Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[rmwilliamsll]

yeah, exactly. In this case, DNA was rock solid evidence that she was not the mother, then science had to be upgraded because of chimerism. so now DNA evidence has been proven to not be 100% accurate as it was once thought. Some day another scenario will be found to show it is even more wrong.

Its constatantly changing and proving itself wrong. If you remember in the case, when the case worker sent out the info to 10 different top scientists only one even accepted the idea that the child could possibly be the mothers that was claimed. Which means that 9 out of ten top scientists weren't even willing to consider the possibility that the child actually was born from that woman.

The interesting thing is to see how science is self-adjusting and self-correcting. Part of it's(sciences) strength comes from the public nature of the knowledge domain, the initial impetus is not from science itself but from a court case.

Compare this to theological change.
There is virtually no public knowledge in the field, everything is basically private revelation past a point, so there is no body of evidence that you can point to external to people and say "see you are wrong, now correct yourself". But rather theology fragments along a continuum from the old to the new.

Look at how the doctrine of the Lord's supper changed during the early years of the Reformation.
Transubstantiation, then Luther, then Zwingli, then Anabaptists, then Calvin. 5 distinctly different ideas.
were all the RC persuaded to change to Luther?
nope.
No one was able to convincingly explain and persuade why their's was the proper way to believe.
yet today many Christians insist that there is only one right way to believe about the doctrine, yet they are unable to provide a convincing proof to unify the Body of Christ. surprising result.

and so on down the line so today there are at least this many competitive ideas concerning the doctrine.

perhaps, being persuaded that you are wrong and changing is not such a bad thing after all. It has certainly given science a unity that theology can only dream about.

and it all goes back to a very different epistemology in each domain.
.....

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

yeah, exactly. In this case, DNA was rock solid evidence that she was not the mother, then science had to be upgraded because of chimerism. so now DNA evidence has been proven to not be 100% accurate as it was once thought. Some day another scenario will be found to show it is even more wrong.

<sigh>
No, DNA modeling will be changed to be even more accurate.

Its constatantly changing and proving itself wrong.

In certain disciplines and subdisciplines there are very substantial changes and improvements being made but do you really think the atomic theory of matter is wrong?

We don't fully understand disease, but do you seriously claim that means that the germ theory is wrong and we should start considering demons as major players in disease?

Are you claiming that DNA has little to nothing to do with how your body was constructed and how it works?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rock solid evidence

there is no such thing as rock solid scientific evidence, nor absolute certainty, nor proven 100%.

science from it's first ceteris paribus through the problems of induction to Humean skepticism, science always speaks about the evidence being probabilistic. that is not just the way it talks, it is the way it is and the way it operates. like the law, science talks about being persuaded because the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.

.....

 

[QuantumFlux]

Its not about accepting or denying science. What we "know" about deseases is not a constant. Some might say that Science is improving itself, personally, I see it as showing how wrong it is over and over simply because the next right answer will be disproven, its only a matter of time. even the atomic theory is being revamped continually. The only thing that it truly is proving is that we will never know anything for certain.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Its not about accepting or denying science. What we "know" about deseases is not a constant. Some might say that Science is improving itself, personally, I see it as showing how wrong it is over and over simply because the next right answer will be disproven, its only a matter of time. even the atomic theory is being revamped continually. The only thing that it truly is proving is that we will never know anything for certain.

So if you cannot do something perfectly the first time you just give up?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Its not about accepting or denying science. What we "know" about deseases is not a constant. Some might say that Science is improving itself, personally, I see it as showing how wrong it is over and over simply because the next right answer will be disproven, its only a matter of time. even the atomic theory is being revamped continually. The only thing that it truly is proving is that we will never know anything for certain.

so do you prefer religious way of correcting errors?
1/2 stay with the old wrong way and 1/2 accept the new answer.
until another new idea comes along.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Quantum - this is classic creationist switching. You know you've been proven utterly wrong in your assertions about bird/dino transitionals, so now you address another topic altogether.

The case (as I understand it; this is the first time I've heard about it) showed that DNA testing works. If it didn't work, chimerism wouldn't make any difference.

All that is required is the slight addition to the theory - that chimerism, of course, can render DNA analyses for parental determination purposes invalid in particular very rare cases.

Since this one is now thrashed out, would you turn back to the evolution of avian dinosaurs, retract your statement that there are no other transitionals than archie (because I have given you a list), and also that archy's only reptilian features are his tail, because I've given you a list of other features.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Its not about accepting or denying science. What we "know" about deseases is not a constant. Some might say that Science is improving itself, personally, I see it as showing how wrong it is over and over simply because the next right answer will be disproven, its only a matter of time. even the atomic theory is being revamped continually. The only thing that it truly is proving is that we will never know anything for certain.

Do changes in the details of atomic theory mean atoms don't exist?

 

[immortalavefenix]

Seeb....

AWESOME.

 

[QuantumFlux]

believe whatever you wish, I've only changed subjects for the short term because I dont have my material with me. yesterday my car was towed and i live an hour from where i work so im staying with a friend for maybe a couple more days till i get my car back. but stay tuned

 

[QuantumFlux]

I seriously dont think you get what im saying about science changing. You believe that im saying all science is wrong, in essence maybe, but the point is that science will never be 100% proof of anything. With those atoms it was a scientific fact that they were the smallest things in the universe, but we all know now that its not. This goes along with the evolutionary theory in the fact of how many people think its fact however there is still quite a bit of evidence against

such as the cambrian explosion, which no one has dared say a word about. so for those of you who said i have already been utterly proven wrong, still havent said anything about the most damaging evidence.

Have i said give up on science? have i said it does nothing for us? no, it has obviously helped us cure deseases and live an easier life, however, i will not put my faith in it to prove what cannot be seen. Evolution is just that, it has never been seen, despite the millions of dollars spent trying to show it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I seriously dont think you get what im saying about science changing. You believe that im saying all science is wrong, in essence maybe, but the point is that science will never be 100% proof of anything.

It doesn't expect to be. What it does do though is gradually get closer and closer to reality.

With those atoms it was a scientific fact that they were the smallest things in the universe, but we all know now that its not.

Well, no, it wasn't. It was a fact that atoms were the smallest things that we know about. But this is a case of refinement. The smallest things known then were atoms. Then the smallest things were subatomic particles. Now the smallest things we know about are quarks. We don't know what quarks will turn out to be made of, if they're not absolutely fundamental.

Scientific theories and models are only ever meant to be more correct than what went before, not 100% correct. What creationism is asking us to accept is that many scientific models (not just evolution, but stellar formation, big bang, geology, plate tectonics, radioactivity, you name it) are not only not closer to the truth than what preceded them, but are actually 100% wrong. That's rather an unlikely proposition. I daresay all of them are wrong to a certain extent, but not 100% wrong.

This goes along with the evolutionary theory in the fact of how many people think its fact however there is still quite a bit of evidence against

And yet the evidence that creationists present as being "against evolution" always turns out to be not what they present it as, in my experience. It often consists of outright falsehoods, like the nonsense you repeated about archy's only reptilian feature being his tail.

such as the cambrian explosion, which no one has dared say a word about. so for those of you who said i have already been utterly proven wrong, still havent said anything about the most damaging evidence.

Since evolutionary biologists study the Cambrian explosion a great deal and don't find it a problem, perhaps you need to exactly explain why it is. Why is a great deal of biodiversity becoming evident over a period of 70 million years (that's longer than the time from the extinction of the dinosaurs to today), coinciding with the first appearance of hard body parts and therefore of plentiful fossils, be such damaging evidence?

Have i said give up on science? have i said it does nothing for us? no, it has obviously helped us cure deseases and live an easier life, however, i will not put my faith in it to prove what cannot be seen. Evolution is just that, it has never been seen, despite the millions of dollars spent trying to show it.

But it has! Have you not seen the many papers observing speciation? The ERV evidence? The transitionals in the fossil record? What are they if not things that are "seen"? Or are you going to ask for a dog to give birth to a cat or some such nonsense, which would actually contradict evolutionary theory?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

its fact however there is still quite a bit of evidence against

such as the cambrian explosion, which no one has dared say a word about. so for those of you who said i have already been utterly proven wrong, still havent said anything about the most damaging evidence.

what exactly is this damaging evidence?
simply stating Cambrian explosion doesn't say anything significant
what is it about the cambrian you find challenges evolutionary theory?


.....

 

[QuantumFlux]

you tell me. During the cambrian period, you go for billions of years finding nothing but lower less complex forms of life and then over a span of 70 million years an explosion of complex life forms with no links to them are found to have just appeared out of no where.

the obvious response is that we simply havent found them yet, however, even highly respected evolutionists say thats its highly improbable that they wouldnt have found fossils to show some transition (give me a couple days and i can give you names and alot more specifics).

maybe 70 million years seems like a great deal of time but if you consider the span of life being on the earth, its the equivalent of running a football field, along the way you pass lower forms of life, worms and then by the time you get to the five yard line within one step you pass higher and much more complex insects and crustatia such as crabs and other life that is still around today with absolutely no link to be found to any of the other life forms passed along the way. That is not an anomaly, it just out right throws the evolutionary theory out the window.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well, no, it wasn't. It was a fact that atoms were the smallest things that we know about. But this is a case of refinement. The smallest things known then were atoms. Then the smallest things were subatomic particles. Now the smallest things we know about are quarks. We don't know what quarks will turn out to be made of, if they're not absolutely fundamental.

It's not even that far off, atoms remain the smallest you can go without changing what you have... Iron atoms are still iron, protons and neutrons are not iron, they are protons and neutrons.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's not even that far off, atoms remain the smallest you can go without changing what you have..

actually it depends on what you start with. the smallest unit of a macroscopic substance is a molecule (in general) not an atom.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

you tell me. During the cambrian period, you go for billions of years finding nothing but lower less complex forms of life and then over a span of 70 million years an explosion of complex life forms with no links to them are found to have just appeared out of no where.

the obvious response is that we simply havent found them yet, however, even highly respected evolutionists say thats its highly improbable that they wouldnt have found fossils to show some transition (give me a couple days and i can give you names and alot more specifics).

maybe 70 million years seems like a great deal of time but if you consider the span of life being on the earth, its the equivalent of running a football field, along the way you pass lower forms of life, worms and then by the time you get to the five yard line within one step you pass higher and much more complex insects and crustatia such as crabs and other life that is still around today with absolutely no link to be found to any of the other life forms passed along the way. That is not an anomaly, it just out right throws the evolutionary theory out the window.

1-the precursors were soft bodied and not expected to leave fossils
2-the great invention of the cambrian was the regulatory genes that established body plans (right to left, frontal to dorsal, head to tail, or radial or ?) these are like the HOX genes then experimented with to investigate the phenomorphic space represented by the genes.

the only creationist position that can see value in the cambrian are the mediate kind that propose miracles to create body plans and allow evolution to operate from there.

but without the genes for the extinct forms we lack knowledge to find antecedents. we simply don't have the knowledge to argue on a low level about if miracles are necessary to make all the body plans that went extinct. so it is an argument from silence and a God of the gaps question, not a scientific one.
....

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I seriously dont think you get what im saying about science changing. You believe that im saying all science is wrong, in essence maybe, but the point is that science will never be 100% proof of anything.

No, it is just the best method for understanding the physical world and no other "method" is even in the ball park.

Fast gas reactors, zener and esaki diodes, genetically modified crops, measurements of bent light all suggest that our basic understanding is pretty solid.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

actually it depends on what you start with. the smallest unit of a macroscopic substance is a molecule (in general) not an atom.

Yes, but that would require more typing

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

you tell me. During the cambrian period, you go for billions of years finding nothing but lower less complex forms of life and then over a span of 70 million years an explosion of complex life forms with no links to them are found to have just appeared out of no where.

That is not an anomaly, it just out right throws the evolutionary theory out the window.

In 1920 Alfred Wegener published a book in which he proposed the theory of Continental Drift. It was rejected.

"Part of the problem was that Wegener had no convincing mechanism for how the continents might move. Wegener thought that the continents were moving through the earth's crust, like icebreakers plowing through ice sheets, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents."​

That explanation just outright throws physics and geology out the window.

Yet he was right in the essentials, his evidence for Africa and S.America being joined was solid. It would take another 40 years for the evidence to be gathered to provide an explanation of how the continents move.

Do HOX genes explain the Cambrian explosion? I'm not really qualified to answer that, but I do know that the evidence for evolution in general is very strong and history has repeatedly demonstrated that disbelieving something occurred for which there is strong evidence because we don't understand the mechanism is a very precarious position.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html