Why " JUST" a theory?

[Astrid]

I will. That was my parting shot. I'm gonna bow out.

Don't leave. Just...you know.

 

[Bradskii]

Don't leave. Just...you know.

The forum gives you the facility to...you know. I highly recommend it.

 

[RileyG]

One answer to the question posed in the thread title: Ignorance.

And there are two types. Genuine ignorance: 'Oh, I didn't know that'. And willful ignorance: 'I refuse to listen to that'.

In a forum some time ago (Catholic Answers I think), there was one guy with whom I used to discuss evolution. He denied it. But he wasn't the type who stuck his fingers in his ears and sang la la la. He know a lot about evolution, but disagreed with it. And far from the usual claptrap of 'if we evolved from monkeys...', he put forward well thought out arguments against it. They were wrong, but at least he knew what he was talking about. And you had to know, or find out, how to refute what he presented. I learnt a lot because of that.

I miss discussions like that.

Fun fact: The Catholic Church has accepted evolution for over 60 years. Those who say "we evolved from monkeys" probably don't understand high school biology-level evolution; meaning, we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we are literally monkeys.

RP

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who say "we evolved from monkeys" probably don't understand high school biology-level evolution; meaning, we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we are literally monkeys.

According to evolution, we are considered "great apes."

And for the record, what was the Scopes Monkey Trial all about then?

 

[Bradskii]

Fun fact: The Catholic Church has accepted evolution for over 60 years.

I don't think it's filtered down to some of the laity.

 

[RileyG]

I don't think it's filtered down to some of the laity.

Unfortunately, you’re right. Most laity don’t know what the Church teaches…..but that’s a different story

 

[RileyG]

According to evolution, we are considered "great apes."

And for the record, what was the Scopes Monkey Trial all about then?

We are primates, yes. It’s just words. Humans are made in the image of God. Apes are not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are made in the image of God. Apes are not.

Amen to that!

 

[Astrid]

We are primates, yes. It’s just words. Humans are made in the image of God. Apes are not.

Image? Made?

 

[AV1611VET]

Image? Made?

Yup.

We weren't cut from the cloth you think we were cut from.

 

[RileyG]

Image? Made?

Humans have a special relationship with God, meaning. Animals do not and only have material souls. This is more of a theological discussion.

I DO accept evolution.

 

[RileyG]

Amen to that!

We shall rise again.

 

[Occams Barber]

Amen to that!

We shall rise again.

This thread is starting to sound like a camp revival meeting.

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

Meanwhile, back on topic:

What I find initially puzzling and ultimately frustrating is the inability of the typical anti-evolutionist to appreciate, acknowledge, or even be aware of the vast amount of detailed, systematic, practical, peer reviewed research that supports even the tiniest aspect of evolutionary theory, or of related subjects, such as evidence against Noah's flood being a global phenomena.

I'll use that as an example, but most - probably all - research subjects contain the same diverse range of interlocking results that generate conclusions it would be illogical to discard. Consider beach sand. There is abundant research relating to the following sub-topics:

• The characteristics of the sand, described qualitatively and quantitatively, including grain composition, size, shape, angularity, sorting, internal structure (bedding planes, cross-bedding, bioturbation, grading) , geochemistry and 3D form of the lithosome.
• The source/provenance of the material including the nature of its original weathering, erosion, transport and deposition.
• The post-depositional physical and chemical changes to the sand.
• The causes of those changes as related to factors such as wave action, tides, ocean currents, and variation in the magnitude and direction of each of these components in the short and long term.
• Laboratory studies investigating details of the causes of specific characteristics.
• Variations in these characteristics in response to differening environmental factors such as climate, weather, contiguous topography, etc.
• Transitions between beach sand deposits and adjacent depositional or erosional environment, both spatially and temporally.

That is not a complete list, nor does it accurately convey the depth to which each topic has been investigated. For example, if we consider beach sand geochemistry we have papers like ,Heavy mineral distribution and geochemical studies of coastal sediments between Besant Nagar and Marakkanam, Tamil Nadu, India; or Geochemical, Sedimentological and Mineralogical Study of Sediments along Coastal Areas of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE); or Applications of geochemical proxies in paleotsunami research. One such paper, chosen at random, Geochemistry and petrography of beach sands along the westerncoast of Ghana:implications for provenance and tectonic settings, contains references to a further 59 research papers, placing its research in context. That is typical.

Now multiply it up to include not just beach sands, but aeolian deposits (sand dunes), flood plain sands, deltaic sands, estuarine sands, deep water turbidites, offshore bars, lacustrine sands and any I've forgotten. Each with its own bibliography of interlocked research. And the meta studies and review papers synthethising the meticulous analyses.

Then expand it again to include the silts, and the dolomites, and breccias, and the anhydrites, and clays, and limestone and the evaporites. And again expand beyond sediments to their transition to rocks. Now we have the techniques, the knowledge and the evidence to identify ancient enivronments in those rocks and we can say with a certainty that is as close as science (or any sane human can ever get) to say "There is no evidence for Noah's flood".
That is not an assumption, or a speculation, or a guess, or a belief, or any of those weasel words so beloved by the yecs, that is theory. But not just a theory, but a carefully assembled, tested, validated body of interlocked research conducted diligently by committed experts, providing the best possible explanation for the observations on which the conclusion is founded.

To describe the act of those who ignore, or reject such bodies of evidence, which are repeated in the fields of zooloogy, microbiology, palaeontology, genetics, embryology, etc., as being foolish is too kind.

 

[Astrid]

Humans have a special relationship with God, meaning. Animals do not and only have material souls. This is more of a theological discussion.

As in not phys sci with reference for stated facts.
I've been asking that forum rules be observed in that regard.

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread is starting to sound like a camp revival meeting.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I find initially puzzling and ultimately frustrating is the inability of the typical anti-evolutionist to appreciate, acknowledge, or even be aware of the vast amount of detailed, systematic, practical, peer reviewed research that supports even the tiniest aspect of evolutionary theory, or of related subjects, such as evidence against Noah's flood being a global phenomena.

After how many tries?

After how many years of working on it?

How many generations of scientists worked to forge this NO FLOOD THEORY into a viable, coherent lie?

Yes ... your research sounds so convincing on paper.

Here's what most of it probably looks like now, over the years:

Thanks to computers now, you can program and reprogram and reprogram your theories, until you work out all the seams and wrinkles and roadblocks.

But we common folk, who believe the Bible, know differently.

 

[AV1611VET]

As in not phys sci with reference for stated facts.

Tell me, Estrid:

How many "stated facts" have been changed, since time immemorial?

If you found an old scientist test or quiz from the 1970s, with its answers graded as a perfect score, then compared those same answers to today, how would the 1970s answers stack up?

Here's a very small example:

1970 Science Quiz:

Q: How many planets in our solar system?
A: Nine

Grade: A+

2024 Science Quiz:

Q: How many planets in our solar system?
A: Nine

Grade: F

 

[Hans Blaster]

Amen to that!

We shall rise again.

This thread is starting to sound like a camp revival meeting.

OB

If I wanted a revival, I'd have been a protestant. I see the usual suspects are fully at the distraction game. (See post #102 for good recommendation.)

Unfortunately, the only "real" reply this thread has gotten was a claim that evolution wasn't even a theory. (Though la calza didn't show up this time. Hmmm.) Sigh.

 

[Astrid]

If I wanted a revival, I'd have been a protestant. I see the usual suspects are fully at the distraction game. (See post #102 for good recommendation.)

Unfortunately, the only "real" reply this thread has gotten was a claim that evolution wasn't even a theory. (Though la calza didn't show up this time. Hmmm.) Sigh.

We get what we're willing to tolerate from
bratty kids of any age.

I did request that forum rules be respected.


Posts that do not are fair game for anyone to report.