Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[USincognito]

One can engage in scientific research without bowing at the altar of Darwinism.

Histrionic hyperbole does not help make one's case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These are not theoretic science; they are applied, and work in the present; can be analyzed, evaluated, repeated and tested in the present.

You can't have "applied science" without a "theoretical model" to back it up.
That's what you don't seem to be comprehending.

The applied science of medicine, for example, is backed by the germ theory of desease.

The applied science of nuclear power, is backed by atomic theory.

The applied science of shooting satelites into space, is by a couple dozen theories of physics.

Physics is a mathematical description of facts.

No. That would be the laws of physics.
The theories of physics are those models that explain those laws.

Hearsay. I neither accept nor reject your hearsay.

LOL!!!!

Man landing on the moon is "hearsay"????

Bwahahaha!

So... you're "one of those" people.
I guess you clicked the wrong link. You might want to start posting in a conspiracy forum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is baseless rhetoric. Finding an outcropping of fossils will not yield any data but inanimate objects. Finding inanimate objects does nothing.

That would be a sensible statement, if not for the fact that the theory of evolution makes rather clear predictions about what "inanimate objects" you should and shouldn't find in specific locations, as well as what properties these "inanimate objects" should or shouldn't have.

For example, the theory predicts that you will not find any mammal fossils next to trilobites. And we don't. Ever.

My reasoning for not becoming involved with testing of the Theory of Evolution is: I do not care whether it is true or not,

There you go... You do not care whether it is true or not.
So by extension, you do not care either if your beliefs concerning it are accurate or not. You are just content holding on to your beliefs, whether they are accurate or not, justified or not.

You have successfully argued yourself out of the discussion completely.

When one flat out states that they do not care whether or not their beliefs are accurate, then they forfeit any credibility they may have had left concerning the subject matter.

So... since you do not care to be justified in your beliefs, then we should not care about your opinions on the matter.

Thanks for playing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Physics is a description of facts

Atomic theory.
Quantum theory.
Theory of relativity.
Big bang theory.


These are not "descriptions" of facts. These are models of explanations of sets of facts.

You don't understand the difference between theory and fact.

Theories explain facts.
Facts support theories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

HThe definition of an atheist is: a person who believes that God does not exist.

False.

The actual definition is: "a person who does not believe that a god does exist".

It has always, for several decades at least and likely for at least a couple of centuries referred to those among us who do not believe that a god exists.

See? You DO know the actual definition, so why did you start out with another definition?

Do you understand the difference between the following two statements:
"I don't believe X is true"
and
"I believe X is false"?


The first is the mere rejection of a claim.
The second is a claim in itself.

They are NOT the same statements.

So, do you or do you not believe that God exists?

He's an atheist. By definition, he does not believe a god exists.

Most atheists think they understand christianity better than most christians.

Well... I hate to break it to you (actually, I don't really ), but several studies have pointed out that on average, atheists are better informed about religions overall then the actual adherents of those religions.

Friend if you don't understand about God and His salvation, then you don't know diddly about 'christianity'. You've just read the bible. No, I did not make any false statement based on my misunderstanding, but you may have given a false impression of your understanding about God. Let's get that settled right now.

Before trying to settle what the christian "god" is all about with an atheist, perhaps first try to come to a consensus with all your christian brethren from the hundreds of denominations of christianity.

As to your assertion that the Scriptures are terribly flawed, especially if taken literally, again, and I know you're not going to agree with this and that's ok with me, those without the Spirit of God have no understanding of the things of God.

One doesn't need any understanding of any gods to take literal claims about reality and fact-check them.

Claims like "the entire world was flooded and all life except a handfull was killed", are claims that are very testable in reality - regardless of that flood having any supernatural causations or not.

The physical flood either happened or it didn't, and the truth of that claim CAN be checked out in reality. Again, regardless of your god existing and regardless of that god causing said flood for whatever reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In bacteria, yes. In higher life forms, no.
What beneficial information? Diet? For life forms which were designed to eat the garbage of the planet? Plllllease.

A simple example that comes to mind are the unique gene sequences that we only find in Tibetans. Thanks to those unique gene sequences, they are able to live at high altitudes without passing out on day 2.

Seems pretty beneficial to me...

And did I mention already that these are unique sequences only found in Tibetans?
Well, in case I did not, fyi, these are unique sequences only found in Tibetans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand the theory of evolution well enough to know that if it's true then it's an effect of biological life not an original cause. The question: 'Who or what caused biological life?' is still a valid question and God is still a valid assumption, which many reasonable people continue to make, despite those who are against that assumption.

Hey, newsflash, the origins of life aren't within the scope of explanation of evolution theory.


I'll just go ahead and pretend that that hasn't been pointed out to you a couple dozen times in the past.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One way to define an atheist is to say they are someone who doesn't assume God anymore. The reasoning for this is because we all assume God at some point in our lives for countless different reasons, but an atheist is someone who stops assuming God for some reason or another. I believe God still cares about them and desires to give them a reason to assume His existence again. That's my hope anyway

Being brought up in a secular home, I have never assumed any gods of any kind.

The only reason people assume a god at some point in their lives, is because they are told to do so.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm sure you're trying to convey something here, but I have no idea what.

The failing isn't in that I have been less than specific.
Evolution is a theoretical model to explain the origins of all living things. It is not the only explanation. There is also the truth, spoken and ordained by God the God created the world in its mature state in six days.
The fact is, you don't have to reject the truth to study science.
You're pretending that one has to worship at the altar of Darwinism to practice science. That is simply not the case.
The fact is, a global flood explains fossils throughout the world because fossils form in sediment under pressure. Unless these areas are under water or encased in mud (which requires water) the fossils could not form (other than in lava). Evolution believers, however, deny the flood and yet embrace the fossils; arranging them in a simplest-to-most-complex progression to so evolution though in fact they were all formed at the same time. No fossils show transition. They show animals that lived and died in their mature, intact state. No "tweeners."

So no, evolution is not science. Alchemy is not science. Scientology is not science.

 

[KWCrazy]

Hey, newsflash, the origins of life aren't within the scope of explanation of evolution theory.

Hey, newsflash. Evolution proponents ignore that their ladder has no first rung before proceeding to the second.

 

[KWCrazy]

A simple example that comes to mind are the unique gene sequences that we only find in Tibetans. Thanks to those unique gene sequences, they are able to live at high altitudes without passing out on day 2.

So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.
No kidding?
Next you'll be saying that Africans have larger noses so that they can better process the hot air.
Next you'll be telling me that Intuits eat fatty foods to provide an extra layer of fat as protection from the elements.
I suppose you'll even tell me that mountain goats adapt to be able to traverse the mountains without falling.
None of this is possible without Darwinism, is it?

 

[TBDude65]

Your statement "like it did at the end of the Cretaceous with the dinosaurs" is an example of bias. There is no way for you to verify this claim (it is even disputed in theoretic science) yet you seem to regard it as "fact": this is generally one of the problems, many like you in the field, consumed with bias, and speaking theoretic as fact. This is a prime example of why I do not accept the Theory of Evolution. There is no way to determine how deep this bias runs, and as such the entire enterprise is contaminated causing all theory to become highly questionable.

However, I would regard your hypothesis as "possible" in the same way I would regard "aliens crashed a saucer" as "possible" or "the cosmos is 6,000 years old" as "possible" or "elves carry raindrops down in magic handkerchiefs" as "possible": yet all without meaningful support, as are all untested hypotheses.



I do not accept the models of the structure of molecules; nor of any atomic or subatomic particles.



I don't go to the doctor, pay no taxes and repair my own car. But you are confusing hypotheses with facts. Gravity is a fact and a theory. I accept the fact, as I witness it myself; I do not accept the theory. The periodic table is a categorizing which is true by self-definition much like any categorizing is done. A hypothesis is not the same as these things; but is a speculation without verifiable evidence to be evaluated with a specific procedure.



It's not possible for me to evaluate the hypothesis; I don't have access to the resources required. I trust my own abilities to reason correctly, but not others, unless demonstrated to be reliable in a meaningful manner. Even then, I would always evaluate their hypotheses and evidences before accepting any legitimacy of model.



Self-experience.



Source information for?



The veracity of the map is able to be verified. It is a representation of the present, and not the distant past. I accept that men are able to competently see what is in front of their eyes in the present. No reasoning is involved, and bias is impossible. It is not man's ability to use his senses in the present that I call into question; it is man's ability to competently reason (and without bias) concerning things that cannot be reproduced and which happen/ed outside of common experience.

As well, I draw a clear distinction between theoretic science, and, applied science. Rigorous repetition in a laboratory environment is a good way to strip away incompetent reasoning and emotional bias which are free to run rampant outside of the ability to rigorously repeat; as someone once said, "Science without contact with the laboratory is an enterprise likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture" (though my acceptance of even this rigorous pursuit will be on a case by case basis but has a chance of acceptance)

Interesting. You don't accept things like models of molecules and atoms? So for you, your religion trumps all other information to the point where even seemingly non-controversial ideas in science are rejected?

 

[sfs]

Evolution is a theoretical model to explain the origins of all living things. It is not the only explanation.

It is the only scientific explanation, and the only explanation that attempts to explain the observed data.

You're pretending that one has to worship at the altar of Darwinism to practice science. That is simply not the case.

I'm not pretending anything. Young earth creationism is a catastrophic failure as an explanation of anything in the real world. In particular, it is a catastrophic failure at explaining the data I work with all the time. This is presumably why creationists simply ignore the data.

So no, evolution is not science. Alchemy is not science. Scientology is not science.

And thus we get back to where we were before. The people who actually do science for a living, who fund science, who study scientists, who award prizes for science, who teach science and who publish science, all disagree with you. If everyone who is actually involved in science agrees that evolution is part of science and you don't, then you are simply wrong. When you reject evolution, you are rejecting part of science. If you want to do that, fine, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're doing something else.

 

[sfs]

So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.
No kidding?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Tibetans adapted to living at higher altitudes because the ones who carried a specific genetic change fared better and left more offspring. That process is called evolution.

Next you'll be saying that Africans have larger noses so that they can better process the hot air.
Next you'll be telling me that Intuits eat fatty foods to provide an extra layer of fat as protection from the elements.

I don't know why anyone would say either of those things.

I suppose you'll even tell me that mountain goats adapt to be able to traverse the mountains without falling.

Well, yeah, I imagine they have adapted (evolutionarily) to their environment. Again, what's your point?

None of this is possible without Darwinism, is it?

The cases of actual adaptation? No, they're not possible without Darwinism, as far as I know. Why do you think Tibetans are better suited genetically to survive at high altitudes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey, newsflash. Evolution proponents ignore that their ladder has no first rung before proceeding to the second.

Evolution explains the origins of species. Of diversity.
It doesn't explain the origins of life, nore does it need to or is it supposed to. It doesn't even belong to the same field of study

You can continue to pretend as if this is not the case, but you'll just miss the fact that it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So Tibetans adapt to living in higher altitudes because they adapt.

And they did so by evolving unique gene sequences, yes. Exactly what you were implying doesn't happen.

No kidding?
Next you'll be saying that Africans have larger noses so that they can better process the hot air.
Next you'll be telling me that Intuits eat fatty foods to provide an extra layer of fat as protection from the elements.

Huh? Wait, are you denying that Tibetans have these unique gene sequences, which allow for living at high altitude without gaining so-called altitutde sickness?
How do you breath with your head so firmly burried underground?

None of this is possible without Darwinism, is it?

Sure, when you allow for magic, I guess "all things are possible". Including that the universe and all that it contains was created last thursday.

As for rational testable models of reality that can actually account for the facts that we observe... yes, no model does a better job at that then evolution theory.

 

[KWCrazy]

It is the only scientific explanation, and the only explanation that attempts to explain the observed data.

False.
cre·a·tion sci·ence
noun

1. the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

I'm not pretending anything. Young earth creationism is a catastrophic failure as an explanation of anything in the real world.

Not at all.
Angels and demons exist in the real world. The Bible does a pretty good job explaining them.
Sometimes spirits of the dead are brought into the "real world" (ie Samuel) and Creationism does a pretty good job of explaining why.
Humans instinctively know good from evil. They have a conscience. Scripture tells us that it's because of Adam's sin that we know good from evil and are responsible for our choices. With evolution there is no good or evil, only survival of the most fit. The Scriptures do a very good job of why we still see miracles happen today. The physical sciences cannot account for miracles whatever. They violate the laws of nature.

And thus we get back to where we were before. The people who actually do science for a living, who fund science, who study scientists, who award prizes for science, who teach science and who publish science, all disagree with you.

You know, the people who actually do alchemy for a living, who fund alchemy, who study alchemists, who award prizes for alchemy, who teach alchemy and who publish alchemy, all disagree with me too. Actually, since many grants come from the government which is supported by taxpayers, people who disagree with you also fund science.

The reality is that nothing in biology would be any different using the model of rapid adaptation post-flood that claiming molecules-to-man. Evolution takes what is known and pushes it to an unprovable theory of origins which, like any other false religion, leads people to dismiss the word of God and embrace the theories of man. it's yet another stumbling block for those who cannot see.

If everyone who is actually involved in science agrees that evolution is part of science and you don't,

You said evolution IS science, not a field of study in science and not a part of science.

When you reject evolution, you are rejecting part of science.

No, I'm rejecting an unprovable theory or origins.
I can reject the notion that 3X3=6 without rejecting all mathematics because it's just plain wrong. Amazingly, those who worship at the altar of Darwinism can't see that rejecting their foolish notion of universal common descent doesn't require the rejection of electricity. Why is it that so many of you make the same lame argument that disagreeing with evolution means disagreeing with all of science?
It makes your argument look foolish.

 

[KWCrazy]

Wait, are you denying that Tibetans have these unique gene sequences, which allow for living at high altitude without gaining so-called altitutde sickness?

Are you denying that Africans have larger noses?
Are you denying that Inuits tend to be chubby?
How about Penguins? Do you deny that they are uniquely adapted for their environment?
Adaptation is part of life and nobody denies it.
That doesn't prove we share ancestors with daffodils.

Sure, when you allow for magic, I guess "all things are possible". Including that the universe and all that it contains was created last thursday.

Wow! Magic? Last Thursdayism?
How about an original argument?
You haven't said anything i haven't heard from a hundred evolutionists over the last 20 years. You need to get original.
You DO realize that you're in a Christian forum where people actually do believe the word of God, right? God's miracles aren't magic. Raising the dead isn't exactly a card trick. You can disagree with the Bible all you want but teaching contrary to the Scripture is considered false teaching. You might want to learn something about the Lord before you continue disparaging His creation and His word.

 

[sfs]

False.
cre·a·tion sci·ence
noun

1. the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

Yes, I know that's what creationists claim. They are lying. Big, bold, flat-out lies -- probably to themselves, too. Creation science does not exist. I know this because I've been trying to get creationists, including professional creationist organizations, to explain genetic data for the last fifteen years. Not only are they unable to do so, they aren't even interested in trying. To me, this proves conclusively that they aren't doing science of any kind. If you aren't interested in explaining data, you're not doing science.

You know, the people who actually do alchemy for a living, who fund alchemy, who study alchemists, who award prizes for alchemy, who teach alchemy and who publish alchemy, all disagree with me too.

Since none of those people actually exist, what is your point?

The reality is that nothing in biology would be any different using the model of rapid adaptation post-flood that claiming molecules-to-man.

Once again, you state things that are simply false. As I said before, this is what I do for a living. A very large part of what I study makes no sense at all under a model of rapid adaptation post-Flood. Unlike almost all creationists, I've actually tried to come up with a Flood model that is consistent with real genetics. I failed completely.

Why is it that so many of you make the same lame argument that disagreeing with evolution means disagreeing with all of science?

I have never seen anyone make that "lame argument". I certainly haven't made it.

 

[Dave RP]

Hi dude,

No, my understanding of the scientific theory of evolution is from the works of science. What I believe to be the truth is God's word.

Those who belong to the Lord can make bold claims. They know the truth.

You claim to be an atheist. Friend, God's word says that it is a fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Now, you can believe that or not, but that is what God says about you. You are a fool according to God. Now, you want to carry on a discussion about evolution, but I agree with God.

So, let's start this discussion with you understanding that I believe that God has told me the truth about you.

Have you ever studied the Scriptures? I was once like you. I believed in evolution. It's what most school districts teach these days so it's hard to get out of high school without having some knowledge about the science. However, at the age of forty, I was born again. Born of the Spirit of the living God. My entire worldview changed. Yes, I've kept abreast of a lot of the 'new and improved' scientific findings regarding evolution, but unfortunately, God already has my heart and has given me some of the wisdom, knowledge and discernment that is his to give.He merely spoke and things that were not, became. Now, let me encourage you, if you are so inclined to really know the truth or would even just entertain ideas that oppose your own, to read Chapter one in Genesis and then turn all the way to the back of the Scriptures to chapter 21 in the Revelation. Merely ten minutes of reading for most people. Surely you wouldn't begrudge an old man ten minutes of your precious lifetime.

Genesis 1 tells us that God created all things in this realm and Revelation 21 tells us why God created all things in this realm. Between those two pieces of Scripture is life upon the earth and all that God has done to make Himself known to you so that you will be a part of God's ultimate purpose.

The Scriptures tell us that God raised up a man by the name of Abraham, through whom He would raise up a nation of people who would do His bidding upon the earth. Yes, they failed miserably and often, but they were mere humans in the hand of a loving God and despite their often failing, they did accomplish God's task for them. They brought into the world the Scriptures. Paul confirms this for us in his letter to the Romans. He begins chapter 3 in telling us that the greatest value in being a Jew was that they were entrusted with the very words of God.

Throughout those same Scriptures can be found a plethora of prophecies, but the most important are the ones that speak about a Savior or Messiah to come. Someone that God is going to send, whose death would atone for our personal sins. The first and greatest law that we all break is the one about loving God with all that we are.

You, friend, have broken that law. I have also. However, God's justice says that if we will repent of our sin and turn back to Him, then we can be a part of those who God is speaking to in Revelation chapter 21.

However, God has also been quite clear that the things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. How does all that I've written above sound to you?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Ted, I appreciate your faith and your genuine concern for those, like me, who do not believe in god, the bible, Jesus etc. however, your statement "he merely spoke and things that were not, became" for the atheist this is just ludicrous. How did God get to exist, how can anything just be spoken into existence. I suggest that most atheists operate in a logical environment, and there is just no logic to the existence of a supernatural being who can will things into existence. Evolution has been scientifically tested for over a hundred years and has not been found wanting, as a description of the variety of life on earth it has been shown to be a very accurate model for how the diversity of species has come about.

Many Christians believe in God and accept evolution, I personally know of at least three Christians who accept evolution and believe the bible is not to be taken literally, it's a guide as to how a relationship with God should work but is not the story of creation.