Important Facts about Evolution

[bhsmte]

Deists are theists...

How so?

I was always of the understanding, that theists believed that God was a personal God and interacted with the universe and the people in it. Deists typically believe God is not a personal God and does not interact with the universe at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How so?

I was always of the understanding, that theists believed that God was a personal God and interacted with the universe and the people in it. Deists typically believe God is not a personal God and does not interact with the universe at all.

I'ld say that in essence, the difference is rather arbitrary / in the specifics.

However, I can say that theism is more improbable then deism, because it's just deism with some rather stupid ideas on top of it.

 

[RickG]

I'ld say that in essence, the difference is rather arbitrary / in the specifics.

However, I can say that theism is more improbable then deism, because it's just deism with some rather stupid ideas on top of it.

Curious about what you mean by stupid ideas. OEC? Just asking.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Just a question, what in science do you think is better than a theory?

The term "Empirical Evidence" for start; better then that would be the Laws; law of gravity, law of physics, law of mathematics. From there you have the tables of elements, tables of equations, etc;

All this equates to one thing "Truth". And Consistent, Constant, and Absolute are what defines this.

For the Christian, God is all of these therefore to waiver from believing in God from that perspective only turns Him into mortal man.

Simple mathematics says 1+1=2
Scientifically all measurements are not absolute. Take a tape measure for instance; when does the inch start and end; some would say from this line to that line, but each visual perception is skewed, the inch is therefore based upon the Measurer not the lines so there is still a degree of error.

Now can you understand why God says "I am the beginning and the end". You can not measure God. But every time we talk on these forums an Atheist measures God; but as I said before the Measurer's perception will always have a degree of error.


We are told PI equals 3.14, but those numbers scientifically never end do they?

 

[RickG]

The term "Empirical Evidence" for start; better then that would be the Laws; law of gravity, law of physics, law of mathematics. From there you have the tables of elements, tables of equations, etc;

All this equates to one thing "Truth". And Consistent, Constant, and Absolute are what defines this.

For the Christian, God is all of these therefore to waiver from believing in God from that perspective only turns Him into mortal man.

Simple mathematics says 1+1=2
Scientifically all measurements are not absolute. Take a tape measure for instance; when does the inch start and end; some would say from this line to that line, but each visual perception is skewed, the inch is therefore based upon the Measurer not the lines so there is still a degree of error.

Now can you understand why God says "I am the beginning and the end". You can not measure God. But every time we talk on these forums an Atheist measures God; but as I said before the Measurer's perception will always have a degree of error.


We are told PI equals 3.14, but those numbers scientifically never end do they?

Well, I sure it must be a surprise to you , but making up your own idea of how science works does not change the way "science" says it works.

A theory is the highest order of measurement pertaining to any scientific topic. There are no proofs in science, there never will be, proofs are unique of mathematics. Theories contain, empirical evidence, facts, and laws all of which support a theory. But rather than expound in my own terms, let me provide a link for you to the National Academy of Sciences which explains that difference.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[bhsmte]

I'ld say that in essence, the difference is rather arbitrary / in the specifics.

However, I can say that theism is more improbable then deism, because it's just deism with some rather stupid ideas on top of it.

IMO, the differences are quite significant.

Believing in a God that is personal and interacts with life and the universe, is quite different from believing in a God, that chooses to have nothing to do with the universe.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Curious about what you mean by stupid ideas. OEC? Just asking.

I have a question for you, if your able to answer it. I don't know the answer to this either; so this isn't a trap.

Scientifically what is between two atoms? It could be measured and be defined as a distance but what would the measurement be? The distance between two things in simple terms is called space. What is interesting is that space has properties best described by density?

What is the absolute that density is measured at the atomic level? If space can be measured and has physical properties; How did space come into existence?

The question as dumb as it sounds is not really dumb at all. A one cell organism regardless of which one you choose requires a certain environment to live. And before that environment can be of any help for it to live; SPACE is required.

 

[TheBear]

We are told ...

That little phrase is used quite often by theists. It might be a spillover from how they're taught by their clergy, and the whole groupthink mindset seen in religious groups. Rarely, if ever, do you see an atheist use that vernacular in that context.


And now back to our regular programming......

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Well, I sure it must be a surprise to you , but making up your own idea of how science works does not change the way "science" says it works. A theory is the highest order of measurement pertaining to any scientific topic. There are no proofs in science, there never will be, proofs are unique of mathematics. Theories contain, empirical evidence, facts, and laws all of which support a theory. But rather than expound in my own terms, let me provide a link for you to the National Academy of Sciences which explains that difference. Evolution Resources from the National Academies

I would not argue with any of that; except when a person specifies they believe in evolution; their understood as believing there was a BIG BANG and over zillions of years of unmeasurable time
A cell became a frog that became a ape that became a human. That is not Fact; that is speculation.

Evidence is overwhelming that humans have always gave birth to humans. Mind you the first human might not be fully comparable to those of today because of Traits, Cultural ethnicities and so on. But they are all humans. If Neanderthal was believed to be fully human but just another name for the start of the Gene Pool like "Adam" then so be it; but science doesn't teach that.

 

[BL2KTN]

How so?

I was always of the understanding, that theists believed that God was a personal God and interacted with the universe and the people in it. Deists typically believe God is not a personal God and does not interact with the universe at all.

Theism is simply the belief in god(s). Deism accepts a creator which would likely classify as a god. It's about as related to Yahweh as pantheism though -- as in, not.

 

[RickG]

I have a question for you, if your able to answer it. I don't know the answer to this either; so this isn't a trap.

Scientifically what is between two atoms? It could be measured and be defined as a distance but what would the measurement be? The distance between two things in simple terms is called space. What is interesting is that space has properties best described by density?

It would depend upon the two atoms, their ionic radi, size, electronic configuration, and close packing. This varies between noble gases, transition metals, alkali metals, rare-earths, etc.. For example, with ionic radi in angstroms we have the cation O[sup]2-[/sup]: III = 1.25; IV = 1.30; VI = 1.32; VIII = 1.34.

What is the absolute that density is measured at the atomic level? If space can be measured and has physical properties; How did space come into existence?

Space is space, void of matter, no density.

The question as dumb as it sounds is not really dumb at all. A one cell organism regardless of which one you choose requires a certain environment to live. And before that environment can be of any help for it to live; SPACE is required.

What is your definition of space?

 

[RickG]

I would not argue with any of that; except when a person specifies they believe in evolution; their understood as believing there was a BIG BANG and over zillions of years of unmeasurable time
A cell became a frog that became a ape that became a human. That is not Fact; that is speculation.

Evidence is overwhelming that humans have always gave birth to humans. Mind you the first human might not be fully comparable to those of today because of Traits, Cultural ethnicities and so on. But they are all humans. If Neanderthal was believed to be fully human but just another name for the start of the Gene Pool like "Adam" then so be it; but science doesn't teach that.

Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang or how life begin.

However, if you want evidence for evolution, explain the fossil record. How did all those fossils get there over 3.5 Ga without evolution?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just because balls tend to roll down hill, does not mean the ball rolled or that the hill was ever a hill to begin with. Evolution of everything (not the biological adaptation of living things only). Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

That isn't what a theory in science is. Theory is as close to "fact" as anything scientific gets. It is at the top, theories such as evolution are the most supported positions one can have on a given topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

CEH: Hundreds of Whales Buried Suddenly in Diatoms

Instead of the vertical whale how about trees.

What about the whales that creationists lied about?

This is what I am talking about. You are just jumping from one lie to another.

Can you admit that creationists lied about whales being buried vertically in sediments? Why would you go back to the same lying creationists and quote yet another one of their lies?

 

[Loudmouth]

I would not argue with any of that; except when a person specifies they believe in evolution; their understood as believing there was a BIG BANG and over zillions of years of unmeasurable time
A cell became a frog that became a ape that became a human. That is not Fact; that is speculation.

Back up your allegations.

Show us the scientific papers where scientists fail to cite objective, empirical evidence that support these conclusions.

Why should we accept anything you say on face value given the whoppers you have already told?

Evidence is overwhelming that humans have always gave birth to humans.

Where is that evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is interesting is that space has properties best described by density?

You appear to be making this up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because balls tend to roll down hill, does not mean the ball rolled or that the hill was ever a hill to begin with. Evolution of everything (not the biological adaptation of living things only). Is still a theory because the empirical evidence isn't enough to prove a speculation.

Theories aren't proven.

Theory is as high as it gets in science. For example, the Law of Gravity is a part of the larger Theory of Gravity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did the Neanderthal breed with humans? Or did the humans breed with Neanderthals? I'm talking about the consistency amongst Evolution in general. Anything I would use to back up any claims was written by men.

I have always found this interesting. Creationists actually think that the weakness of science is that it changes its conclusions when new evidence demands it.

Before DNA evidence became available, we only had fossil data for neanderthals. Neanderthals spanned the era between H. erectus and H. sapiens. They were also transitional. Obviously, this makes them a strong contender for being our direct ancestors. However, no amount of fossil data can be used to determine direct relationships between fossil species. You need DNA for that.

Luckily, there are neanderthal remains that have DNA in them, DNA that we can sequence. The first bit of neanderthal DNA to be sequenced was from the mitochondria since there are thousands of copies of the mitochondrial DNA in every cell compared to a single copy of the autosomal DNA. As it turned out, the mitochondrial DNA lineage found in neanderthals is not found in modern human populations. This is evidence against neanderthals being direct ancestors of modern humans. However, this data could not rule out some cross-breeding.

Later, scientists were able to sequence the majority of the neanderthal genome and compare it to the human genome. The results were pretty definitive at this point. There actually was some interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, but it was very limited. In certain populations, about 5% of the human genome comes from neanderthals.

Our knowledge of our relationship with neanderthals has increased over time, and as a consequence certain possibilities have been taken off the table. Creationists like toolmanjantzi think this is a bad thing because it lacks "consistency". I think this tells us a lot about the creationist mindset. New knowledge is bad. Changing your mind because of new evidence is bad. It is rather strange to think that toolmanjantzi would more likely accept evolution if we kept falsified theories and refused to change them.

 

[Dizredux]

Loudmouth

I have always found this interesting. Creationists actually think that the weakness of science is that it changes its conclusions when new evidence demands it

I am pretty patient with YECers beliefs. I know that many people need certainty in their lives and cannot tolerate ambiguity very well. For them the certainty of the inerrance of Genesis is vital and the characteristic of changing that science so often does is upsetting to their need for things to be stable and certain. For them science changing is bad in that it can be threatening.

What is interesting is that there is some evidence that this may, at least to a degree, be genetic in nature. Of interest in this article was that one of the things studied was the need for “order, structure, closure, certainty, dogmatism, and discipline" which may be determined, at least in part, by genetics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/o...e-our-political-beliefs.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Interesting and could help explain some of the behaviors we see here.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

LoudmouthI am pretty patient with YECers beliefs. I know that many people need certainty in their lives and cannot tolerate ambiguity very well. For them the certainty of the inerrance of Genesis is vital and the characteristic of changing that science so often does is upsetting to their need for things to be stable and certain. For them science changing is bad in that it can be threatening.

What is interesting is that there is some evidence that this may, at least to a degree, be genetic in nature. Of interest in this article was that one of the things studied was the need for “order, structure, closure, certainty, dogmatism, and discipline" which may be determined, at least in part, by genetics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/o...e-our-political-beliefs.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Interesting and could help explain some of the behaviors we see here.

Dizredux

What gives me a chuckle is that these same creationists will turn around and say that scientists refuse to consider any other explanations, all the while complaining about scientists considering other explanations. Sometimes, it appears to be a need to throw mud.