News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

Started by perspective, June 10, 2009, 09:59:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JillSwift

Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.
Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates. No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.
[size=50]Teleology]

perspective

Quote from: "Whitney"Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

oh my... Are you kidding me. First, how can you even make the bold claim that evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information. I am floored that you would just through that out there like that. That is out right wrong. Second, please I beg that you produce one instance from nature where new genetic information has been gained by mutation or natural selection. It has never happened. Good gracious you don't even know that what you are saying is impossible.

perspective

Quote from: "JillSwift"
Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.
Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates.
Tell me how you came to this conclusion.
Quote from: "JillSwift"No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.
And you are confussing what my point was. Evidence is up for interpretation. Meaning it is only by preference that you chose which interpretation that you accept. Evidence is not "on the side" of evolution in other words.

JillSwift

Quote from: "perspective"
Quote from: "JillSwift"
Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.
Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates.
Tell me how you came to this conclusion.
So long as evidence has objective meaning, your argument does not hold water. Through evidence, we can look to the past and have a very good idea what happened in the past.

Quote from: "perspective"
Quote from: "JillSwift"No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.
And you are confussing what my point was. Evidence is up for interpretation. Meaning it is only by preference that you chose which interpretation that you accept. Evidence is not "on the side" of evolution in other words.
Now you're back to saying evidence is meaningless. If any given interpretation of evidence is as good as another, then it has no meaning.

If you'd have a good, objective look at the evidence for evolution, you'd see that evolution is fully supported. It's not an over-night task. There are mountains of evidence from several disciplines - fossil, DNA, geological and climactic evidence. For instance, there's Tiktaalik, a critter not quite a fish and not quite a tetrapod - structurally a clear sign of fish evolving into tetrapods. This fossil was not discovered accidentally, but the predictive power of the theory of evolution (specifically: The theory predicts that some fish evolved into tetrapods, meaning there had to be species that exhibited traits of both fish and tetrapods in varying degrees (from mostly fish to mostly tetrapods).) along with knowledge of geologic mechanisms and climactic science (to know where these fish-to-tetrapod species were located), was found by a planned expedition with the goal of locating this "fishapod". This expedition/experiment did indeed locate the fossils expected. Adding evidence to this transition are Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega.

It's that predictive power that really bolsters any good theory (and in fact, if a theory fails to meet its predictions, said theory is thrown out in favor of theories that work better) and is what makes science such a successful epistemology.

In fact, testing a theory's predictive power is the very basis of science. What predictions does creation theory make that we can test?
[size=50]Teleology]

Whitney

Quote from: "perspective"
Quote from: "Whitney"Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

oh my... Are you kidding me. First, how can you even make the bold claim that evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information. I am floored that you would just through that out there like that. That is out right wrong. Second, please I beg that you produce one instance from nature where new genetic information has been gained by mutation or natural selection. It has never happened. Good gracious you don't even know that what you are saying is impossible.

Perspective.....CALM DOWN AND READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT.  

That's another warning for not trying to discuss this topic in a civil manner...next warning is a 1 week ban.

Recusant

Quote from: "perspective"Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws

Ah, I take it you are referring here to the article from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society  which has been the focus of my replies in this thread.  I find it interesting that you said I shouldn't bother troubling myself with it any further. In fact, I finished slogging through it.  Contrary to your assertion that it shows how a world wide flood as described in the bible would not violate scientific laws, I discovered a minimum of 10 instances where the authors propose conditions or events for which there is absolutely no evidence, several of which are contrary to the current understanding of physical reality. (Violation of scientific law.) Not to mention at least a few out and out misrepresentations of scientific fact. If I, who admittedly don't even have a degree in science, can discover that many problems, then I imagine a fully qualified scientist would be able to slice it up into several nice specimens of fallacy and falsehood. (If you would like me to list what I found, I am prepared to do so.) This is the sort of "science" which is required to reconcile just one bible story with a modern understanding of reality.  No thanks.

I'm quite willing to accept gaps in knowledge as discovered and presented by actual science. You see this as "faith."  I think that what we have here is a simple failure on both of our parts to define terms. Let me start.

From Merriam-Webster:   Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."(2 b 1) (Emphasis added.)

There is plenty of proof, unless you want to discount years and years of scientific investigation and experimentation (which apparently you do),  for the validity of the theory of evolution. It's true that the proof will never be 100% complete, but then again, outside of the realm of religion, and perhaps mathematics, there is no 100% complete validation.  Still, quite strong proof for the theory of evolution does exist. No faith required.

 
Quote from: "perspective"...evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

OK, show me one legitimate, peer reviewed geologist who thinks that the geological strata were laid down in anything like the time scale described in the bible.  I have a feeling you base this assertion on the usual crackpot sources used by creationists the world over.  As I described above, in relation to the article from the  Adventist magazine, there is a reason that these people do not gain acceptance for their theories, and it's not because of a vast conspiracy by the scientific community.  It's simply because they are perpetrating hideously bad science, which in reality does not even deserve that name.

 
Quote from: "perspective"Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

I find this laughable.  Why do you assume I know nothing of Christianity?  Tell me this: Do you presume to know the mind and thoughts of the Christian god?  If not, is such a presumption by any "mere mortal" at least bordering on blasphemous, in your opinion?

 
Quote from: "perspective"The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible.

As I have said previously, and repeated in this post, it is an abject failure when it comes to achieving it's objective.

 
Quote from: "perspective"The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

In fact perspective, I think that you have made your point, but unfortunately most of the members of this board, not to mention Merriam-Webster, apparently  have a different definition of "faith" than you do, so your point is far wide of the mark it seemingly was intended to hit.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Squid

Quote from: "perspective"
Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Life's origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory...you seem so smart and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize this simple distinction.

Tanker

perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

karadan

You can't tell someone like perspective the following:

Evolution does not describe where life came from.

Because it just goes in one ear and out the other. Just like the dozens of times i've told people on youtube the following:

Atheism isn't a religion.

After i've told them this little nugget, i see them using the same 'argument' as before.

 :brick:
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

perspective

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "perspective"Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws

Ah, I take it you are referring here to the article from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society  which has been the focus of my replies in this thread.  I find it interesting that you said I shouldn't bother troubling myself with it any further. In fact, I finished slogging through it.  Contrary to your assertion that it shows how a world wide flood as described in the bible would not violate scientific laws, I discovered a minimum of 10 instances where the authors propose conditions or events for which there is absolutely no evidence, several of which are contrary to the current understanding of physical reality. (Violation of scientific law.) Not to mention at least a few out and out misrepresentations of scientific fact. If I, who admittedly don't even have a degree in science, can discover that many problems, then I imagine a fully qualified scientist would be able to slice it up into several nice specimens of fallacy and falsehood. (If you would like me to list what I found, I am prepared to do so.) This is the sort of "science" which is required to reconcile just one bible story with a modern understanding of reality.  No thanks.

First, you are still not understanding. The article DOES NOT neccesitate proof. ONLY that the module does not violate laws of nature. IT DOESN'T. There are many examples in the the evolution module that a hypothesis is formulated to explain something of which there is NO physical evidence. (i.e. many many transitional forms) So are you saying that you are willing to give up evolution because there is NOT evidence to support many of the hypothesis within the module. You point out the examples where the module violates physical law. You can't just make that claim. Prove it. This was a peer reviewed article. Please show the errors that "you so easily found." It is evolution that is required to reconcile the evidence to fit the module. No thanks to you.  

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm quite willing to accept gaps in knowledge as discovered and presented by actual science. You see this as "faith."  I think that what we have here is a simple failure on both of our parts to define terms. Let me start.

From Merriam-Webster:   Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."(2 b 1) (Emphasis added.)

I completely agree with your definition. Thank you so much for posting it. I should have done that. I will tell you what you have no proof of. You have no proof HOW the strata layers were layed down. ONLY that they were layed down. You have NO proof as to how life started. ONLY that life started. You have NO proof how the diversity of life came about. ONLY that there is diversity. You have many educated guesses, but you do indeed have great faith.

Quote from: "Recusant"There is plenty of proof, unless you want to discount years and years of scientific investigation and experimentation (which apparently you do),  for the validity of the theory of evolution. It's true that the proof will never be 100% complete, but then again, outside of the realm of religion, and perhaps mathematics, there is no 100% complete validation.  Still, quite strong proof for the theory of evolution does exist. No faith required.

I think you have been fooled by how much lack of evidence there actually is. Secular scieintist have a a priori comitment to materialism despite any lack in evidence or in some cases dispite the evidence. I would argue that it is you that is dismissing the clear facts.

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "perspective"...evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

OK, show me one legitimate, peer reviewed geologist who thinks that the geological strata were laid down in anything like the time scale described in the bible.  I have a feeling you base this assertion on the usual crackpot sources used by creationists the world over.  As I described above, in relation to the article from the  Adventist magazine, there is a reason that these people do not gain acceptance for their theories, and it's not because of a vast conspiracy by the scientific community.  It's simply because they are perpetrating hideously bad science, which in reality does not even deserve that name.

I think you know that there is clear evidence that hundreds of layers of strata can be layed down in a matter of moths. You can go look for yourself at Mt. St. Helens. Will you be so bold to say that this never happened. Go look at the deep canyon that was formed within weeks. Go look at the layers that were layed down. That eruption carved a canyon 1/18th the size of the Grand Canyon. So THERE is ABSOLUTE undenyable evidence that strata and canyons can be formed extremely fast. This we have seen. Have you seen billions of years of strata being layed down? UHmm. I have direct observable, testable evidence to support my theory. What do you have?

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "perspective"Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

I find this laughable.  Why do you assume I know nothing of Christianity?  Tell me this: Do you presume to know the mind and thoughts of the Christian god?  If not, is such a presumption by any "mere mortal" at least bordering on blasphemous, in your opinion?

By what authority do you declare something blasphomy? I do not presume to know the thought and mind of Christ. I do know the mind and thoughts of Christ that He reveals through His word. You can never understand this because you deny the spiritual. Are you so bold to think that a supreme God is limited to our three demisions of reality. Are you like God that he must think on your level? You find it laughable because your mind can't comprehend that majesty of the living God.  

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "perspective"The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible.

As I have said previously, and repeated in this post, it is an abject failure when it comes to achieving it's objective.

You said it, but you didn't prove it.

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "perspective"The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

In fact perspective, I think that you have made your point, but unfortunately most of the members of this board, not to mention Merriam-Webster, apparently  have a different definition of "faith" than you do, so your point is far wide of the mark it seemingly was intended to hit.

No, I am quite aware of the definition of faith. It is you that is so blind to that faith that you have that you have called it something else. Show me HOW life began. IF you can not, then your faith lies in pure hypothesis with no proof.

perspective

Quote from: "Squid"
Quote from: "perspective"
Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Life's origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory...you seem so smart and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize this simple distinction.

If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Sophus

QuoteIf I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Perspective: Do you want to learn or do you want to feed your ego? You are not fighting evolution, you're critiquing your misconception of it.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Evolution deals with the origin of human life but not life itself. You are free to believe in God and evolution.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

perspective

Quote from: "Tanker"perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.

So you are willing to say that if the Christian God was proved 100% to exist by science that it would not BY NECESSITY disprove evolution? OR if they proved 100% by science that life CAN form spontanteously that it would not BY NECESSITY prove evolution? You see evolution hinges on the fact that God DOES NOT exist. In the same way, evolution hinges on the fact that life CAN form by natural processes. If you really think you can answer the first two questions "NO" then you must give a substantial explanation. I can assure one does not exist.

perspective

Quote from: "Sophus"
QuoteIf I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Perspective: Do you want to learn or do you want to feed your ego? You are not fighting evolution, you're critiquing your misconception of it.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Evolution deals with the origin of human life but not life itself. You are free to believe in God and evolution.

While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Sophus

Quote from: "perspective"While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Because it does not deal with when/how life began. Yes, science doesn't like supernatural explanations, imagine that. If we would have settled for supernatural explanations how primitive would this earth still be? How ignorant would mankind be? I am certain that biologists will try to figure out the secret to life because they don't like supernatural explanations but until they reach a conclusion on that you may believe life was pulled out of God's hat. But you should also acknowledge that he designed evolution as well.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver