The evidence for Evolution.

[In situ]

None of these kinds of things happened?

If find it distasteful of you to suggest I deny the holocaust etc, when in fact all I did was pointing out the incorrect notion that the theory of evolution support atrocities and war crimes made in its name.

 

[In situ]

Do you read what anyone really writes, In situ? I ask this because you are reiterating what I basically already said. You're not contradicting me, you're restating what I already stated. Read again what I've said ...

Apparently I am not reading it fully. I will go back and reread again.

 

[In situ]

Do you read what anyone really writes, In situ? I ask this because you are reiterating what I basically already said. You're not contradicting me, you're restating what I already stated. Read again what I've said ...

Reread it. And if you think we both says the same thing, then I strongly disagree. So where do we fail to understand each others?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If find it distasteful of you to suggest I deny the holocaust etc, when in fact all I did was pointing out the incorrect notion that the theory of evolution support atrocities, and war crimes made in its name.

Where did I say you deny the Holocaust? You're reading "into" what I've said. I didn't say that, mean that, imply that, or insinuate that.

Don't make me start wondering about you, In situ. Up until this point, I thought you were one of the more educated ones here. Don't make me have to throw that evaluation to the curb ... [...this is a "forefinger," not a middle finger.]

 

[Zoii]

I am sorry to disapoint you by telling you that this is not the way science operate. When you use the science method you are not allowed to assert the conclusion and then try to prove it. Science operate the other way around, science always tries to disprove claims. The basic idea is that, that which has not been disproved must conatian the true. That means science is a process that is homing in on the "truth" in itterative steps.

Therefore collaboration like you suggest would not be possible. You cannot assert things to be true in science - you need to show it. And you show it by failing in to disprove it. However, the fine print says all scientific statements or claims must to be testable.

What you suggested as contribution from religion is not testable.

In general, when it comes to hard sciences such as physic and chemistry it is difficult to see what religion actually can contribute with. Due to the dogmatic nature of religions, if religion have something to contribute, it would have already been tested and incorporated in the knowledge base of science...

I didnt offer a view - I offered how I felt and I suppose I offered you part of me - what I think and feel about things.... and I gave u an example... the appearance of a singularity and big bang.... the appearance of the singularity is something that hasnt been tested but there are a few hypotheses... I offered you mine ...God...-everything starts with a hypothesis including the scientific method. If things change and I learn more then I will change what I think. But since noone has proven anything to me just yet, I think its quite OK I hang onto my hypothesis if for no other reason then I feel personally better about it. But like I said - I'll keep an open mind. And as for me testing this science....sigh seriously? Im 16 - Im just trying to keep up with classes

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Reread it. And if you think we both says the same thing, then I strongly disagree. So where do we fail to understand each others?

You've got to be kidding! This is silly. I'm here in your thread to discuss the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, and you want to turn this into a debate about semantics. Really?

Again, here's what I wrote back in post #96. Did you read all of this? Notice the words I've placed in BOLD:

You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate their social schlock? Germans/Nazi's didn't re-appropriate (or reconstrue) Darwin's ideas so as to buttress their own Aryan notions of superiority? Karl Marx didn't dedicate some of his work about Communism to Darwin or see the development of politics as an evolutionary process of a kind?

None of these kinds of things happened?

Furthermore, I'm not saying that the ToE led to murder ... but it did almost immediately catalyze a diversity of new social ideas based on it, one of which is still around (i.e. Communism). [Correction: I guess we unfortunately still have some skin-head types around too.]​

 

[In situ]

While we both know that Darwin's theory already led mankind to ...

This is where I disagree with you, because I would not, as you do above, assert this is a fact. I could argue that this would have happen anyway, Darwin or not. Darwin's theory was used, improperly, as a convenient excuse to justify what was done and then use afterwards to try to explain why it happen - like you do right now.

It is typical that we often try to find that one(1) explanation for something. It is called simplification and it has its merits and place, however reality is much more complicated than being captured by a single cause or idea.

 

[In situ]

I didnt offer a view - I offered how I felt and I suppose I offered you part of me - what I think and feel about things.... and I gave u an example..

I am not saying you did something wrong. I only asked you to clarify yourself because I was curious about what you had in mind, it might had been something interesting. But unfortunately what you had in mind is not realistic because, as I explained, your suggestion is contrary to the knowledge discovering process of science.

 

[In situ]

You've got to be kidding! This is silly. I'm here in your thread to discuss the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, and you want to turn this into a debate about semantics. Really?

I am opposing your notion that Darwin theory led to all those things, adapted or not. That people abused scientific discoveries is nothing new. I agree there exists a correlation, but I do not agree there exists a causation - which you imply it does.

If it is not your intention to imply causation, then perhaps you should consider your own wordings more carefully.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is where I disagree with you, because I would not, as you do above, assert this is a fact. I could argue that this would have happen anyway, Darwin or not. Darwin's theory was used, improperly, as a convenient excuse to justify what was done and then use afterwards to try to explain why it happen - like you do right now.

It is typical that we often try to find that one(1) explanation for something. It is called simplification and it has its merits and place, however reality is much more complicated than being captured by a single cause or idea.

You misunderstand. You should have asked for clarification about what I may have meant when I said "Toe led ...," especially when the semantics of what followed in my writing insinuated a misappropriation by various minds and parties that followed after Darwin.

I'm not saying the ToE--as Darwin thought of it--was some "evil" that spawned even more egregious "evils."

I'm not arguing this an longer. If you want to discuss some other aspects of the Theory of Evolution, we can do that. But, I'm not going to go around and around with you about what you "think" I wrote.

2PhiloVoid

 

[In situ]

But since noone has proven anything to me just yet, I think its quite OK I hang onto my hypothesis

This is the point at where you thinking and reasoning is on collision course with how science reason about things. In science you never prove anything, simply because it impossible to prove something to be true. Science does the oposit - that which we can do. Science disprove (exclude) that which is not true. What remains must contains the truth.

 

[In situ]

You misunderstand

Maybe I do, and if you say I did, I am not to say I don't. But then again, you might want to concider what it is you actually written and not blame it on me.

You implied causation, because when you asked "None of these kinds of things happened?" you are basically sending the message that if Darwin's theory wasn't around it would not had happen, i.e. you are proposing his theory caused these things to happen.

 

[Zoii]

This is the point at where you thinking and reasoning is on collision course with how science reason about things. In science you never prove anything, simply because it impossible to prove something to be true. Science does the oposit - that which we can do. Science disprove (exclude) that which is not true. What remains must contains the truth.

If you dont start with a belief or idea - a hypothesis - well you dont have a research question and science doesnt evolve. Theres nothing wrong with me holding to a thought about our universe, and it doesnt mean im closed to new knowledge. And you know - how can you say its impossible to prove something to be true - I dissect a rat - I see the heart - I know from studies its for circulating blood around its body - its a proven fact

 

[Kenny'sID]

While we both know that Darwin's theory already led mankind to make some stupid and massive mistakes socially (i.e. Social Darwinism, Aryan Racism, Communism, etc.), I'm not really convinced that it is the Theory of Evolution that represents specifically the Grand Delusion of Satan. The misuse of the ToE could be a part of that, but it itself is not that delusion, in my estimation.

Peace, In Christ
2PhiloVoid

Let me be a little more clear with my thoughts on this.

This did not start out to be a conspiracy by man/Darwin, however it is a conspiracy by Satan. that should not be a surprise to us as Satan is into that type thing, or getting us to not believe in God. In this case, he offered an alternative.


It started with Darwins "theory" and what a few still see as theory, but is fast becoming accepted fact, just as was expected. All carried out by doing it in bits and pieces and over much time so those with weak or no faith could not put it all together. It was to sneak up on us quietly, over time, and it did.

first, Darwin's announcement over 100yrs ago. then the announcement becoming accepted more an more over time. Then Christians being convinced it could fit right into Christianity. Slowly but surely it has evolved just as was intended. Next, and it's already happening, the Christians will dump more of the bible as not fact...creation turned out not to be fact so why believe in other parts of the bible? Until finally, God is dropped altogether by some, then those, and those who never wanted anything to do with faith to begin with will continue to push it to the point, you have to be an idiot to believe such fairy tales like creation (sound familiar)

Plan complete.

End result, Satan gains just exactly what he set out to, but I would guess, God allowed it, and for good reason. That being, because mans faith needs to be tested so he can separate those that are truly his to the end, from those that are not. The Atheists, though lost already, still have a role in this, they give it momentum, and keep the momentum going throughout the deception.

Does that really surprise some of you Christians?

All evolutionists have is what they call fact/theory and the fact that any solid proof of that is all hidden in time and we'll just have to accept it because all kinds of so-called evidence *must* equate to fact. When in reality, no amount of wrong/contrived/with agenda evidence equals the tiniest bit of fact. Way too much wrong with that picture.

All Christians have is a universe that needs explaining, a universe that is so complex we have not even begun to unlock it's mysteries. Then we have to decide, what are the odds all that just happened without it being created?

As I keep saying, I have never seen anything come to be unless it was created, so to me the answer is easy, and that evidence alone overwhelmingly points to God, not big bang or evolution. And all that can be decided even before one looks at Gods word that in turn, drives it all home perfectly.

 

[In situ]

If you want to discuss some other aspects of the Theory of Evolution, we can do that.

My OP was to highlight the fact that the evidence for evolution comes from multiple independent line of evidence which converges at the same conclusion: evolution has occurred.

What "other" aspect is it you would like to discuss about this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe I do, and if you say I did, I am not to say I don't. But then again, you might want to concider what it is you actually written and not blame it on me.

You implied causation, because when you asked "None of these kinds of things happened?" you are basically sending the message that if Darwin's theory wasn't around it would not had happen, i.e. you are proposing his theory caused these things to happen.

... while we're at it, and since you seem to want to continue to prod a dead issue, I'd have to contend that without Darwin and his theory, Marx wouldn't have had the theory of evolution to spur his thinking on at a political level, and Marx would not have been able to dedicate his work, as he did, to Darwin. To that level, there is at least a modicum of "cause and effect ..."

And I suppose I can go with some of the ideas of Dan McMillan as well. (Yep, absolutely "no" causation there )

Hitler, Darwin and the Holocaust

 

[In situ]

If you dont start with a belief or idea - a hypothesis - well you dont have a research question and science doesnt evolve.

True, but science does not try to prove the hypothesis. I am telling you scinece tries to disprove it.

If you disprove the hypothesis then the opposite is still not proven. All it means it that the hypothesis is false and the negative might be true, but there is no gaurante it is true because the law of the excluded third does not always hold true.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And you know - how can you say its impossible to prove something to be true - I dissect a rat - I see the heart - I know from studies its for circulating blood around its body - its a proven fact

Not sure who here made the claim but Atheists love the "science proves nothing" line, but fact is, you are correct with you rat dissection, it proved beyond a doubt, all you said it did. Yet the Atheist or even evolutionists, because they need what they say to be a fact in order to further their agenda, will argue there is no proof available through science still.

This particular claim makes me laugh as much as them changing definitions to fit their needs.

Like I always say: Atheists say the darnedest things.

 

[Speedwell]

Next, and it's already happening, the Christians will dump more of the bible as not fact...

No, that only applies to Christians who held your view of the Bible to start with. The rest did not have to change our view of the Genesis creation stories in a radical way in order to accommodate the findings of modern science, so our faith is not at risk.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My OP was to highlight the fact that the evidence for evolution comes from multiple independent line of evidence which converges at the same conclusion: evolution has occurred.

What "other" aspect is it you would like to discuss about this?

I don't really have any other aspect that I would offer on the table; I typically respond to what I perceive to be errors in other people's thinking. It's the philosopher in me, I suppose. So, unless you have something you want to talk about, I'd say we're on a similar page as to the fact of evolution and the conceptual nature of the Theory of Evolution. I'm not a Creationist in the literal sense, so I don't have much to argue. I'm also a Methodological Materialist when it comes to science, so again, with you at least, I don't think I have much to argue.

2PhiloVoid