What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

Speaking as a 25 year career scientist I hereby go on record as having no problem whatsoever admitting that I am not certain about a single aspect of any direct-measurement science (such as bioloogy and geology) that has ever been performed ever.

You say that here but other posts suggest that is not the case

I go further and state that this position is held by every scientist I have ever worked with.

A court of law would say that was hearsay.

Try mixing with the occasional scientific community. Your delusions have moved to such a profound depth that they haven't coined a term for it..

There we go... the old ape man beating his chest routine.

I don't think it possible for you to be more wrong.

Now how would you know that? Is that the way you draw all you conclusions?

I am, and it is utterly false.

Not so.

How is it possible that you do not see that a dog eat dog world is mutually exclusive with the global scientific conspiracy?

I have no idea what global scientific conspiracy is.

 

[Blayz]

You say that here but other posts suggest that is not the case

Well thats a testable hypothesis. Point to one such post by me.

A court of law would say that was hearsay.

Only if you were on the stand. From my POV, it's testimony

There we go... the old ape man beating his chest routine.

I utterly resent being called old.

Now how would you know that? Is that the way you draw all you conclusions?

I didn't say I know it, I said I think it. It was a statement of opinion. You might even call it an observation. The one thing it wasn't was a conclusion. A conclusion might have been "You have a below average IQ" or "You know less about science than my 5 year old nephew"

Not so.

Yes so. I'm the scientist, remember?

I have no idea what global scientific conspiracy is.

This concept that every scientist even remotely connected to the faintest whiff of evolution are a part of an evil conspiracy to deny God and promote a blashphemous theory

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

A court of law would say that was hearsay.

They'd say it was expert testimony actually, because the courts accept the validity of scientific evidence.

 

[Inan3]

They'd say it was expert testimony actually, because the courts accept the validity of scientific evidence.

No they'd say it was hearsay because he was trying to say what the opinion of others was. No scientific evidence.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

No they'd say it was hearsay because he was trying to say what the opinion of others was. No scientific evidence.

Er, no, he described the positions held by scientists. Positions derived from thousands upon thousands of independent studies, the results of which are, I'm sure, available to be presented as evidence in a court of law.
A scientist may hold the opinion that ABBA are a good band, or that Dallas is the best soap opera ever made, or that cheeseburgers are delicious. Those are opinions.
It is a cool trick to dismiss anything you don't agree with as "opinion". I remember when I learnt that trick, about thirteen years ago. I notice it doesn't hold up as well in adult conversations.

 

[Blayz]

Er, no, he described the positions held by scientists.

More specifically positions held by scientists I have known.
It's testimony, pure and simple. The fact Inane confuses the two speaks volumes about his reasoning ability (and yes, that was a conclusion)

 

[Inan3]

Well thats a testable hypothesis. Point to one such post by me.

I was not referring to you but whereas, you scientists are all in sinc I only "assume" that you would agree. My bad.

Only if you were on the stand. From my POV, it's testimony

I utterly resent being called old.

You got me there!

I didn't say I know it, I said I think it. It was a statement of opinion. You might even call it an observation. The one thing it wasn't was a conclusion. A conclusion might have been "You have a below average IQ" or "You know less about science than my 5 year old nephew"

Well, I guess you got yourself out of that one.

Yes so. I'm the scientist, remember?

Oh I forgot and scientists are NEVER wrong or NEVER stretch the truth. So sorry! Your superior most reverentist!

This concept that every scientist even remotely connected to the faintest whiff of evolution are a part of an evil conspiracy to deny God and promote a blashphemous theory

All kidding aside, I am not saying this of scientists as individuals, I am talking about the scientific and intellectual community as a whole, though.

 

[Inan3]

More specifically positions held by scientists I have known.
It's testimony, pure and simple. The fact Inane confuses the two speaks volumes about his reasoning ability (and yes, that was a conclusion)

That's right you didn't use the word "think" this time, you said "fact" so it must be true. Scientifically speaking I mean!

 

[Inan3]

Er, no, he described the positions held by scientists. Positions derived from thousands upon thousands of independent studies, the results of which are, I'm sure, available to be presented as evidence in a court of law.
A scientist may hold the opinion that ABBA are a good band, or that Dallas is the best soap opera ever made, or that cheeseburgers are delicious. Those are opinions.
It is a cool trick to dismiss anything you don't agree with as "opinion". I remember when I learnt that trick, about thirteen years ago. I notice it doesn't hold up as well in adult conversations.

Well unlike you I didn't "learnt" that trick but thanks for giving me insight into the way you deal with things. You can call it what you want but unless he is an experst in the field of statistics it was just hearsay.

 

[Blayz]

That's right you didn't use the word "think" this time, you said "fact" so it must be true. Scientifically speaking I mean!

Thats because it is a fact. You did confuse heresay and testimony.

Anyway, its 1am, and my site's failed hardrive has not yet been replaced despite waiting for 5 hours. It's been fun, but time for bed.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

Well unlike you I didn't "learnt" that trick

Why the inverted commas? Learnt is a word, you know! Although you did use it incorrectly there. Don't worry about it. You live and learn, eh?

but thanks for giving me insight into the way you deal with things.

Yeah, you told me there, with that "I know you are, but what am I?" refutation. Nice going, I was clearly wrong to suggest you were employing childish techniques.

You can call it what you want but unless he is an experst in the field of statistics it was just hearsay.

Nope. Even if, bizarrely, he'd never met another scientist, there is more-than-ample documentation on what position the vast majority of scientists take on the topic of Evolution. Just crack open a science journal.

If nothing else, it'll expand your mind.

 

[FishFace]

Thank you so much for taking the time to give this explantion. You are the first one to do that. Although, I will do as you suggested and think about it before my response, I want you to know I do appreciate your time and efforts at attempting to try to make it clearer for me to understand. It is a great help.

Thanks for letting me know

 

[FishFace]

I hesitate to even reply for a "man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I do not post here to give you evidence. The scripture says FAITH is the "substance" of things hoped for the "EVIDENCE" of things not seen. That is the only evidence that is required. God purposely designed His salvation to be attained by faith and faith only. This way it is available to everyone rich, poor, wise, foolish, strong, weak, male, female, etc. etc. It is for all and is by choice of will. One must be willing to do it God's way and that way is faith. He that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.

I cannot believe something on faith alone - not faith of the kind required. I can believe a person if they tell me, for example, that it's raining outside, if I am in bed with my eyes closed. But if they told me that someone outside had just been shot, and I hadn't heard a bang, I wouldn't believe them - and that's even though I know someone could have been shot.

The stories of the Bible are like someone being shot, but a hundred times more extraordinary, and no-one even told me, someone who saw this all in a vision wrote it down thousands of years ago.

I don't exactly want to believe in a religion, but even if I did, I just couldn't bring myself to. Without actual physical evidence, I simply couldn't, because I know that if all one required was 'faith' then one could justify the belief in anything at all.

Firstly, the scripture says all men only know in part and so I will agree that I do not have "full" understanding of the Word of God but I have been studying the Bible for 37 years now and I do know what I am talking about when it comes to the scriptures.

That's not exactly what I meant, but it doesn't really matter.

You don't always test and check and examine everything in the same manner sometimes you have to just believe that it is a possibilty and then ask the Lord to show you if it is true or not. If you mean it He will show you.

The number of times I have sincerely asked is quite high. Not once has God responded. From my knowledge, the only kinds of signs God sends are ones that might have happened anyway, and he didn't even send one of those when I was in the process of deconverting.

I give you just a few of the scriptures in the NT regarding the law. It is not my interpretation it is what the scriptures say.

Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Act 18:13 Saying, This [fellow] (Paul) persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

Are you saying these are contradictory to the phrase, "not one jot or tittle...?" It looks to me like you could justify either opinion.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

These seem more concerned with laws other than the written ones, the "law of sin and death" etc.

Things like that don't work for you because you won't let it.

In studies on heart patients, members of different religions prayed for the patients without their knowledge. No difference in recovery was noted.

Once again, it is your choice to believe or not believe.

This is incorrect - I have no choice at all. I can no more choose to believe in God than choose to believe that I have no hands.

Well you are not incapable you just choose not to

NO! Nonono! I absolutely cannot stress this enough - I am completely incapable of believing without evidence. Again, trying to believe in God without evidence is like trying to believe I have no hands while holding them in front of my face.

As I said before there have been many infallible proofs. Men and women have see them in the natural realm but that is not why I believe. I believe because one day when someone told me about it I chose to believe and I was born again and changed from that day forth.

How - how do you "choose" to believe? I really can't fathom this. Do you mean you weren't convinced, you weren't shown evidence, you just heard someone saying this and thought, "Hmm, shall I believe? Hmm... hmm... yeah, why not?"

NO

So what's with all the, you know, talking about Christ's message and teachings and so on?

You must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit and that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Marvel not that I say unto you, You must be born again. A person is changed into a new creation at the new birth. Not just a religious person but a child of God with a new nature.

How do you know this change occurred? When did the concept of being born again surface, and how can you be sure you actually are one? It could be that you think you are a born again, in fact, you are absolutely certain, but then one day later, you have a revelation and decide, "no, now I'm born again - this is completely different."

 

[Loudmouth]

Certainty is not always in the physical realm

Certainty is nowhere. There are only levels of tentativity. The more evidence that one acquires the less tentative they are in their conclusions. However, nothing is ever "proven" except in mathematics because it is based on axioms.

Conclusions are formed from thoughts and ideas based on something which has been evaluated.

How things are evaluated is what separates science from religion. In science, hypotheses are tested against the facts. This is a scientific evaluation. In religion, ideas or proposals are tested against accepted theology, not facts. These are two very different processes.

What is a logical conclusion to one is not necessarily the same to another.

This is false. Logic is independent of each person. There are rules of logic that people must adhere to in order for their conclusions to be logical. The scientific method also has rules that one must follow in order for a conclusion to be scientific. Science and logic are not post-modernism.

You will not hear of those scientists though because they've been ostracized because they are not politically correct.

I am a scientist and this is far from the truth. Scientists love to raise the hackles of their peers by contradicting their theories. It is the dream of every science to overthrow a major theory and replace it with their own theory. This is how Nobel Prizes are won. The only reason that scientists would be ostracized is if they try to turn unevidenced beliefs into scientific theories.

Your claims are nothing more than "sour grapes". Creation "science" is not science, so the only option left is to denigrate the work and positions of upstanding scientists. I recently read over at www.Pandasthumb.org that a creationist is claiming that Stephen Jay Gould secretly disagreed with the theory of evolution but didn't voice his opinion openly because he was afraid of retribution. Anyone who is familiar with SJG or his writings knows this is absolute poppycock. It is on the same level as the urban myth that Darwin renounced evolution on his death bed. Creationists don't feel that it is enough to attck living scientists. They relish in the chance to put words in the mouths of dead scientists as well.

 

[FoeHammer]

I have set the standard low enough for a fairly low standard of education.

The use - or rather incorrect use - of "it's" bothers me little except when it causes confusion or is used by someone attempting to demonstrate a level of knowledge or education higher than that attained.

It was a typo like this one:

Yes, but for most people, in USA and Europe, the travel lis short distances. Long-distance travelling is the exception.

.....

..... nothing more... so get over it.


FoeHammer.

 

[Inan3]

Why the inverted commas? Learnt is a word, you know! Although you did use it incorrectly there. Don't worry about it. You live and learn, eh?

You're right I was just being rude and it was uncalled for. I apologize.

 

[Baggins]

Oh, it's so much fun to play with you Baggins!

Likewise, however wrong you are, and you are, it is nice to cross swords with someone with a bit of grey matter.

God does not fit into your limited image of ape men. Neither, does man by the way.

The only definition od ape is the scientific one. We are apes. Want to use the word ape? You have to stick with the definition.

Chromosom 2 doesn't prove that we come from apes.

Of course it doesn't. It just provides evidence so strong that we share a common ancestor with other apes that only a fool would deny it

As a matter of fact it shows how different we are.

It is two fused chimp chromosomes, so yes it shows exactly how different we are, not a lot, and that we share a common ancestor.

Only someone who WANTS to believe there is no God would come to that conclusion.

Only someone who wants to ignore what is staring them in the face could come to a different conclusion. I decided man created god in his image ( go to Morality & Ethics you can see it so clearly ) many years before I knew that humans had two fused chromosomes.

Why not come to the conclusion that that is the way God WANTED it.

Because there is no evidence of that. God is not required for it to work so Occam's razor cuts god's throat.

That He did that on purpose. It's just as easy to choose that as not.

No, god is an added complication to an explanation that works just as well without god.

I would say back to you using and rearranging your quote a little that "Your problem is that you are not spiritually equiped to refute points that you don't like because they conflict with your religious atheistic dogma, that means you attack the messenger because you can't attack the message. "

Possibly true, I am completely spiritually unequiped as far as I know. But we are talking about the Theory of Evolution here and it is scientific evidence that is important.

I'm not attacking you I'm just telling it like it is, you are always trying to attack someones intellect.

Come on, the people who attack science on here, in the main, have no idea what they are talking about. I am not going to take the arguments of someone who majored in history ( for example ) seriously when it comes to science, at least not unless they show they have done some work.

All too often all we get here is argument from: "I wish it was so" sorry but that is just sad. Learn some science or get ridiculed. This is a board for discussing science.

I have a hardtime on GA arguing that Christianity is an an amalgam of Methraism and Judaism; and I have studied the history of that period. Why should I waste good words on people who have gone no further than a Hovind site in their studies in biology?

You know it, I know it and anyone who can read knows it! That must be how they do it in the scientific community! Trying to intimidate people so they will keep their mouths shut!

It may be intimidating, but no more so than the field of history of literature critiscism. You just have to know what you are talking about, that's all we ask.

Of course as soon as you do YEC goes out the window if you are intellectually honest.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

It was a typo like this one:
..... nothing more... so get over it.


FoeHammer.

No, "it's" wasn't a typo. It was lack of knowledge.

 

[Inan3]

Of course it doesn't. It just provides evidence so strong that we share a common ancestor with other apes that only a fool would deny it

Or perhaps they just don't accept it because in their minds it is not conclusive. I am the type of person who doesn't go with the flow very easy so I know I wouldn't care if they say science is not conclusive or can't be proved....I would want to prove it.

It is two fused chimp chromosomes, so yes it shows exactly how different we are, not a lot, and that we share a common ancestor.

It's very interesting, I just wish I was a scientist that I could study it for myself. I'm sorry I don't rely on others so well. I think I could prove it otherwise because I would NOT go along with this limited evidence and I would be looking at it from another perspective. And of course, I would have the Designer helping me. How did this fushion happen anyway? and why?

Only someone who wants to ignore what is staring them in the face could come to a different conclusion. I decided man created god in his image ( go to Morality & Ethics you can see it so clearly ) many years before I knew that humans had two fused chromosomes.

It's beyond question with me now. I have seen it over and over that He is real.

Because there is no evidence of that. God is not required for it to work so Occam's razor cuts god's throat.

No, god is an added complication to an explanation that works just as well without god.

But when God is taken out of the equation you limit your explanation rather than enhance it and find the real truth.

Possibly true, I am completely spiritually unequiped as far as I know. But we are talking about the Theory of Evolution here and it is scientific evidence that is important.

But we were also talking about the reality of God.

Come on, the people who attack science on here, in the main, have no idea what they are talking about. I am not going to take the arguments of someone who majored in history ( for example ) seriously when it comes to science, at least not unless they show they have done some work.

All too often all we get here is argument from: "I wish it was so" sorry but that is just sad. Learn some science or get ridiculed. This is a board for discussing science.

I have a hardtime on GA arguing that Christianity is an an amalgam of Methraism and Judaism; and I have studied the history of that period. Why should I waste good words on people who have gone no further than a Hovind site in their studies in biology?

Right over my head here.

It may be intimidating, but no more so than the field of history of literature critiscism. You just have to know what you are talking about, that's all we ask.

Of course as soon as you do YEC goes out the window if you are intellectually honest.

YEC??

 

[Inan3]

By the way Baggins, one quesiton, if you don't mind answering. On your profile you say you are at sea, what is that a reference to? Just curious.