Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fossil records

Explain. Don't just say. Explain.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know your desire to take certain words literally may make this difficult for you to understand, but the 'duck-billed' platypus does not have the bill of a duck.

???

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know it seems you're operating off a belief system? How about cosmology?

Evolutionary science isn't a belief system, neither is cosmology. No science is.

This is not about the existence of god versus evolutionary theory. Both could be true, or neither. They are not connected

 

[Astrid]

Science and God (nature's creator) are complimentary.

The belief that science and God are opposites is likewise emotional. Faith means trust. Although trust can sometimes have an emotional component, this does not imply that trust is inherently misplaced. I trust my friends, I have faith that my house won't collapse when I walk to the kitchen. I believe that when I click "Post reply" my reply will appear in this thread.

Yes, but like auto mechanics the car has a creator. So does nature. "God" is what we call the creator of nature.

Why should we want to or need to disprove evolution? It isn't a salvific matter, and last I checked it is a natural process. Because evolution is a natural process, it was therefore created by God (the creator of nature).

I said "belief in god" not "god". It's very different.

IF there is a creator god then of course science is the
study of that gods work.

There are / have been tens of thousands of different gods proposed though. We've quite a few in Chunese folk belief. So which belief in which one is complementary to science?

I've a statue of a kitchen god that I was given.
I keep it as It was a gift.

For me to believe in his existence as an actual god who
reports to his boss on my doings would be, frankly, insane.

It's not an "emotional belief" that seeing belief in kitchen god, on faith is opposite to fact based logical rational thinking.

It's a empirical observation of a profound difference.

I doubt you can find any features in common between faith in god, and science..

As for faith- or Faith, I fear you've fallen into the error of equivocation.

There's the well founded trust / faith in that which has been shown to hold true. Faith the sun will rise.
That Boyles gas law won't suddenly spin seemingly out of control.

I'm a bit surpised you'd cheapen Faith in the almighty by comparing it to trusting the send button on a computer.

They really really are poles part.

Ones " faith" in science as a way of thinking is well founded. It gets results.


Faith in God ( which one? Which ones ? ) is as the bible says. Things unseen.
There's no way to tell if you get it right.

Emotions- need etc come into play and then any god is believable

AND, too, such unevidenced faith is promoted as a highest virtue in christianity, and others. ( now why might that be? )

Science works with tests, measurements, observations, math, experiments. It gets proven results.

Religion works with " deciding to believe", which is in science the first step to self deception, false results. Intellectual dishonesty.

If that is not 180 degrees opposite to " belief in god"
you'd have to show me how it's not at least 179.xx degrees .


Now. belief in this god, or that may be absolutely
correct and the best thing you can do.

But for sure no faith or god belief will help you
with physics.

 

[Astrid]

....auro mechanics the car has a creator. So does nature. "God" is what we call the creator of nature.

Why should we want to or need to disprove evolution? It isn't a salvific matter, and last I checked it is a natural process. Because evolution is a natural process, it was therefore created by God (the creator of nature).

Auto mechanics are plainly of human origin.
" GOD" might exist. To state that there's a god,
that it created everything and moreover you know
just which god is the one...
That's not remotely comparable.

You've no need, nor capacity to disprove evolution.

Others feel is the battle with the god " Satan".

And if they are pleased to deny the works of the God
they claim to believe in, well, so much the worse for them.


Meantime they will continue to demonstrate how opposite
their chosen god - belief is to science.



Claim after claim the ToE is false, but never a fact.

 

[Astrid]

Fossil records

Good one. So far all data from the fossil record
( I bet you've never even seen a fossil in the field)
is fully consistent with ToE.

Your point is....?

 

[AV1611VET]

So far all data from the fossil record ... is fully consistent with ToE.

Only on paper.

 

[Ophiolite]

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?

There is more than one definition of evolution. In terms of the more common ones evolution has been proven - no theory is involved: the proportion of alleles in a population do change; the character of organisms does change over time. Many anti-evolutionists address this by (sometimes reluctanly) accepting micro-evolution; in their terms, changes within kinds, but not changes of kinds.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the observation that evolution is real and specifically (I couldn't resist the pun) to account for macroevolution and descent from a common ancestor. While there are no discernible valid objections to the reality of evolution, nor to the generic thrust of evolutionary theory, there are grounds for seriously questioning the details. I'm happy to throw in some thoughts along these lines, since it seems unlikely that anyone in the YEC camp can up with anything, but if you think this off-topic I'll refrain.

 

[AV1611VET]

... in their terms, changes within kinds, but not changes of kinds.

I could not have said this better, myself.

Excellent way of putting it.

 

[Ophiolite]

The ones on paper and otherwise who promoted theories for fifty years keep proving their own theories wrong .
Anyone not seeking honesty just goes along with new explanations for the remarkable errors.

Please provide an example of such an error and justify calling it remarkable. In addition, I would welcome support for you assertion that "they" have proved "their own theories wrong" is a more accurate observtion than "dedicated research has deepened understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, adding details and correcting misconcpetions". Alternatively acknowledge that your assertions are ill informed. (There is no shame in being ill informed, unless you insist upon making assertions based upon such ignorance.)

 

[Niels]

I said "belief in god" not "god". It's very different.

IF there is a creator god then of course science is the
study of that gods work.

There are / have been tens of thousands of different gods proposed though. We've quite a few in Chinese folk belief. So which belief in which one is complementary to science?

How many of those "tens of thousands" of proposed gods are said to be the Creator of nature? And of those that are, how many are attempts to know the same God? Perhaps disagreeing on attributes but otherwise referring to the same basic being. Most gods (lowercase g) are created beings according to their respective mythologies. They are not to presumed to be the creator of nature.

If nature was a computer program, for instance, the programmer would be what we call God. People can have different ideas of what the programmer is like, and even give the programmer different names, but that doesn't mean they are talking about different programmers. Just different understandings (and misunderstandings) about that same programmer.

I've a statue of a kitchen god that I was given.
I keep it as It was a gift.

For me to believe in his existence as an actual god who
reports to his boss on my doings would be, frankly, insane.

It's not an "emotional belief" that seeing belief in kitchen god, on faith is opposite to fact based logical rational thinking.

It's a empirical observation of a profound difference.

I doubt you can find any features in common between faith in god, and science..

As for faith- or Faith, I fear you've fallen into the error of equivocation.

There's the well founded trust / faith in that which has been shown to hold true. Faith the sun will rise.
That Boyles gas law won't suddenly spin seemingly out of control.

I'm a bit surpised you'd cheapen Faith in the almighty by comparing it to trusting the send button on a computer.

Analogies are imperfect, but they are nevertheless helpful tools for communicating a message. Faith, trust, can take many forms.

They really really are poles part.

Ones " faith" in science as a way of thinking is well founded. It gets results.


Faith in God ( which one? Which ones ? ) is as the bible says. Things unseen.
There's no way to tell if you get it right.

Object permanence can also be viewed as faith in things unseen. In Christianity, Jesus walked the earth with humanity. There were eyewitnesses. He isn't simply a spiritual being.

Yes, the scientific method gets results. I know this firsthand as I use it everyday at my job and in my hobby pursuits. My faith in God also gets results in terms of interpersonal relations, family, and feeling closer to the creator of nature. Like I said, God and science are complementary rather than contradictory.

Regarding knowing how "to tell if you get it right", I think it's reasonable to say that some are more likely than others. "Tens of thousands" can be narrowed down to a handful with a little effort. A creator of nature is perhaps more reasonable than your kitchen god statue, for instance.

As you seek Go,d you are more likely to find what you are looking for. Ultimately, however, you must use your best judgement.

Emotions- need etc come into play and then any god is believable

AND, too, such unevidenced faith is promoted as a highest virtue in christianity, and others. ( now why might that be? )

The Christian faith is built on the evidence of Jesus' lifework and his influence on the individual and on others to this day. Evidence that you may disagree with, but that many find persuasive. It is only when this trust is established that faith is highly regarded.

Feelings are fickle. Although Christians may have strong feelings about faith, our faith ultimately does not depend on feelings. In fact, most Christians reject the worldly notion that "if it feels good do it". To live a life based on such feelings is to display a lack of faith. The test of Christian faith is to persist in being faithful when one doesn't feel like it.

Science works with tests, measurements, observations, math, experiments. It gets proven results.

Religion works with " deciding to believe", which is in science the first step to self deception, false results. Intellectual dishonesty.

If that is not 180 degrees opposite to " belief in god"
you'd have to show me how it's not at least 179.xx degrees .


Now. belief in this god, or that may be absolutely
correct and the best thing you can do.

But for sure no faith or god belief will help you
with physics.

I agree with you about science, but disagree with you about religion. At least when we're talking about the Christian faith or the notion that there is a creator God.

Faith in God has inspired many physicists, physicians, architects, and other talented individuals to use their God-given strengths to contribute in meaningful ways to society. Many of the world's preeminent universities were founded by Christians. As a result of their efforts, hundreds of thousands of students have been helped with physics among other things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only on paper.

So you claim.

 

[Astrid]

There is more than one definition of evolution. In terms of the more common ones evolution has been proven - no theory is involved: the proportion of alleles in a population do change; the character of organisms does change over time. Many anti-evolutionists address this by (sometimes reluctanly) accepting micro-evolution; in their terms, changes within kinds, but not changes of kinds.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the observation that evolution is real and specifically (I couldn't resist the pun) to account for macroevolution and descent from a common ancestor. While there are no discernible valid objections to the reality of evolution, nor to the generic thrust of evolutionary theory, there are grounds for seriously questioning the details. I'm happy to throw in some thoughts along these lines, since it seems unlikely that anyone in the YEC camp can up with anything, but if you think this off-topic I'll refrain.

Nope. Not off topic.
The "science is always changing" ignoramuses
will never improve themselves, any more than they will
ever come up with any way to disprove that evolution is
real, regardless of fine details of how and why.

That they seize on the things they do, such as quote
mining S.J. Gould or mathematical "proof" and irreducible
complexity and I.D. only underscores that no facts will
ever come from them.

 

[Astrid]

So you claim.

Vapid quips and claims deserve no response.

For one, the requirement for references in a
PHYS SCI forum are being flouted, in the same
pattern to disrupt the thread that is repeated in
every thread that doesn't suit their ideology

 

[AV1611VET]

Vapid quips and claims deserve no response.

So you claim.

 

[BCP1928]

How many of those "tens of thousands" of proposed gods are said to be the Creator of nature? And of those that are, how many are attempts to know the same God? Perhaps disagreeing on attributes but otherwise referring to the same basic being. Most gods (lowercase g) are created beings according to their respective mythologies. They are not to presumed to be the creator of nature.

If nature was a computer program, for instance, the programmer would be what we call God. People can have different ideas of what the programmer is like, and even give the programmer different names, but that doesn't mean they are talking about different programmers. Just different understandings (and misunderstandings) about that same programmer.


Analogies are imperfect, but they are nevertheless helpful tools for communicating a message. Faith, trust, can take many forms.


Object permanence can also be viewed as faith in things unseen. In Christianity, Jesus walked the earth with humanity. There were eyewitnesses. He isn't simply a spiritual being.

Yes, the scientific method gets results. I know this firsthand as I use it everyday at my job and in my hobby pursuits. My faith in God also gets results in terms of interpersonal relations, family, and feeling closer to the creator of nature. Like I said, God and science are complementary rather than contradictory.

Regarding knowing how "to tell if you get it right", I think it's reasonable to say that some are more likely than others. "Tens of thousands" can be narrowed down to a handful with a little effort. A creator of nature is perhaps more reasonable than your kitchen god statue, for instance.

As you seek Go,d you are more likely to find what you are looking for. Ultimately, however, you must use your best judgement.


The Christian faith is built on the evidence of Jesus' lifework and his influence on the individual and on others to this day. Evidence that you may disagree with, but that many find persuasive. It is only when this trust is established that faith is highly regarded.

The thing is, for most "biblical" creationists the Christian faith is built on Genesis as a 100% accurate literal history of creation. Without that, they think, nothing true about Jesus can be known. Some will even refuse to introduce the Gospel to potential converts until they have accepted the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

 

[Astrid]

How many of those "tens of thousands" of proposed gods are said to be the Creator of nature? And of those that are, how many are attempts to know the same

Faith, trust, can take many forms.


Object permanence can also be viewed as faith in things unseen. In Christianity, Jesus walked the earth with humanity. There were eyewitnesses. He isn't simply a spiritual being.

Yes, the scientific method gets results. I know this firsthand as I use it everyday at my job and in my hobby pursuits. My faith in God also gets results in terms of interpersonal relations, family, and feeling closer to the creator of nature. Like I said, God and science are complementary rather than contradictory.

Regarding knowing how "to tell if you get it right", I think it's reasonable to say that some are more likely than others. "Tens of thousands" can be narrowed down to a handful with a little effort. A creator of nature is perhaps more reasonable than your kitchen god statue, for instance.

As you seek Go,d you are more likely to find what you are looking for. Ultimately, however, you must use your best judgement.


The Christian faith is built on the evidence of Jesus' lifework and his influence on the individual and on others to this day. Evidence that you may disagree with, but that many find persuasive. It is only when this trust is established that faith is highly regarded.

Feelings are fickle. Although Christians may have strong feelings about faith, our faith ultimately does not depend on feelings. In fact, most Christians reject the worldly notion that "if it feels good do it". To live a life based on such feelings is to display a lack of faith. The test of Christian faith is to persist in being faithful when one doesn't feel like it.


I agree with you about science, but disagree with you about religion. At least when we're talking about the Christian faith or the notion that there is a creator God.

Faith in God has inspired many physicists, physicians, architects, and other talented individuals to use their God-given strengths to contribute in meaningful ways to society. Many of the world's preeminent universities were founded by Christians. As a result of their efforts, hundreds of thousands of students have been helped with physics among other things.

What belief in what god-Aztec maybe- is congruent
with the conduct and findings of science?
You didn't address that.

"Same basic god except all attributes are different. "
( paraphrased)
Seriously?
That's assuming an awful lot and deeply contrary to
anything in christianity of islam.
It's also assuming- on zero data- tht there's any god at all.

I'm not into such leaps.
Still less asserting the unevidenced as fact.
I'm deeply suspicious of all.who do.

"Faith / trust takes many forms".
Yeah, and blurring real distinctions is equvocation.

You did t address that..

" seek and you will find"

Of course. Self deception tops the list. I remember well the Mormon who told me how he prayed and prayed till "god" told him the whole good book story etc is true.

Witnesses to that " truth".? Yep. Signed and sworn before God. Your eyewitnesses to miracles mean zero to me.
Claims of that sort are thicker than hairs on a dog's back.

But you have faith, my Mormon has faith, the Aztecs with their sacrificial knives had faith, the boys of 911 had faith.
Faith that their belief is in somethung real and true.

Trying to equivocate faith in things unseen or whatever
other ways of describing that for which there is not one
flipping fact or datum point on earth, with faith that
the scientific reliably works is just such waste of time.

Faith has its uses, for good and ill. As an approach to knowledge it's worse than useless.

Faith is one of many emotional states, weak
and strong, positive, negative...

We are taught that emotional control is essential to
a successful life. Emotions give power to actions.
Not the other way around!
Allowing emotion to take control is weakness and stupidity. Its self indulgence, a candadate for the root of all evil..

It sure keeps our fundie friends in self destructive ignorance.



I'll give you no more than a token 0.01 degrees off the
180 degrees opposite in my original statement.

Faith in God can be a wonderful thing. I've seen it
in people. It can be a force for good.

But it will do zero for the advancement of physics.

As previously noted.

 

[Astrid]

The thing is, for most "biblical" creationists the Christian faith is built on Genesis as a 100% accurate literal history of creation. Without that, they think, nothing true about Jesus can be known. Some will even refuse to introduce the Gospel to potential converts until they have accepted the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

That faith unfortunately is a profound barrier
to any chance of intellectual integrity.

Faith is a mighty sword for good, but so destructive in
the wrong hands!

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith has its uses, for good and I'll.
As an approach to knowledge it's worse than useless.

And it's for these reasons that I wouldn't take faith with a grain of salt.

Some refer to faith as "believing something you know ain't so", and this kind of thinking creates a mindset that can blindside them.

 

[AV1611VET]

That faith unfortunately is a profound barrier to any chance of intellectual integrity.

Intelligence without faith is like a water park without water.

The water park may be equipped will the latest electronic gadgetry and sensor devices and whatnot; but without water, where's all that fancy stuff going to get you?

Faith is a mighty sword for good, but so destructive in the wrong hands!

Yup.

Just ask the victims of Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, and the Heavens Gate cult.