We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Buzzard3]

I don't think it's helpful to think of science as proving things similar to how there are proofs in mathematics.

I'm aware of that. My point is, no one can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

Here's a thought. If atheists have turned evolution into a religion (with which I disagree), could the same be said of some theists? Have some theists turned their anti-evolution sentiments into a religion, perhaps as an extension of their theism?

Some theists reject evolution on religious grounds.
Some theists reject both evolution and the theory of evolution on religious grounds.

As for this theist,, I accept evolution but don't accept that the process responsible for evolution can be known.

 

[Buzzard3]

All scientific theories are based on natural processes. In fact all of science is based on natural processes. Given that, why focus on evolutionary theory instead of the atomic theory of matter for example?


Chemistry says molecules are the result of natural processes. Do you oppose chemistry too?

You're getting side-tracked. I have no intention of following you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mutation and natural selection.

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

Directly observed. Can't do much better than that. Would you like to learn about some examples?

How did "mutation and natural selection" allow mammals to (allegedly) descend from fish, for example?

Sure. Some sorts of fish, including those still surviving, have the same bones as mammalian limb bones. Lungs actually evolved in fish before bladders, and in Rhipidestian fish, were used to breath air. There is an extensive fossil record, showing the transition from lobed fin fish to fish with limbs for walking on the bottom of shallow water, to fish that were capable of walking on land, to land-based tetrapods. It's one of the sequences that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

One, and the surviving members of that group of fish are genetically closer to us than they are to other fish.

Lungfish (Dipnoi) are widely recognized as the closest living relatives of tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates). This relationship is supported by both fossil evidence and molecular data. While coelacanths were previously considered strong contenders, recent studies increasingly favor lungfish as the sister group to tetrapods.

Loading…

academic.oup.com

How about that? I'd be pleased to see your evidence that any step in the evolution of humans from fish could not have happened by mutation and natural selection. What do you have?

The truth is, you can't even demonstrate that such a transition was the result of a natural process,

As Dr. Wise admits, the fossil record is very good evidence for it. And of course, DNA analysis shows that mutation and natural selection were indeed behind it, as does observed evolution we see today.

 

[Buzzard3]

Does a geologist prove that the U-valley they're studying was formed by the natural process of glacial erosion?

Does a chemist prove that the molecule they're studying was formed by the natural process of covalent bonding?

Does a hydrogeomorphologist prove that the sand bar they're studying was formed by the natural processes of erosion and deposition?

Yet more side-tracking.

If you can't give any reason why species came about differently in the past than they do today, all you're really doing here is complaining with no purpose.

Okay, go with that one.

 

[The Barbarian]

No ... but science strongly suggests that life arising naturally from inanimate matter is impossible.

That's very wrong. As time goes on, it becomes more and more clear that God was right when He said inanimate matter brought forth living things. Would you like to see how we know?

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet more side-tracking.

He's pointing out that you've set up different thinking for some natural processes, apparently because you aren't disturbed by the thought of chemistry and geology as natural processes.

 

[Buzzard3]

No we don't

Yes, atheists do need a belief system. Their belief system is that there is no Creator.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, atheists do need a belief system.

No we don't.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm aware of that. My point is, no one can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

Some theists reject evolution on religious grounds.
Some theists reject both evolution and the theory of evolution on religious grounds.

As for this theist,, I accept evolution but don't accept that the process responsible for evolution can be known.

From a philosophical standpoint you may be right, but as a practical matter the evolutionary process has been characterized, mathematically modeled and observed both in the field and in the lab, so on the whole it is considered the best explanation currently available, That's as good as it ever gets in science.

 

[River Jordan]

You're getting side-tracked. I have no intention of following you.

Then I don't understand what your point is. We agree the ToE is the best scientific explanation. I think we also agree that the ToE isn't unique in how it explains things via natural processes, like all scientific theories do. We agree "proof" isn't something scientific theories provide.

So what's your point?

 

[The Barbarian]

There you go again: "natural" is not the same thing as "Godless."

Well, for some religions, it is. Since Christians believe that nature is merely a creation of an almighty God, we are not offended that God would use nature in some of his other creations. Lots of polytheists probably don't like that, though.

 

[River Jordan]

Yet more side-tracking.

Okay, go with that one.

Your only point in this thread is to complain? Remind me again what your complaint is.

 

[Buzzard3]

You're most definitely arguing that species were produced differently in the past than they are today.

Pleae cite the post in which I argue that.

Can you give any reason why scientists should consider your argument?

No.

Maybe to you the past is a mystery, but a lot of scientists have a completely different view.

Unfortunately, it seems that evolution science contains more than its fair share of deluded dreamers and bs-artists.

Can you give any reason why we should go with your unsupported statement over the actual work of scientists?

What "unsupported statement"?

 

[public hermit]

As for this theist,, I accept evolution but don't accept that the process responsible for evolution can be known.

Okay, that is helpful. If you assume God is responsible for evolution, then that cannot be known through the observation of natural processes. I hold the same position. I understand and accept the ToE, but by faith I believe God is ultimately responsible for it.

I have to be honest, it would have been helpful if you had stated that earlier. If I recall, this all started with your comment that atheists have turned the ToE into a religion. It seems you accept the ToE just as they do, you just happen to be a theist and they are not. That leads me to believe you have a problem with atheists. Maybe it would help if you spoke to some. People are atheist for different reasons, and understanding that might prove beneficial. It has certainly helped me. Although I am a theist, I have found it helpful to understand why some folks are not.

 

[River Jordan]

Pleae cite the post in which I argue that.

No.

Unfortunately, it seems that evolution science contains more than its fair share of deluded dreamers and bs-artists.

What "unsupported statement"?

I'm going to have to focus on my main question for you. What is your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?

Really?

My pastor likes to bring this verse to mind ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

... and point out that anyone who reads the Bible and rejects It, shall be turned unto fables.

It's not saying they run the risk of turning to fables.

It's saying they SHALL BE turned unto fables.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

They SHALL BE turned unto fables.

All Satan has to do is get you to question the Bible ...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

... and he's nearly got you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet you keep following it and chasing it down.

Ya -- I got something to say to it.

 

[public hermit]

My pastor likes to bring this verse to mind ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

... and point out that anyone who reads the Bible and rejects It, shall be turned unto fables.

It's not saying they run the risk of turning to fables.

It's saying they SHALL BE turned unto fables.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

They SHALL BE turned unto fables.

All Satan has to do is get you to question the Bible ...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

... and he's nearly got you!

Please, stop. Your condemnation of other Christians is almost as bad as your exegesis.

 

[River Jordan]

Please, stop. Your condemnation of other Christians is almost as bad as your exegesis.

Unfortunately, he confuses someone reading scripture differently than him with them rejecting it. It seems to be a common error among some Christians.

 

[BCP1928]

My pastor likes to bring this verse to mind ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

... and point out that anyone who reads the Bible and rejects It, shall be turned unto fables.

It's not saying they run the risk of turning to fables.

It's saying they SHALL BE turned unto fables.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

They SHALL BE turned unto fables.

All Satan has to do is get you to question the Bible ...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

... and he's nearly got you!

You are a good one to get people to question the Bible. What you have to say about it is so preposterous that a sensible person might be tempted to reject the whole book.