Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[Larniavc]

I didn't say they were synonyms, that is what you are saying here. Please do keep up with what is really being said...you all are truly funny that you are so bad at listening that every post you all make evidences my point....

Then why did you switch from talking about micro/macro evolution to ToE and the fact of evolution?

The inference is that you’re eduction in biology is insufficient.

What is your level of academic attainment?

 

[Speedwell]

what? I can't understand your posts, you don't know how to communicate....please learn to communicate before responding to me again.

Now, when you decide to drop the games I will too.

1. Biologists generally use the term "micro-evolution" to mean evolution up to and including speciation.
2. Biologists generally use the term "macro-evolution" to refer to evolution beyond speciation.
3. Both micro and macro-evolution proceed by the same process: random variation and natural selection.

Is that any clearer?

 

[HitchSlap]

In Jr. High school, I had a math teacher that taught me to never bet on anything but a sure thing. As to the point of this discussion and my role in it, I guarantee you cannot win. IOW's my point is a sure thing that I can freely bet on. You might as well drop the game now before it gets any worse for you all

Enjoy your imagined victory of a fantasy battle. You’ve earned it, and the windmills need a break.

 

[Larniavc]

In Jr. High school, I had a math teacher that taught me to never bet on anything but a sure thing. As to the point of this discussion and my role in it, I guarantee you cannot win. IOW's my point is a sure thing that I can freely bet on. You might as well drop the game now before it gets any worse for you all

So far you have not made any point apart from claiming no one would listen to you.

Apart from to not be listened to, why are you participating in this Fora?

 

[razzelflabben]

Then why did you switch from talking about micro/macro evolution to ToE and the fact of evolution?

The inference is that you’re eduction in biology is insufficient.

What is your level of academic attainment?

lol...not what I said, so read for comprehension before talking to me.

 

[razzelflabben]

1. Biologists generally use the term "micro-evolution" to mean evolution up to and including speciation.
2. Biologists generally use the term "macro-evolution" to refer to evolution beyond speciation.
3. Both micro and macro-evolution proceed by the same process: random variation and natural selection.

Is that any clearer?

I know the difference and if you read my posts without judgment you would know that.

 

[razzelflabben]

Enjoy your imagined victory of a fantasy battle. You’ve earned it, and the windmills need a break.

lol

 

[razzelflabben]

So far you have not made any point apart from claiming no one would listen to you.

Apart from to not be listened to, why are you participating in this Fora?

lol that isn't even what I said...come on I am confident you can read for comprehension if you try.

 

[Speedwell]

I know the difference and if you read my posts without judgment you would know that.

I didn't judge you, I merely explained my understanding of the terms micro-evolution and micro-evolution as an aid to better communication.

 

[Rivga]

ah...it's a concept...a theory...an explanation of how we get from speciation to what we see today....you know the THEORY OF EVOLUTION vs. evolution...wait..I thought you all were educated on the theory of evolution and you don't know what it is? How is that possible?

Razzelflabben - you are mixing the two definitions of theory, a scientific theory is (this needs to be repeated a lot as it is one of the great misconceptions):

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.

In order for a Hypothesis - which all theories start out as - to become a theory in the scientific world it must meet a huge burden of proof. By the time something gets to call itself a theory (as opposed to some clown on TV just using the words theory for his musings): I'll use someone else words:

"The burden of proof for an idea to get promoted to a scientific theory is tremendous, as even the vaunted Supersymmetry (and, in connection with it, String Theory) should be rightly referred to as a hypothesis and not a theory, as the evidence, successful tests and confirmed predictions still have not arrived."

So understand that when someone says that evolution is only a theory - you are making one of the biggest mistakes. A theory is the ultimate point in science, there is no better position. If fast forwards 200 million years and scientists then have a video that shows generations of animals changing into new species - it would still be called the theory of evolution.

You also have to take into account how much the theory of evolution upsets people, and just how much money has been pumped into proving it wrong. And so far all that these people have managed to do is further strengthen the case.

Additionally all the time we see on these forums "Has anyone actually witnessed evolution?" and the answer to this is YES! many. many times in labs and the real world.

If us Atheists were prone to leaps of faith we could also say that
"Because of your lack of belief in evolution, evolution is now trying to kill us all"
Superbugs ‘to kill 10 MILLION’ as US woman dies from antibiotic-resistant infection
This would be as obviously lacking intellectual substance as the "Your off to hell" posts that we are on the receiving end of though.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In Jr. High school, I had a math teacher that taught me to never bet on anything but a sure thing.

Lol, in the context of the real world, that'd be the same as telling someone to never bet on anything, because very few things are absolutely certain.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have seen creationists like you argue in this very forum that unless God's will is bound by two-value propositional logic He cannot exist.

God's will is bound only by His nature.
Through His miracles, we know that He is Lord of the universe; that natural law bows to His will.
We know also that the word of God is indisputably accurate.if the Scriptures say that God made the sun stand still for a day, then natural law or not we know that it happened.

 

[KWCrazy]

But they are still almost certainly correct about evolution generally.

And if they are not?
If the Bible is right and God created man from the dust of the earth; if evolution never happened; what is the consequence?
Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. There is not a single one of His miracles that can be invalidated through science. That includes the origination of life, which science CANNOT explain.

 

[Rivga]

There is not a single one of His miracles that can be invalidated through science.

Look at this from a different angle, as you are saying that as a theist you have no way of validating any miracles.
Like it or not the burden of proof sits in your corner, the burden of proof always hangs on a person making a claim. If the burden of proof existed to disprove something then Christianity is in trouble as Hinduism came first and it is equally impossible to invalidate the miracles that make up that religions creation story.

For instance ToE made a claim and then goes about collecting evidence in order to support its claim. It now has huge amount of experiments and testing to meet its burden of proof (which it has done).
In fact Darwin did not release his book until he had collected more and more evidence to support it.

To carry on using scientific terminology for the sake of consistency, the Hypothesis of God creating the universe has not even gone a little way to meeting its burden of proof. You can see that when you put any imaginary thing dreamt up, eg FSM, in place of God in the Hypothesis it meets the same standards of proof.

For instance Hinduism has a creation story too, and meets equal burden of proof as the creation story of the bible.

So it is therefore fair to say that it is entirely rational to believe Theory of evolution, but it is not rational to believe Hinduism creation story and equally the Christian creation story (or any other Hypothesis of how we got to have all these species).

 

[KWCrazy]

In one sense there is a whole universe of evidence. Unfortunately, alternative interpretations exist that are generally more plausible and subject to testing.

Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?
Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?
Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?

What about your grandmother, who many times felt the presence of the Holy Spirit? With no way to confirm her statements, do you call her a liar? What of your mother who taught you that Jesus is the son of God. Was she lying too? Did you ever stop to think how many MILLIONS of people have to be lying for evolution to be right? People died rather than recant their experiences and all of that means nothing because you can't see physical evidence of what they experienced?

It is not claimed that the Universe came from nothing, so this is irrelevant.

The latest mindless stupidity I've read on the subject in the name of "science" claims that the totality of the universe came from matter the size of a pin head. The difference between us is that we believe God created the universe and you believe it was "science magic."

The second law of thermodynamics precludes the eternity of matter. Interestingly, most people believe in the laws of science only until they interfere with what they've chosen to believe. Personally, I believe the laws of science are immutable until they are superseded by a greater force; like God's will.

, if by creation you mean an event from which things started, independent of any agent, then yes - if the universe is not eternal a creation event would have occured. Science has identified the most recent such event as the Big Bang.

The Big Bang happened on day four of creation when the entity called light became the sun, moon and stars.

I remember that there is no archaeological or independent historical evidence for the exodus from Egypt.

None?
Not any?

Of course I do. Respect for reality demands it.

You mean your VERSION or reality. The denial of the supernatural equals the denial of half of reality.

 

[Speedwell]

Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?
Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?
Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?

Who claims these things? Certainly not evolutionary biologists.

 

[Rivga]

What about your grandmother, who many times felt the presence of the Holy Spirit? With no way to confirm her statements, do you call her a liar? What of your mother who taught you that Jesus is the son of God. Was she lying too? Did you ever stop to think how many MILLIONS of people have to be lying for evolution to be right? People died rather than recant their experiences and all of that means nothing because you can't see physical evidence of what they experienced?

To compare the fact that a relative or friend of mine had a "feeling" that their is a God. I come from a multi-faith (and non-faith) family, although mostly Christian, my favourite uncle is from the middle East like most of his country men he is Muslim.
He says he has a personal relationship with Mohammad and that Mohammad tells him that Christianity is not the true path - Jesus was not the son of God. I have never known him to lie, even to the point that he gets himself into trouble when a little white lie could be used.
But what he believes and what he has evidence for is two entirely different things.

Scientists stating they believe evolution is correct is not the important factor, they provide evidence. Now some evidence like DNA is not accessible to the average person, but other evidence is very accessible. Just a few examples

1) Recently followed a class around whilst they looked at the whale exhibition in the London Natural History Museum. The class of 5 year olds followed the path of evolution of the whale from a 2m land animal to the blue whale. They all got it, one 5 year old also pointed out that the 2m land animal was probably a relative to the Hippo as well. Afterwards I looked this up and he is right.

2) Movement of animals across the globe, as I have stated before you don't see a Kangaroo ancestor in the UK. All the animals are in the correct part of the world at the correct time needed to confirm the evolutionary story. Again you don't need to be a scientist to understand this.

For the entire scientific community to be lying about evolution would be far beyond a miracle, one that only an all powerful being could be responsible for, and given just how unforgiving your God is, if you mess with his plan to fool us all then good luck to you in the afterlife.
Given the fact also that a load of scientists are themselves Christian, Muslim or Hindu and out of them some would love nothing more than to prove evolution is wrong. Luckily for Sciences these guys are intellectually honest and present the evidence, and not let there deep beliefs colour that.
I have met a person who is adding to the collection of evidence for evolution but is himself a creationist but an Islamic one, he hopes one day to find a failing in evolution. I am utterly sure he is not the only one.

If The Christian God was true then surely someone over in India would have a visit from the Holy spirit, even though they were brought up Hindu?
Does it not strike you as strange that, largely, the Holy spirit only visits those people that already believe in him or have been brought up within in the culture of Christianity.

 

[Rivga]

People died rather than recant their experiences and all of that means nothing because you can't see physical evidence of what they experienced?

And if Christianity had exclusivity to this fact you may have a point.
People have died rather than recant for many many religions.

Hinduism. Paganism, Muslims and Christianity cannot all be correct. Hindu believers have been persecuted as many times in history and a lot have died rather than be forced into conversion to other religions.
Christians have also died as rather than recant there experiences, Pagans have been butchered (by Christians) for their beliefs, when the Christians would have allowed them to recant, same as Muslims.

So you see that this line of defence holds no logical value.

 

[USincognito]

Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?

None of what you wrote happened.
1. Scientists did not irradiate thousands of generations.
2. The fruit fly irradiation experiments did not "prove" anything about mutations and complexity.
3. The experiments were to determine what mutations caused what changes to what structures. They were not meant to cause speciation or anything else.

Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?

This doesn't make sense biologically. Adaption is simply changes to behavior or physiology that allow populations to survive and/or thrive in a particular environment. It includes things like losing eyes (cave fish) or legs (cetaceans, snakes, legless lizards, caecilians).

Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?

Since we don't know what life elsewhere, if it exists, is like we have no idea. But for life on earth beneficial (not benevolent) mutations are indeed drivers of change in populations.

 

[Rivga]

Since we don't know what life elsewhere, if it exists, is like we have no idea. But for life on earth beneficial (not benevolent) mutations are indeed drivers of change in populations.

Backing up evolution is the fact not all mutations have been beneficial. At one point in time a ancestor species produced vitamin C internally, so no need to find it.

The hypothesis put forwards is that during a time of plenty (Vit C) an ancestor animal lost the ability to produce it themselves, again due to the amount of Vitamin C available natural selection did not punish our ancestors for this.

But certainly our lack of ability to produce our own Vit C would have had implications to how we evolved, along side the animals with the same common ancestor (obviously).

Interestingly enough they have managed to re-instated the ability to produce vitamin C in mice.