Bible quotes

[djmcmath]

There are actually legions of scientists who think the whole evolution theory is a sham. "Darwin on Trial" makes some excellent arguments against it -- and he's not even a Born-Again-Bible-Thumping-Wacko, to boot.

[Fishcop]

The cool thing about this debate is that no one can be the winner... It's only when you're dead that that you'll know the truth. That's why I don't understand the point of religion, why argue or go to war over it?

[IROC]

Originally posted by djmcmath
There are actually legions of scientists who think the whole evolution theory is a sham. "Darwin on Trial" makes some excellent arguments against it -- and he's not even a Born-Again-Bible-Thumping-Wacko, to boot.

It doesn't make any difference if anyone "thinks evolutionary theory" is a sham or not. Thinking it and proving it are two different things. If any one of these people can prove it's a sham, then why don't they do it? Evidently the rocks they are throwing at the theory are bouncing off.

I also think that, in reality, you'll find very few scientists that think evolutionary theory is a sham.

Mike

[IROC]

Originally posted by Fishcop
The cool thing about this debate is that no one can be the winner... It's only when you're dead that that you'll know the truth. That's why I don't understand the point of religion, why argue or go to war over it?

Very good point. If one steps back and looks at the root of most of the conflicts going on the world right this minute, many of them are based on differences in religious ideals. What a waste.

Mike

[Moses]

Having a graduate degree in genetics, it pleases me to inform you that "evolution" is a provable fact and can easily be demonstrated in the lab. The question is whether random genetic mutation and it's consequences explain the diversity of our planets life forms. Carry on...

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
Rotten tunafish has never grown legs and started quoting Darwin.

Of course not - the bible is it's source of quotes...

[kang]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
Kang: you better look up the word "fact". Just because everyone thinks it is true doesn't make it a fact. I laugh at how scientists break their own rules to prove something they want to believe. Evolution violates several accepted Laws of Physics. To be a fact (in the science world), something has to be proven by being duplicated in a controlled environment. BUZZ, you lose, thank for playing.

So Joe, are you one of the brilliant scientists I speak of? No? Then don’t try to say that evolution violates several accepted laws of physics, because it doesn’t.

Are you trying to say that you are aware that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics but that this fact has escaped the minds of all the brilliant scientists in the world? You know more than them? I don’t think so. BUZZZ, you will lose any argument with them you care to have, thanks for playing. They’ve forgotten more about thermodynamics than you and I will ever know, and evolution does not violate it.

What are the other accepted laws of physics that evolution violates? You used the word “several.” Please name these laws of physics that you are privy too, that legions of scientists, who have dedicated their lives to studying evolution, have missed.

Like I said before, all possible arguments against evolution have already been made to the scientific community, and they have all been rejected. Are you somehow special that you know something that the rest of the world does not know?

I stand by what I said before: The scientific community considers evolution to be a fact. No argument has been made to deter this, not by you, other creationists, or even those with much sharper minds than you and I. So don’t try to argue against it. Thousands of expert scientists will shoot down your feeble arguments in a second.



P.S. I stand by the use of the word “fact." See numbers 3, 4 and 5:

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth


Scientists believe that evolution has "objective reality" (5) and it has "actual existence" (4). There is ample evidence of evolution (3).

[Superman]

Originally posted by IROC
It doesn't make any difference if anyone "thinks evolutionary theory" is a sham or not. Thinking it and proving it are two different things. If any one of these people can prove it's a sham, then why don't they do it? Evidently the rocks they are throwing at the theory are bouncing off.

I also think that, in reality, you'll find very few scientists that think evolutionary theory is a sham.

Mike

I think this is not Dan's point. Nor is it the agenda of any scientist. It's hard to prove a negative, and as it turns out it's also hard to prove a positive. Fact is, notwithstanding Moses' likely correct assertion, the theory that humans evolved from apes by naturally occurring genetic mutations is hardly proven. What we've got is inferential evidence that, at first glance, appears substantially convincing. But any scientist will quickly accept the observation that "science" has been convinced of many things (conclusions) over the years, that upon further reflection were incorrect. Consistent with the inferential evidence at the time, but not consistent with data subsequently gathered. This is why most scientists are slow to draw conclusions that go beyond the evidence, which is what people do when they assert that humans evolved from apes. Dan is correct. There are many objectibve scientists who are rasing questions about the evolution theory. And rightly so. That's what real scientists do.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Superman
But any scientist will quickly accept the observation that "science" has been convinced of many things (conclusions) over the years, that upon further reflection were incorrect. Consistent with the inferential evidence at the time, but not consistent with data subsequently gathered. This is why most scientists are slow to draw conclusions that go beyond the evidence, which is what people do when they assert that humans evolved from apes. Dan is correct. There are many objectibve scientists who are rasing questions about the evolution theory. And rightly so. That's what real scientists do.

You're right. Science has been convinced of many things throughout history that ended up being incorrect. The theory of evolution may end up being thrown into that same category. But...the beauty of science is exactly what you mention above. Science is self-correcting to a very great extent. If something's wrong with a theory, scientists will eventually figure it out. My main point is that so far, *none* of the questions raised have toppled the theory of evolution, so we are left with no other choice than to accept it at this point. I sincerely hope that every scientist that has a problem with evolution comes forward and challenges the theory. Truth, in the end, is the most important thing.

I guess it is everyone's right to choose whether to believe something or not, but unless you've got some firm evidence to disprove something like a scientific theory, I think it's best to defer to the experts (and I ain't one of them).

Mike

[Superman]

Originally posted by IROC
My main point is that so far, *none* of the questions raised have toppled the theory of evolution, so we are left with no other choice than to accept it at this point. I sincerely hope that every scientist that has a problem with evolution comes forward and challenges the theory. Truth, in the end, is the most important thing.

Mike

No, none of the questions have "toppled" evolution as a theory, but by the same token some of those questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered by the proponents of that theory. So, doubt is raised. Again the job of scientists, bless their hearts.

Truth, as it turns out, is fluid. It is elusive and subjective. Scientific theories are almost constantly being revised. Including this one. Anyone seeming to be absolutely convinced that a theory is altogether correct, is either not a scientist, or at least not a scientist who is paying attention.

[kang]

Originally posted by Superman
I think this is not Dan's point. Nor is it the agenda of any scientist. It's hard to prove a negative, and as it turns out it's also hard to prove a positive. Fact is, notwithstanding Moses' likely correct assertion, the theory that humans evolved from apes by naturally occurring genetic mutations is hardly proven. What we've got is inferential evidence that, at first glance, appears substantially convincing. But any scientist will quickly accept the observation that "science" has been convinced of many things (conclusions) over the years, that upon further reflection were incorrect. Consistent with the inferential evidence at the time, but not consistent with data subsequently gathered. This is why most scientists are slow to draw conclusions that go beyond the evidence, which is what people do when they assert that humans evolved from apes. Dan is correct. There are many objectibve scientists who are rasing questions about the evolution theory. And rightly so. That's what real scientists do.

Evolution does NOT say that humans evolved from apes! It never has! I can’t believe there are still people who think this way. This misconception was corrected long, long ago. Evolution says that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

[Superman]

An ancestor that is not an ape and not a human?

[kang]

Originally posted by Superman
An ancestor that is not an ape and not a human?

Exactly.

Evolution can be described as a “tree” with “branches.” A branch split, and one branch became humans and one apes. Just like many fishes have a common ancestor, many birds have a common ancestor, etc.

Here is a good example of the “tree:”

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/trees.htm

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by Superman
Truth, as it turns out, is fluid.

I was following you real good for a while, then you lost me with this one. I'd say that more accurately our understanding of truth is fluid, subjective, etc. For example, the earth has always been round, but we have only recently come to understand that.

[djmcmath]

Kang, I do have a question for you -- can you point me to good examples of fossils that support such a tree? I would be very curious to see solid examples of the foundational evidence that supports this fact of evolution. tia

[kang]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Kang, I do have a question for you -- can you point me to good examples of fossils that support such a tree? I would be very curious to see solid examples of the foundational evidence that supports this fact of evolution. tia

Well, the link above is a good one. I did some google searches (so can you) and found a couple more:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/

http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/gray/miller_figs/Miller.html

[Moses]

Originally posted by djmcmath
There are actually legions of scientists who think the whole evolution theory is a sham.

That's completely wrong. "Evolution" is simply the alteration of a population over time secondary to changes in genetic material.

Consider this simple example;

If we want to examine the effects of change in a human population, it would take a long time as our generation time averages more than 20 years. So let's look at a healthy strain of unmolested E. Coli with a generation time of less than 30 minutes. We can study genetic changes that occur over 50 generations in a single day!

We'll start with a population of a few billion bacterium. We'll add a stress to our healthy population, say, Penicillin. The Penicillin kills 99.999% of our population, but after a few days, the colony is as robust as ever! When we sequence the DNA of our new population and compare it to the original, the new bacteria all share a series of mutations that allow penicillin resistance. If we do this experiment 100 times, we get similar results, but the mutations are generally different.

The point is that the genetic strategy a population uses in order to survive is random. You can't apply any type of environmental stress to a lizard and expect to get a bird. Evolution is non-directional and not likely to be genetically repeatable.
The idea than man evolved from apes is a theory, but genetic evolution is a demonstrable fact.

[Superman]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I was following you real good for a while, then you lost me with this one. I'd say that more accurately our understanding of truth is fluid, subjective, etc. For example, the earth has always been round, but we have only recently come to understand that.

It seems to run even deeper than that. Basically, what Isaac Newton called physical "laws," Einstein later demonstrated are not laws at all but "conventions." He noted that there is no requirement that nature follow Newton's laws. Instead, we call them laws because we think we notice that they are never disobeyed by nature. Well, Einstein and the rest of the quantum physics community discovered otherwise. Sure, nature seems to follow Newtonian physics, but nature also occasional disobey's those "laws." This was somewhat of a surprize to the scientific community, and beyond. To some degree, the dynamic social environment you live in has even been affected by this finding.

As a second example, quantum physics also noticed that truth is subjective. That the results of an experiment actually depend on the specific point of view of the observer. An observer in one location will see one result, another observer to the same phenomenon will see a different result, and the two results cannot be different. But they are.

Then there's what's called the "uncertainty principle" which basically states that there is no actual facts in science. That the length of a rod, under completely controlled conditions, using tools that are incapable of error, will be different each time you measure it. Not because of expansion/contraction. But because the rod does not have a single length. It has a distribution of lengths it will show you.

So yeah. I'd argue, and the scientific community seems settled on this one, that the whole concept of "fact" and "truth" is not so reliable or objective as we thought prior to the 20th century.

So again, the way you can tell who is objective from who is not, who is FOS versus who is providing reliable information, is by whether they seem to think they are certain of stuff. The nimrods are certain of their conclusions. The folks who are objective and reliable are the ones still asking questions. At least, that's how I tell them apart on a daily basis, and it seems to work.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Superman
That the length of a rod, under completely controlled conditions, using tools that are incapable of error, will be different each time you measure it. Not because of expansion/contraction. But because the rod does not have a single length. It has a distribution of lengths it will show you.

That would explain the shocked/disappointment of some of my dates...

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by Moses
You can't apply any type of environmental stress to a lizard and expect to get a bird. Evolution is non-directional and not likely to be genetically repeatable.
The idea than man evolved from apes is a theory, but genetic evolution is a demonstrable fact.

No argument from me, Moses. Well, the only difference would be one of my loose use of definitions: evolution is a theory, as long as we define "theory" as an idea that we have proposed, but aren't sure about. When I said "evolution," I was referring to the philosophy which espouses that lizards did become birds. I will gladly agree that, just like bacteria, lizards change from generation to generation. I will also say that lizards, like bacteria, should never become birds, no matter how many generations you wait.

Supe -- you always seem to force me to think. I may have to stop reading your posts, it just hurts too much. I think I'll stand on my original position: truth is a constant. If something appears to be violating what we think is truth, we just don't have enough understanding to know what truth is. There is still a constant, there is some truth, some explainable reason for currently unexplainable phenomena which will always be constant and definable -- but we may not ever understand it. That doesn't make the truth any less true, it just means we don't understand it.

Did that make sense, or do I need more caffeine?

Dan