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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would it feel better to say, we must PROFFER that is according to present knowledge?

It doesn't need to be said (or it shouldn't have to be said, at least), because in science, it is a given that theories are provisional. Always. Because science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.

It's science 101.

 

[inquiring mind]

The exact same type of relationship as the one that exists between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc etc etc.

You can pretend that faith trumps reality all you want, but in the end, no matter how passionatly you believe something, reality always gets the last word.
If reality disagrees with your beliefs - it's not reality that is incorrect.

‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level). However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But we were talking about beginnings and biological evolution, not math and semiconductors.

We were also talking about the age of the earth, which is physics and chemistry. Semiconductors etc, is also physics and chemistry.

And more importantly, we are talking about science in general. The natural sciences all operate under the same methodology. Be it biology, genetics, physics, etc.

There is a lot less we know, though what we do [supposedly] know is less [supposedly] theoretical and more directly evident about the evolution of the species. Just the bones we have extrapolated skeletons and related tissues from for the entire human story will barely fill a footlocker!

First of all, that's literally incorrect. We actually have quite a lot of fossils related to human evolution.

Second of all, the fossil record is but a tiny spec of the mountain of evidence supporting evolution - and it's not even the best kind of evidence or the most solid (yet, completely consistent with evolution, off course).

The honest scientist --anthropologist, geologist, archaeologist-- will say, this is what it looks like so far.

Again you seem to be saying that common ancestry is completely concluded from only the fossil record. This is just completely false.

All fossils (the ones we found and also all those we haven't found yet) could disappear tomorrow and the case for evolution and common ancestry would remain extremely strong.
It would still be overwhelmingly supported by the genetic record, testable predictions, geographical distribution of species, etc.

So far all we have is theory,

Hint nr I-lost-count that you don't really understand how science is done.
"all we have" is theory. As if "really good theories" turn into facts or whatever.

In reality, in science, a theory is the BEST you can do. Theory is what it is all about. In science, a theory is well-tested and confirmed body of knowledge. Essentially a graduated hypothesis. It doesn't get any better then a theory.

Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Plate Tectonics.
Theory of relativity
Evolution theory.
...

All "just" theories.


www.notjustatheory.com

with some apparently supporting evidence."

In case of evolution, not "some", but enormous amounts.
And not "apparantly", but definatly. The data at our disposal factually supports the theory.
There factually is no data known that contradicts it.

BTW "the overwhelming numbers of pages of evidence" I hear so much about are still nowhere equal to the task of proving the Darwinian theory of evolution works for even one species, nevermind all the species.

Being ignorant of the science, is not an argument against it.
There are over 200.000 scientific papers published on biological evolution, each of which is dealing with its own set of evidence.

The chain of evidence is not made by an occasional link, placed in its spot by human speculation.

There's nothing "occasional" or "speculative" about things like phylogenetic trees, which literally show you how life is linked through ancestry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As for where you are going, then: If what I know about God is true (not referring to what I consider true, or hope is true, (both may tenets of the faith)), then all empirical FACT will support it. I do not by that mean that all empirical findings interpreted will support it. And that is the difference I think you and I talk about. You see these things as truth, and yes I do necessarily see the Self-existent Creator as truth. So yes, I agree, I do see everything biased, but then, admit (or proffer if you wish), so do you.

No, I do not.

Unlike you, I haven't decided beforehand what the answer is. You did.
You have decided you have the answer (god dun it) before you even asked the question.

And when science asks the question and then gathers evidence, it forms a conclusion based on that evidence.

You? You started out with the conclusion.
And whenever science comes up with a different conclusion, you assume that the science is wrong - because for some reason you assume that you can't be wrong about your assumption.

I am not starting out with a conclusion in mind.
I just go where the evidence leads.

The evidence leads to evolution and common ancestry on an old earth.
It didn't have to be that way. I didn't "want" it to be that way. It's just how it happens to be. And I can only accept that.

You can't. You need reality to comply to your a priori beliefs, as per your own admission.

I'll just comply to reality.
As I said in other posts: when reality disagrees with your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

But even then, I have tried to show your argument falls on its own merits, ignoring even its false presuppositions.

Making accusations of suppositions and assumption, without actually pointing them out, doesn't amount to a valid argument.

You have yet to point out what these supposed suppositions and assumptions are.

 

[Speedwell]

‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level). However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.

But don't forget, there is no competing model. You may think that the theory of evolution has not been adequately substantiated, but it remains as the only model which hasn't already been falsified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level).

No, it's the exact same thing.
The only reason we can determine relationships through genetics is because DNA mutates and is inherited by off spring.

This creates a hierarchical pattern which allows us, quite literally, to determine how closely linked two organisms are.

There is not "micro" or "macro" distinction here. It's the same principle at work, wheter you are comparing the DNA of 2 humans or of a pine tree and a housecat.

However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.

It's quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and don't have any basic knowledge about genetics.

You seem completely unaware of what phylogenetic trees are, what nested hierarchies are and what that means in context of self-replicating organisms that pass on mutated DNA.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it's the exact same thing.

'Seeing and knowing' is the exact same thing as 'not seeing and not knowing,' now that makes a lot of sense.

It's quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and don't have any basic knowledge about genetics.
You seem completely unaware of what phylogenetic trees are, what nested hierarchies are and what that means in context of self-replicating organisms that pass on mutated DNA.

Step 2 out of your evolutionist's playbook (the one for your argument is failing). It's quite clear that you have been sold on the "it can only be this way"... just make relevant, intelligent comments, I'll acknowledge them with appropriate answers.

 

[inquiring mind]

But don't forget, there is no competing model.

You mean no competing scientific model... don't forget this is a Creation/Evolution forum.

You may think that the theory of evolution has not been adequately substantiated, but it remains as the only model which hasn't already been falsified.

Now, you have to be talking about the model as a whole, no matter the number of idividually falsified arguments within it, and yes, I'm sure it will be the scientific community's baby for quite some time to come.

 

[Speedwell]

You mean no competing scientific model... don't forget this is a Creation/Evolution forum.

So what's your alternative? Last Thursdayism?

Now, you have to be talking about the model as a whole, no matter the number of idividually falsified arguments within it, and yes, I'm sure it will be the scientific community's baby for quite some time to come.

There are, so far as I know, no individually falsified arguments within it. Can you show us some?

 

[xianghua]

What do you think evolution is? It's not generally developing into a totally different species. It's a species evolving.

but by this criteria even if all creatures were made by design in a special creation (without a common descent) evolution is still true even in such a case. because by this definition any change is evolution. im talking about common descent for all creatures. the evidence for this claim is base on belief.

 

[xianghua]

That is a brutal misunderstanding of how it works. We even have evolution simulations. They work.

a tipical gene is a bit longer then 1000 bp. the sequence space is about 4^1000. what make you think that all the functional sequences in nature are near each other in that huge sequence space?

 

[Speedwell]

but by this criteria even if all creatures were made by design in a special creation (without a common descent) evolution is still true even in such a case. because by this definition any change is evolution. im talking about common descent for all creatures. the evidence for this claim is base on belief.

And Special Creation is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an old Hebrew creation myth. Does that make it more likely to be true?

 

[inquiring mind]

So what's your alternative? Last Thursdayism?

If you want to call it that... I'll call it Creation.

There are, so far as I know, no individually falsified arguments within it. Can you show us some?

I'm sure the scientific community has verbiage, definitions and controls in place to protect the model from such strike-throughs, but I bet that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, regardless of how it was handled.

 

[sfs]

I'm sure the scientific community has verbiage, definitions and controls in place to protect the model from such strike-throughs, but I bet that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, regardless of how it was handled.

In other words, you have no actual criticism to make, no evidence to offer, and really nothing to contribute here.

 

[inquiring mind]

In other words, you have no actual criticism to make, no evidence to offer, and really nothing to contribute here.

Well, that looks like two such opinions... but opinions vary you know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I do not.

Unlike you, I haven't decided beforehand what the answer is. You did.
You have decided you have the answer (god dun it) before you even asked the question.

And when science asks the question and then gathers evidence, it forms a conclusion based on that evidence.

You? You started out with the conclusion.
And whenever science comes up with a different conclusion, you assume that the science is wrong - because for some reason you assume that you can't be wrong about your assumption.

I am not starting out with a conclusion in mind.
I just go where the evidence leads.

The evidence leads to evolution and common ancestry on an old earth.
It didn't have to be that way. I didn't "want" it to be that way. It's just how it happens to be. And I can only accept that.

You can't. You need reality to comply to your a priori beliefs, as per your own admission.

You have demonstrably done what you claim you don't. I, per my own admission, admit bias. Yet you have taken that to mean I automatically assume science is wrong --which is plainly false. Your bias has apparently colored whatever you hear me say; I would not be surprised to find you taking this to mean something I do not mean.

Any good scientist admits his bias, and tries to keep it in mind when considering information, so as to avoid letting it color his study.

When a person is angry at someone, does it lead to his objective view of what that person says? When a person is prejudiced against a religion, does it not lead him to assume things about how the adherents of that religion behave? When a person disrespects another person's beliefs, does it not color everything he hears that person say?

(Staff Edit)

 

[sfs]

Well, that looks like two such opinions... but opinions vary you know.

I don't care about opinions. I care about evidence. Got any?

 

[USincognito]

Here's the thing. Genetics (the study of and discoveries) can also be seen to be providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design. This debate aint gonna end soon.

Actually, given the many things we observe like ERVs, pseudogenes, etc. falsify ID.

 

[USincognito]

micro evolution only

That is a falsehood.

 

[USincognito]

You're not seriously calling Macro Evolution, based largely on inconclusive assumptions and speculation, an applied science?

Using magic words to try and poof away the evidence in a puff of smoke neither addresses it nor makes it go away.