proving evolution as just a "theory"

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Hey jimmy d

Why Do Giraffes Have Long Necks? ... The giraffe's long neck is a perfect adaptation to the animal's natural habitat. Clearly the giraffe evolved this uncommon and helpful trait in order to reach those nourishing leaves. That's how natural selection works.

Do you agree with this statement?

Cheers

Click to expand...

Hello Iconclast, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant about Giraffe evolution. What you say could be possible, maybe there are other reasons though, mating rituals, evading threats etc. I really wouldn't like to say.

Camila Smith said:

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Click to expand...

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Camilia, the Christian way is what Christ Jesus told you and me to do, His Words to us, like these --

"34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

Camilia, the Christian way is something we can tell other people about, and it's not one doctrine about Genesis chapter 1 instead of another competing doctrine about Genesis chapter 1 -- that's not the Good News that saves -- but instead is about Salvation from our wrongs by the saving mercy and grace given to us through Jesus our Christ!

Hallelujah.

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

-----------

It's ultimately trivial to argue about small details, people's guesses about details of precisely how God made life on Earth unfold, even if through evolution, or not.

Those are not the point of the chapter.

Various peoples' speculations about whether the "days" of creation were literal or figurative, or whether given in a vision to the writer, or whether time passed between the days, etc., etc., etc., endless speculations. Those are not what the Bible is about -- the Bible is not about mere time periods, like 2.8 billion years or 6.5 consecutive days without any time allowed between them, etc., or any other entirely trivial things like that. Not in the text, but more importantly, not the purpose of the text. The purpose is not about mere trivial details like a precise time periods, but about the fact of God as Creator, and about our salvation. The Bible is about saving your soul, and their souls. Never risk blocking someone from salvation by asserting a doctrine about Genesis chapter 1 time periods.

If they are determined God cannot exist if Genesis one is only 156 hours.....

Well, the Bible does not say it is only "156 hours". Not in the text.

Tell them the fact that many Christians think that God used evolution, if they need that. If that helps them decide to read more and learn what Jesus said, and be saved by Him Who actually saves.

xianghua said:

so there are biologists that reject evolution or not?

Click to expand...

Why would it matter if there were any?

xianghua said:

again: science base on evidence. and we indeed have evidence for creation.

Click to expand...

If you have it, why not show it? Heck, you spend all your time trying (and failing) to disprove evolution when you could instead be providing evidence for creationism.

xianghua said:

i am not sure. but even if we are talking about 1% percent, we may dealing with thousands of them. actually it doesnt matter at all, since science is base on evidences and not on surveys.

Click to expand...

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention.

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

xianghua said:

i am not sure. but even if we are talking about 1% percent, we may dealing with thousands of them. actually it doesnt matter at all, since science is base on evidences and not on surveys.

Click to expand...

So you're just assuming this?

Oh dear. I shall assume the percentage is .000037.

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Hey larnievc.

Could you please supply the reference or a link to the mammal found in cambrian strata?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

I meant that if a mammal was found therin it would be a head scratcher for integrating that into TOE, not that it had (as TOE would predict that it would not happen).

But if it did?

That would be exciting.

Camila Smith said:

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Click to expand...

Nope, sorry.

xianghua said:

if so why so many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution?

Click to expand...

How many? What percentage of the total?

And what about the fact that there are both Young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists? Doesn't that man that the bible is false?*




*just trying out the technique.

xianghua said:

i am not sure. but even if we are talking about 1% percent, we may dealing with thousands of them. actually it doesnt matter at all, since science is base on evidences and not on surveys.

Click to expand...

If that is so, then why did YOU bring it up in the first place?

Kenny'sID said:

Ask them to prove evolution is a fact.

Click to expand...

Can you prove creation is a fact?

tas8831 said:

Can you prove creation is a fact?

Click to expand...

Nope and you can't prove evolution from a common ancestor is either. So I guess we both have the same issue.

Camila Smith said:

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Click to expand...

You could try sitting down with your friend and watching the movie "God's Not Dead" together, and then maybe have an intelligent discussion about it afterwards.

Hi sfs,

You wrote:

sfs said:

The number of biologists who reject evolution is tiny, and virtually all of them are motivated by religious reasons, not the biological data.

Click to expand...

If majority beliefs established truth, then there would be no one to believe in Jesus. One of the first 'truths' that pops into my head whenever I hear the argument that is based on majority belief, is that Jesus told us that the way to destruction is broad and the majority is on that road. The way of eternal life with God is much more narrow and few there be that find it.

Would you give any consideration to that 'fact' of the Scriptures being true in this regard? That, yes, there are many, many scientists who believe your position. Some of them say that they are believers, but the vast majority of them say that they are not. What does light have to do with darkness? Paul warns Timothy that those who believe the lie surround themselves with a great crowd of to tell their itching ears what they want to hear.

Just some things to consider. God's word says He created organic life in a very, very short period of time and that He created both the animals and the plants as to 'kinds'. Does that mean anything to you in reality? Or, is it just a cute little homily to describe, as ignorant men in an ignorant time, the things that God has done?

So, just so you know, and so that you might take a moment to pause and reflect, just because a great crowd of witnesses believes as you do, something that seems to go completely against God's explanation of how life in this realm came to be, doesn't really make it so. I understand that your entire reason to exist for some 18 years has been the biological sciences. Be careful to look at the here and now to only explain the here and now. When we begin extrapolating data that we can prove to be the truth today and carry it over to explain things for which we honestly have no way of knowing what happened in an earlier time, we can be wrong. According to God's word, we are wrong.

The Scriptures tell us that there was a day that a man's donkey spoke to him. Now, we know that's impossible and I would venture that your great crowd of scientific minds would agree that such an event is impossible. Did it not happen then because some great crowd of witnesses says that it couldn't? Consider that 2,000 years ago, the Scriptures tell us that a woman carried a baby to term who had never had sexual relations with a man. Your great crowd of witnesses will confirm without a doubt that such an eventuality is utterly impossible. The human body is not made so that one gender can produce offspring in and of itself. Did it, therefore, not happen?

God has said that He made living creatures as to their kinds. Your great crowd of witnesses says that such a thing is an impossibility. What say you? Are you with men or God?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

If majority beliefs established truth, then there would be no one to believe in Jesus. One of the first 'truths' that pops into my head whenever I hear the argument that is based on majority belief

Click to expand...

I made no argument based on majority belief. I responded to a false statement about how evolution is viewed by biologists.

miamited said:

Would you give any consideration to that 'fact' of the Scriptures being true in this regard?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you can demonstrate that it's really a fact that is true in the way you claim. Have at it.

miamited said:

That, yes, there are many, many scientists who believe your position. Some of them say that they are believers, but the vast majority of them say that they are not. What does light have to do with darkness?

Click to expand...

What I observe is that there are a tiny number of scientists who claim to reject evolution on scientific grounds, and that they routinely ignore, distort and lie about data to defend their position. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.

miamited said:

Just some things to consider. God's word says He created organic life in a very, very short period of time and that He created both the animals and the plants as to 'kinds'. Does that mean anything to you in reality?

Click to expand...

Sure. It means that you are reading Genesis as if it were a biology textbook, rather than as an ancient Near Eastern religious document.

miamited said:

So, just so you know, and so that you might take a moment to pause and reflect

Click to expand...

Right, because until you came along I'd never taken a moment to pause and reflect about life and science and God and things like that.

miamited said:

I understand that your entire reason to exist for some 18 years has been the biological sciences.

Click to expand...

<snort>

Hi sfs,

Ahhh, then I likely misread the intention of your post.

sfs said:

They don't. The number of biologists who reject evolution is tiny, and virtually all of them are motivated by religious reasons, not the biological data.

I've been in genetics for 18+ years. I've listened to, seen and read thousands of presentations on biology, a substantial fraction of which involved evolution. I've had conversations with hundreds of biologists. The number of times that I've encountered skepticism about common descent in all of those interactions is zero. I've heard geneticists express opinions that they won't offer in public for fear of repercussions -- like the possibility that different ethnic groups differ in intelligence for genetic reasons -- but I've never heard anything like that about common descent. The notion that there's some kind of real controversy about the topic within science is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

I see now, that your response: The number of biologists who reject evolution is tiny, and virtually all of them are motivated by religious reasons, not the biological data.

In that response to another poster you seemed to be giving support for evolution as a mechanism to explain the here and now by making the claim that his claim that there were many scientists and biologists who didn't agree with evolution was actually false. In that, I imagine that 'many' needs to be understood as not the same as 'majority'. Out of 1,000 scientists, there might be 50 that are not in step with their brethren of the study and some might refer to that smaller number as many, as opposed to one or two.

My apologies, sincerely, if I mistook your position on the issue. I would never want to be bridling a supporter of the truth of the Scriptures.


God bless you,
In Christ, ted

xianghua said:

i am not sure. but even if we are talking about 1% percent, we may dealing with thousands of them. actually it doesnt matter at all, since science is base on evidences and not on surveys.

Click to expand...

It is far less than 1% and the reason is that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. So far no creationist here seems to understand the concept of scientific evidence.

Kenny'sID said:

Ask them to prove evolution is a fact.

Click to expand...

Been there done that.

What findings are those?

Click to expand...

Well we could start with Galileo, it seems that countless findings of scientists were opposed by some Christians based upon their interpretation of the Bible. In fact recently there has been a resurgence of the flat Earth beliefs based upon the fact that the Bible only describes the Earth as being flat. But the knowledge of the spherical Earth predates the scientific method. So flat Earther's are wrong at an even deeper level.

miamited said:

Out of 1,000 scientists, there might be 50 that are not in step with their brethren of the study and some might refer to that smaller number as many, as opposed to one or two.

Click to expand...

More likely 5, I'd say.

According to the study I cited earlier the correct number is 0.1% ---- that is one tenth of 1% --- so out of 1000 earth or life scientists we could reasonably expect one young earth creationist .

Camila Smith said:

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Click to expand...

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

Good luck.