Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[shinbits]

Theories explain observations and facts. The theory of evolution is the best scientific theory that explains why life in the past was much different than life today and explains the observations and facts of the fossil record and genetics.

Just like theories of gravity explain why we observe the fact that objects are attracted to each other.

I think we are making progress.

I think we're making progress too.

I have a question, though.

In your honest opinion, can any theory, with the discovery of enough facts be disproven?

Well, basically, let me just say it. Do you think that it's possible that evolution may not be right?

And by possible, I don't mean do you think it's 99.99999999% right, with a slim possibility of being incorrect.

Do you think evolution has just as equal a chance of being disproven, as it does of being correct?

Or is it just to strong of a theory, the way relativity is?

 

[notto]

In your honest opinion, can any theory, with the discovery of enough facts be disproven?

Well, basically, let me just say it. Do you think that it's possible that evolution may not be right?

And by possible, I don't mean do you think it's 99.99999999% right, with a slim possibility of being incorrect.

Of course. The theory that the earth is young has been falsified for over 100 years. There is evidence that exists and observations that are made (facts) that the theory simply cannot explain and that simply cannot exist if the earth is young. This is called falsification in science. There are several lines of reasoning that would falsify evolution if the right evidence was found. Currently, evolution is not falsified.

Do you think evolution has just as equal a chance of being disproven, as it does of being correct?

Or is it just to strong of a theory, the way relativity is?

It many ways, it is stronger then both the theory of relativity and gravity. We understand the physical mechanisms involved in evolution. Not so much with relativity and gravity. Still lots of mechanisms to uncover there.

I don't think there is much of a change of the entire theory of evolution being falsified. Over 150 years of research by hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries and backgrounds have generated thousands of pages of research that all points us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is right, that biodiversity has evolved, that we understand the primary mechansism involved, and that common ancestry is a fact. It doesn't get much more confirmed then that in science and it won't be overturned by a falsified theory such as a young earth or an unfalsifiable one such as intelligent design.

 

[bullietdodger]

You are moving the goalposts from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'there might be an invisible dragon under my bed'.

You are grasping at straws and seem to be unfamiliar with the evidence we do have yet you denounce it as if it doesn't exist. You seem to be demontrating that no matter what evidence you would be shown (or review in this thread) that you will simply ignore it and again move the goalposts.

It would be like me claiming that all the history books could be wrong because nobody alive today was there to see things happen first hand. It is simply unreasonable.

Hmm, it seems that you too have been closed to anything offer in opposition to evolution. Frankly, I would rather grasp at the straw of God then trust in the thin air of evolution. As I have been doing more reading since our last dialogue (I am continuing to do research) I have not come across anything that would convince me of evolution.

Here's another question. Isn't it possible for God to create the universe and life so it would appear to look like millions or billions of years old. God would not intend to deceive, only to have in place what we be needed for life to continue to exist.

Have you also considered that since humans have souls and all other living creatures do not have a soul to be an example of why it is impossible for humans to have the same biological ancestory? Don't forget that God did create humans special, unlike any other creature. Mankind are not mearly animals.

 

[notto]

Hmm, it seems that you too have been closed to anything offer in opposition to evolution. Frankly, I would rather grasp at the straw of God then trust in the thin air of evolution. As I have been doing more reading since our last dialogue (I am continuing to do research) I have not come across anything that would convince me of evolution.

What have you read? Why do you think that your conclusions after a few months are different than the majority of scientists of all faiths, backgrounds, nationalities, genders, ages, and backgrounds who do actual research in biology and geology? What have you read that you find unconvincing that they find convincing?

Calling evolution 'thin air' tells me that you haven't read that much.

Have you read this completely and in its entirety?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I would recommend that you do. Ask questions if you have them. Just don't discount evolution until you have actually read the work of the scientistis that work with biology every day and who actually developed the theory. Don't rely on poor sources - go to the real scientists and biologists. Don't rely on creationist physicists and astonomers to give you your information on a theory that deals exclusively with biology.

 

[gluadys]

Here's another question. Isn't it possible for God to create the universe and life so it would appear to look like millions or billions of years old. God would not intend to deceive, only to have in place what we be needed for life to continue to exist.

It might be possible for a god to do this, but not the God of the bible. It can't be done without a measure of deceit. At least not with the evidence of past history that exists in the universe. There is too much unnecessary history that is not needed simply to make the world a habitat for humans.

For a simple example, if a habitable world was all that was necessary, there would be no reason to include any fossils of extinct species such as trilobites, ammonites and dinosaurs.

There would be no need for Adam and Eve to have belly-buttons. Did they?

Have you also considered that since humans have souls and all other living creatures do not have a soul to be an example of why it is impossible for humans to have the same biological ancestory? Don't forget that God did create humans special, unlike any other creature. Mankind are not mearly animals.

Is a soul biological? Can a surgeon remove a soul?

Nothing prevents God making humans special by granting a non-biological soul to beings whose biological character has evolved.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Here's another question. Isn't it possible for God to create the universe and life so it would appear to look like millions or billions of years old. God would not intend to deceive, only to have in place what we be needed for life to continue to exist.

Of course God could do it... He could create a fully-functioning universe with a snap of His fingers.

But would he create something instantly that looked like it was billions of years old and contained every sign and clue we would expect to find if it were billions of years old?

To put it another way... God created Adam as a mature adult, there's no questioning His ability to do that. But would God include in Adam's creation a lifetime of false memories of a childhood that never happened? Scars from old injuries which he never actually had?

Nobody is questioning that God could do this... but would He?

Have you also considered that since humans have souls and all other living creatures do not have a soul to be an example of why it is impossible for humans to have the same biological ancestory?

First... how do you know that animals don't have souls? Second... what does the soul have to do with biology? Is there a "soul" gland in the body? Something written into our DNA that gives us a soul?

Our souls transcend mere biology.

Don't forget that God did create humans special, unlike any other creature. Mankind are not mearly animals.

We are not merely animals because we are aware on a spiritual level... that was God's gift to us: the ability to be aware of His presence and the choice (free will) to act on it or ignore it. That, and not anything biological, IMHO, is what separates us from the other animals.

Physically however, we are as much an animal as anything else that walks, crawls, hops, swims, or slithers on the planet.

 

[Dannager]

I was going to reply to bullietdodger, but it looks like you guys are handling this admirably. I'll be on my way.

 

[humbledbyhim]

Of course God could do it... He could create a fully-functioning universe with a snap of His fingers.

But would he create something instantly that looked like it was billions of years old and contained every sign and clue we would expect to find if it were billions of years old?

In response to the idea that God created the earth in 6 days and then made the earth look like it's old. I have something to say about God's way, and Paul did too!

First me: God commanded Abraham to kill his son. To Abraham, it was a done deal that Isaac would have to be killed, but it was only a test to see if Abraham believed God when God said that Abraham would have many decendents through his promised son Isaac.(Get it? God made it look like He was lying to Abraham, but Abraham had sense enough to believe that God could do the impossible and bring Isaac back to life.)

We are now met with a test: beleive the mountain of facts that support an old earth, (though some of the facts that support an old earth can be explained biblically, and the definition of a fact according to scientists does not equate to truth [for God's word is truth] ...but I digress) can we still believe that "...the evening and the morning were the first day"? Gen. 1:5(KJV)

I say yes. Why? Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12:


7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Now is it me or did Paul Just say that God would decieve somone with a delusion because they wouldn't believe the truth (His word)? Perhaps, like taking a life, God can do that because he owns everything. Presumably he still loves those that he decieves because he decieves them after they rejected the truth (and not before they had a shot at acceptance).

In other words, in response to the "God would be a deciever if YECs were right." argument, He is sovereign, He can do that.<----that is a giant period by the way.

 

[ebia]

In response to the idea that God created the earth in 6 days and then made the earth look like it's old. I have something to say about God's way, and Paul did too!

First me: God commanded Abraham to kill his son. To Abraham, it was a done deal that Isaac would have to be killed, but it was only a test to see if Abraham believed God when God said that Abraham would have many decendents through his promised son Isaac.(Get it? God made it look like He was lying to Abraham, but Abraham had sense enough to believe that God could do the impossible and bring Isaac back to life.)

We are now met with a test: beleive the mountain of facts that support an old earth, (though some of the facts that support an old earth can be explained biblically, and the definition of a fact according to scientists does not equate to truth [for God's word is truth] ...but I digress) can we still believe that "...the evening and the morning were the first day"? Gen. 1:5(KJV)

I say yes. Why? Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12:


7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Now is it me or did Paul Just say that God would decieve somone with a delusion because they wouldn't believe the truth (His word)? Perhaps, like taking a life, God can do that because he owns everything. Presumably he still loves those that he decieves because he decieves them after they rejected the truth (and not before they had a shot at acceptance).

In other words, in response to the "God would be a deciever if YECs were right." argument, He is sovereign, He can do that.<----that is a giant period by the way.

So, if God is a liar, why would you believe what you think he said through the Bible over what you think he said through Creation? And why would you want to follow a God who "tests" people by telling people two contradictory things and "failing" those who make the wrong guess?

 

[S Walch]

Titus 1:2
This truth gives them the confidence of eternal life, which God promised them before the world began--and he cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18
So God has given us both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie.

 

[gluadys]

In response to the idea that God created the earth in 6 days and then made the earth look like it's old. I have something to say about God's way, and Paul did too!

First me: God commanded Abraham to kill his son. To Abraham, it was a done deal that Isaac would have to be killed, but it was only a test to see if Abraham believed God when God said that Abraham would have many decendents through his promised son Isaac.(Get it? God made it look like He was lying to Abraham, but Abraham had sense enough to believe that God could do the impossible and bring Isaac back to life.)

We are now met with a test: beleive the mountain of facts that support an old earth, (though some of the facts that support an old earth can be explained biblically, and the definition of a fact according to scientists does not equate to truth [for God's word is truth] ...but I digress) can we still believe that "...the evening and the morning were the first day"? Gen. 1:5(KJV)

I say yes. Why? Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12:


7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Now is it me or did Paul Just say that God would decieve somone with a delusion because they wouldn't believe the truth (His word)? Perhaps, like taking a life, God can do that because he owns everything. Presumably he still loves those that he decieves because he decieves them after they rejected the truth (and not before they had a shot at acceptance).

In other words, in response to the "God would be a deciever if YECs were right." argument, He is sovereign, He can do that.<----that is a giant period by the way.

It is one thing for God to send a strong delusion on those who have already rejected the love of truth. To be immersed in untruth is a fitting punishment for those who hate truth.

But if YEC is true, God has sent a strong delusion on the whole of humanity, irrespective of whether or not they have even heard the truth and before they even have an opportunity to accept or reject it. And it is not even in regard to the gospel and salvation.

 

[Gwenyfur]

It is one thing for God to send a strong delusion on those who have already rejected the love of truth. To be immersed in untruth is a fitting punishment for those who hate truth.

But if YEC is true, God has sent a strong delusion on the whole of humanity, irrespective of whether or not they have even heard the truth and before they even have an opportunity to accept or reject it. And it is not even in regard to the gospel and salvation.

Not when humans have a choice on what to believe. The theories are there, but only the Bible reveals the truth of G-d....all other sources, no matter how reliable, are just man's theories in trying to understand G-d...or those completely rejecting His omnipotent power.

 

[notto]

Not when humans have a choice on what to believe. The theories are there, but only the Bible reveals the truth of G-d....all other sources, no matter how reliable, are just man's theories in trying to understand G-d...or those completely rejecting His omnipotent power.

So observations of God's creation are not a reliable source of truth?

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Gwenyfur]

So observations of God's creation are not a reliable source of truth?

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Keep straining at gnats there

 

[artybloke]

Keep straining at gnats there

Have you answered my question yet?

How come somebody who can't even answer a simple question about what sceintists accept as evolutionary theory presume to criticise people who've studied a subject their whole lives?

Oh yes, I know, it's the fundagelical mindset: "only us fundamentalists can tell every other Christian what the Bible means and everybody else has to agree with us otherwise they're going to Hell."

 

[gluadys]

but only the Bible reveals the truth of G-d....

That's putting God in a box, isn't it? Who says God only speaks through the bible? By what right and power can they place such a limit on an almighty and sovereign God?

Or do you believe God is a tame lion?


"The wind blows where it wills, and no one can tell where it comes from or where it goes." ~~Jesus to Nicodemus

 

[Numenor]

So observations of God's creation are not a reliable source of truth?

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Keep straining at gnats there

Way to dodge the question. I though you believed what the Bible says. Paul clearly states here that God has been revealed through Creation, do you deny this 'plain teaching'?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Way to dodge the question. I though you believed what the Bible says. Paul clearly states here that God has been revealed through Creation, do you deny this 'plain teaching'?

Ummm...duhhh...that was the point of my post...let's nit pick some more ....

it's both tiresome an annoying

However, if you can observe the truth of Creation in nature, and you agree that the Bible is G-d's truth...then why bother denying creation...after all...it's part of the Bible

 

[Gwenyfur]

Have you answered my question yet?

How come somebody who can't even answer a simple question about what sceintists accept as evolutionary theory presume to criticise people who've studied a subject their whole lives?

Oh yes, I know, it's the fundagelical mindset: "only us fundamentalists can tell every other Christian what the Bible means and everybody else has to agree with us otherwise they're going to Hell."

I never made those claims....you're putting words in my mouth. And as I've stated earlier, I don't have to prove to you what I do and don't know...anymore than you feel obliged to prove to me that you're nothing more than a braggart who prefers to argue and belittle rather than have an intelligent conversation.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Ummm...duhhh...that was the point of my post...let's nit pick some more ....

it's both tiresome an annoying

However, if you can observe the truth of Creation in nature, and you agree that the Bible is G-d's truth...then why bother denying creation...after all...it's part of the Bible

Creation is God's truth... CreationISM is man's attempt to shoehorn science into one interpretation of the Bible.