Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[gluadys]

Faith is in the facts.

When I know something to be a fact, I don't need faith to believe it. Faith is for things I cannot know for myself.

If you don't have any faith in evolution why should anyone else believe it?

No one should believe in evolution. They should study the evidence and see if the theory matches the empirical data.

I think you jumped over my meaning, their aren't any examples of things right now. It would go against a law of facts if there was an example. My point was that there have been many scientific theories and eventually they all went right down the drain. Round earth, velocity to weight, etc.

All of them? Since when did the theory that the earth is round, not flat, go down the drain? Since when did Galileo's law on falling bodies go down the drain? Since when did Copernicus theory of heliocentrism go down the drain?

If there are not any examples now, there is no reason for science to change its tune now. It takes evidence that is available now to change science. Evidence that is only wished or hoped for is not good enough.

 

[john crawford]

That speciation happens is dependent on how it is defined. Evolutionists tend to use a very broad definition of the term to validate that it happens, however the truth is that the type of speciation they require has never been proven or observed. See this page

What makes it even more questionable is that there are a number of different definitions of what constitutes a different species and varies on which taxonomist is doing the classifying.

Speciation is only the variation in the bottom of the ladder.

Actually, at the very bottom of the ladder, as far as human beings are concerned, is racial variation and diversity, without which fortunately, no human speciation may ever occur independently of, or without it first occurring.

After all, Homo erectus didn't evolve into Homo sapiens overnight. It took hundreds of thousands of years for one or some racial groups within Homo erectus to evolve into modern Homo sapiens races. At least, according to Darwinist theories of gradual descent by genetic mutatation and natural selection.

 

[david_x]

Since when did the theory that the earth is round, not flat, go down the drain?

sorry, flat earth. (misprint)

Since when did Galileo's law on falling bodies go down the drain?

No the theory he disproved.

Since when did Copernicus theory of heliocentrism go down the drain?

My point was that there were preexhisting theories and they all failed, so I have no doubt these will fail.

When I know something to be a fact, I don't need faith to believe it. Faith is for things I cannot know for myself.

Your getting it backward, fact yields faith. "Faith is for things I cannot know for myself." well then there would be no reason to have faith in it!

No one should believe in evolution.

Not "believe in" more like believe that evolution is fact.

They should study the evidence and see if the theory matches the empirical data.

Preciesly! then everyone would know evolution is faulty.

 

[gluadys]

sorry, flat earth. (misprint)



No the theory he disproved.



My point was that there were preexhisting theories and they all failed, so I have no doubt these will fail.

Except that they were not, for the most part, pre-existing theories. They were pre-scientific assumptions based on superficial observation and traditional creation stories. The very idea of science did not exist yet when these notions were accepted as common wisdom.

An example of science replacing science is Einstein's general relativity replacing Newton's mechanistic cosmos. Except that general relativity doesn't really replace Newton's theories. It absorbs them. It includes them as part of the larger theory.

Your getting it backward, fact yields faith. "Faith is for things I cannot know for myself." well then there would be no reason to have faith in it!

If you need a reason to believe, then what you have is not faith. Faith is what you hold on to when you don't have a reason to believe. Faith is not founded on reason. It is a gift of God's grace.

What reason do you have to believe God exists?

Not "believe in" more like believe that evolution is fact.

That takes no more faith than believing 2 + 2 = 4 The facts just add up.

The only underlying faith required is that the world is what it appears to be.

Biblical faith is much more about believing "in" than believing "that".

Preciesly! then everyone would know evolution is faulty.

Tell me that when you have a degree in evolutionary biology.

 

[david_x]

Except that they were not, for the most part, pre-existing theories. They were pre-scientific assumptions based on superficial observation and traditional creation stories. The very idea of science did not exist yet when these notions were accepted as common wisdom.

An example of science replacing science is Einstein's general relativity replacing Newton's mechanistic cosmos. Except that general relativity doesn't really replace Newton's theories. It absorbs them. It includes them as part of the larger theory.

theories none the less.

If you need a reason to believe, then what you have is not faith. Faith is what you hold on to when you don't have a reason to believe. Faith is not founded on reason. It is a gift of God's grace.

Uhh.. i think your confusing faith and hope.

That takes no more faith than believing 2 + 2 = 4 The facts just add up.

The only underlying faith required is that the world is what it appears to be.

Biblical faith is much more about believing "in" than believing "that".

i meant that along the probibility discussion

What reason do you have to believe God exists?

I believe for i have seen....
333 that is the number of OT prophices that Christo fullfiled, i mean if that isn't potent enough!

Tell me that when you have a degree in evolutionary biology.

No need, i can fend for myself. It's really not that complicated.

This does present another argument though, schools are teaching but one side of a majority against subject, i mean how biased do you get. (in reference to US i have been yelled at by people from different nations when i said stuff like that before)

 

[artybloke]

No need, i can fend for myself. It's really not that complicated.

It isn't? How come so many creationists can't even get the basic theory right then?

 

[gluadys]

theories none the less.

ok. you've run out of arguments, so you make a meaningless reply.

Uhh.. i think your confusing faith and hope.

No. Hope is also a gift of God's grace, but I know the difference between these gifts.

i meant that along the probibility discussion

Probability is not a matter of faith either. When the weather forecast tells me there is an 80% chance of precipitation, I know it is a wise precaution to take an umbrella with me.

I believe for i have seen....
333 that is the number of OT prophices that Christo fullfiled, i mean if that isn't potent enough!

I didn't ask about Christ. I asked what reason you have to believe God exists. And before we speak of Christ fulfilling prophecies, we can ask what reason you have for believing he existed too.

No need, i can fend for myself. It's really not that complicated.

What artybloke said.

This does present another argument though, schools are teaching but one side of a majority against subject, i mean how biased do you get. (in reference to US i have been yelled at by people from different nations when i said stuff like that before)

It's simple. Scientifically there is only one side. That is not bias. That is fact. If and when another side emerges which is scientifically credible it will be taught. I went to school before there was enough evidence to tell whether big bang or steady state theory was correct, and we were taught both. I expect you were taught only big bang theory, because steady-state theory has been falsified. That is as it ought to be.

 

[david_x]

ok. you've run out of arguments, so you make a meaningless reply.

no, you expound on the idea in a different direction, and i didn't argue with it.

HOPE is what you hold on to when you don't have a reason to believe. HOPE is not founded on reason. It is a gift of God's grace.

Just correctin' your post. See how well that fits?

Probability is not a matter of faith either. When the weather forecast tells me there is an 80% chance of precipitation, I know it is a wise precaution to take an umbrella with me.

Probibility went with fact, probibility did not go with faith.

I didn't ask about Christ. I asked what reason you have to believe God exists.

One in the same.

And before we speak of Christ fulfilling prophecies, we can ask what reason you have for believing he existed too.

Christ fullfilling the prophices is the reason i believe.

It isn't? How come so many creationists can't even get the basic theory right then?

I'm insulted! If that's the case then most evolutionist haven't read the bible! Your generalizing.

It's simple. Scientifically there is only one side. That is not bias. That is fact. If and when another side emerges which is scientifically credible it will be taught. I went to school before there was enough evidence to tell whether big bang or steady state theory was correct, and we were taught both. I expect you were taught only big bang theory, because steady-state theory has been falsified. That is as it ought to be.

Biases usually are one sided. Fact, as far as you can tell. Anything is more scientific then than evolution. You are still generalizing, of cource i know what steady state theory is, they never stoped teaching it, just gave it a smaller paragraph.

 

[gluadys]

HOPE is what you hold on to when you don't have a reason to believe. HOPE is not founded on reason. It is a gift of God's grace.

Just correctin' your post. See how well that fits?

Of course it fits. But it fits for faith as well. Did I not say that both are gifts of God's grace? And also the definition of faith in Hebrews includes hope. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Probibility went with fact, probibility did not go with faith.

That is what I was pointing out.

One in the same.



Christ fullfilling the prophices is the reason i believe.

OK. But you are not digging deep enough. Prophecies don't give a reason to believe for people who do not already believe in God and Christ.

And what about the Jews? Read this.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm

Now, if you were evangelizing among Jews, how would you answer the claims that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies?

Biases usually are one sided.

So are facts. That doesn't mean that facts are biased.

Anything is more scientific then than evolution.

Show me. Show me 1) anything about evolution that is not scientific and 2) anything about biology that is scientific and contradicts evolution.

i know what steady state theory is, they never stoped teaching it, just gave it a smaller paragraph.

But I expect what they taught was how it had been falsified.
Same as the little footnote on the phlogisten theory of fire.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and as fact. The irony is that my own acceptance in evolution basically evolved. I believed that evolution was junk most of my childhood, but I've always gone in earnest of genetics...my eventual downfall. When I heard on a science video that humans are 45% genetically identical to a worm, I was sandbagged to say the very least. I thought "Well, what was to keep God from reusing building blocks?" And then I realized that such a thing was ludicrously close to Theistic Evolution and that I needed to just drop my pride and stop being stubborn.

Since when is evolution fact. The scientific community has not said or proven evolution to be fact. As I have talked with friends who are scientists they all laugh at the theory of evolution whether they be Darwinians or TE.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Happy birthday!!

A fact is necessarily true. That is what makes it a fact.

Show that something is not true, and you show that it is not a fact.

That evolution happens and has happened is a fact.

That mutation + natural selection are the principal mechanisms of evolution is also a fact, although there are other factors sometimes at play as well.

That speciation (aka macro-evolution) happens is another fact.

The above facts imply common descent as a logical conclusion. That this conclusion is well-supported by further evidence is, again, a fact. Nothing other than common descent makes sense of many biological observations.

It may be going a step too far to say that common descent is a fact, but without evidence to call it into question, it is by far the best basis for continuing work in biological research.

See my last post.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

It isn't? How come so many creationists can't even get the basic theory right then?

Maybe (if we aren't getting it right) it's because evolution has changes so much that everytime something goes up to disprove evolution, evolutionist have the change their theory to try to fit the facts.
For example, what some TE say evolution is differs from Darwinians, differs from school text books.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Notto, I am still waiting for the exact reference in Genesis which supports a theology for evolution.

 

[bullietdodger]

So how does evolutionists account for the mule? Why don't they reproduce?

 

[notto]

Since when is evolution fact. The scientific community has not said or proven evolution to be fact. As I have talked with friends who are scientists they all laugh at the theory of evolution whether they be Darwinians or TE.

That life in the past is much different than life today and that the diversity of life on this planet changed slowly over millions of years is a fact. Evolution has happened. The theory of evolution works to explain this fact and identify the mechanisms that made that fact happen.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I would question whether your scientist friends are qualified to make a determination if they laugh at the theory that is overwhelmingly accepted in the field. Perhaps they should publish some research to overthrow it. They would be famous beyond their dreams. What is their field? What have they done in regards to biology? Where do they work? What materials on evolution have the read that makes their opinion informed?

 

[notto]

Notto, I am still waiting for the exact reference in Genesis which supports a theology for evolution.

I believe I've already given it to you.

 

[notto]

Maybe (if we aren't getting it right) it's because evolution has changes so much that everytime something goes up to disprove evolution, evolutionist have the change their theory to try to fit the facts.
For example, what some TE say evolution is differs from Darwinians, differs from school text books.

Can you give a specific example? Where has information been presented that disproves evolution that has caused a change in the theory to fit the facts?

Reference? How did it disprove evolution? What was the change that was made? Please be specific.

What are 'Darwinians'? What textbook are you referring to? Publisher and name would be helpful.

 

[bullietdodger]

That life in the past is much different than life today and that the diversity of life on this planet changed slowly over millions of years is a fact. Evolution has happened. The theory of evolution works to explain this fact and identify the mechanisms that made that fact happen.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I would question whether your scientist friends are qualified to make a determination if they laugh at the theory that is overwhelmingly accepted in the field. Perhaps they should publish some research to overthrow it. They would be famous beyond their dreams. What is their field? What have they done in regards to biology? Where do they work? What materials on evolution have the read that makes their opinion informed?

Hmm, I didn't think that there was anyone to witness the creation of the universe to "prove" evolution's explanation of life. Silly me, I just thought there was only God in the beginning. LOL

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

That life in the past is much different than life today and that the diversity of life on this planet changed slowly over millions of years is a fact. Evolution has happened. The theory of evolution works to explain this fact and identify the mechanisms that made that fact happen.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

I would question whether your scientist friends are qualified to make a determination if they laugh at the theory that is overwhelmingly accepted in the field. Perhaps they should publish some research to overthrow it. They would be famous beyond their dreams. What is their field? What have they done in regards to biology? Where do they work? What materials on evolution have the read that makes their opinion informed?

Where, when and who proved evolution without a single hint of suspision or doubt that evolution is a fact.

 

[S Walch]

How can something be both a FACT and a theory at the same time?

Oxymoron?