Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

Faith - a belief set backed by no evidence
Science - convictions based on evidence that are capable of being replicated.

Big Bang - a model that is based on principles that have been measured - eg gravitational waves
Evolution - A model supported by principles that have been measured eg carbon dating and fossil evidence.

Zoii said:

Faith - a belief set backed by no evidence
Science - convictions based on evidence that are capable of being replicated.

Big Bang - a model that is based on principles that have been measured - eg gravitational waves
Evolution - A model supported by principles that have been measured eg carbon dating and fossil evidence.

Click to expand...

Hello Zoii.

You said.

Faith - a belief set backed by no evidence

Click to expand...

No evidence you say?

What do you call the new Testament, that is not evidence?

How do you understand the growth of the Christian church through the centuries, not any evidence?

The apostle Paul said, there were more than five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ, that is not evidence?

The messianic prophecies predicted the advent of the Christ, that is not evidence?

Scholars do not even doubt that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified.

The Christian faith is a weighty fact with overwhelming evidence.

klutedavid said:

Hello Zoii.

You said.

No evidence you say?

What do you call the new Testament, that is not evidence?

How do you understand the growth of the Christian church through the centuries, not any evidence?

The apostle Paul said, there were more than five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ, that is not evidence?

The messianic prophecies predicted the advent of the Christ, that is not evidence?

Scholars do not even doubt that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified.

The Christian faith is a weighty fact with overwhelming evidence.

Click to expand...

Peace - by evidence I mean that we cannot prove critical points eg Re genesis - we dont know who wrote it or when - we do not have evidence for the flood, creation of man from dust, adam eve etc. In exodus how does one prove or even find evidence for the parting of the waters for Israelites to escape.

How does one prove Jesus was the son of God and that indeed he actually died but came back to life and then rose to heaven - how do we prove that. Indeed how does one even prove God. We rely on records past down over the centuries of prophets recollections or thoughts. That we accept them is a matter of faith. Please dont take that as a criticism. Its just a statement of fact.

re your example of Pauls statement. Yes he said he believed this was witnessed by a lot of people. Can you not see that that statement doesnt make it fact. You have to have faith that what Paul said was in fact correct. If this was viewed objectively then wouldnt it be reasonable for someone to say - well perhaps Jesus was wounded by not actually dead. Heck they could simply say Paul was misleading in his comment. And lastly how would any of the saints or prophets prove Jesus was the son of God. Thats a matter of faith. You could however argue that you have evidence to support your view ie Pauls writings. The same goes for evolution - It has substantial evidence but at this stage it is not proven fact.

Again this isnt a criticism. Its an explanation separating fact from faith; and separating evidence from proven fact.

"Darwinism" is not a religion (and calling it that as a pejorative as you've done is what I call the "I know you are, but what am I?" fallacy. You are insinuating that being a religion is a bad thing. What does that say about Christianity and Young-Earth Creationists beliefs?). It's not really even a thing. There are the observations and writings of Darwin, a 19th century naturalist, upon which the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was built along with ideas from Wallace and Mendel et. al. But we've learned a lot since then. The ToE stands on its own mountain these days.

1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard it said before, but science does not deal in proofs. Only in building models with the goal of being less and less wrong about reality. The method of science is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat ad infinitum. With each successive observation and data collection and testing we become less and less wrong in our thinking about whatever it is we had a hypothesis about. So, evolutionary theory is based on this process. Darwin (and Wallace) made observations about living things such as Birds on islands always resemble the birds on the mainland but with slight differences. He made many observations and from these generalized that populations of living things change and diverge over time to the point where 1 population becomes 2 different populations that can no longer mate and produce offspring. Further, he noted how organisms seemed to be adapted for the environment in which they live: moths with very long proboscis where there were flower with very deep nectar chambers (a prediction by Darwin which turned out to be correct) coming to the conclusion that the environment "selects" individuals who are better adapted and their traits are passed on to the next generation. We built on it from there with genetics and cladistics and phylogenetics, affirmations of timescales from geology, affirmation of relationships and the expected patterns through paleontology and so on. Yes, these are all science based.

Arius said:

Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?

Click to expand...

Darwinism is a thing - but in a modern context its a very narrow thing within the wider community of schools of thought within evolutionary biology. It refers generally to those that have a narrow, gene centered and adaptationist view of evolutionary biology with a central focus on natural selection and a pronnounced aversion to teleology.

I'd advance Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life as probably the best exploration of this 'Modern Darwinism'

What I think you're getting at though is using Darwinism as a synonym for either 'person who does not accept Christian biblically literal creationism' or 'person who understands that the modern evolutionary synthesis provides the best explanation for biological diversity and the history of life on earth'.

I'd accept either of those two definitions, but then Darwinism would not count as a religion - either in the narrow modern sense or even a broad colloquial sense.This is because both are based on well supported, painstakingly detailed sets of evidence collected in the last 160 years, require no unfounded beliefs about the world and has no common set of tenants or practices.

Attempting to disparage evolution by labelling it a faith/religion seems to be the height of hypocrisy when you've been advocating for an explicitly faith based view of the biological world.

Arius said:

The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.

Click to expand...

Evolutionary biology is as godless as any other scientific theory - that is, it makes no mention of it because it has no need of it.

It's actually a little more stringent that this. In order for science to be science, it requires the axiomatic assumption of methodological naturalism. The sciences are necessarily limited to considering the natural world, and the natural world alone.

Arius said:

It has also redefined the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" which is what all Religions require;

Click to expand...

It has done no such thing - certain individuals may have, but Darwinism as you view it isn't really a thing, and it certainly hasn't re-defined words in common parlance.

Arius said:

in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.

Click to expand...

Please, oh please, do me a favour: Don't conflate biological evolution with cosmology. They're not the same thing. They're not even related.

The Big Bang is a completely separate thing from the development of life on earth. We use the term "evolution" to describe processes in both - but in the sense of the word that simply means 'change over time'.

If we had proof of a steady state universe, or even a created universe, it really wouldn't matter (really) to the evidence underpinning the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Arius said:

In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;

1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?

Click to expand...

Sure - the Big Bang Cosmological model of the universe and the modern evolutionary synthesis are among two of the best supported theories in modern science. Neither is perfectly understood, and there are still unsolved problems within each and both will be tweaked and adjusted as we improve our knowledge of reality.

However, overturning either of these and replacing either with a new theory would require a fundamental reassessment of our understanding of reality. Such a change would need to be at least on par - and probably much more significant - than the discovery of DNA or quantum mechanics. While this is not impossible, it is such an unlikely outcome that I consider Atlantis suddenly re-appearing in the middle of the Atlantic more likely.

By the way, I'm not proselytising. All I'm here to do is use the education I've collected to correct mistakes, errors and factually inaccuracies of an accidental or deliberate nature.

Number two is basically an irrelevancy. If you're annoyed that some people have re-interpreted the word faith to mean blind faith, then I suggest you call them out on it.


Finally, I'd ask you to consider this - if evolutionary biology or the Big Bang models were overturned tomorrow, the theories that replaced them would still only consider the natural world. Science includes no gods, no religious texts, no creation stories. They'd be based on the best available evidence from the natural world, and nothing else.

Zoii said:

Faith - a belief set backed by no evidence
Science - convictions based on evidence that are capable of being replicated.

Big Bang - a model that is based on principles that have been measured - eg gravitational waves
Evolution - A model supported by principles that have been measured eg carbon dating and fossil evidence.

Click to expand...

False, faith is not purely a set of beliefs backed by no evidence.
Having faith in your spouse, is backed by evidence that your spouse is a good person.
Having faith that an elevator wont snap, is backed by the evidence that it's structurally sound.

Don't fall into new age BS re-definitions.

Zoii said:

Peace - by evidence I mean that we cannot prove critical points eg Re genesis - we dont know who wrote it or when - we do not have evidence for the flood, creation of man from dust, adam eve etc. In exodus how does one prove or even find evidence for the parting of the waters for Israelites to escape.

How does one prove Jesus was the son of God and that indeed he actually died but came back to life and then rose to heaven - how do we prove that. Indeed how does one even prove God. We rely on records past down over the centuries of prophets recollections or thoughts. That we accept them is a matter of faith. Please dont take that as a criticism. Its just a statement of fact.

re your example of Pauls statement. Yes he said he believed this was witnessed by a lot of people. Can you not see that that statement doesnt make it fact. You have to have faith that what Paul said was in fact correct. If this was viewed objectively then wouldnt it be reasonable for someone to say - well perhaps Jesus was wounded by not actually dead. Heck they could simply say Paul was misleading in his comment. And lastly how would any of the saints or prophets prove Jesus was the son of God. Thats a matter of faith. You could however argue that you have evidence to support your view ie Pauls writings. The same goes for evolution - It has substantial evidence but at this stage it is not proven fact.

Again this isnt a criticism. Its an explanation separating fact from faith; and separating evidence from proven fact.

Click to expand...

Hello Zoii.

You were talking about a lack of evidence, i.e., faith.

I noted that, there exists abundant evidence for the death and resurrection of the Christ.

Then you changed your argument, now your talking about, 'proof', which is distinctly different to having a sufficient evidence.

Science lacks proof, yes, and science also rests on a battery of assumed truths.

There is a vast separation between trivial knowledge (science) and true knowledge.

A knowledge of the evolution of a whale is trivial knowledge.

A knowledge of the risen Christ is the most powerful information that can be known.

Can the resurrection of the Christ be proven?

Simply without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity would not exist. The existence of the Christian religion is the proof of the reality of the resurrection.

The Gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

klutedavid said:

Hello Zoii.

You were talking about a lack of evidence, i.e., faith.

I noted that, there exists abundant evidence for the death and resurrection of the Christ.

Then you changed your argument, now your talking about, 'proof', which is distinctly different to having a sufficient evidence.

Science lacks proof, yes, and science also rests on a battery of assumed truths.

There is a vast separation between trivial knowledge (science) and true knowledge.

A knowledge of the evolution of a whale is trivial knowledge.

A knowledge of the risen Christ is the most powerful information that can be known.

Can the resurrection of the Christ be proven?

Simply without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity would not exist. The existence of the Christian religion is the proof of the reality of the resurrection.

The Gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Click to expand...

Doubt anybody will listen, a lot of philosophically dull people like to take to the re-definition of Faith,
which is not belief without evidence.

Anybody who studies passed what their college professor says, will know that.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

"Darwinism" is not a religion (and calling it that as a pejorative as you've done is what I call the "I know you are, but what am I?" fallacy. You are insinuating that being a religion is a bad thing. What does that say about Christianity and Young-Earth Creationists beliefs?). It's not really even a thing. There are the observations and writings of Darwin, a 19th century naturalist, upon which the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was built along with ideas from Wallace and Mendel et. al. But we've learned a lot since then. The ToE stands on its own mountain these days.



I'm sure you've heard it said before, but science does not deal in proofs. Only in building models with the goal of being less and less wrong about reality. The method of science is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat ad infinitum. With each successive observation and data collection and testing we become less and less wrong in our thinking about whatever it is we had a hypothesis about. So, evolutionary theory is based on this process. Darwin (and Wallace) made observations about living things such as Birds on islands always resemble the birds on the mainland but with slight differences. He made many observations and from these generalized that populations of living things change and diverge over time to the point where 1 population becomes 2 different populations that can no longer mate and produce offspring. We built on it from there with genetics and cladistics and phylogenetics, affirmations of timescales from geology, affirmation of relationships and the expected patterns through paleontology and so on. Yes, these are all science based.

Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory, yet I have observed that science enforces dogma.

The method of science is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat ad infinitum.

Click to expand...

You neglected some serious assumptions and axioms, science is not that simple.

1) Man has the necessary intelligence to understand space time, comprehensible
2) Events that occurred in the past, occur today in exactly the same manner
3) The speed of light is a constant
4) There are no Gods or a spiritual realm that influences space time
5) The axioms of mathematics are true statements
6) E.t.c.

I have issues with every discipline of science.

If life can evolve from nothingness we will become a bunch of tumor.

Wolfe said:

Doubt anybody will listen, a lot of philosophically dull people like to take to the re-definition of Faith,
which is not belief without evidence.

Anybody who studies passed what their college professor says, will know that.

Click to expand...

Does anyone ever listen?

Evidence is not absent in Christianity.

It takes a mountain of faith to believe in the scientific endeavor.

An international team of astronomers, led by Christopher Conselice, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Nottingham, have found that the universe contains at least 2 trillion galaxies, ten times more than previously thought. (phys.org)

Two trillion galaxies, each galaxy containing probably more than a billion suns. Science teaches that this extraordinary mass, once occupied a space smaller than a ping pong ball. This theory is called the Big Bang. I cannot accept that explanation, the faith required is enormous. People criticize folk for believing in Jesus Christ, yet they turn around and proclaim an impossible scientific theory and expect you to accept it?

klutedavid said:

Does anyone ever listen?

Click to expand...

Sometimes, but not most of the time.

klutedavid said:

Sounds good in theory, yet I have observed that science enforces dogma.

Click to expand...

There may be scientists who are dogmatic about some aspect of their pet theory or field, but I don't think science is. To err is human, after all. Data is king though. Provide the data to overturn and idea and the consensus will follow.

You neglected some serious assumptions and axioms, science is not that simple.

1) Man has the necessary intelligence to understand space time, comprehensible

Click to expand...

I would agree that this is an assumption. Not much we can do about it though. We either do or we don't. We can only do what we can do and hope it's good enough.

2) Events that occurred in the past, occur today in exactly the same manner

Click to expand...

I would word it more as processes at work today are the same as processes at work in the past. i.e. water erodes rock, oxygen oxidizes, rainbows were a thing...

3) The speed of light is a constant

Click to expand...

More correctly, the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum. This is an observation. It may be incorrect. You are welcome to disprove it.

4) There are no Gods or a spiritual realm that influences space time

Click to expand...

Science has nothing to say about such things. People who practice science might, but science itself only deals with what it can observe and test. If these entities exist and interact with the physical world, then they are not beyond its purvue.

5) The axioms of mathematics are true statements

Click to expand...

Ok, I guess.

6) E.t.c.

Click to expand...

etc. indeed.

I have issues with every discipline of science.

Click to expand...

Probably not computer science, though, amiright?

klutedavid said:

Two trillion galaxies, each galaxy containing probably more than a billion suns. Science teaches that this extraordinary mass, once occupied a space smaller than a ping pong ball.

Click to expand...

It wasn't mass then.

Wolfe said:

False, faith is not purely a set of beliefs backed by no evidence.
Having faith in your spouse, is backed by evidence that your spouse is a good person.
Having faith that an elevator wont snap, is backed by the evidence that it's structurally sound.

Don't fall into new age BS re-definitions.

Click to expand...

That is not how the Bible describes faith. And in most interactions I have with theists they usually use faith as "believe without evidence".

What you describe I just call trust, no need to use the misleading word faith.

Skreeper said:

That is not how the Bible describes faith. And in most interactions I have with theists they usually use faith as "believe without evidence".

What you describe I just call trust, no need to use the misleading word faith.

Click to expand...

That's what it means, having faith in Jesus, trusting Jesus.

The convenient re-defining of faith was a tricky trick.
Important to study where words come from, to know what you're talking about.

Speedwell said:

It wasn't mass then.

Click to expand...

Energy, infinite energy or approaching an infinite energy, sorry about that.

If science permits the use of undefined concepts such as, 'infinite'.

klutedavid said:

Energy, infinite energy or approaching an infinite energy, sorry about that.

If science permits the use of undefined concepts such as, 'infinite'.

Click to expand...

Ive always thought there was room for science and religion to cohabit. The Big bang which many Christians find so contentious I believe works well with the scriptures in Genesis.

There was nothing. Then there was a singularity which with rapid expansion evolved to mass, then stars ..."let their be light"