Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Zylka
Sigh... You do have to take the bible into metaphorical terms, you know.

Certainly makes it easier to write off parts you don't like or want to agree with!

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution, as most do.

What is the basis for this statement. Not arguing it, just want to know your basis for saying most Christians believe evolution.

[reds4ever]

zylka, the whole arguement of 'take the bible metaphorically' is a joke, you may as well say 'tell the story to fit the facts', christians are just moving the goalposts as science dictates they have to.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PatRussell
If I'm not mistaken it is still called the Theory of Evolution. By definition a theory has not or cannot be proven (else it would be called a law).

If you understand science at all, you understand that nothing is proven or disproven in science.

Theories are just models of reality. Evidence either supports or rejects theories. A theory with a lot of support is called strong or robust.

However evolution is also a fact. Consider the mule. It is disdinctly different from either the horse or the donkey, and cannot have offsprings with either. Therefore it makes the mule a new species.

If you just look, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PatRussell
What is the basis for this statement. Not arguing it, just want to know your basis for saying most Christians believe evolution.

That's an easy one.

1. All Catholics are evolutionists - the Pontiff of Rome decreed it.
2. Creationism is only an issue in the US, not the rest of the world.

Add [1] and [2] and you see the majority of Christians are evolutionists.

[Bosh]

I recommend that all of you read Plages and Peoples by McNeill, throughout human history human population has generally been well below what could concievably be fed due to disease, only relatively recently has this started to change and because of this we've had a huge spike of population. To assume that this spike is representative of the average rate of population increase is the sort of idiotic argument that creationists seem so fond of.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
In scientific practice one generally makes predictions based apon the theory and then investigates to see if they are correct or not. If they are correct, your confidence in the theory increases - if they are wrong you throw the theory away.

That's only half right. In science you never throw any theory away. You only replace an old theory with a superior one.

Sometimes, old theories diehard. For example, after the Michaelson-Morley experiement had shown no evidence for the Aether, an explanation was offered for this discrepancy in actual obervation. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions, they were later incorporated by Einstein in his special theory of relativity.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Now evolution by natural selection is actually rather hard to test in this way since it is usually built around facts which are already known.

Often theories are also judged on how well they explain nature, i.e., what's existing now and what existed before. Take Big Bang for example. You can't really use it to predict anything.

Evolution is exceptional in explaining nature. It is also strongly supported by evidence from many fields.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The reason why creation is not a pleasing scientific theory is not that it can be proven wrong. Quite the contrary - the displeasing thing is that it cannot be proven wrong, because it has no predictive power. Being scientifically displeasing however, doesn't mean that it isn't right (although I personally don't think it is).

Not really. Creationism is not a scientific theory per se is because it cannot be falstified, i.e., shown to be wrong. A scientific theory must be able to be replaced simply because these theories are models of nature.

[n.c.]

I skipped page 2 and most of 3, but being a vet of these debates I basically know what was said:

Poster in denial of evolution reality:
-"Here's some erroneous nitpicking (of something that may or may not be part of evolution theory) a creationist is passing off as science."
-"Evolution cannot be proven like a mathematical formula, therefore I have made an actual point."

Posters attempting to de-program the brainwashed/boneheaded:
-"Let me repeat a point disproving your claims that you have ignored/dodged."
-"Let me repeat another point disproving your claims that you have ignored/dodged."

Did I miss anything? No? Good.

Here's the deal: scientists do research and develop theories. With one exception those of you in evolution denial have no problem accepting the results of this process.

Some of you will admit that the explanation to this stark inconsistency is blind adherence to a 2000 year old book. I wish this group would simply drop the time-wasting facade of pretend science.

The rest of you either won't admit this or just want to look like a free-thinking rebel. Either way you look like a moron. I can't be too harsh on the religious types, but those of you who casually say "eh, I don't buy it" to evolution might as well say "the Flintstones could've happened." (Consider this as advice on how not to look like a total dipsh!t in front of future bosses, in-laws, ect.)

The scientists out there need to get a clue: these people are hopeless. If you enjoy crushing the pathetic bleating that is creationism please carry on. Otherwise just remind them of the inconsistency above, ask for an explanation, don't hold your breath, and move on.

Good night.

[aaglo]

How does the creationism explain, that the embryos of all mammals look alike? For me that seems to be hard evidence of evolution... doesn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It has not been disproven because you can always argue that God planted the fossils to test the faithful.

So God is decieving his creation? Does this mean deception is something that is condoned by Christianity, since God has done so?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by PatRussell


Certainly makes it easier to write off parts you don't like or want to agree with!



What is the basis for this statement. Not arguing it, just want to know your basis for saying most Christians believe evolution.

I should have put "many" for most, or protestant for christian. It is a little baseless, just something I believe from personal experience with others.

Reds4, I just think that it is so small minded... to accept the dissections and explanations of life (science) as something lacking of God, something that just is, something ultimate - what's wrong with accepting both? I accept popular science, only as human dissection and interpretation of God's Universe - an interpretation which is petty and just enough to get us through our current reality. Really, you do have to take the bible metaphorically. Anything humanistic should be taken as such - we can use science to manipulate our surroundings, but never to further true understanding of internal reality [although you hardcore acid heads might disagree with this one ].

On the 7th day might as well have been on the 7th year, on the 7th eon, the 7th "infinity" etc. It's a standard division, made abstract in the simplest terms possible, on the shortest natural cycle man knows. Ad infinitum for the rest of the bible, at which point even I would begin to wonder whether or not I was stretching the goal posts. But really - why would you think we can explain creation in God's terms, on our current plane? Science is grand in life, feeble in God's reality. You just can't expect to explain things at *his* level

[Zylka]

I would just like to add that she blinded me with science.

[monkspider]

I saw some amusing comments being made about my home state of Kansas earlier in this thread, I would just like to add that not only did I recieve all my schooling in a small, conservative Kansas town, but I'm a proud darwinist (and christian as well, for the record). So, in spite of their efforts to supress intelligence, there are still a few "roses in the concrete" here in my home state attempting to battle against idiocy.
As for the theory, it seems to be proven as poppycock in this thread.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by PatRussell

I have looked at several of the links posted (including the transition FAQ) and still state, based on several key gaps in the fossil records, that you cannot prove species to species evolution. I do credit the site for it's honest regarding these gaps, but they are significant enough to reenforce my original point - macroevolution cannot be proved.

So, if I see "some gaps" between buildings, then cities don't exist?

Let's try an analogy. A creationist walks onto a construction site. This creationist has, for mysterious reasons he won't explain, decided that all houses are miraculously created by God. He sees houses made of bricks, he sees bricklayers at work, and he sees a few houses acually completed while he's watching.

But, being an experienced creationist, he is adept at the art of self-delusion. The laying of bricks is "micro-building", and cannot lead to "macro-building" (the construction of entire houses from the ground up). The completion of a new house (equivalent to speciation) is a "minor improvement" too trivial to consider. Houses aren't really made of bricks anyhow, it's just that God makes them look that way.

That's the situation with evolution. We can see evolution happening, we can see that creatures have evolved, we can watch new traits emerging and see new species appear.

Creationism is a mental disorder.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's only half right. In science you never throw any theory away. You only replace an old theory with a superior one.

Heh - if the theory makes prediction which are proven to be wrong, then it is inapplicable to be used in that situation. You should not use it because you will get the wrong result. This is what I meant by 'throw away'. Obviously you don't burn Einsteins papers on GR just because it breaks down at the quantum level, but you shouldn't use it there either.

Often theories are also judged on how well they explain nature, i.e., what's existing now and what existed before. Take Big Bang for example. You can't really use it to predict anything.

'Predictive' does not just mean that something new should happen - it also means that you can make a new observation which tests the theory, but know before hand what the results should be if they agree with the theory, ie you predict the result.

The big bang is more 'predictive' than evolution by natural selection since it is a very simple model. You can make observations which are 'new' to you and see if they fit with the model. This is a tight contraint because there is not a huge amount you can do to make weird data fit. For example, the fact that the universe is causily disconnected leads you to the requirement for inflation in the early universe. The big bang without inflation looks very bad indeed, unless you can think of something else. In contrast, evolution by natural selection can be greatly modified by other exogenous events.

Evolution is exceptional in explaining nature. It is also strongly supported by evidence from many fields.

The fossil records show fairly good agreement with evolution but it is not so clear that it is by natural selection. It is also fairly clear that natural selection exists, but not so clear that it is the mechanism of evolution.

Not really. Creationism is not a scientific theory per se is because it cannot be falstified, i.e., shown to be wrong. A scientific theory must be able to be replaced simply because these theories are models of nature.

Not exactly. Theories are still theories, even if they make no predictions - they are just useless theories, but that is not to say that they aren't true. Imagine, for example, a universe which had 'choatic pockets' - regions of space time, where the laws of nature would change randomly. You could make no predictive theory about the laws of nature in these pockets other than that the laws change constantly. This is a theory with no predictive power, but in the universe discussed it would still be true.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Let's try an analogy. A creationist walks onto a construction site. This creationist has, for mysterious reasons he won't explain, decided that all houses are miraculously created by God. He sees houses made of bricks, he sees bricklayers at work, and he sees a few houses acually completed while he's watching.

But, being an experienced creationist, he is adept at the art of self-delusion. The laying of bricks is "micro-building", and cannot lead to "macro-building" (the construction of entire houses from the ground up). The completion of a new house (equivalent to speciation) is a "minor improvement" too trivial to consider. Houses aren't really made of bricks anyhow, it's just that God makes them look that way.

Let's try another analogy. An evolutionist walks into a city. He sees lots of sandstone buildings, as he walks down to the beach. On the beach is a small boy making sand castles. The evolutionist realizes that this is the same material used to build the houses. He concludes that the little boy built all of the houses in the city.