Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A mirror gives rise to it's image. The reason life exists in the universe is because it can.
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I think many of you who are attacking faith don't understand what faith is.
Faith is a committment to a belief in something. Christian faith is not faith in God and the Bible in spite of the evidence, it is faith IN LIGHT of the evidence.
Regardless of how readily you dismiss the evidence as mere "fact-less God talk", there is evidence against evolution to this day, and there is evidence for creationism. And yes, evidence that attacks the very fundamentals of evolution. If you actually study the facts, rather than the conclusions that many evolutionists reach, you will find a lot of holes in the logical process.
Science is not the altruistic search for truth that many of you claim it is. It is victim to the same human faults and logical-fallacies that are present in everything we do. The arguements of many evolutionists and the claims they make often reflect their own personal beliefs that there is nothing more than nature. Of course, if you are trying to find the truth about evolution of life and one of your presuppositions is that there is no God, then yes, you aren't going to accept evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer.
Michael Behe makes and interesting point:
"The.. most powerful reason for science's reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Many scientists simply have an allegiance to the natural that blinds them... "Science is a noble pursuit that can engender fierce loyalty.... some dedicated people put their discipline ahead of the goal it is supposed to serve... We must be careful not to allow our distaste for a theory to prejudice us against a fair reading of the data."
Maybe you would like to point out some of these huge logical flaws?
One of the major things that Creationists miss is that the Theory of Evolution is not a static theory. Theories change over time as new facts come in. As more ideas come in, theories are reconciled iteratively with the evidence. This is the process of all scientific endeavors. Therefore the fact that new facts come up that are slightly in opposition to the current theory does not mean that the theory should be thrown away. It needs to be modified to account for those facts.
The notion of altruism has nothing to do with the process of science. The humans who run our churches are bound to the same human fallibility as our scientists. The goal of science is to uncover the truths of our world. This says nothing about the motivation to get at those truths; but they are still truths.
Two main categorical problems with evolution:
1. Lack of certain evidence that is needed to justify certain conclusions
2. Evidence that opposes evolution
Basically for #1 we are missing some things that are expected to have been discovered. For instance, many archaeologists don't accept that the fossil records contributes to the evolutionary theory, and yet it still is used by evolutionary biologists as evidence for evolution. We still have no transitional fossils, and every time we uncover new fossils of the same species they are identical, even though their age differences can be very vast. (Meaning that even though there is a large gap between some fossils, the species is unchanged, even after long periods of time).
New system can be created by copying and mutation of other systems.Also, there are still no solutions for irreducibly complex systems that are present everywhere in nature. I'm not talking about generic A->B->C step solutions, I'm referring to specific proposed solutions to specific systems that are irreducibly complex, that lose function with even minor changes. They simply do not exist... the scientific community has offered no solution to these systems, so they are very much still a flaw in reasoning. Darwin himself said that if certain systems could be shown to not be able to be put together in step-by-step physical manner, it would uproot his theory.
I will accept the fact that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I am surprised by the conclusions that are drawn and the conjectures that are made when there are many facts missing.
For #2 there are obstacles to the theory, obstacles with no apparent reconciliation. Now if you want to limit to biological evolution and not discuss origin of life, origin of the universe, etc. then the problems become more narrow. For instance, mutations are not generally beneficial, and they aren't huge leaps, how could tiny increments of mutations offer a benefit to a species? How could wings come about slowly without seriously hampering the species ability to survive?
One of the most staggering difficulties given is the pure probability of evolution actually taking place. If the Earth cooled down enough to support life about 400 million years ago, the time for evolution is very short, and the probability is very low. It isn't just about constructing an amino acid, totalcommand, its about sequencing those specific amino acids in long chains in a specific order to make just one specific protein. How did the function of the proteins that evolved come to be needed in the first place? Surely their function is not "known" before it has evolved, so what must be claimed is that multiple amino-acid chains evolved by chance and then the onces with useful functions were utilized and kept. However, the pure improbability of amino acid chains being constructed by random chance in an oxidizing atmosphere is simply phenomenal... how do you account for this? The clay theory is a popular choice among scientists, which can in part get over the fact that amino acids break down in water, given that the clay is less wet, but the problem still remains that there is no information from which to construct these complicated chains of hundred of amino acids.
I have a theory too, humans will believe whatever their peers tell them.Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure this proves anything about ignorance, since the theory of evolution is still a theory. Moreover, it seems to me the most telling statistic would be the percentage that believes that God created the human race through the forces of evolution.
EVERYTHING in science is a theory! We have this theory about how electrons behave in a semiconductor. We use the theory to design and build CPUs to power a computer. Does this make the theory a truth? No, it is still a theory. The theory fits the facts well enough to allow us to harness its power but it still does not make it a truth.
Same holds true for evolution. It will never be a fact no matter how much evidence we gather or how well it fits and explains and predicts the evidence.
The evangelicals stating that evolution is "only a theory" just means one more level of ignorance to me.
Originally posted by: Hellburner
About 15 years worth of online debate on this topic:
The Talk.Origins Archive , Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
The True.Origin Archive , Exposing the Myth of Evolution
Science, if you are so motivated, YOU can repeat ad nauseam, all the experiments leading to the conclusions in the various peer reviewed journals.
Faith, An omnipotent, omniscient being that pervades all that exists led to your consciousness, troubling deviations from that reality are variously caused by evil in the world or your own weakness.
The existence of the modern world provides all the proof most people need validating science, whether they are comfortable with that or not is another question. What of The Singularity, it's happening all around us and will change man in ways unthinkable. Where does this fit in this debate?
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).
Originally posted by: dornick
Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: dornick
Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).
^^ Another example of the failure of our education system.
Like your reply was really worth anything more? As I've said before up here, my replies are in kind. Your own reply was a ridiculous statement written out of ignorance or laziness. Which one was it?Originally posted by: dornick
how bout you address this reply instead of trying to write me off as a "failure of the education system"? When you're ready to talk instead of make snide comments, I'll argue.Originally posted by: conjur
^^ Another example of the failure of our education system.Originally posted by: dornick
Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).
Originally posted by: conjur
Like your reply was really worth anything more? As I've said before up here, my replies are in kind. Your own reply was a ridiculous statement written out of ignorance or laziness. Which one was it?Originally posted by: dornick
how bout you address this reply instead of trying to write me off as a "failure of the education system"? When you're ready to talk instead of make snide comments, I'll argue.Originally posted by: conjur
^^ Another example of the failure of our education system.Originally posted by: dornick
Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).
That pretty much says it all right there. You have no idea wtf evolution is about, do you?Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.
Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see...
That pretty much says it all right there. You have no idea wtf evolution is about, do you?Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.
And that's where your ignorance shines brightly. Evolution, itself, is a proven FACT. The THEORY of evolution is regarding the mechanics of evolution (how does it work.) Go back to school and come back later.Originally posted by: dornick
Tell me, how does a scientific theory become accepted as a true description of the universe? When it makes predictions about future observations and those are fufilled. But evolution, because it's a theory about the past, can't make any predictions. About the best it can do is predict what sort of fossil we might end up finding. And this is circumstantial at best because it has nothing to do with the mechanism of evolution. So how can evolution be accepted as scientific fact?Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see...
That pretty much says it all right there. You have no idea wtf evolution is about, do you?Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.
Originally posted by: conjur
And that's where your ignorance shines brightly. Evolution, itself, is a proven FACT. The THEORY of evolution is regarding the mechanics of evolution (how does it work.) Go back to school and come back later.Originally posted by: dornick
Tell me, how does a scientific theory become accepted as a true description of the universe? When it makes predictions about future observations and those are fufilled. But evolution, because it's a theory about the past, can't make any predictions. About the best it can do is predict what sort of fossil we might end up finding. And this is circumstantial at best because it has nothing to do with the mechanism of evolution. So how can evolution be accepted as scientific fact?Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see...
That pretty much says it all right there. You have no idea wtf evolution is about, do you?Just so you realize, the theory of evolution makes no predictions either. It really is nothing more than an unprovable idea about how species came to be that got accepted as scientific fact somehow.
Wrong, again. That is not what evolution is about.Originally posted by: dornick
You're wrong too; the theory of evolution is the idea that all organisms on the planet are descended for a common organism. This cannot be proven for my above reasons unless we could go back in time and trace evolution as it happened. So address those reasons.
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
Right. I understand that evolution in the general sense is nothing more than change. Of course, you knew I wasn't referring to simple change, so trying to define it as such is just a dirty tactic. When I refer to evolution, i'm pretty much talking about it as stated in the last sentence of that first talkorigins paragraph.Originally posted by: conjur
Wrong, again. That is not what evolution is about.Originally posted by: dornick
You're wrong too; the theory of evolution is the idea that all organisms on the planet are descended for a common organism. This cannot be proven for my above reasons unless we could go back in time and trace evolution as it happened. So address those reasons.
IOW, you're picking the portion of evolution that refers to the theory aspect of it and twisting that around to suit your agenda.Originally posted by: dornick
Right. I understand that evolution in the general sense is nothing more than change. Of course, you knew I wasn't referring to simple change, so trying to define it as such is just a dirty tactic. When I refer to evolution, i'm pretty much talking about it as stated in the last sentence of that first talkorigins paragraph.
Originally posted by: conjur
IOW, you're picking the portion of evolution that refers to the theory aspect of it and twisting that around to suit your agenda.Originally posted by: dornick
Right. I understand that evolution in the general sense is nothing more than change. Of course, you knew I wasn't referring to simple change, so trying to define it as such is just a dirty tactic. When I refer to evolution, i'm pretty much talking about it as stated in the last sentence of that first talkorigins paragraph.
Gotcha.
There are plenty of facts re: observations of speciation. Although, I'm sure you're aware of that but are purposefully minimizing that aspect.Originally posted by: dornick
as far as i know, the only "fact" aspect (because we can see it happening) of evolution is simple changes to populations because their environments are more conducive to certain phenotypes, and therefore their corresponding genotypes. everything else refers to the "theory" aspect, and everything I'm talking about falls into that category. my only point is that that theory aspect cannot be proven because it does not make predictions. now can you confirm this, or give me some reasons why if you disagree?Originally posted by: conjur
IOW, you're picking the portion of evolution that refers to the theory aspect of it and twisting that around to suit your agenda.Originally posted by: dornick
Right. I understand that evolution in the general sense is nothing more than change. Of course, you knew I wasn't referring to simple change, so trying to define it as such is just a dirty tactic. When I refer to evolution, i'm pretty much talking about it as stated in the last sentence of that first talkorigins paragraph.
Gotcha.
Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution is a warped science that is not even logically possible.
Where did the first species come from?
Do you think DNA can happen by accident?