Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Original Happy Camper]

I was not even 2 minutes into the video and they started to lie. How can you expect to convert people if your sources are lying sources?

View the video more than two minutes and you will see that he quotes scientists on both sides of the issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View the video more than two minutes and you will see that he quotes scientists on both sides of the issue.

I really don't need to. He already showed that he was dishonest and could not be trusted. Creationists quite often quote out of context. What they usually do is a form of lying called "quote mining".

Does he make any valid arguments at all against evolution? And what is his supposed evidence for creationism? Supposed evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism. That is a false dichotomy.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

SDA is the ideological mother from which YEC came forth.

Sorry your statement is incorrect
BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC

James Ussher (1581–1656)
Anglican Archbishop of Armagh
and Primate of All Ireland
between 1625–1656.
James Ussher (1581-1656),

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry your statement is incorrect
BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC

James Ussher (1581–1656)
Anglican Archbishop of Armagh
and Primate of All Ireland
between 1625–1656.
James Ussher (1581-1656),

You don't seem to understand the history of creationism. It was pretty much a dead belief until it was resurrected by the SDA's.

And yes, we all know how hilariously wrong that Ussher was.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, we all know how hilariously wrong that Ussher was.

Ussher was one hip cat!

He gets an A+ in reading comprehension.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ussher was one hip cat!

He gets an A+ in reading comprehension.

Really? I think that his reading comprehension was abysmal. Of course geology was not even a science back then so his extreme ignorance may be somewhat forgivable.

At any rate someone that did that much work should have realized that something was wrong.

 

[USincognito]

We are having a dramatic effect on the earth's atmosphere and ecosystems. We have been driving innumerable species into extinction. If we continue on the present heading, we may even precipitate our own extinction, the clock is ticking.

Yes, I know. That doesn't change the fact that the planet will not go away regardless of what we do to the ecosphere or ourselves.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

The evidence for evolution is beyond overwhelming. It is probably the most comprehensive, most tested theory in all of science. It has passed every test with flying colors. The experts that have performed the countless experiments understand them quite well.

If you accept the premises of the ideology, then for you, the so called evidence can be overwhelming. For anyone who does not accept the premises, then there is no evidence to speak of.

The tests that this theory passed, were tests specifically designed to give one the impression, that the theory has merit. Just provide me with the observational criteria, the linking fossil evidence between man and ape.

Science doesn't operate on trying to prove anything.

If someone makes a claim, then you must prove the claim.

There is no back tracking when it involves a claim. If science
claims that mankind descended from a single life form. Then science is obligated to prove the claim. No speculative assertions about non observable events, in deep time are allowed. We demand the proof to support the claim. Observational evidence is the only evidence that can be admitted.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a better phrasing.

It makes no difference in the end, science makes the claim,
science then must beyond any reasonable doubt, prove it.

We now have science in the dock. Has science made the claim
about human descent, yes, science most certainly did make the claim. Science must furnish the proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Not controversial evidence, hard evidence is required.
Make the claim, remove any reasonable doubt.

Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Genetics studies slammed that door shut a long time ago. Example? 99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor. This is irrefutable evidence.

You may be to hasty in using the term, 'irrefutable evidence'.
There seems to be a conflict between, 'reasonable doubt', and irrefutable evidence. If the evidence is irrefutable, then evolutionary theory will become the law of evolution. I love laws in science, strange that so few laws exist in science anymore.
There seems to be an increasing reluctance to progress theory into law.

If you believe in irrefutable evidence, then that is what you believe. Ultimately, you only have an ideology making a claim.
Whether this so called evidence, has any meaningful weight to support the initial claim for evolution, is probably debatable.

I have never seen a claim that is not controversial, in evolutionary theory. Just add this claim to the list, I am not a geneticist, so I cannot comment on your evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, I know. That doesn't change the fact that the planet will not go away regardless of what we do to the ecosphere or ourselves.

The dead planet may remain, life may not.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry your statement is incorrect

You and the person who liked your post are very confused. Ussher established a date for Creation. I'm talking about YECism. You might want to read up on George McReady Price and his efforts to align science and Ellen White's theology. After that you can read up on how he inspired Morris and Whitcomb to write The Genesis Flood.

 

[USincognito]

If you accept the premises of the ideology...

You keep using that word...

 

[USincognito]

The dead planet may remain, life may not.

Which was my point all along.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Zone.

But you are wrong again. The fact that there can be errors in no way makes science untrustworthy.

Science is deeply flawed, at the very foundation of science, is the reliance on observational data. Yet astrophysics claims, that the visible universe is less that 5% of the real universe. How can science rely on observational data, when the bulk of the data is beyond the realm of observation or detection.

It meerely means that one must be careful in ones conclusions. It still works and theism does not work.

Correction, what you think your observing is insignificant. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You cannot be careful in your conclusions, because you have no idea what your dealing with.

What supposed a priori premises do you think that scientists use?

1 Science can understand space time.
2 You can observe space time in a logical way
3 The present allows you to understand the past
4 Natural laws always acted in the past, the way they do now
5 Life is the result of natural forces and events
6 Time is a linear measure
7 Supernatural events and forces are excluded
8 Random events can occur
9 Causation is the fabric of space time
10 Causation and random events are a paradox
11 Natural laws are measurable and constant

How about that list for starters.

Yes, but the sort that you do is rather unforgivable. And you and I are both primates. I don't see why you stuck that in there. What is your excuse for relying on the science that you deny every day?

You claim that you are a Darwinian primate, I don't accept that scientific claim. Hence, I cannot be a Darwinian primate.

Man may be altering the planet, but that is not "science altering the planet".

The industrial revolution, engineering, chemistry, physics, they are the bedrock of all the changes to our environment. The planet is undergoing radical change, once we have chopped down the last tree. Then we will have completed the quest.

Do you oppose teaching evolution in schools? If you do what do you have against reality?

Why complain about any of the plethora of ideologies, that the world has immersed itself in. The ideologies are legion and are tearing this planet apart.

What we all need now is someone to come along with yet another infernal idea.

 

[klutedavid]

You keep using that word...

How about I substitute the word 'assumption' in it's place.
Or better still 'presumption'. Something assumed to be true without the proof. In other words, no one has any idea, whether
any ideology has any real basis.

 

[USincognito]

How about I substitute the word 'assumption' in it's place.
Or better still 'presumption'. Something assumed to be true without the proof. In other words, no one has any idea, whether
any ideology has any real basis.

No, that wouldn't be any better.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you accept the premises of the ideology, then for you, the so called evidence can be overwhelming. For anyone who does not accept the premises, then there is no evidence to speak of.

This makes absolutely no sense. Do you know how to use the scientific method?

The tests that this theory passed, were tests specifically designed to give one the impression, that the theory has merit.

What on earth are you talking about? Please demonstrate that you understand how to use the scientific method.

Just provide me with the observational criteria, the linking fossil evidence between man and ape.

First, humans are apes. An ape is a large primate with no tail. I think what you're asking is for evidence that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes? I can certainly provide you that.

99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair in the chimpanzee genome. Considering that ERV insertions are random and the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, the odds of them inserting in the same place in the chimpanzee genome is very highly unlikely. The only possible way for this to happen is if we share a common ancestor. This is overwhelming evidence. We can now make a prediction with this fact. Shared ERVs among other species should fall into a perfect nested hierarchy. Guess what we see when that is tested?.....exactly what we predict.

If someone makes a claim, then you must prove the claim. There is no back tracking when it involves a claim. If science claims that mankind descended from a single life form. Then science is obligated to prove the claim

You don't understand how science works if you think it deals in proof. Again, you need to demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method. Science uses evidence through observation and experimentation. All scientific theories are subject to revision in light of new evidence. New evidence could be discovered tomorrow that changes our understanding of how gravity works. Gravity would still be a fact but the theory would be revised.

It makes no difference in the end, science makes the claim,
science then must beyond any reasonable doubt, prove it

Evolution meets these standards. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We now have science in the dock. Has science made the claim
about human descent, yes, science most certainly did make the claim. Science must furnish the proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Not controversial evidence, hard evidence is required.
Make the claim, remove any reasonable doubt.

Where would you like to start? DNA, comparative anatomy, embryology, fossil record, observational experiments in the lab and in nature? Searching "Human evolution" on google scholar brings back over 4 million results. 216,000 results in 2016 alone. We can grab any paper you'd like from there and go over it.

If the evidence is irrefutable, then evolutionary theory will become the law of evolution. I love laws in science, strange that so few laws exist in science anymore.

....You love laws in science but ummm....you don't seem to understand what a law in science means.

A law in science is just an observation you make. There are laws of gravity and there is also the theory of general relativity. Do you know the difference? A law is just repeated simple observations. A theory in science is an explanation of a body of facts. The definition is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world acquired through the scientific method and is repeatedly tested and confirmed.

There seems to be an increasing reluctance to progress theory into law.

I think we've established that you don't know what either of those words mean in science. The proper course of action would be to ask questions if there is something you do not understand.

I am not a geneticist, so I cannot comment on your evidence

Are you interested in understanding it or not? I think this is just your way of saying you aren't interested in any evidence what so ever. You're simply closing your eyes and plugging your ears. Please, correct me if my conclusion is wrong on this.

 

[USincognito]

Just provide me with the observational criteria, the linking fossil evidence between man and ape.

Where did you get the impression that the evidence for evolution was limited to fossils?

- All apes have a shared, broken GULO gene that is broken the same way.
- Humans have that broken GULO gene that is broken the same way as it is in our fellow apes.
- Ergo, humans are apes.

If someone makes a claim, then you must prove the claim.

Do you have an extensive background in philosophy? If so, you might want to put it in storage when trying to engage in a scientific discussion. Nothing is ever proven in science.
----------------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Science is deeply flawed, at the very foundation of science, is the reliance on observational data. Yet astrophysics claims, that the visible universe is less that 5% of the real universe. How can science rely on observational data, when the bulk of the data is beyond the realm of observation or detection.

If you want to claim that science is deeply flawed the burden of proof is upon you. Your rather ignorant statement here is not evidence. For example, since the observations support today's astrophysical theories and not those of creationist they are obviously more trustworthy than those of creationists. Creationists tend to be afraid of the scientific method.

Correction, what you think your observing is insignificant. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You cannot be careful in your conclusions, because you have no idea what your dealing with.

Wrong again. There are literally mountains of evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence against it. You seem to be projecting your flaws upon others.

1 Science can understand space time.

So far that seems to be a more than reasonable assumption.

2 You can observe space time in a logical way

That is not an assumption, that is an accomplishment.

3 The present allows you to understand the past

That may have been an assumption at one time, but since it has been done successfully countless times that again qualifies as an accomplishment.

4 Natural laws always acted in the past, the way they do now

That is now an observation.

5 Life is the result of natural forces and events

And that is a concusion.

6 Time is a linear measure

And that is an error on your part. That is neither an assumption nor a tenet of science.

7 Supernatural events and forces are excluded

Nope.

8 Random events can occur

Observation.

9 Causation is the fabric of space time

Nonsense.

10 Causation and random events are a paradox

More nonsense.

11 Natural laws are measurable and constant

Observation.

How about that list for starters.

Pretty bad. Only onereal assumption.

You claim that you are a Darwinian primate, I don't accept that scientific claim. Hence, I cannot be a Darwinian primate.

More rather ignorant nonsense. First off you are a primate, no false qualification needed. Second it does not matter what you believe. Try not believing in gravity and see if that gets you anywhere.

The industrial revolution, engineering, chemistry, physics, they are the bedrock of all the changes to our environment. The planet is undergoing radical change, once we have chopped down the last tree. Then we will have completed the quest.

Nope. not the quest of science.

Why complain about any of the plethora of ideologies, that the world has immersed itself in. The ideologies are legion and are tearing this planet apart.

You really need to find a better term.

What we all need now is someone to come along with yet another infernal idea.

Without the benefits of science you probably would not have been born. And if you were born you would be dead now without the science that you rely on. You may not like it, but the science that tells us that you are wrong is an important and necessary part of our world.q

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that klutedavid may be a bit confused by the phrase "the burden of proof" . That does not mean that someone must prove his statement, he must only supply evidence for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

At any rate someone that did that much work should have realized that something was wrong.

I think a good lesson for students would be to take the Bible and use It to calculate what year the creation week took place.

They don't have to believe It -- just do it.