Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
First please fact check my post #108(you seem to be much more knowledgeable on science). Second, if I understand your post you are somewhat supporting my point that science is often man's best guess. Most of the time it is right but it could be wrong.
I believe the appropriate answer is "it's turtles the whole way down".
;-)
"That does not mean further investigation will not make it necessary to revise the theory in light of new evidence. We search for objective truth and are not slave to any particular theory."
Exactly, that is the most scientific statement I have read on this subject for a long time.
If both evolutionist scientists and creationist scientists approached the subject matter with this degree of detachment, the science all round would be better, and it would also progress at a greater rate.
Who's "He"? Thor? Mohammed? Mormoni? Buddha? So many have given so much ... how does one choose? By what they were taught at a young & impressionable age?
I thought that six days of work and one day of rest derived its importance from creation, not that it was important in and of itself. The notion of the sabbath comes from God's day of rest.
It is one thing to believe in evolution, it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms -- like the phrase flaming snowflakes -- but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest, most inefficient system for creation imaginable...
Does God have to make millions of mistakes along the way to have fellowship with you and me?
Well, that's certainly an odd take on the issue. You seem to be endorsing a view that God could not possibly have been responsible for an evolutionary process that resulted in the cruelty and inefficiency we actually observe in nature. Instead, God must have purposefully manipulated all of the minutia of organic matter into ... um ... the cruelty and inefficiency we actually observe in nature.
then would you allow that he could communicate to us his likeness? maybe even teach to us by example by lowering himself to a human form?
well I got you to except the four words of creation "it was very good" part of the bible,hahaha, phew got to take a rest. the fall through resurection will most likely be a bit tougher.
Agreed. And this brings up a bigger point. If you look at the "research" the creationists do, it ALL involves proving the evolutionists wrong. None of it is original research on their part. How do you "prove" God created the universe? You can't, it's an article of faith.
If by "heaven" one means universe, no problem.
I continuing issue I have is that God was not writing a textbook, nor was He addressing a scientific convention, yet many expect His words to be interpreted as if He were.
Okay? So show me my interpretation that does not agree with science. Otherwise, it is your interpretation of my use of biblical quotes which is at variance with science. The fact that I think Darwinism is insufficient to the task for which it purports to suffice is not a biblical interpretation.
Yet they have $25 million for a museum.
Actually, it was widely known in ancient Greece that the earth was round. Erastothanes actually measured the circumference of the earth to a surprisingly high degree of accuracy considering the technology available at the time. The belief in a round earth persisted for most of the history of western civilization, at least among the educated. It was really only the uneducated masses during the middle ages who believed in a flat earth. However, none of that has anything to do with science or what scientists believed. There was really nothing resembling science in ancient Greece or medieval Europe. By the time science became well established, there was little debate (I can't state that there was none since there are still flat-earthers around today) about whether or not the earth was round.
bttt
Christians are being blamed for pollution? That's one I haven't heard before. (Seems like the desperate victimology of certain sects is resulting in some pretty imaginative persecutions.)
You seem to have read what I wrote with your expectations.
Man is imperfect. Correct?
...just as belief in de novo creation of mankind had to change when man learned differently.
If scientist much more knowledgeable than me were so certain of evolution it would be scientific law not scientific theory.
With all due respect, this is complete nonsense. Laws and theories are two different things in science. Theories never get "promoted" to laws. The fact that something is a theory and not a law says absolutely nothing about the degree of confidence in it.
Here's a good overview of the distinction (from http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html):
Speaking of creationist distortions, note how often the creationist websites and books use the "just a theory" or "hasn't been promoted to a law yet, so there" fallacies. The creationist writers either don't know any better (despite this being a very elementary scientific concept) or do know better and are misrepresenting the case -- and neither option inspires confidence.But it's "JUST a THEORY"
Version 1.0
Copyright 1999 by Ken Harding
[last update August 24, 1999]
This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works.
Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution.
You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?
I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology.
Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know what happened. It's still faith." But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person-- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. For example, most Americans are convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to see him do it. The situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.
See also: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
Creationist sources are *very* poor places to try to "learn" about science of any sort. They fail to understand a lot of it, and misrepresent most of the rest.
True, but the real problem with creationism is "How do you prove that God didn't create the universe?" The answer is you can't. The basic premise of creationism is unfalsifiable and hence untestable. Since it is untestable it cannot form the basis for a scientific theory, which by definition must be testable.
I don't need any, the word speaks for itself. I choose to believe it is true. Also I believe God wouldn't inspire it to be written only to let it be incorrect in what it says. Think about it - 66 books, 40 different authors, written over a period of 2000 years and all in perfect harmony. It is so kool, Shalom
PS. consider the sacrifice story and wedding of Isaac in Genesis, it reveals the whole of eternal truth of the entire bible!
Anyone who wants to know more can write me ... wes@brainerd.net
Hebraic Hills Ministry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.