Evolution's Brick Wall

[DavidFirth]

We don't generally talk about proof in science. What we talk about is evidence. We have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical, and we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Anyone who tells you otherwise about either point is either deeply confused or lying to you.

Well, your methods about the billions of years is all based on assumptions. I call that poppycock.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? And if the theory of evolution isn't 100% right then it is wrong.

Scientific theories are never claimed to be "100% right." Provisionally true based on the best evidence we have to date is the most that is ever claimed for them. On the other hand, the failure of a scientific theory never revives a previous, already discredited theory. As a scientific theory, biblical creationism has been off the table for 200 years.

 

[sfs]

Well, your methods about the billions of years is all based on assumptions. I call that poppycock.

What assumptions?

 

[dgiharris]

...How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

I have similar thoughts about Creationists and those that are "doubtful" about the efficacy of science.

The Scientific Method and Scientific process has led to the invention of countless items enabling our modern day of life. When I say "countless" i mean just that. Billions if not TRILLIONS of things have been invented and or improved upon by science.

Right now as sit at my desk I see: a coke can, a pen, a book, a plastic bag, a phone, a paper cup and plastic straw from burger king, and of course my computer. Any one of those things required hundreds if not thousands if not millions of different individual steps to construct.

My point? The fruits of science surround us by the trillions. Billions upon billions (if not trillions) of man-hours have gone into everyday things we take for granted, all of which was brought to us by scientists and engineers and mathematicians using some form of the scientific method over the past few thousand years...

We are literally drowning in science, every second of every day. With all these achievements around us, how is it some are so fervent in their belief that science is a sham?

But but but... we just think that evolution is a sham!!!

Well, the same science that is responsible for our modern lifestyle is the "same" science that evolutionists use to craft, recraft, and craft again the theory of evolution.

So, I will be much more likely to believe that evolution is on the right track than to believe it is on the wrong track. Especially since "science" has no problem accepting evidence that disproves a particular theory and going back to the drawing board...

 

[pitabread]

Nice rebound. Actually, we can prove certain things, like the Earth is not flat, we need oxygen and nutrients to survive, etc. We cannot prove the age of fossils or the age of the Earth, though.

Generally in science anything that is well supported is considered to be provisionally true. This includes things like the age of the Earth and biological evolution. But there is always the idea that anything in science could be overturned with new knowledge given that scientific knowledge in general is limited compared to reality.

 

[pitabread]

Why not also teach that the theory of evolution is far from 100% correct? Right now it is taught as correct in every public school in this country. Thats wrong.

The theory of evolution is "correct" in the sense that it is well supported by evidence and currently the best (if only) scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Consequently it forms part of the foundation of modern biology as a whole and even has real world application.

 

[dgiharris]

Well, your methods about the billions of years is all based on assumptions. I call that poppycock.

Various branches of mathematics and physics have derived and produced various constants and equations that not only describe physical phenomena but also accurately "predict" unseen phenomena.

Take the branch of mathematics known as geometry. Basic geometry reveals mathematical and physical truths you can test out right now.

So what is my point?

Well, imagine various constants and equations that you use in your everyday life and that are always correct. Now, imagine that these various constants and equations predict things you have no way to test... and then a new technology or understanding is developed that "now" enables you to test what was once untestable and then viola, those constants and equations are proven right yet again.

Now, fast forward a century or two and these same constants and equations reveal that the universe is X billion years old and that you can "test" and "verify" this by detecting and measuring a certain form of radiation that is predicted by the constants and equations. We develop the technological means to "test" this theory and BOOM, what the equations and constants say should be there IS IN FACT THERE.

Wouldn't you then feel a fairly high degree of confidence that the theories, hypotheses and conclusions were accurate?

THat is in an nutshell how the age of the universe was determined.

Mathematicians and physicists predicted the motion of the stars, the orbits and locations of planets they couldn't even see, the diameter of the moon, jupiter, even the sun within 1% accuracy hundreds of years ago when the thought of going into space was the stuff of dreams...

So yeah, we have a high degree of confidence that we know the age of the universe.

 

[DavidFirth]

Various branches of mathematics and physic have derived and produced various constants and equations that not only describe physical phenomena but also accurate "predict" unseen phenomena.

Take the branch of mathematics known as geometry. Basic geometry reveals mathematical and physical truths you can test out right now.

So what is my point?

Well, imagine various constants and equations that you use in your everyday life and that are always correct. Now, imagine that these various constants and equations predict things you have no way to test... and then a new technology or understanding is developed that "now" enables you to test what was once untestable and then viola, those constants and equations are proven right yet again.

Now, after fast forward a century or two and these same constants and equations reveal that the universe is X billion years old and that you can "test" and "verify" this by detecting and measuring a certain form of radiation that is predicted by the constants and equations. We develop the technological means to "test" this theory and BOOM, what the equations and constants say should be there IS IN FACT THERE.

Wouldn't you then feel a fairly high degree of confidence that the theories, hypotheses and conclusions were accurate?

THat is in an nutshell how the age of the universe was determined.

Mathematicians and physicists predicted the motion of the stars, the orbits and locations of planets they couldn't even see, the diameter of the moon, jupiter, even the sun within 1% accuracy hundreds of years ago when the thought of going into space was the stuff of dreams...

So yeah, we have a high degree of confidence that we know the age of the universe.

I have a very high degree of confidence that you don't.

 

[DavidFirth]

The theory of evolution is "correct" in the sense that it is well supported by evidence and currently the best (if only) scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Consequently it forms part of the foundation of modern biology as a whole and even has real world application.

It's just another flimsy theory as far as im concerned. When you can prove it we'll talk. Which will be never.

 

[pitabread]

It's just another flimsy theory as far as im concerned.

So? You're welcome to think whatever you want, but that doesn't change what it is: which is an integral part of modern biology.

When you can prove it we'll talk. Which will be never.

Like I said, if you want to learn about the theory of evolution you can. The choice is entirely up to you.

 

[sfs]

It's just another flimsy theory as far as im concerned.

But you don't actually know anything about it, do you?

 

[dgiharris]

So? You're welcome to think whatever you want, but that doesn't change what is.

Like I said, if you want to learn about it you can. The choice is entirely up to you.

Sadly pitabread, your comments are wasted.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s. WHen I was a kid, my parents bought an encyclopedia set. I loved just browsing it, the thought that I had the whole of human knowledge at my fingertips was intoxicating. I would spend hours every week just flipping through it for fun.

Now, we have the internet. My encyclopedia set is to the internet as a candle is to the Sun...

The entire scope of human knowledge and understanding is right there, right at our fingertips. And yet, there are those who refuse to take a few minutes out of their day and put forth the effort of a few keystrokes in order to gain knowledge that took centuries if not millennia to accrue.

It is more than ignorance, it is a willful and intentional refusal to see the truth. And yet, so many delight in being in the dark. Nevermind the candles, torches, flashlights all around them. They gleeful roam the darkness with their eyes screwed shut not only refusing to take a light source but declaring magnanimously that such devices do not exist

 

[mark kennedy]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

My thing is it's the only viable option to naturalistic causes. I don't so much have a problem with evolution as I get a little tired of being considered ignorant or dishonest based on very foundational religious convictions. Creation is in the Nicene Creed, the ten commandments and the opening lines of John, Hebrews and Romans.

Now what your saying about evolution is true, it's often cyclical and there are limits beyond which a species cannot evolve into an altogether different one.

 

[pitabread]

there are limits beyond which a species cannot evolve into an altogether different one.

And yet nobody has ever demonstrated such limits...

 

[pitabread]

Sadly pitabread, your comments are wasted.

Oh I know. This is why I don't try to "prove" evolution to anyone anymore. If anyone wants to learn, they need to make the effort. I've learned you can't force feed someone knowledge they have no interest in acquiring.

The entire scope of human knowledge and understanding is right there, right at our fingertips. And yet, there are those who refuse to take a few minutes out of their day and put forth the effort of a few keystrokes in order to gain knowledge that took centuries if not millennia to accrue.

It is more than ignorance, it is a willful and intentional refusal to see the truth. And yet, so many delight in being in the dark. Nevermind the candles, torches, flashlights all around them. They gleeful roam the darkness with their eyes screwed shut not only refusing to take a light source but declaring magnanimously that such devices do not exist

Given the direct correlation between understanding of evolution and acceptance of it, if one's belief system is dependent on believing evolution is false, then ignorance is the best path.

The good news for creationists is that it's largely irrelevant whether they accept evolution or not. They still get to enjoy the fruits of scientific advancement as science continues to march on.

 

[inquiring mind]

And yet nobody has ever demonstrated such limits...

The brick wall... no evidence (transitional fossils)... that's the limit right now.

 

[pitabread]

The brick wall... no evidence (transitional fossils)... that's the limit right now.

Oh there are definitely transitional fossils. But that involves understanding what a transitional fossil actually is.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh there are definitely transitional fossils. But that involves understanding what a transitional fossil actually is.

That's not me... I'm just trying to learn something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution plays connect-the-dots.

 

[Speedwell]

The good news for creationists is that it's largely irrelevant whether they accept evolution or not. They still get to enjoy the fruits of scientific advancement as science continues to march on.

Except that in his country they also have a political agenda based on the same interpretation of scripture which supports their anti-evolutionary views, and a President who panders to it for their votes.