The evidence for Evolution.

[Speedwell]

Lol,my sect? That would be those that believe Gods word over mans.

Right. So how many of you have "feet in both camps?" Not very many to be angry with, I should think.

 

[Alithis]

Right. So how many of you have "feet in both camps?" Not very many to be angry with, I should think.

Its easy to work out.. You have those that believe God. And those that kind of do but ...dont .
They are agnostics posing as christians lol

 

[SteveB28]

Alternative to what? What do you make of the findings, what do they prove to you? Give me something to give alternative to.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or am I conversing with a 14 year old?

Alternative to the explanation of common ancestry of course....! What alternative do you have for that overwhelming phenomenon?

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, evolution is a fact. But, what we don't know as an ultimate truth is that Natural Selection by necessity provides the only or even the best description of a mechanism for organic changes as seen in various lineages through vast arrays of time.

Correction: Natural selection does not provide the "mechanism for organic changes". Mutations which form during reproduction produce the changes. Natural selection is the process by which these changes persist in a population.

 

[SteveB28]

It would be senseless for me to ask you to prove that or for me to attempt to prove otherwise, as long winded discussion on the issue never gets anyone anywhere, so I'll just stick to the Christian Biblical basics.

God did it, and science proves nothing...stating it does is merely people using it as their scapegoat to believe otherwise.

And that's not to say science is a problem, but that people are.

The only accurate statement you've made there is that "science proves nothing"....which is correct. Science provides us with the best possible UNDERSTANDING, not proof........

 

[Alithis]

The only accurate statement you've made there is that "science proves nothing"....which is correct. Science provides us with the best possible UNDERSTANDING, not proof........

Oh snap iv said all along none of its true.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Ask them if Jesus is a great ape.

What? I have never heard of anyone who believes Jesus was a great ape, "great apes" are like gorillas, there's a big difference.

 

[In situ]

I find it interesting that this post of mine already reach 85 comments, while the other post I made only reached 4 comment so far. In that post I have ask creationist, based on the evidence in biology, to clarify the evidence and explain how they reached the conclusion of one and only one creator. But so far I have only 2 comments trying to clarify it (both made by AV - thumbs up for trying AV) .

It is telling...

If you post evidence, such as this post, that support evolution then creationists jumps on it directly and tries to discredit it as much as possible with their usual rhetoric, but if you ask creationists to clarify the evidence, which supposedly is to support their own view, then it seams to be dead silent.

One can have thoughts about this, mine is that creationist never been told how to defend their own view with evidence and the reason for this is quite simple; there are no evidence, but assertions only.

If you think I am in error, well, then I invite you to explain the evidence for one creator in this thread of mine.

 

[In situ]

Good science has evidence eg the force of gravity = mg2. I think we accept most science... if its good science I accept it all, including big bang and evolution. But Big bang begins with a singularity - where did the singularity appear from. String theorists say theres a universal energy and dipped causing the singularity.... lol now Im not super-good on this theory so I might be inaccurate - but I can already see how God has a hand in the science.

Okay, you first said that religion can contribute to science in some way. I wondered what you meant with that, and you now seams to say that religion can help science by asserting an explanation to natural phenomena which has no explanation yet, because religion have already figured it out. Is that correctly understood by me?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correction: Natural selection does not provide the "mechanism for organic changes". Mutations which form during reproduction produce the changes. Natural selection is the process by which these changes persist in a population.

...we're just talking Darwin here, at least I am. I'm not referring to post Darwinian developments which have led us to and beyond the "New Synthesis."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I know, and I would hope not.

However, there are those here, the video, and many more that claim it as such.

Somehow the reality was lost in time, but I'm not surprised, it's how Satan's illusion creeps up on us without notice. It is by design to disprove God in the end. Some may try to work it into Christianity now as part of the ruse, but the ultimate outcome and purpose is clear to some.

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

 

[In situ]

Natural selection is the process by which these changes persist in a population.

For clarification: natural selection can also be thought of as a wedding out process.

It is also important to understand that selection is a statistical concept - it operates on groups rather than individuals. The fitness of an individual, no matter how good it is, does not tell if it will be "selected" - it is always the average "fitness" of the group that is selected for. Selection and "fitness" basically refer to those indiduals that are able to reproduce a new generation. Fittnes does not mean you are the strongest - fitness is a measure of how good you are at reproducing.

 

[Zoii]

Okay, you first said that religion can contribute to science in some way. I wondered what you meant with that, and you now seams to say that religion can help science by asserting an explanation to natural phenomena which has no explanation yet, because religion have already figured it out. Is that correctly understood by me?

Yes thats close enough.... except when u said "religion has figured it out" ... I see lots of synergies between the bible and space-time science ... but these are MY views and they are likely to change as I learn more about science and what I think about god. Im going to keep my mind open. I cant help feeling your attempting to attack me for exploring these things and I dont want to feel like that when I come here.

There are some things Im really comfortable with like the theory of the big bang and evolution, but that doesnt change my belief in god and what I think today may not be what I think tomorrow.

 

[In situ]

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.),

Nonsense. Does the precens of a knife or gun lead to murder?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes thats close enough.... except when u said "religion has figured it out" ... I see lots of synergies between the bible and space-time science ... but these are MY views and they are likely to change as I learn more about science and what I think about god. Im going to keep my mind open. I cant help feeling your attempting to attack me for exploring these things and I dont want to feel like that when I come here.

There are some things Im really comfortable with like the theory of the big bang and evolution, but that doesnt change my belief in god and what I think today may not be what I think tomorrow.

I like your approach, Zoii!

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nonsense. Does the precens of a knife or gun lead to murder?

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]

Yes thats close enough.... except when u said "religion has figured it out" ... I see lots of synergies between the bible and space-time science ... but these are MY views and they are likely to change as I learn more about science and what I think about god. Im going to keep my mind open. I cant help feeling your attempting to attack me for exploring these things and I dont want to feel like that when I come here.

There are some things Im really comfortable with like the theory of the big bang and evolution, but that doesnt change my belief in god and what I think today may not be what I think tomorrow.

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...

 

[In situ]

You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate

Social Darwmin's and all the other nonsense is not the theory of evolution nor what the theory implies. It a abuse of the theory to promote some nutty ideas.

For instance "fittness" does not refer to strongest or "better", but your ability to reproduce. Evolution is about reproduction - it is not about being superior. It explains the diversity of life. And that is all it does. The rest is human constructions with human agendas behind it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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...

ahem ... I'd assert that "real" science isn't about Absolute Truth, but about finding "provisional truth," as Darwin intimated regarding his theory of evolution.

In other words, we'll probably find that there is always something new to learn, and if we can learn something new, then our present ideas about the world can't be the absolute truth because they'll continually need eventual and expected updating.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Social Darwmin's and all the other nonsense is not the theory of evolution nor what the theory implies. It a abuse of the theory to promote some nutty ideas.

For instance "fittness" does not refer to strongest or "better", but your ability to reproduce. Evolution is about reproduction - it is not about being superior.

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 ...