Evolution and Jesus

[gela]

There was "no empirical evidence" submitted, just the same old parroted conclusions of theory stacked upon theory. It's easy to "disprove" evolution as "factual" when it can not even present enough evidence to be removed form the status of conjectured theory. As I said, and science proves, evolution IS NOT a physical Law, but a theory, and a theory does not a fact make. Simple logic, just what part of the "word" theory...do you not comprehend? Logan

Evolution by natural selection is fact. We've seen it happen in populations of flies and cockroaches as they become immune to pesticides.
It just hasn't been proven to: to create a new species and to have created the species we see on earth today

Unfortunately, because evolution of a new species would take thousands to millions of years, its unlikely that it ever will become more then a theory, in regards to how species are created.

[Jack]

Quote by: LOGAN It's easy to "disprove" evolution as "factual" when it can not even present enough evidence to be removed form the status of conjectured theory.

I for one will be waiting for you to do that. It's about time that someone who promotes ID and creationism to step up to the plate and make their claim. So let's hear it. What's your counter-argument to evolution that accounts for the evidence? To counter evolution you're going to have to account for as much of it as evolution does.

As I said, and science proves, evolution IS NOT a physical Law, but a theory, and a theory does not a fact make. Simple logic, just what part of the "word" theory...do you not comprehend? Do you always think in circular logic? Logan

Since you seem pretty confused as to what constitutes a scientific theory and law, let's review:

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist: Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory: Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method: * Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white. * Hypothesis: All swans must be white. * Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans. * Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed." * Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white. * Theory: All swans are white. Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.) Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

[loser]

Quote: Many of the products we use to day came about as accidents or screw ups. Nothing intelligent there. How about an (one will do) example? Antibiotics.

From Antibiotic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

"History
See also: Timeline of antibiotics

Although potent antibiotic compounds for treatment of human diseases caused by bacteria (such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, or leprosy) were not isolated and identified until the twentieth century, the first known use of antibiotics was by the ancient Chinese over 2,500 years ago.[1] Many other ancient cultures, including the ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks already used molds and plants to treat infections, owing to the production of antibiotic substances by these organisms, a phenomenon known as antibiosis[2] Antibiosis was first described in 1877 in bacteria when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch observed that an airborne bacillus could inhibit the growth of Bacillus anthracis.[3] The antibiotic properties of Penicillium sp. were first described in France by Ernest Duchesne in 1897. However, his work went by without much notice from the scientific community until Alexander Fleming's discovery of Penicillin (see below).

Modern research on antibiotic therapy began in Germany with the development of the narrow-spectrum antibiotic Salvarsan by Paul Ehrlich in 1909, for the first time allowing an efficient treatment of the then-widespread problem of Syphilis. The drug, which was also effective against other spirochaetal infections, is no longer in use in modern medicine.

Antibiotics were further developed in Britain following the discovery of Penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. More than ten years later, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey became interested in his work, and came up with the purified form of penicillin. The three shared the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine. In 1939, Rene Dubos isolated gramicidin, one of first antibiotics to be manufactured commercially used during World War II proving highly effective in the treatment of wounds and ulcers.[4]. Florey credited Dubos for reviving his research on penicillin[4]

"Antibiotic" was originally used to refer only to substances extracted from a fungus or other microorganism, but has come to also include the many synthetic and semi-synthetic drugs that have antibacterial effects."

Nothing accidental about that...it was OBSERVATION (as noted in the underlined text above.

Nevertheless, even when luck and mistakes and screw-ups lead to discoveries, it doesn't preclude intelligence...it establishes it.

Religion is a catalyst. A motivator. Normal, well adjusted human beings do not strap bombs to themselves no matter how desperate things are. It takes something like religion to get them to do that.

It's not "religion" that motivates someone to strap a bomb on. It's brainwashing by another human being. Is the military a religion? No, but many a soldier will carry out orders WITHOUT QUESTION, even if those orders go against everything he believes in (like killing civilian women and children, for example).

Were the Columbine killings precipitated because of education? Do schools motivate students to massacre others?

You're making false connections when you blame religion for the atrocities done even when they are done in the name of religion. That's like blaming knives or guns or baseball bats when others use them to murder. Let's put the blame where its due. Islam was not the cause of 9/11...Osama bin Laden was!

Can you point to anything you've contributed here that would qualify you to make that observation?

I would point to my whole body of work; logic and nothing but logic...

...well, maybe a little satire and sarcasm and hyperbole mixed in...

...okay, maybe a LOT of that, but I expect discerning minds to be able to think between the lines.

The simple fact of the matter is that in countries where the populous has wide access to advanced education athiesm is on the rise.

Good grief...don't say it like it's a good thing, okay.

The key words in your assessment is "advanced education". The simple fact of the matter is that education is contrary to intelligence and understanding and more akin to brainwashing and indoctrination. How often do you see students rejecting and refuting the 'information' fed to them in their schoolbooks? Marching morons, all.

Teacher, teacher, leave those kids alone.

The things I say may appear to be "rhetoric devoid of fact" but if it's true just for one person (such as myself), then it's still a fact.

I grow bored of this, do you have anything to add which actually adds to this debate?

How about all of the points that I make that you ignore? Any statement taken out of context can appear to be just rhetoric. Taken as a whole, however, I think that my arguments are quite compelling. I can't understand why you don't.

Science tries to reach conclusions based on evidence. Sometimes the evidence is fabricated, sometimes the conclusions are in error.

It's not science that reaches false conclusions, it's scientists. Science is perfect; it's the fallible men who, for whatever reasons, are unable to apply the scientific principles correctly that skew understanding and knowledge.

If I say the sky looks blue, you'll find a reason to say it doesn't.

Well, there are reasons why the sky won't look blue...like when viewed from the bottom of a deep well. Truth is often very subjective, hence debate reigns. It's often that two people with exact opposite conclusions are BOTH correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't argue near as much.

Of course, sometimes we argue because the other person is just plain ignorant.

ToE is a proven fact that's been well documented by scientists around the world for decades if not longer. The bible is a set of folk tales that children are indoctrinated to believe as fact from an early age. Evolution has evidence. The bible has none.

What happened to "intellectual honesty"?

Actually, the ToE has been proven false (it's well documented) and the Bible has been verified as a repository of accurate history and science. This is amazingly clear to me. Why can't you see this obvious truth?

Disagreements on what goes into the bible or which parts of the bible people believe are completely arbitrary.Take for example an eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek. The OT prescibes the first and the NT prescribes the second. Christians do neither. Their morality is somewhere in between. So why even bother with the bible? Ignoring both edicts renders it ultimately useless. I predict that you won't reply to this part.

That's not true. The OT teaching of an eye for an eye was a Jewish prescription and it is the nature of man. We live in an Old Testament world even today. When America was attacked on 9/11, not many wanted to turn the other cheek. Payback is the way of man (and the world).

To love your enemies and bless those who curse you (as Jesus taught) goes against everything in man's nature but it is the nature of God. This is the nature that Jesus told Christians to "put on". Nothing is arbitrary. It's merely a battle between our flesh and our spirit (link with God). Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

First, science is a system of inquiry that's self-correcting.

This is EXACTLY how religion works! No one has complete and accurate knowledge when they first start to serve the Lord. It's a growing process. Just like babes, they must start out on milk (the easy stuff). As they mature and grow in their knowledge of the Lord, they are able to digest 'meatier' things. The Bible details this growth and disciples correct themselves constantly, ever growing in the truth...just like science!

[loser]

I've been asking Christians for MONTHS to provide their test for how they seperate figurative from literal and I've yet to hear any answer. So, can you tell me why Genesis is figurative and why the resurrection (which is every bit as impossible) is literal?

Impossible? Existence exists! What could possibly be impossible? The only thing that is impossible is impossibility!

This is a blatant cop-out from wanting to accept the truth. Any person who deems himself even remotely intelligent concedes that, in order to have understanding, one must be able to discern semantics. If I say, "That girl climbing the stairs is hot!", what is literal and what is figurative? It's not always easy to tell, is it? Still, figures of speech abound in human languages, often several different kinds in a single sentence.

Is the girl hot (temperature-wise) because she's climbing the stairs on a hot day or was I speaking figuratively, suggesting that she was sexy? Is she really climbing the stairs or is she walking up the stairs? It takes reason and discernment and sometimes even context in order to decipher the intended meaning of words. Nevertheless, are you amazed or surprised to see both literal and figurative meanings in the same sentence? I hope not.

So how do you distinguish between literal and figurative meaning? Don't you do it just like I suggested above, through reason and discernment and context?

I tell you this: I find it much easier to discern between the literal and figurative meanings intended in scripture than I do in any other text; Shakespeare, for example.

It's really not all that difficult at all, not nearly as hard as you make it out to be.

One thing that could help you a lot: get this idea that there are things that are impossible out of your head. Nothing is impossible, absolutely nothing (Hey, even nothing is something)!

Quote: Quote by: leegao So then my question would be is Religion truly an inhibitor in our modern world? I would say yes. When I weigh what religion enables against what it inhibits, its shortcomings far outweigh its benefits. What benefits it offers could be accomplished without any religious motivation.

Doesn't it all boil down to HUMANITY? With religion or without religion, it's what PEOPLE do that counts. A religion can tell you to do evil or to do good and you can either obey or not. All religion does is expose the hearts of men. You can't get angry at God or religion because neither is directing people to do evil. If people do evil, it's because it's in their heart to do evil. Although I do believe that you can break a person down so that they will do things that they normally wouldn't (like a soldier), I think that most people have the ability to resist, if not the desire or will.

Still, it's people getting other people to do evil and not the words in any religious texts. If you've got a beef with God, that can't be your excuse.

Darwin and Wallace both came up with evolution. Doesn't mean we write one off.

No, we write them both off.

In Western culture, we see progress only when we see less religion or individuals challenging religion as evidenced by the renaisannce(sp). We saw it in the civil rights movement in America where Martin L. King jr. adopted the secular non-violent protest style of Ghandi.

That's the opposite of the truth. David Barton has an "American Heritage" series available on paperback that reveals the truth of American history. From here: WallBuilders - American Heritage Series - Entire Set

"Discover the forgotten and astonishing story of our nation’s foundation in the American Heritage Series. For centuries, Americans were taught a truthful view of history that recognized the Godly heroes and moral foundation our nation was founded upon. But in recent years, a new version of history has assaulted the moral and spiritual fiber of our nation, leaving the truth of our past eliminated and forgotten. Until today. From Separation of Church and State, to the Civil Rights Movement, the heroism of our founding Fathers to the building of our nation’s monuments, this series will inspire every American to reclaim the Godly, true story of our nation. Join historian David Barton and experience the untold story of our nation’s history in the American Heritage Series."

The names of some of the great Black Patriots that were heroes in the American Revolution have long been ignored but the information is still out there and it is amazing how the true history of America has been replaced with a false one.

They willingly swallow fantastic stories of giants and burning bushes that talk and all sorts of nonsense,

You find giants and burning bushes fantastic and/or nonsense? Yet, you swallow species morphing into other species, like dinosaurs into birds or vice-versa?

BTW, burning bushes (AKA Dictamnus Albus or Fraxinella or gas plant) are quite common in that part of the world.

Sometimes science is just too amazing for the common man to accept and he dismisses it as superstition or nonsense or fairy tales.

We should never jump to conclusions too hastily.

[Jack]

What happened to "intellectual honesty"? Actually, the ToE has been proven false (it's well documented)

So let's see the documentation. Support your contention.

[oracle13]

The things I say may appear to be "rhetoric devoid of fact" but if it's true just for one person (such as myself), then it's still a fact.

No! What kind of epistemology is that? What is your definition of fact here? Your criteria for something being a fact is just belief!

Where is the justification? Knowledge can only exist because there are multiple perspectives all connecting around the commonalities.

The only way you can justify your beliefs is by using some very odd kind of epistemology. Do you believe that the computer that you're typing on exists? If I follow your radically sceptical form of epistemology, I can legitimately doubt that anything I perceive from my senses exists. But then, how I can I possibly believe in anything, without doubting that it exists!?!

For example when you say:

Actually, the ToE has been proven false (it's well documented) and the Bible has been verified as a repository of accurate history and science. This is amazingly clear to me. Why can't you see this obvious truth?

This is clearly facetious, but while your epistemology allows you to doubt the theory of evolution by claiming that empirical evidence is not valid, it also does not allow you AT ALL to believe in the 'accurate history and science' of the Bible. It doesn't allow you to have knowledge.

[Chris the Chees]

Nothing accidental about that...it was OBSERVATION (as noted in the underlined text above.

You are utterly wrong, the article says no such thing. Also read up on Alexander Fleming.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: LOGAN There was "no empirical evidence" submitted, just the same old parroted conclusions of theory stacked upon theory.

Your argument would be far more effective if you hadn't misused the word "theory".

It's easy to "disprove" evolution as "factual" when it can not even present enough evidence to be removed form the status of conjectured theory.

Nope. You're wrong. You're deliberately ignoring the evidence we presented on observed instance of speciation. Willful ignorance on your part evidences no deficiency on mine or of evolution.

As I said, and science proves, evolution IS NOT a physical Law, but a theory, and a theory does not a fact make.

We've already educated you on the misuse of the word theory. I'm sorry you don't want to accept evolution as true. I'm sorry you feel so threatened by it. But your dislike of evolution and your refusal to accept the evidence presented in absolutely no way constitutes a rebuttal. If you're looking to debate, then address the facts. If you're just trying to save face, then I humbly recommend you stop posting as you're just digging a deeper intellectual hole for yourself.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Impossible? Existence exists! What could possibly be impossible? The only thing that is impossible is impossibility!

This as far as I got with your post. Clearly, your worldview is inferior to that of nearly everyone here because nearly everyone here understands the definitions of "impossible" and "possible". They are not interchangeable. Furthermore, you've blatantly evaded the issue I raised of the test Christians use to determine figurative vs. literal.

Based on your screen name, avatar image, and showing in these threads, I submit (again) that you are a non-theist trying to make theists look bad. Once again, I will ask you to cease and desist your intellecutally dishonest blather. If you don't believe in what theists believe in, then please leave it alone. You don't need to try to make them look bad. Thanks.

[ryanatau]

For those who are saying Evolution is not a Law therefore not a fact:

You are right evolution is not a law or a fact nor could it be. Evolution is a model of the world. Just like a model car is an interpretation of a real car so evolution is an interpretation of the real world. A model car cannot be a law or a fact. But a model car can more easily tell us about a real car then the real car itself can because the model car is simpler and easier to study.

To use another metaphor: if we are in a city and are lost we need a model of the city in order to find our way. Now we do not want the most accurate representation of the city because the most accurate representation of the city is the city itself--the very place we are lost. But we use a simple map, which is a model of the city, to help us interpret the city and we easily find our way. To emphasize the map is not a law nor a fact.

In the same way, evolution is a model of history. The history of the development of life. It is not the actual development of life but it is a useful model. With this model we are able to discover certain characteristics and predict outcomes that we would not be able to without a simple representation of the history of development. For example, because apes have 48 chromosomes we would expect humans to also have 48. Humans have 46 and so using evolution as a model we would expect that two of the Chromosomes have fused together. And alas we have found that indeed two chromosomes are found fused in humans. (Whether humans have fused chromosomes or apes have split chromosomes is not clear though I thing most believe humans have fused them and the evidence suggests this).

So, finally, evolution is a model not a law nor is it a fact. But it would not make sense to have a law or a fact do what we expect the model or theory of evolution to do. So criticizing evolution as not a law is not really a criticism at all. It is a fact.

[gallo]

Quote by: ryanatau You are right evolution is not a law or a fact nor could it be.

Actually, evolution is a fact. In science the facts are the observations that make up the data. Since events that conform to the definition of evolution have been and are observed commonly, evolution is a fact.

Some of those facts have been stated as laws of science. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg law, the law of independent assortment, the law of segregation. The tested explanations of evolutionary events that conform to the definition of evolution are the theories of evolution. Evolutionary theory has been tested to the point that it is unreasonable to reject it without significant new data.

Evolution is a model of the world. Just like a model car is an interpretation of a real car so evolution is an interpretation of the real world. A model car cannot be a law or a fact. But a model car can more easily tell us about a real car then the real car itself can because the model car is simpler and easier to study.

Nope. Evolution is an observation and a scientific theory. While models of evolution in limited scenarios may be useful, evolutionary theory itself is not just a model.

To use another metaphor: if we are in a city and are lost we need a model of the city in order to find our way. Now we do not want the most accurate representation of the city because the most accurate representation of the city is the city itself--the very place we are lost. But we use a simple map, which is a model of the city, to help us interpret the city and we easily find our way. To emphasize the map is not a law nor a fact.

But evolutionary theory is built on facts, observations and laws. It isn't a map or a model.

In the same way, evolution is a model of history.

No it's not.

The history of the development of life. It is not the actual development of life but it is a useful model. With this model we are able to discover certain characteristics and predict outcomes that we would not be able to without a simple representation of the history of development.

Nonsense.

For example, because apes have 48 chromosomes we would expect humans to also have 48. Humans have 46 and so using evolution as a model we would expect that two of the Chromosomes have fused together.

Sorry, that isn't now and never was a model of evolution. It was a real prediction based on real observations of fact.

And alas we have found that indeed two chromosomes are found fused in humans.

"Alas"??? Woe is me, what a tragedy! Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "alas"?

(Whether humans have fused chromosomes or apes have split chromosomes is not clear though I thing most believe humans have fused them and the evidence suggests this).

Actually, it is quite clear which is the case. Apparently you don't understand the hypothesis, prediction, or tests to adequately understand. Maybe that is why you think that this is a model.
[/quote]So, finally, evolution is a model not a law nor is it a fact.[/quote]Actually, it isn't a model, while it does include laws that comprise some of the facts of evolution.

But it would not make sense to have a law or a fact do what we expect the model or theory of evolution to do. So criticizing evolution as not a law is not really a criticism at all. It is a fact.

Except if you don't understand what you are talking about. Perhaps it would be a good thing to learn the difference between a scientific model and a scientific theory.

[ryanatau]

gallo you didn't understand the point of my post. I'm not going to go through all your arguments, not because they are not valid, but because I think you would probably agree with me if you knew what I was saying.

I was using the word model as a metaphor. To use the map example again, which you didn't like: A map is based on facts. It is a fact that two streets intersect, that one street is called A the other B, that to get to street C from A you have to turn right on street B, etc.. The ma isn't the city itself but is a way for us to understand what the city is. Similarly, the theory of evolution is not evolution itself but a way for us to understand evolution. Granted in my post I used the word "evolution" instead of "the theory of evolution." What I ment is that the theory of evolution is a way for us to understand evolution (the actual process of evolution) but it is not evolution itself. The theory is not evolution because the theory can change in order for us to better understand evolution or for us to better predict certain things that may follow from the evolutionary process. We can say evolution is a fact, but the theory of evolution is not a fact it is made up of facts. The theory of evolution is a compilation of facts.

Similarly, gravity is a fact but a theory of gravity is not a fact. It is a compilation of facts. That matter behaves is a certain way is a fact. But who we explain that matters movement (with math or whatever) is not a fact but a way of explaining the facts. It sets out to explain how certain event behave.

Again, as such the theory of evolution is explaining what evolution is but it is not evolution. Evolution can be a fact. The theory of evolution is our way of explaining what evolution is. The map is not a fact but is made up of facts gathered so we can better understand them. This is what I mean when I say the Theory of evolution is like a model.