Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Vaccine]

There is no controversy.

Perhaps you might like to show how biology does provide evidence for omnipotence, etc...?.

Well I'm glad to hear the little controversy was cleared up. A biological fact can't prove a belief anymore than pyhsics can prove a sunset is beautiful.

 

[Vaccine]

What the heck does this even mean??? What is "Darwinism" and how is it different from plain old evolution?

Evolution is a phenomemon visible in nature. Darwinism is philosophy. As soon as someone strays from what can be observed, repeated and tested to what they think, they've moved from science to philosophy. Which isn't a bad thing, as long as they realize they aren't talking about facts anymore, rather opinion

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is a phenomemon visible in nature. Darwinism is philosophy. As soon as someone strays from what can be observed, repeated and tested to what they think, they've moved from science to philosophy.

Good think the study of evolution sticks to the scientific method then.

they realize they aren't talking about facts anymore, rather opinion

Hilariously ironic statement given your assertions.

 

[Vaccine]

I'm not sure I see the distinction. The theory of evolution is its own argument against creationism, along with current theories of cosmology, geology, archaeology and a number of other sciences. What special role do "Darwinists" play?

Creationism is a belief, classified as a philosophy. Good point cosmology, geology, archaeology and the rest are science. The fact of a rock cannot argue aganst a belief such as creationism. The fact an organism evolves is not an argument against creationism. Now, the inductive reasoning from the fact of evolution can be used to make a case against creationism. Fine. But that isn't the unassailable position the fact of a rock is.
Darwinism is the opposite philosophy of creationism. Darwinists think their reasoning unassailable, any attack in their beliefs is an attack on science they say. True enough empirical science is unassailable. But what they're selling isn't empirical science, its philosophy.

 

[Vaccine]

Good think the study of evolution sticks to the scientific method then.

Fair enough.

Hilariously ironic statement given your assertions.

Oh? why's that?

 

[Speedwell]

Creationism is a belief, classified as a philosophy. Good point cosmology, geology, archaeology and the rest are science. The fact of a rock cannot argue aganst a belief such as creationism. The fact an organism evolves is not an argument against creationism. Now, the inductive reasoning from the fact of evolution can be used to make a case against creationism. Fine. But that isn't the unassailable position the fact of a rock is.
Darwinism is the opposite philosophy of creationism. Darwinists think their reasoning unassailable, any attack in their beliefs is an attack on science they say. True enough empirical science is unassailable. But what they're selling isn't empirical science, its philosophy.

Creationism is not just a philosophy. Creationism makes scientifically falsifiable claims: that the Earth was created during six days in 4004 BC and was entirely covered with water in 2400 BC, for instance. If you are going to make scientifically falsifiable claims you have to be prepared for the possibility that they might be falsified. Whining after the fact about the philosophy of the scientists who have falsified your claims is a cop-out.

 

[Vaccine]

Creationism is not just a philosophy. Creationism makes scientifically falsifiable claims: that the Earth was created during six days in 4004 BC and was entirely covered with water in 2400 BC, for instance. If you are going to make scientifically falsifiable claims you have to be prepared for the possibility that they might be falsified. Whining after the fact about the philosophy of the scientists who have falsified your claims is a cop-out.

By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another charge of confusion by someone who doesn't know what a question is?
A theory or statement can be refuted. A worldview something that is believed or not believed. Perhaps it is you who is confused.

I know perfectly well what a theory is. You are the one that seems to be having a very difficult time here. What "worldview" do you think that I have? My acceptance of the theory of evolution is by your definition not a worldview.

You also seem to be quit unaware that your false beliefs were shown to be just that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.

No, they wouldn't. You seem to be unaware of the fact that over five miles of water would leave a mark. The question is why would you think that it would not leave a mark?

 

[Speedwell]

By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.

Absolutely. Floods leave unmistakable geological evidence; the size and scope of the flood can be determined by the nature of the evidence. No "time machine" is necessary. No anti-creationist "worldview" is required, either.
Say what you will about the theory of evolution, the young Earth and worldwide flood business has been busted for over two hundred years, busted by Christian geologists, many of them clergymen, who accepted the evidence reluctantly but finally had to admit it was overwhelming.

 

[SteveB28]

By your reckoning science is able to do, say and prove a lot more than than it actually can. Those extrodinary claims you bring up originate from a worldview, not science.
Come now, do you actually think they can experimentially falsify the Earth was covered in water? They'd need a time machine for starters.
No, those claims always have been or will be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds.

I understand that criminals are routinely convicted/exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. No "time machine" is used, yet no one 'was there' to observe the crime when it happened, in many cases.

I suppose those claims of guilt/innocence should be rejected on "philosophical grounds", correct....!?




.

 

[Vaccine]

I understand that criminals are routinely convicted/exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. No "time machine" is used, yet no one 'was there' to observe the crime when it happened, in many cases.

I suppose those claims of guilt/innocence should be rejected on "philosophical grounds", correct.....

That people are routinely convicted/exonerated is just my point, without some time machine we can't say 100%. All we can do is make an educated guess the claims in the Bible are wrong. They said the claims in the Bible had been "falsified by science", implying there was some empirical science to show this. I was pointing out they overstated their case.

 

[Vaccine]

Absolutely. Floods leave unmistakable geological evidence; the size and scope of the flood can be determined by the nature of the evidence. No "time machine" is necessary. No anti-creationist "worldview" is required, either.
Say what you will about the theory of evolution, the young Earth and worldwide flood business has been busted for over two hundred years, busted by Christian geologists, many of them clergymen, who accepted the evidence reluctantly but finally had to admit it was overwhelming.

In your, and many scientists, opinions those claims have been busted. Claiming facts not in evidence such as "they've been falsified" is an attempt to delegitimize a dissenting position. We are on equal ground here, expressing opinions with facts to support them. I could say new discoveries like ones from the Mt St Helen eruption "falsify" your claims about an old Earth. That would be overstating my case. I will say there is evidence to support my worldview of a young Earth and global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your, and many scientists, opinions those claims have been busted. Claiming facts not in evidence such as "they've been falsified" is an attempt to delegitimize a dissenting position. We are on equal ground here, expressing opinions with facts to support them. I could say new discoveries like ones from the Mt St Helen eruption "falsify" your claims about an old Earth. That would be overstating my case. I will say there is evidence to support my worldview of a young Earth and global flood.

<Staff Edit>

Not only can I make the claims. I can explain them. You will have to rely on sites that openly admit that they do not allow their workers to use the scientific method.

 

[Speedwell]

In your, and many scientists, opinions those claims have been busted. Claiming facts not in evidence such as "they've been falsified" is an attempt to delegitimize a dissenting position. We are on equal ground here, expressing opinions with facts to support them. I could say new discoveries like ones from the Mt St Helen eruption "falsify" your claims about an old Earth. That would be overstating my case. I will say there is evidence to support my worldview of a young Earth and global flood.

And you are welcome to it, I'm sure. You have a worldview that you think is endangered by the discoveries of science, I do not. What I believe is not impacted by anything mere science can discover. Mind you, I think theories of a young Earth and a global flood are bad science unsupported by real evidence. But it matters little to my faith, my "worldview" if you like, whether the Earth is six thousand years old or six billion.

 

[Vaccine]

No, they wouldn't. You seem to be unaware of the fact that over five miles of water would leave a mark. The question is why would you think that it would not leave a mark?

I'm sure a global flood would leave clues.

Another educated guess being touted as "fact". Keep overstating your case, it only shows how weak it is.

I am aware of a hypothesis where somebody figured it would take 5 miles of water and assumes marks would be left. Their assumption is Mt Everest is the same then as now. Another assumption is Mt Everest was not the same as it is now. They've found oceans of water 620 miles below the surface, fossils on mountain tops, and huge petrified forests below ground. Those actual facts seem to support the idea things were radically different in the past. The Grand Canyon would qualify as a clue from the flood.

 

[Vaccine]

And you are welcome to it, I'm sure. You have a worldview that you think is endangered by the discoveries of science, I do not. What I believe is not impacted by anything mere science can discover. Mind you, I think theories of a young Earth and a global flood are bad science unsupported by real evidence. But it matters little to my faith, my "worldview" if you like, whether the Earth is six thousand years old or six billion.

I'm glad we see the difference between a worldview and science. I don't know what gave you the impression mine is endangered by any discoveries of science. What I believe about ages might be influenced, finding soft tissue on dino's for example, but has no impact with regard to what I believe about Jesus. I think a global flood or young Earth depend on a person's point of view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure a global flood would leave clues.

Yes, it would.

Another educated guess being touted as "fact". Keep overstating your case, it only shows how weak it is.

I have not done so. Your lack of education in this matter is not a debating weapon.

I am aware of a hypothesis where somebody figured it would take 5 miles of water and assumes marks would be left. Their assumption is Mt Everest is the same then as now. Another assumption is Mt Everest was not the same as it is now. They've found oceans of water 620 miles below the surface, fossils on mountain tops, and huge petrified forests below ground. Those actual facts seem to support the idea things were radically different in the past. The Grand Canyon would qualify as a clue from the flood.

Oh my, so many errors in only one paragraph. You need to learn the definition of the terms that you are trying to use. And your WAG's are refuted by the evidence out there. Mine are supported by them. And no, the Grand Canyon is not evidence of the flood. You need something more than handwaving to have evidence.

 

[Lulav]

MOD Hat
Small Clean up
REMINDER

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure a global flood would leave clues.

Let me try again, but a little nicer this time. Yes, a global flood would have left clues. To refute your version of the flood I would need to know more about your beliefs. It would take over 5 miles of water to inundate the Earth and there is no evidence for that.

Another educated guess being touted as "fact". Keep overstating your case, it only shows how weak it is.

If you want respect you should respect those that you depend upon for oil, for countless mined goods, for medicines and other concepts and products that rely on your being wrong here. I have not overstated my case. And if you think that a theory is just an educated guess, then you have no clue as to what a scientific theory is.

I am aware of a hypothesis where somebody figured it would take 5 miles of water and assumes marks would be left. Their assumption is Mt Everest is the same then as now. Another assumption is Mt Everest was not the same as it is now. They've found oceans of water 620 miles below the surface, fossils on mountain tops, and huge petrified forests below ground. Those actual facts seem to support the idea things were radically different in the past. The Grand Canyon would qualify as a clue from the flood.

That is not a hypothesis. We can show that Everest has not changed appreciably for, let's be generous, the time that man has been on this Earth.

And no, the Grand Canyon was clearly not the result of the Flood. If you have questions on that I can answer them too or you could try to tackle my current favorite argument. So far no flood believer can refute it.