What if evolution was proven false?

[Taffsadar]

I would seriously start to worship the machine god (the chocolate machine at the place I used to play table top games). If funky stuff like a 10 000 years old earth would be true would it also be very likely that the machine god is the one and true god.

Btw wouldn't a 10 000 years old earth also falsify YEC? The earth was created 6000 years ago you know ...

 

[Orihalcon]

What if mankind was proven to be less than 10,000 years old?

Can we like get an apology or some money or beer or something?

Seriously, would you have to adjust your POV, and consider that there was a creator?

I mean seriously, how would this change your outlook, where would you turn if this became a reality?

Would you be disappointed? What would it be like?

can who get an apology?
it always depends on what the new theory is. i'd probably still keep going on the road towards learning more about science, and possibly even go into research myself. and yeah, i might be somewhat disappointed, it's not very often that scientists would make some discovery that would pull the rug out from decades of research.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Umm, God came down to Earth manifested as Jesus. Thus it is perfectly possible for God to have all the powers of a Blob in the universe and indeed demonstrate those powers for people to see. It says in the Bible that he did so. As such, I am unclear what you are arguing.


With regard to science, once a theory is falsified, that is it for that theory. I cannot think of a single example of a scientific theory being falsified and then brought back, although I am happy to be corrected.


With regard to evolution being the trashcan of religion, you are still making the error of equating evolution to atheism. Most people who know evolution is the best explanation we have for what we see are theist, and many of those are Christian. In fact, most Christians accept evolution. The US is unusual in that regard.

Wave/particle theory of light. Light was originally thought to be particles, then demonstrated that it had characteristics that only matched a wave function. The particle theory was reintroduced when more evidence suggested that the particle theory was correct. I believe the wave theory made one final attempt to become the theory before they were reconciled.

Anyway, if evolution was proved not to have occured I'd examine the evidence, and see what theory replaced it. To disprove one theory is not to prove another btw.

 

[Mainframes]

Wave/particle theory of light. Light was originally thought to be particles, then demonstrated that it had characteristics that only matched a wave function. The particle theory was reintroduced when more evidence suggested that the particle theory was correct. I believe the wave theory made one final attempt to become the theory before they were reconciled.

Anyway, if evolution was proved not to have occured I'd examine the evidence, and see what theory replaced it. To disprove one theory is not to prove another btw.

Light is now believed to be both wave and particle, an object called a photon. Basically a photon is a packet of energy ie a particle, but propagates like a wave. It is called wave/particle duality.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Light is now believed to be both wave and particle, an object called a photon. Basically a photon is a packet of energy ie a particle, but propagates like a wave. It is called wave/particle duality.

Yeah, I know that. He was simple asking for examples of a theory that was discarded, then reaccepted. It usually signifies that there's an underlying truth that we missed, such as the wave/particle duality.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hypothetically speaking of course.

What if mankind was proven to be less than 10,000 years old?

Can we like get an apology or some money or beer or something?

Seriously, would you have to adjust your POV, and consider that there was a creator?

I mean seriously, how would this change your outlook, where would you turn if this became a reality?

Would you be disappointed? What would it be like?

NO AD HOMINEMS, this is a serious hypothetical here.

First of all, about your "adjusting your POV" line: Who says evolutionists don't consider the possibility of a creator? Are you rehashing the old "evolution=Atheism" argument, or have you forgotten about theistic evolutionists?


Anyway, obviously, if it turned out that evolution was wrong, we'd have to start looking for the right answer.

And the first question in that search would have to be: How did all those scientists in all their respective fields: biology, zoology, geology, astronomy, etc., screw up so badly?

Which means the answer would have to mesh with what we would know, and explained how we could've made the old mistakes.

 

[Jet Black]

Light is now believed to be both wave and particle, an object called a photon. Basically a photon is a packet of energy ie a particle, but propagates like a wave. It is called wave/particle duality.

I agree with Lamb's comment on photons: that the word should only be used under license by properly qualified people!

 

[-Jae-]

If evolution would be proven false I would become a Steveolutionist =/

 

[Nathan Poe]

If evolution would be proven false I would become a Steveolutionist =/

You would believe that we're all going to evolve into Steve-O? Wouldn't that be an evolutionary step backwards?

 

[-Jae-]

You would believe that we're all going to evolve into Steve-O? Wouldn't that be an evolutionary step backwards?

Lol , thats an interesting view of Steveolution , must remember that

But the official theory is that the creation and alteration of life on earth is the work of a guy named Steve. This theory is going to replace evolution in no time. Bring on that Nobel Prize.

 

[Revelation 22:21]

Umm, God came down to Earth manifested as Jesus. Thus it is perfectly possible for God to have all the powers of a Blob in the universe and indeed demonstrate those powers for people to see. It says in the Bible that he did so. As such, I am unclear what you are arguing.


With regard to science, once a theory is falsified, that is it for that theory. I cannot think of a single example of a scientific theory being falsified and then brought back, although I am happy to be corrected.


With regard to evolution being the trashcan of religion, you are still making the error of equating evolution to atheism. Most people who know evolution is the best explanation we have for what we see are theist, and many of those are Christian. In fact, most Christians accept evolution. The US is unusual in that regard.

Jesus actually supports my arguement-- God can not cause things to happen to things that are not here with his creation. God can only use what is already here. Pure evidence for God's existence- which can be seen and tested is absolutely impossible, unless you count miracles, healings, and such. The only explanations for miracles, other than supernatural intervention- are luck, and unxplained reasons (which simply means that there is a reason-- but it isn't known yet)

I use to believe that evolution went against my religion, but I've changed my views- and I have no problems with evolution, as fact or theory.

 

[Revelation 22:21]

no, we are not looking for something like that. "evidence" for God would be something that can be explained in no other way.

"we are here" is not sufficient, because there are a number of other plausible explanations as to how we are here, God is but one of the myriad of gods that could explain it, and the myriad of gods are but one of a whole host of other explanations.

There is a way that we got here- there is no question about that. - But is there are reason for why we are here? If there is, then I can only assume that it has nothing to do with this world- because I don't feel very "homey" here.

 

[lucaspa]

There is a way that we got here- there is no question about that.

That is what science tells you: the material component of HOW we got here.

- But is there are reason for why we are here?

That's a question addressed by philosophy, not science. Science simply isn't equipped to answer it. Not the way you mean the question, at any rate.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

If the earth were proven to be 10,000 yearws old by science, then you have a bit of a contradiction. For that to be true, darn near everything we know through science would have to be wrong.

So, what would be the reason for believing this new scientific evidence? The scientific method itself would have to be flawed. Since that method is flawed, how do you use it to prove the new theory?

hw

 

[revolutio]

Would you be disappointed? What would it be like?

I won't deny I would be disappointed. I find evolution to be a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing concept. Frankly I would think God would use it over spontaneous creation. Unless he was trying to be all snazzy and awe-ifying.

Though I would adapt, I am not so attached to the concept that I would trust my own beliefs over those of the kind of experts that came up with the theory in the first place.

 

[franklin]

Jesus actually supports my arguement-- God can not cause things to happen to things that are not here with his creation. God can only use what is already here. Pure evidence for God's existence-

Hi Rev's, If God is omnipotent why would he need to use what already exists ? Or is he not omnipotent ?

How is the existence for what is already here pure evidence for God's existence ?

 

[Cantuar]

I think threads like this are designed to see if they can finally get an admission that people who accept evolution are really atheists and have reached that conclusion because of evolution, despite what we're all claiming.

If humans were shown to be less than 10,000 years old, that would put a lot of sciences other than evolutionary biology in the wrong. If the universe were shown to be less than 10,000 years old, it would put the whole scientific method in the wrong - which raises the question of how we'd ever find out about how these things were all wrong, since presumably we'd be using the scientific method to do it. It simply isn't possible to suggest that evolution could be wildly wrong in isolation, much as creationists might wish to do so.

 

[Revelation 22:21]

Hi Rev's, If God is omnipotent why would he need to use what already exists ? Or is he not omnipotent ?

How is the existence for what is already here pure evidence for God's existence ?

Because creation has been created-- and God must work within his own rules- IMO. Everything has been created to a point where nothing else is needed- it is complete.

It can be used as evidence- using logic that a creation needs a creator.

 

[David Gould]

Because creation has been created-- and God must work within his own rules- IMO. Everything has been created to a point where nothing else is needed- it is complete.

It can be used as evidence- using logic that a creation needs a creator.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the universe is a creation ...

 

[Jet Black]

There is a way that we got here- there is no question about that. - But is there are reason for why we are here?

why should there be a reason for us being here?

If there is, then I can only assume that it has nothing to do with this world-

you're getting ahead of yourself

because I don't feel very "homey" here.

This is the kind of thing that religion preys on, it tries to get people to think that there is something better. personally I love the world, I think it is ace. life is good, though it has it's rough patches from time to time. but I feel right at home.