Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

LOL, I think you've befuddled yourself with your rambling Kenny.

If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" of your theory, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? You are aware that we have observed such things aren't you?

Floor's all yours, prove your evoplution, at least you admit its provable, the rest? well, we'll see how it goes.

 

[Jimmy D]

Floor's all yours, prove your evoplution, at least you admit its provable, the rest? well, we'll see how it goes.

For Pete's sake.

Are you incapable of understanding anything anyone says to you?

I have got no desire to "prove" anything to you, do you think that no one is aware of what your response would be anyway?

It seems that you are now pretending that species have not been observed evolving, well here are a few examples for you.

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[tas8831]

Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.

And YOUR science is where?

THAT is what I asked - you complained that you were not getting sufficient science, so I asked why you were demanding what you are unable to produce yourself.

And you totally ignored that questions and answered your own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Challenge response



First, give me a moment to collect myself/dry my eyes.

Conclusion to challenge,

You decide for yourself but I'd say that is refusal to accept the simple challenge to back up what was said.

But that's ok, I never expected such and no one is going to goad it out of you. The only purpose of the challenge, I wanted to make clear exactly where we are at here, and thanks for your contribution..

Did you notice the "spoiler" in my post?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kenny'sID said: ↑

Incomplete, not an experiment at all....pretty much the same thing.





Seriously, how can I take your word for anything...And are you seriously going to say "I didn't use the term "scientific". That's the whole subject here, what is scientific expirimentation/proof.

Did you miss the word "scientific"?
Indeed, your experiment was not a scientific experiment. It needs to meet a few criteria before it can be called that.

Always the same with you.... wanting to discuss science, without the science part.

 

[inquiring mind]

And YOUR science is where?

THAT is what I asked - you complained that you were not getting sufficient science, so I asked why you were demanding what you are unable to produce yourself.

And you totally ignored that questions and answered your own.

I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.

[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[VirOptimus]

I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.

[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]

No you are quite flatly wrong.

Science doesnt need "belief", thats for religion. Science is accepted on the data and supporting evidence.

This is not "belief" against "belief", one is science (i.e. physical reality) and one is metaphysics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did you miss the word "scientific"?

Did you miss my comment on that? Of course any experiment dealing with the natural is a scientific experimenter. Science is the subject here, remember? Honestly I don't think I need to even explain that the use of the one term "experiment" was all that was needed to subject, and if you wan to waist your time picking due to the lack any other defense, that's up to you, but why waist ours?

 

[Kenny'sID]

For Pete's sake.

Are you incapable of understanding anything anyone says to you?

I have got no desire to "prove" anything to you, do you think that no one is aware of what your response would be anyway?

It seems that you are now pretending that species have not been observed evolving, well here are a few examples for you.

Observed Instances of Speciation

If by stating you know what my response would be, you mean "No way is that enough evidence to believe we all evolved, not even close to proof of evolution." then you would be correct. Only the extremely gullible would buy that as proof. It is no more than opinion that proves evolution, and if I were a scientist, I've be a little less reckless with my "evidence" and the conclusions I drew from it. Huge stretch

On the up side, at least someone here is admitting proof is possible by trying to offer it.

 

[Speedwell]

I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.

[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]

I'm not exactly sure what you are on about here. The scientific method is indeed the framework of scientific though and you are only "hamstrung" to it if you want to do science. As to "apparent" naturalism, I think what you must be referring to is the methodological naturalism of science. not the same thing as the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. I think you are trying too hard to turn this into a theism v. atheism contest, when really all it is the usual creationist controversy, that is, a cranky Protestant minority vs. all other Christians, theists and atheists together.

 

[inquiring mind]

Science doesnt need "belief", thats for religion.

True

Science is accepted on the data and supporting evidence.

True

I've explained two or three times now that I'm not arguing science at all. I like science -- science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?

 

[Speedwell]

True


True

I've explained two or three times now that I'm not arguing science at all. I like science -- science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory well supported by empirical evidence. At the present time there is no evidence which contradicts it. Is that what you call a "belief?" And what is the well-evidenced alternative "belief" to which you refer?

 

[pitabread]

science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?

Physics isn't conclusive on gravity either, but you don't see people going around calling gravity a "belief". I wonder why that is...?

 

[inquiring mind]

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory well supported by empirical evidence.

Yes, well-supported

At the present time there is no evidence which contradicts it.

“No contradiction” does not equal “proof of it.”

Is that what you call a "belief?"

So yes, it’s still only a belief until someone can prove without a doubt that we’re distant cousins to a hickory-nut or something like that.

And what is the well-evidenced alternative "belief" to which you refer?

Nice try with “well- evidenced”, but I haven’t said there is an alternative with regard to science – all I have said, or intended to say,” is that Creationism and Evolutionism are two beliefs.

 

[inquiring mind]

Physics isn't conclusive on gravity either, but you don't see people going around calling gravity a "belief". I wonder why that is...?

first-hand observation you suppose?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not exactly sure what you are on about here. The scientific method is indeed the framework of scientific though and you are only "hamstrung" to it if you want to do science. As to "apparent" naturalism, I think what you must be referring to is the methodological naturalism of science. not the same thing as the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. I think you are trying too hard to turn this into a theism v. atheism contest, when really all it is the usual creationist controversy, that is, a cranky Protestant minority vs. all other Christians, theists and atheists together.

I'm not exactly sure what you're about here either, so I'm just gonna let it go.

 

[Shemjaza]

first-hand observation you suppose?

We've observed every necessary aspect of evolution: selection, genetics, inheritance, mutation and speciation.

Using your definition is Pluto's orbit a "belief" because we haven't observed an entire orbit yet?

 

[Snappy1]

Physics isn't conclusive on gravity either, but you don't see people going around calling gravity a "belief". I wonder why that is...?

Head on over to the Conspiracy section...

 

[ViaCrucis]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

Your parents each had 23 pairs of chromosomes. At fertilization two gametes, one sperm cell and one egg cell, fuse. When that happens some of the chromosomes from each parent are recombined to produce a new, unique biological being: you. There are 8,324,608 possible chromosomal combinations, and 70,368,744,177,664 possible combinations of alleles in humans (source). You are a 1 in 70,368,744,177,664 possibility. Yet here you are, right here, talking about this with the rest of us. Throwing out large numbers and saying, "it's unlikely" is irrelevant since, hey, here you are. So obviously it not only was possible, and likely, but happened--you are evidence that this happened.

Whether you ascribe this to a kind of blind genetic lottery, or to Divine Providence, doesn't change any of it.

When I take a step back, look at the big picture, and see all the complexity of the universe; my response isn't to be incredulous, but to marvel--and as someone who confesses the Creed "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen" I am reminded of the words of the Psalmist, "The heavens declare the glory of God".

There's no need for me to make a choice between God and science.

-CryptoLutheran