Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
vossler said:It looks like I don't have a clear definition of what science is. Interesting! So I suppose my question is how can evolution receive so much credibility with so little evidence?
With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.notto said:The evidence for evolution is as strong as it is in any other science.
The theories in physics are just that, theories, built on the same types of evidence, observations, and repeatability that we find in biology related to evolution.United said:With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.
I'm not saying the that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that it is far from proven.
I assume you are partly drawing your conclusion from the fact that most scientists believe in evolution. This should not be used to justify that evolution is proven. If you are familiar with the "scientific method" then you will know how concepts and theories are built up over time. It is no easy task to "build" on the theory of creation - the act of creation will always be relatively difficult to study and analyse in a scientific manner. There is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence against. Most scientists will prefer to believe in something they can study and quantify (even if it doesn't always fit).
Again, I am not saying evolution is wrong - just suggesting a balanced view.
The modification of populations over time is very well founded. The uncertainty is only in how this happens.United said:With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.
I'm not saying the that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that it is far from proven.
I assume you are partly drawing your conclusion from the fact that most scientists believe in evolution. This should not be used to justify that evolution is proven. If you are familiar with the "scientific method" then you will know how concepts and theories are built up over time. It is no easy task to "build" on the theory of creation - the act of creation will always be relatively difficult to study and analyse in a scientific manner. There is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence against. Most scientists will prefer to believe in something they can study and quantify (even if it doesn't always fit).
Again, I am not saying evolution is wrong - just suggesting a balanced view.
Well to me the theory of gravity exists everytime I take a step or throw a ball etc. Yet real evidence of evolution has no evidence.seebs said:Simple: It can't.
You have a false premise, which is that there is "little" evidence. What we have is a theory which is continually reaffirmed by results in every field even tangentially related to biology. It's about as good as the theory of gravity, at this point.
vossler said:Well to me the theory of gravity exists everytime I take a step or throw a ball etc. Yet real evidence of evolution has no evidence.
When I say no real evidence, I'm talking about evidence that passes the common sense test, you know is logical and easy to understand. This is one area I can claim some ability.Chi_Cygni said:Tell me why do you make carte blanche statements that evolution has no real evidence yet you also claim not to be a scientist and that you are uneducated in these topics.
Which is it to be? Do you have expertise that lends you to these assertions or is it a case of making assertions that you really don't know why you are making them.
But it passes the common sense test.Chi_Cygni said:And you do not see the theory of gravity when you take a step or throw a ball. You are making observations that are to be explained via a theory but the observation itself is not the theory.
On the surface these points all appear logical and are even substantiated with some empirical evidence, just not enough to pass the ultimate test, common sense. See that's the problem, most people, because of their own ignorance, are intimidated by anything that science produces. They have forgotten to put it up to the light, God's light.Chi_Cygni said:Similarly in biology, observations whether in the lab, out in the wild or via the fossil record are to be explained by theory. The theory that has best explained this up to now is modern evolutionary theory.
Over the last 100 years or so the tens of thousands of biologists who have worked directly on this subject have come up with the current theory. It is unlikely they have all been drastically in error and the whole theory is nonsense. It is also not likely they are 100% correct on every last point, the theory is still evolving (pun), but seriously off base is more unlikely.
Excellent points!!! We agreeChi_Cygni said:Common sense is a terrible guide in many areas. This is why most non-physicists have terrible problems with relativity theory (i.e. gravity in General Relativity) and quantum mechanics because they go against common sense. They are certainly not intuitive in the everyday sense.
Yes the observation is common sense but the theory is not as most people would think of common sense.
I find most people are intimidated by science, especially physical science, is because they have trouble following the concepts and cannot do the math.
It's like dunking a basketball - most people cannot put their hand over a 10 foot rim and they never shall. Similarly most people no matter how hard they try cannot do math beyond simple algebra or elementary calculus - heck a goodly number can never get that far. This is not elitism it is a fact.
vossler said:When I say no real evidence, I'm talking about evidence that passes the common sense test, you know is logical and easy to understand. This is one area I can claim some ability.
But it passes the common sense test.
On the surface these points all appear logical and are even substantiated with some empirical evidence, just not enough to pass the ultimate test, common sense. See that's the problem, most people, because of their own ignorance, are intimidated by anything that science produces. They have forgotten to put it up to the light, God's light.
OK if it is as you say then please give me your common sensical definition of where we humans came from?gluadys said:Evolution is as common sensical and easy to understand as a family tree and has plenty of empirical evidence to back it up. Nor does it require adopting atheism as a default religious position. I think you are raising pseudo-barriers here, and you might like to ask yourself why.
vossler said:OK if it is as you say then please give me your common sensical definition of where we humans came from?
Yeah I've got a big problem with that if it means my biological ancestors included apes and whatever else you and other evolutionists believe your ancestors to be. Seeing how you stated it is our family tree I can see going as far back as Adam and after that you are stepping out of bounds.gluadys said:From our biological ancestors. Ever since life first appeared on earth, all organisms have been born of previously living organisms. You have a problem with that?
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.vossler said:Yeah I've got a big problem with that if it means my biological ancestors included apes and whatever else you and other evolutionists believe your ancestors to be. Seeing how you stated it is our family tree I can see going as far back as Adam and after that you are stepping out of bounds.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say evolutionistic theories can not pass the common sense test. For anyone to believe that we came from apes and who knows what else just doesn't hold any water. The evidence is so scant for evolution and yet people cling to it for all its worth when the Creator explained everything to us already.
Why are you ignoring my question?Aduro Amnis said:I woudl like to ask you mhess13, your profile says you've been a Christian for 3.5 years, 30 - 3.5 = What did you believe for the first 26.5 years?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?