Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The latter isn't true at all. You're more than welcome to question the validity of evolution. The problem is that nobody has come up with a scientific alternative that has the same level of explanatory power. Anyone who could do that would probably win a Nobel Prize.
No. Alternative paths of inquiry are simply out of philosophical bounds of the institutions.
For example.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned. The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations. The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.
It depends what you are specifically talking about. If you're talking about supernaturalism, then sure that is out of the bounds of scientific inquiry because supernatural explanations are not scientifically testable.
That said, you could still investigate explanations within the realm of scientific testing. Even if it's arguing for a process that is not currently understood, if you can come up with a mechanism by which said process would occur (even theoretical) and develop testable hypotheses from it then it could be investigated.
No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.
umm the universe is expanding because the Big Bang is still happening. It is an ongoing process.Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own. 80 yrs of experiments proven it. What does it state beyond all the jargon How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment .The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding .
Hmmmm... I thought Evolution was all about objective science and reason prevailing over faith-based dogmas?
How did these guys already 'know' Evolution was true *before* the advent of scientific theories supposedly demonstrating it? A feeling, a hunch, an educated guess?
Interesting you say that evolution is an "anti-god theory", when most theists accept the theory.
Since I am a product of higher natural science institutions, even within my occupation, what you are stating is alarmingly true.No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.
You as many have yet to wake up to the fossil record evidence produced by scientific enquiry. The scientific produced evidence shows no detailed fossil evidence that proves evolution has occurred.How did they know it was true? The obvious evidence.
Here, once again, one should pay close attention to the subtle difference between
evolution
and
the theory of evolution
The first is a fact. The second is the scientific explanation of this fact.
It is helpful to consider the parallel with gravity. Everybody knows that things fall down. Gravity is just a brute fact of reality. But it was Newton who provided a scientific explanation for it - his theory of gravity. And Einstein who crafted an improved explanation - his theory of general relativity.
Aristotle had some prescientific ideas about objects seeking their natural place. This is as relevant to the validity of Newton's work as Anaximander is to Darwin. I.e. not at all.
The fact that things change over time is a truism. The fact that biological species change over time was becoming increasingly clear to natural scientists in the pre-Charles Darwin era. What Darwin did was not to demonstrate that evolution occurred, but to provide the specific mechanisms and explanations for how it occurred. It promoted evolution from just an observation of a fact about the world, to an explanation of that fact. A theory of evolution.
(Lamarck famously proposed his own theory of evolution decades before Darwin. Unfortunately for him, it is not well-supported by the evidence. Darwin did not provide merely an explanation for the fact of evolution, but the best explanation for evolution. One that has only become stronger with additional research and knowledge (of genetics, for instance).)
How did they know it was true? The obvious evidence.
Here, once again, one should pay close attention to the subtle difference between
evolution
and
the theory of evolution
The first is a fact. The second is the scientific explanation of this fact.
It is helpful to consider the parallel with gravity. Everybody knows that things fall down. Gravity is
just a brute fact of reality. But it was Newton who provided a scientific explanation for it - his theory of gravity. And Einstein who crafted an improved
explanation - his theory of general relativity.
Aristotle had some prescientific ideas about objects seeking their natural place. This is as relevant to the validity of Newton's work as Anaximander is to Darwin.
I.e. not at all.
The fact that things change over time is a truism. The fact that biological species change over time was
becoming increasingly clear to natural scientists in the pre-Charles Darwin era. What Darwin did was not to demonstrate that evolution occurred, but to provide the
specific mechanisms and explanations for how it occurred. It promoted evolution from just an observation of a fact about the world, to an explanation of that fact.
A theory of evolution.
Since I am a product of higher natural science institutions, even within my occupation, what you are stating is alarmingly true.
There is no presenting alternatives in Earth Science departments. It is foolish for any one to disagree with this. The dogma in Academic and Corporation Earth Science departments is only evolution. No alternatives. Alternatives are strictly deemed wacko mental positions. A very look down upon situation whenever alternatives are presented with any seriousness.
Not quite sure how this analogy works...
It sounds like you're claiming the evolutionary creation story was always a 'brute fact' ?
Here's a question for all the resident Darwinian Mystics:
Could biological change also occur in animal groups with *separate* ancestors? (as opposed to a universal common ancestor)
No. Alternative paths of inquiry are simply out of philosophical bounds of the institutions.
For example.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned. The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations. The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.
Okay. I see where your confusion arises. Let me break it down for you.How do you know they are believers?
Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Do they reject God's Truth that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground?
You claimed "Actually the Darwins and other students of the Enlightenment were simply resurrecting an ancient dogma."
This is silly for at least two reasons. Number one, whatever Anaximander may have said, it was hardly dogma. It was an idea, one of many floating around.
Number two, the reason these ideas were floating around were that people were inspired by the evidence around them. Facts that required an explanation. Darwin did not resurrect anything. He came up with a novel theory that better explained the facts than anything that came before (or since).
Not sure what a Darwinian Mystic is, but if I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see why not. I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry. The two (or more) types of living things with different originators would be unable to interbreed.
It was a belief held by many throughout ancient history, ... Dogma is a suitable term I think.
For argument's sake, let's say Charles came up with a truly novel theory about how evolution worked.
Right... it's obvious that biological change could occur in both a universal common ancestry, and SEPARATE ancestry scenario.
Where your confusion arises is that you think that anyone who doesn't believe in your particular view of the supernatural, specifically the Christian version, and more narrowed, your specific version of that deity as laid out in your individual and narrow interpretation of that deity, then they don't believe in any god(s) at all.
That's like saying that all Muslims are atheists. Also, the fact that most Christians worldwide accept the theory destroys the notion that ToE is an "anti-god" theory.
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
Nope.
But the supposition that the two (or more) different forms of life were always separate implies complete independence of their generation.
As I said "I would expect them to have different systems of genetics and different biochemistry."
But all life shares the same basic system of genetics and biochemistry.
It indicates common ancestry precisely as clearly as a paternity test does.
you've already conceded the point that the simple of act of biological change does not support universal common ancestry
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?