at the Wedding of Cana? A very material thing, hence you play by science’s rules.

The Creation Week? Again, a statement about the material Universe. You enter Science’s playground so again empirical evidence shall be the only accepted argument.


If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to stick with these rules, then don’t cross the fence. Stay in your safe space or echo chamber, aka your church, mosque, synagogue or Sunday School.


Good fences make good friends, or at least, they clarify the rules by which the discussions are to be held.

Numbers 6:24-26

 

[Tinker Grey]

Zzzzzz

Rude.

 

[Frank Robert]

Not to mention they believe in God.

So what's your point?

My point was not about belief in a god. It was aboutthe thousands of interpretations and beliefs coming from the OT which was written around 3000 years ago by a nomadic desert tribe. Pay attention to what others write instead of pushing your interpretation on what they write.

 

[Astrid]

Whether it be right in your eyes, or God's, you decide, but I must teach what I know is truth

And the boys of 911 acted on what they knew
was the truth.
Since you refuse to act like an adult,
being disruptive and insulting, we resort
to the ig function. Bye bye.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was about the thousands of interpretations and beliefs coming from the OT which was written around 3000 years ago by a nomadic desert tribe.

Okay. What about it?

Are you saying these thousands of different interpretations and beliefs negate the one belief they all share in common, viz., their belief in the existence of God?

 

[Frank Robert]

Whether it be right in your eyes, or God's, you decide, but I must teach what I know is truth

Okay. What about it?

Are you saying these thousands of different interpretations and beliefs negate the one belief they all share in common, viz., their belief in the existence of God?

I am saying you are not responding to what others write.

The main difference we are discussing on this forum is evolution. Your interpretation of the OT genesis is the literal word of God, other denominations disagree especially when it is about evolution.

 

[Astrid]

I am saying you are not responding to what others write.

The main difference we are discussing on this forum is evolution. Your interpretation of the OT genesis is the literal word of God, other denominations disagree especially when it is about evolution.

Yes. Speaking of people who "won't listen",
in this case, to requests to behave in a more
respectful way.

 

[driewerf]

Zzzzzz

Close your eyes. And your mind.
It's better not to ask questions that might have uncomfortable answers.
It's better to not to start a study that might lead into unknown territories, rather than stick with the same old mantras and within the comfort zone.
It's better not to look behind the horizon, for there might be dragons.
I will be more like:

 

[AV1611VET]

I am saying you are not responding to what others write.

The main difference we are discussing on this forum is evolution. Your interpretation of the OT genesis is the literal word of God, other denominations disagree especially when it is about evolution.

Fair enough. I'll do that then:

Is evolution even a theory?

Yes. Evolution is a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Speaking of people who "won't listen", in this case, to requests to behave in a more respectful way.

That's kinda rich, coming from someone who has me on IGNORE.

Who hears more? you or me?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's better not to ask questions that might have uncomfortable answers.

You mean, like my challenge threads?

But since those threads don't carry the Good Housekeeping Laboratory Seal of Approval, they're mostly ignored or ridiculed?

 

[driewerf]

And the changing of "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

Which is a change of semantics, nothing physical.

Do you want us to play by science's rule there, too?

Of course you do.

And it will be seen that you are unable to do so.

How about changing "Promised Land" to "National Home"?

Anything physical? No. at best a legal discussion, or international diplomacy. I wrote one line above that you would fail. I am already shown right.

Do you want us to play by political science's rule there too?

This is the physical sciences forum. I wrote two lines above that you would fail. I am already shown right again.

Of course you do.

Ain't gonna happen.

As you please;

While we're "playing by your rules," innocent people are dying right and left.

While we sleep people are dying right and left. Yet, we sleeping doesn't cause them to die.
While we read our newspaper people are dying right and left. Yet, we reading our newspapers doesn't cause them to die.
While we eat people are dying right and left. Yet, we seating doesn't cause them to die.
While we celebrate christmas people are dying right and left. Yet, we celebrating christmas doesn't cause them to die.

More incosequential nonsense to write? I predicted you to fail. You did indeed. Once again.

 

[AV1611VET]

The very first thing I thought of when I saw this was the Bible being pulled from the shelves of libraries in our public schools.

I wonder if they do that across the pond anywhere?

 

[driewerf]

You mean, like my challenge threads?

But since those threads don't carry the Good Housekeeping Laboratory Seal of Approval, they're mostly ignored or ridiculed?

What your "challenge threads" demonstrate is not the truth of Genesis or creationism (of whatever flavour, be it YE, OE, embedded age, GAP or any other) or the invalidity of the Theory of Evolution. What is shows is your incapability to understand the notion of following the evidence.
Scientists (“unbelievers”, in your challenges) don’t rely on authority, but on evidence. At every moment any scientist has a finite amount of data at his disposal. At every moment a scientist needs to work with that finite amount of data.
Let us take the geocentric model of Ptolemais as a practical example. When Ptolemais formulated it, it was in agreement with the observations available at the time. During the following centuries, as data accumulated, the observations diverged gradually more and more from what to be expected from a geocentric model. So Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Keppler proposed the heliocentric model, which fitted the data available in the 16th century better. It took the invention of the telescope (and the genius of Galileo Galilei) to definitely show the heliocentric model right.
Yet, however wrong Ptolemais was, nobody ridicules him. For he did what every scientists ought to do: work with the data available.
I mentioned the telescope, which was a tremendous technological innovation in the 16th century. With each new technological innovation our possibilities to probe the physical world grows, both in wider variability as in accuracy and sensitivity. Where Galileo had only a very modest optical telescope at his disposal we now can investigate the Universe over the whole range of the electromagnetic spectrum, from X-rays to the longest radio waves. It is very normal and exiting that our understanding evolves with the growing technological possibilities too. But at each moment, the essence is to follow the evidence available.
Something none of your challenges seem to reflect.
On the contrary, you expect us to accept "the documentation" over empirical evidence. What goes against the foundation of all sciences. All disciplines included. That denotes an anti-science attitude so common with creationists, as I described in my thread The tip of the iceberg.
Moreover, all your challenges are set in fictional worlds, with fictional scenarios. That's the only setting in which they work. Any relevance for the real world has gone out of the window. Science deals with real world: real earth quakes, real neutrons, real DNA strings, real sun spots and so on. If you ever hope to disprove anything of that pesky "evolutionism" or hope that we will agree that "science can take a hike", you 'll have to write challenge that ha a link with the real world.

kind regards,
driewerf

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is a change of semantics, nothing physical.

Of course it's a change in semantics and nothing physical.

You can't abort a semantic from the womb.

Or can you?

Anything physical?

Real estate?

No. at best a legal discussion, or international diplomacy.

Yup.

Put it on paper, then constantly badger them to give up their land for peace.

Have you seen my "Halloween Monster" thread?

This is the physical sciences forum.

It sure is.

Let's discuss physical sciences.

While we sleep people are dying right and left.
Yet, we sleeping doesn't cause them to die.

No. What causes them to die is saline.

Saline that wouldn't be administered if doing so was considered murder.

But since it's a "fetus" and not a "child" ... well ... you know.

Or maybe not.

While we read our newspaper people are dying right and left. Yet, we reading our newspapers doesn't cause them to die.
While we eat people are dying right and left. Yet, we seating doesn't cause them to die.
While we celebrate christmas people are dying right and left. Yet, we celebrating christmas doesn't cause them to die.

I like your appeal to cause-and-effect.

Unless, of course, I do the same with a list of stuff from MERRY CHRISTMAS to Christian holidays to the Bible.

Then cause-and-effect can take a hike, can't it?

More incosequential nonsense to write?

You have to call it something to make it look like the problem is on my end, don't you?

Standard academic procedure.

 

[driewerf]

The very first thing I thought of when I saw this was the Bible being pulled from the shelves of libraries in our public schools.

I wonder if they do that across the pond anywhere?

We don't close minds. We do our utmost to let our children study a variety as wide as possible.
And as for removing bibles from libraries, from what I read, it'are rather other themes that are removed from libraries, at order of conservative politicians.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't close minds. We do our utmost to let our children study a variety as wide as possible.

Yup. When you remove the Bible and replace It with Harry Potter in the name of "doing your utmost for study," what signal does that send our next generation?

Maybe the idea that the Bible should be banned, but not Mein Kampf, which is protected by our First Amendment?

And I'm still wondering what they do across the pond.

 

[driewerf]

Yup. When you remove the Bible and replace It with Harry Potter in the name of "doing your utmost for study," what signal does that send our next generation?

That the current generation has poorly budgeted its shelf space? They should expand the libraries if there isn't room for both.

Maybe the idea that the Bible should be banned, but not Mein Kampf, which is protected by our First Amendment?

If true, are you going to blame scientists for the poor decisions of the Supreme Court about the First Amendment?

And I'm still wondering what they do across the pond.

I wrote: "We don't close minds. We do our utmost to let our children study a variety as wide as possible."