Why are you an evolutionist?

[whois]

I also showed you that it works for the genus Equus.

you did?
where?

 

[whois]

Of course we do. Physics and astronomy have established that it's far to small to go through any catastrophic changes. And the evidence is overwhelming.



It's what science is good at. Well over a hundred years ago, Huxley predicted dinosaurs with feathers, even though he had nothing but his comparative anatomical data to support him. He turned out right. Wegener, long before anyone had any sort of data showing it could happen, predicted that the continents were at one time joined together. Turns out, he was right. About 300 BC, Eratosthenes of Alexandria predicted that when someone finally got around the world, it would be about 25,000 miles in circumference. He was right. Long before we had instruments capable of confirming the fact, (about 400 BC) Democritus of Abdera (based on experiments) predicted that all matter was composed of very tiny particles he called "atoms." Turns out his prediction was correct. In the 19th century Arrhenius predicted that rising carbon dioxide levels would warm the planet. He was correct. In 1705, Edmond Halley, using Newton's theory of gravitation and Kepler's laws of planetary motion, predicted the year of return for the comet now named after him. He was right.



Routinely does this.

you are apparently missing the point.
there is all the evidence in the world that says the sun should rise tomorrow, there is NO evidence that says it will.
it's a simple factual statement.
it's essentially the same thing as you saying you will be alive tomorrow.
a somewhat better analogy would be saying your mailbox will still be hanging on your house tomorrow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

you are apparently missing the point.
there is all the evidence in the world that says the sun should rise tomorrow, there is NO evidence that says it will.
it's a simple factual statement.
it's essentially the same thing as you saying you will be alive tomorrow.
a somewhat better analogy would be saying your mailbox will still be hanging on your house tomorrow.

Are you saying it won't?

 

[The Barbarian]

you are apparently missing the point.
there is all the evidence in the world that says the sun should rise tomorrow, there is NO evidence that says it will.

No, you're wrong about that. For example, we know that stars the mass of the Sun live for a very long time, and do not undergo catastrophic changes. We know that the motion of the Earth will not change noticeably, because there is nothing that will show up tomorrow that is capable of doing that. So we know, to a very high level of confidence that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Truth is a stronger thing than proof.

Consider Cantor's theorem or Goedel's incompleteness theorem. All sufficiently powerful mathematical systems have truths that cannot be expressed in those systems.

it's essentially the same thing as you saying you will be alive tomorrow.

No. Especially at my age, it's very much less likely that I will be alive tomorrow, than it is likely that the Sun will rise.

As you learned, science is very good at making accurate predictions.

 

[whois]

No, you're wrong about that.

if you want to believe science has proof the sun will rise tomorrow, or that your mailbox will still be on the side of your house tomorrow, or that you will be alive tomorrow, that's fine.
i stand by my claim though.
we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, you're wrong about that. For example, we know that stars the mass of the Sun live for a very long time, and do not undergo catastrophic changes. We know that the motion of the Earth will not change noticeably, because there is nothing that will show up tomorrow that is capable of doing that. So we know, to a very high level of confidence that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Truth is a stronger thing than proof.

if you want to believe science has proof

I just showed you that truth is a stronger thing than proof. We know many things we can't prove logically.

the sun will rise tomorrow

Unless all the laws of the universe are repealed, it will.

or that your mailbox will still be on the side of your house tomorrow,

That pretty close to zero, since I don't have one on the side of my house. Unless some deranged person attaches one tonight, it's not going to happen. But that's much, much more likely than the Sun not coming up.

or that you will be alive tomorrow,

(Barbarian checks mortality tables and death rates from various things)

Pretty likely, but not as likely as the Sun rising tomorrow. More likely than some person attaching a mailbox to my house, it seems. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of probability. Perhaps this would help:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I also showed you that it works for the genus Equus.

you did?

Yep.

where?

Go to the link about zebras.

 

[Butterfly99]

A wise person will not rest upon his laurels or let his dogma dictate what he learns, but will instead be in earnest, untethered pursuit of knowledge until his final days. I've never stated that my mind is settled. Of course I have much to learn; I'm a teenager in my first year at college, and I'd be a fool to declare that my education is complete or to shutter my brain to new information that challenges me. What I admire so much about those in my life who do have very advanced education, exceptional credentials, and an abundance of accolades is that they crave knowledge as much as I do, they remain curious and engaged, and they are receptive. They are confident for substantial reasons, but they are not dogmatic. I believe that God created the world and all life within it, but do not have an immutable stance on the complex specifics of how, and will remain open to compelling scientific evidence. The incident I described earlier at the summer camp I attended when I was fifteen is what prompted me to join this forum seeking viewpoints that contrasted with my own to expand my horizons. I wanted to learn about a diversity of personal perspectives on Christianity in tandem with organized, robust academic learning.

How responsive are you to evidence that conflicts with your beliefs? How humble are you about continuous and expansive learning?

You've made me think of this:

You frequently boast about your educational pedigree and your supposed credentials, and yet I see you make minimal effort to actually put this advanced knowledge to use on this forum. If you are privileged with an exalted education and experience, why squander time here pontificating when you could actually be teaching us? It feels like you are wearing virtual tap shoes to dance in circles around the questions and the points presented to you, making a lot of noise and flair but not actually going anywhere. People like Loudmouth and SFS never have to brag about their education or their careers because it's evident they're knowledgeable from what they actually write on the subjects at hand. They put in consistent effort. They provide evidence and explanations to substantiate their statements. It seems like those who subscribe to YEC or OEC notions dedicate far more energy to tilting at the windmills about evolution than constructively presenting scientific evidence to give credence to their own views.

Btw - I think it's discourteous to address someone you are not on a first-name basis with as if you are.

Ella,
Nice reply.

Do read posts of those who "do not see God around". They are "godless in this world and in actions".

I'm not going to divulge information for them, they are bias and will trash what they hear. What has been "given from above" to them means hallucinations, imagination, believing it so to make it so, and so on.

Yes, something with a price tag that reflects enormous value to obtain is treated as less than a dime right here in front of you. They are perched here to knock such down. Unbelief has them. They only can view from what the dust that they are composed of can acquire.

I can say some things on Christian Forums in macro-level, but the intricacies are not for the ungodly to handle and defile. Do you understand this? And are you able to recognize Psalms 1:1 not working in someone life or various posts?

When I say there is more to learn and know, all the gold in this world does not compare to its value.

Not to be rude but your post sorta reads like the tap dancing she was talking about.

 

[Astrophile]

a good example would be, the sun rising tomorrow.
there is evidence that says it should, but there is exactly zero evidence that says it will.
saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an assumption, you have every reason to believe it will, but it's an assumption nonetheless.

This is all very odd. First, by definition tomorrow starts when the Sun rises, so that if the Sun did not rise there would not be any tomorrow.

Second, you appear to have a very strange understanding of astronomy. Do you not know that the alternation of day and night is due to the rotation of the Earth? Do you think that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that the Sun is destroyed when it sets in the west and a new Sun is created for every new day? I am writing from Britain at nearly 8 p.m.; in Australia and New Zealand, the Sun has already risen (or, more accurately, the Earth's rotation has brought Australia and New Zealand into the illuminated hemisphere), and tomorrow has already started.
The only way in which the Sun could not rise tomorrow would be for the Earth's rotation to be stopped, and that stoppage would release so much energy as heat that the Earth would melt.

Finally, I don't think that this example is related in any way to evolution.

 

[whois]

This is all very odd. First, by definition tomorrow starts when the Sun rises, so that if the Sun did not rise there would not be any tomorrow.

Second, you appear to have a very strange understanding of astronomy. Do you not know that the alternation of day and night is due to the rotation of the Earth? Do you think that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that the Sun is destroyed when it sets in the west and a new Sun is created for every new day? I am writing from Britain at nearly 8 p.m.; in Australia and New Zealand, the Sun has already risen (or, more accurately, the Earth's rotation has brought Australia and New Zealand into the illuminated hemisphere), and tomorrow has already started.
The only way in which the Sun could not rise tomorrow would be for the Earth's rotation to be stopped, and that stoppage would release so much energy as heat that the Earth would melt.

Finally, I don't think that this example is related in any way to evolution.

i agree, it isn't exactly the correct analogy, and it doesn't have much to do with evolution except pointing out how assumptions can easily be regarded as facts.

 

[whois]

Barbarian observes:
I also showed you that it works for the genus Equus.



Yep.



Go to the link about zebras.

i must have missed it.
can you give me a post number or a link, or must i reread the entire thread looking for it.

 

[The Barbarian]

"What, if anything, is a Zebra?"
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/gleazer/462_readings/gould.pdf

 

[whois]

"What, if anything, is a Zebra?"
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/gleazer/462_readings/gould.pdf

this is not a verification of the genetic method used in the human/ape ERV paper.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you read it? What did you think it was about? The papers about humans and chimps, and humans and primates did not cite a single method, but a number of methods.

 

[[serious]]

This is all very odd. First, by definition tomorrow starts when the Sun rises, so that if the Sun did not rise there would not be any tomorrow.

Second, you appear to have a very strange understanding of astronomy. Do you not know that the alternation of day and night is due to the rotation of the Earth? Do you think that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that the Sun is destroyed when it sets in the west and a new Sun is created for every new day? I am writing from Britain at nearly 8 p.m.; in Australia and New Zealand, the Sun has already risen (or, more accurately, the Earth's rotation has brought Australia and New Zealand into the illuminated hemisphere), and tomorrow has already started.
The only way in which the Sun could not rise tomorrow would be for the Earth's rotation to be stopped, and that stoppage would release so much energy as heat that the Earth would melt.

Finally, I don't think that this example is related in any way to evolution.

Actually, tomorrow starts at midnight, well before the sun rises.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, it would seem as such.
I perfectly understand what evolution says, and i'll agree it makes all the sense in the world.
I question this assumed "mountain of evidence".
Given the rules and laws of chemistry, and how these things hook together, coupled with things like miller-urey, it's easy to assume life can arise and evolve.

Let me try again. Do you accept that when the Earth was formed it was lifeless and that there is now life on Earth? (Please answer 'Yes' or 'No'.) Do you also accept that, as a matter of logical necessity, at some time between the formation of the Earth and the present day, life must have appeared on a previously lifeless Earth? (Please answer 'Yes' or 'No'.)

Now we come to the point, if at some time between the Earth's formation
and the present day, life appeared
on a previously lifeless Earth, there
are two hypotheses to account for
the origin of life:
(1). Life originated in a very
primitive form (either on the Earth
itself or somewhere in the wider
Universe) through physico-
chemical processes acting on non-
living matter.
(2). Life was created by a god.

If you can offer any other hypotheses
I shall be interested to see them.

First, if you accept that at some time life appeared on a previously lifeless Earth, which of these two hypotheses appears to be more consistent with the evidence that scientists have at present?

Second, if you accept that at some time life appeared on a lifeless Earth, do you think that over periods of billions of years this life could evolve into different forms by a process of descent with modification?

But until this is proven, it's
an assumption.

No, it is a hypothesis. Also, you
ought to know that scientific theories
and hypotheses are never proved; it
always possible that new evidence
will turn up that will disprove any
theory. (Look at what happened to Newton's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.) Obviously it is possible that an omnipotent god created the Universe in its present form in six days about 6000 years ago, but this is not a scientific hypothesis until somebody can devise a testable prediction that follows from it. So long as theories of evolution make predictions that are confirmed by experimental tests, scientists will continue to accept them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Our DNA match for more than the 80% with mice and with chicken and 50% with banana, so that's not an "evidence" but trying to call evidence what is not an evidence but just a mere way to compare a thing to another without any logic.
Everything living in made with DNA, it's like to compare a steel pot with a steel bridge and to say "oh this pot evolute into a bridge" just because their alloy is similar.

That's a nice set of facts about DNA matching between humans, mice, and bananas. The matching levels are consistent with the theory of evolution. Notice how mice and humans are more closely related than humans and bananas.

I think you are ignoring a whole bunch of evidence from biology when you say that about pots and bridges.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I go to drink a coffee while you try to find a "common ancestor" with the banana.

Alas, it died.

 

[whois]

Let me try again. Do you accept that when the Earth was formed it was lifeless and that there is now life on Earth? (Please answer 'Yes' or 'No'.)

no.
given some of the ridiculous assertions of quantum physics, we cannot even make THAT assumption.
as a matter of fact, we cannot assume the universe didn't unfold with all the galaxies, stars, planets and life already there and raring to go.
no, this isn't a joke.

 

[whois]

Did you read it?

not all of it, but enough of it to conclude it wasn't a genetic analysis of the type used in the chimp/ human paper.