Evolution...

[will_wait4Him]

...ain't real period!!!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by will_wait4him
...ain't real period!!!

That's not a very compelling argument. Are there other "scientific" beliefs you don't accept? Math? Biology? Physics? I'm curious; is it *just* evolution, or do you feel the same way about other commonly accepted bits of modern science?

If someone tells you he builds houses when you're a little kid, do you get mad and accuse people of lying when you later find out he uses subcontractors to do most of the actual physical labor?

 

[LouisBooth]

considering evolution isn't believed by people in the scientific community, I'd say she has a right to her opinion and didn't seem to want to prove anything. Do you believe in God? There's just as much evidence for him..and I would also point to ocks razor on evolution..lightning strikes maybe once..but 1000000 times in the same place? Nope...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
considering evolution isn't believed by people in the scientific community, I'd say she has a right to her opinion and didn't seem to want to prove anything. Do you believe in God? There's just as much evidence for him..and I would also point to ocks razor on evolution..lightning strikes maybe once..but 1000000 times in the same place? Nope...

Evolution is believed by the vast majority of scientists whose fields touch on it even lightly, and by a fair number of Christians.

Anyway, if she's going to say, not that she doesn't believe it, but that it's genuinely knowable that it's not true, I want to know why.

As to Occam's Razor: The observable data we have today make it look pretty likely that, in a universe as big as this one, there *ought* to be life by now. Given that, Occam's Razor would say that we don't involve any more entities, because we don't need them.

Occam's Razor isn't about "complexity" or "probability" per se; it's about the number of entities you need to add to explain something.

Anyway, I really am very curious: What other kinds of science do you not agree with? Do you believe in global warming? The oncoming ice age? Do you believe that we can measure the effectiveness of antibiotics? Do you believe that scanning electron microscopes allow us to take pictures of very small things?

 

[cheezit]

To start with, someone needs to define what evolution is or isn't. If it is that man somehow evolved up from monkeys, well that is just probably the biggest bunch of bunk ever to come along.

If evolution is included in the "big bang" also, that is also a bunch of bunk. IMHO. Just the idea that "nothing" could have blown up and somehow formed round planets, one of which just happened to stop at just the right distance from the sun to support life and then actually have life on it, is just preposterous.

In my rather feeble mind, evolution really takes a stretch to believe in it in any way, shape or form.

 

[Received]

Naturalism is the faith of the scientists. God is the faith of the Christians. Which one has changed your life today?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Evolution is believed by the vast majority of scientists whose fields touch on it even lightly, and by a fair number of Christians. "

Well, so was leeching..what's your point?

"The observable data we have today make it look pretty likely that, in a universe as big as this one, there *ought* to be life by now. "

No, you misunderstand the razor, it states the less assumptions the better, ie the answer that is most likly is right. This is the case with evolution because you have to make many many assumptions to make it work, and I would say, good science doesn't work like that.

"What other kinds of science do you not agree with? "

hahahaha....1. loaded question, kinda like, so what did your wife tell you when you said you wanted to eat your child? evolution is a proposed theory in science, not a field in and of itself. So if you ask what other THEORIES do I disagree with, I could name a few if you would like..beers at high concentrations would be one opps..that's a LAW...isn't it..ie always true based on the assumptions..

"Do you believe in global warming"

Funny you should mention that. considering it has been preposed we are just on an upward cycle of a usual global cycle. We haven't been measure this stuff all that long..like looking at a wavelenght at the downlope and saying..oh, it must be always going down..when you don't realize there is an upward slope coming up.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Evolution is believed by the vast majority of scientists whose fields touch on it even lightly, and by a fair number of Christians. "

Well, so was leeching..what's your point?

Actually, leeching was moderately controversial all the time.

Also, note that we have *MUCH* better tools than we did then.

"The observable data we have today make it look pretty likely that, in a universe as big as this one, there *ought* to be life by now. "

No, you misunderstand the razor, it states the less assumptions the better, ie the answer that is most likly is right. This is the case with evolution because you have to make many many assumptions to make it work, and I would say, good science doesn't work like that.

It's *introducing* assumptions; once you can verify something experimentally, it's no longer an assumption. Thus, knowing how DNA and sexual reproduction work, we are no longer "assuming" a lot of the aspects of this theory.

"What other kinds of science do you not agree with? "

hahahaha....1. loaded question, kinda like, so what did your wife tell you when you said you wanted to eat your child? evolution is a proposed theory in science, not a field in and of itself. So if you ask what other THEORIES do I disagree with, I could name a few if you would like..beers at high concentrations would be one opps..that's a LAW...isn't it..ie always true based on the assumptions..

It's not intended to be loaded. Evolution is, as you say, a theory. So is gravity. So is the idea that ice freezes at 0 degrees C - and in fact, there are exceptions, so now our theories of how water behaves include a reference to atmospheric pressure, because that matters.

I'm curious as to what other scientific theories you disagree with.

"Do you believe in global warming"

Funny you should mention that. considering it has been preposed we are just on an upward cycle of a usual global cycle. We haven't been measure this stuff all that long..like looking at a wavelenght at the downlope and saying..oh, it must be always going down..when you don't realize there is an upward slope coming up.

Yeah. I still remember the stories of the coming ice age.

I'll point out, though, that there's a lot more scientists who are skeptical of "global warming" as a manmade event than there are who are skeptical of evolution.

Still, are there other theories you don't accept? I've met people who feel that Christianity is incompatible with the germ theory of disease, because they believe disease to be caused by evil spirits. I think they're wrong, but...

 

[LouisBooth]

"Actually, leeching was moderately controversial all the time.

Also, note that we have *MUCH* better tools than we did then.
"

Umm..not really, it was an accepted practice. Umm..we have better tools? well, in context of what?

"It's *introducing* assumptions; once you can verify something experimentally,"

No, the problem with evolution is it violates some of its own rules along the way..oh..that looks like a wing, so it must have come from the same place....like I stated before, taking data and making it fit the theory, throwing out what you don't want.

"so now our theories of how water behaves include a reference to atmospheric pressure, because that matters. "

You misunderstand the reason I agree with it. The assumptions of the theory are wrong. Not so with most other theories whose assumptions are based on expeimental data. Did you read those links?

"I'll point out, though, that there's a lot more scientists who are skeptical of "global warming" as a manmade event than there are who are skeptical of evolution. "

thanks for backing up my point..you don't have to add the ego builder though..you agree with me there is no "I'll point out" hahaha..that's just a person dealing with pride and being wrong about something

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Actually, leeching was moderately controversial all the time.

Also, note that we have *MUCH* better tools than we did then.
"

Umm..not really, it was an accepted practice.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were a world-reknowned authority on all practice of medicine during human history.

Indulgences were an accepted practice; I think they're wrong.

Umm..we have better tools? well, in context of what?

Modern science is much better at testing and evaluating hypotheses. Leeches were *never* scientific in any meaningful sense; no one formed and tested a hypothesis. People composed elaborate theories, but the only "testing" was that they'd try them and hope not too many patients died.

"It's *introducing* assumptions; once you can verify something experimentally,"

No, the problem with evolution is it violates some of its own rules along the way..oh..that looks like a wing, so it must have come from the same place....like I stated before, taking data and making it fit the theory, throwing out what you don't want.

This is not true of any current theories I'm aware of. What you describe sounds very little like science, and very much like people trying to explain science to laymen, and doing it badly.

Most explanations I've seen of evolution are *horrible*. I mean, really really wrong. They're as wrong as trying to sum up Christianity by saying "there's this God guy who hates you, but he'll let it slide if you kiss up to his son."

Would you be interested in a citation to a properly scientific explanation, as opposed to one of the awful versions people come up with when they try to simplify? It really sounds to me like what you're objecting to is a gross simplification, and not a very good theory at all.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I didn't realize you were a world-reknowned authority on all practice of medicine during human history.
"

*sigh* you don't read much do you..hint..I do.


"Modern science is much better at testing and evaluating hypotheses. "

I agree, but this doesn't discount science has been wrong in the past...would you like me to find current instances where science has been wrong? I'm sure it will be quite easy.....


". What you describe sounds very little like science, and very much like people trying to explain science to laymen, and doing it badly. "

nope, sorry. I would say this is exactly how EVOLTIONARY THEORY works, not science. It has become more dogmatic then most religions I have studied. The paradyme shift is gonna be crazy when it finally comes. Evolutionists will be on the rampage when it turns to the theory of adaption.

"Most explanations I've seen of evolution are *horrible*. "

I agree, that's why I studied it specifically before I dropped my bio major.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I agree, but this doesn't discount science has been wrong in the past...would you like me to find current instances where science has been wrong? I'm sure it will be quite easy.....

Consider: Einstein's laws replaced Newton's, but we still teach Newton's laws, because they still work.

". What you describe sounds very little like science, and very much like people trying to explain science to laymen, and doing it badly. "

nope, sorry. I would say this is exactly how EVOLTIONARY THEORY works, not science. It has become more dogmatic then most religions I have studied. The paradyme shift is gonna be crazy when it finally comes. Evolutionists will be on the rampage when it turns to the theory of adaption.

"Most explanations I've seen of evolution are *horrible*. "

I agree, that's why I studied it specifically before I dropped my bio major.

When was this? Nothing you've described sounds at all like evolutionary theory as I've learned it. It's a fairly non-dogmatic field; there are substantial debates over parts of the theory.

The stuff that's not, realistically, subject to debate is the basics: We know that one species, split into two populations, can quite easily turn into two species, given even a few hundred years. We know that natural selection is active in guiding the changes of species over time. None of that can be doubted without throwing out the entire scientific method, or finidng some *very* interesting new results - which no one has yet done, and it's not for lack of trying.

If you want to argue issues like common descent, it gets more interesting; we can show common descent of some things, but it's very hard to get detailed information from, say, a billion years ago.

Still, the basic model seems pretty solid. Anyway, if it's wrong, what's your replacement? How do you explain the fossil record, the studies we can do to trace DNA back from one generation to another, and all the other cool stuff that's current in the field?

I can see doubting that evolution, completely without divine intervention, is the only way that anything ever came to be. There's certainly lots of room for debate on that. However, I can't see how anyone who has studied the available data could seriously doubt the basic model: Life forms change over time, and, over enough form, change into things that we would call different "species".

 

[LouisBooth]

"Consider: Einstein's laws replaced Newton's, but we still teach Newton's laws, because they still work. "

So? Some science is still wrong, that's the blunt of it.

"We know that one species, split into two populations, can quite easily turn into two species, given even a few hundred years. "

Thats the point. We DON'T know that, we assume that. That's why its theory and that's why it still has some asteriod sized holes in it.


"or finidng some *very* interesting new results - which no one has yet done, and it's not for lack of trying. "

Its wrong, but lets keep it because its the only thing we have? That's not science at all..come on now...


"Anyway, if it's wrong, what's your replacement? How do you explain the fossil record, the studies we can do to trace DNA back from one generation to another, and all the other cool stuff that's current in the field? "

And this is the evolutionists caught in a corner response..okay, well what's YOUR theory then.?!?!?! Please don't point fingers. If a theory is wrong, then its just wrong, you don't have to have a replacement, that is a another discussion enterirely.


"Life forms change over time, and, over enough form, change into things that we would call different "species".
"

Well according to a recent poll..44% of americans don't believe in evolution (and I would venture to say that college educated people are in there too).

 

[OntheRock]

quote
"Life forms change over time, and, over enough form, change into things that we would call different "species".
------------------------------------------------

To my limited knowledge, there is no concrete proof on this yet. Have they found a life form that has shown favourable mutations?

It's been awhile since I've researched evolution. It seems to take more faith for evolution than for creation.

quote
"Anyway, if it's wrong, what's your replacement? How do you explain the fossil record, the studies we can do to trace DNA back from one generation to another, and all the other cool stuff that's current in the field? "
-----------------------------------------------------
Are they still using carbon dating? Have scientists thrown the great flood into their reasoning to see where it gets them? As far as the layers of fossil records in the rock there is a few good explainations out there which support creation. I don't recal at this moment. If you research you will find them.

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by OntheRock

-----------------------------------------------------
Are they still using carbon dating? Have scientists thrown the great flood into their reasoning to see where it gets them? As far as the layers of fossil records in the rock there is a few good explainations out there which support creation. I don't recal at this moment. If you research you will find them.

Carbon dating will get you a date back to about 50,000 years ago; you'll need Potassium-Argon dating to go back further.

About the flood however, the fossil record and stratographical layout are totally non-compatible with a total global flood.

 

[tericl2]

Isn't it funny how the missing link is still missing?

Oh, did I say "the" missing link? I meant the millions of missing links necessary to prove evolution is even remotely true.

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by tericl2
Isn't it funny how the missing link is still missing?

Oh, did I say "the" missing link? I meant the millions of missing links necessary to prove evolution is even remotely true.

Considering that next to no actual scientific evidence suggests Biblical creation to be true... evolution is the best hypothesis we've got right now.

I challenge you to present one piece of evidence to support Biblical creation that can stand up to scientific reasoning.

 

[tericl2]

I challenge you to present one piece of evidence to support Biblical creation that can stand up to scientific reasoning.

See, the deal here is that there are two opinions. Let us assume that one is right and one is wrong.

Now, for one there should be so much proof it would be unreal. I mean billions of years of evolution should leave massive amounts of transitional fossils. These fossils should, by all rights, out number "modern" fossils. However, this isn't exactly true is it? Well, over 90% of all fossils found are "modern" fossils, meaning they directly correspond to a current or recently living species. The ones that aren't proven to be modern already are, at best, shaky in geoogical proof. Some have been disproven through the years (Nebraska Man is just one example) which puts into serious question the reasoning capabilities of evolutionary scientists. Maybe they go more on faith??

Why does the evolutionary theory not have tons of proof? Massive amounts of transitional fossils just aren't there. In fact, NO concrete, proven transitional fossils are in existence. Why should I believe something that should have so much proof, yet has NONE??

 

[Freodin]

tericl2, so your basic opinion is

"I don´t think there is enough evidence for evolution, and I don´t believe that the existing evidence is valid, so creationism must be correct."

The question is still here: where is a single piece of evidence FOR creation?

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Received
Naturalism is the faith of the scientists. God is the faith of the Christians. Which one has changed your life today?

Easy. Naturalism.

Just look at the computer you are typing on, the house you live in and the car you drive to work.