Evolutionary trump card

[Coyotero]

Creationists: Something I've always been puzzled about.

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation? Why must divine creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

I would think that evolution could be said to resemble an intelligently-designed process. It makes sense that if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

[Hawkins]

From
Indicating many theists are unable to accept anything that conflicts with their beliefs.

I am not surprised about how theists are biased. I am querying that the atheists are the same.

Hearsay, and useless unless you offer this scientist's words in context for analysis.

It's not a hearsay, it is quoted but I've lost the link thou. A famous evolutionist scientist. Rather, it shows that how you atheist are rigid enough to open to possibilities.

Or do you mean to say the in the history of the development of the ToE, there's no subjective or even fraud conclusions are made?! If you think so, that's out of your religion.

I never was much for the "true X" qualifier. I consider it more a reflection of one's perspective.

Or rather one's belief.

Science is not a court of law, otherwise all the lawyers'd be wearing lab coats It's precepts regarding evidence are stringent, testable, and repeatable.

Science is never about "evidence", it is about rules which are testable and thus falsifyable by the use of critical data.

No. It does however lead to a reasonable and logical conclusion that supports the idea that all species do evolve, some more than others.

There's no religion which is totally nonsense. That's your belief anyway. And it's not science, that's the point.

We don't normally consider C evolving back to B, no. We can reasonably and logically conclude C is evolved from B.

You miss the point here. If bacteria is evolved from, say, virus, will you be able to conclude that human is evolved from monkeys. If bacteria is found to be evolved from virus, then it is evolved from virus, no less no more. To give further implication is not scientific ( doesn't mean it's not reasonable thou).

I agree there's some measure of faith involved, but contend this faith is nowhere near that required for god beliefs. The faith in the ToE is borne of much data across various disperate fields, testable, repeatable, and sound in its core.

That's a matter of perspective, bearing in mind that God's belief is a religion while ToE is claimed to be science. Unless in your perspective relgion makes no difference from science.

Based on a reasonable and logical conclusion that million year old fossils are "history".

You miss the point again. The point is, history can hardly be proven scientifically. Again it doesn't mean that you can't make reasonable deduction. Yet it's not science, it is history study.

The ToE predicts transitional forms. We've found them in various species such as tiktaalik, et. al.

Scientifically, it predicts nothing, not before it figures out under what environmental conditions evolution shall occur, such as temperature, humidity and so forth. The so called prediction by ToE is a joke, unless you consider prediction of evolution is possible without knowing those environmental conditions.

And you dare to claim what is and is not science? Please offer some means to verify this "mark of the beast".

Vague claims of doom and gloom hardly qualify as science.

Right, that's why your weighing in a scientific way is hilarous. Prophecies are always something spiritual, something abstract but can be mind-bogling. So leave it there for those having a spiritual sense to comprehend.

[micatala]

Creationists: Something I've always been puzzled about.

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation? Why must divine creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

I would think that evolution could be said to resemble an intelligently-designed process. It makes sense that if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

Because people can hardly be neutral about the study. They use them as religion, if you are willing to speculate, you'll notice that 99% of the evolutionists in religion forums defending evolution are atheists.

Let's put this to the test.

I am a born again Christian and I quite regularly defend evolution on these forums.

I will point out that Chimp is also a Christian and I think accepts that evolution is a fact.

Over the last three pages of this thread, I see five atheists, two Christians, and one Jew who is also an atheist defending evolution. I see one whose belief I am not sure of.

I see two Christians, counting yourself, questioning evolution.

6 out of 8 or 7 out of 9 is a little far from 99% in my view.

If you investigate, you will see that there are a number of other theists who accept that evolution is a fact and defend that notion on the forum.

I bearly remember that a famous evolutionist "scientist" admitted that there are alot of things involved in developing ToE are frauds and false evidence. Which says some "scientists" can't be objective in the study and research of ToE.

There are literally thousands of criminal cases decided each year. Every now and then, we find one where fraud or misconduct on the part of authorities has occurred. These cases are usually brought to light by the authorities themselves.

Same with evolutionary science. We have just a few cases of frauds among the thousands and thousands of articles, artifiacts, etc. that support evolution. These have usually been discovered as frauds (like Piltdown man) by scientists.

It is simply untrue that the veracity of evolution depends in any way on these frauds, or that frauds are somehow prevalent within evolutionary science.

The point, why this human phenominon almost exclusively occurred in the field of evolution, but not in other field of science. It's because true science never allows these frauds to occur. True science is about the discovery of natural rules which bears the characteristic of predictability, falsifyability and repeated testability. You can't lie, as the rules discovered are falsifyable.

Evolution however is not scientifically falsifyable, thus people can be subjective and even lie in the field of evolution.

Can you provide some evidence that evolutionary scientists lie any more than any other scientists?

I will point out the theory of evolution is falsifiable and is true science and is based on repeated testability.

We have repeatedly tested the notion that life has changed a great deal over time. We have repeatedly found, for example, the trilobites did not live at the same time as dinosaurs, nor dinosaurs with mammoths. Evolution has passed all of these tests.

Science is twisted for such an agenda that the nature of science itself is not about the collection of evidence. Unlimited evidence actually cannot be used to prove a theory or law. For example, the alphabet "9" consists of small circle and a straight line, with the unlimited pair of the "evidence" inside the straight line howver cannot "prove" that the "9" is a straight line. Science is however about how to first represent the nature of "9" using a mathematical equation (or something to that effect), instead of collecting points to show that it is a "straight line".

While I disagree that science is "twisted" it is certainly true that science does not provide absolute truth. Rather, science provides well-supported theories which explains natural phenomenon. The theories are based on lots of evidence. We have found that the theories and conclusions of science are typically very reliable. Witness the automobile, for example, or medicine, or our ability to get to the moon.

Such an implication is used often by evolutionists yet it is not valid scientifically. If you speculate that species A evolved to B, you can only conclude that A has evolved to B. You can't extend it to say that because A has been evolved to B, such that C must have evolved to B.

You can't extend it to say that every species evolves because I speculated that A evolved. Such an implication is FAITH, not science. Such a faith is needed by the evolutionists because there is virtually zero natural rules discovered in the field of evolution.

You seem to think that if we observe reproduction in one species and that the children are similar but not identical to the parents we should not infer that this was happening in the past. Evolution IS based on some assumptions, but these assumptions are very reasonable and based on what we observe in the present.

1) Each individual within a species produces individuals also in that species.
2) We assume this has been happening as long as life has existed.
3) We see that the record of life in the fossils show that life is very different today than 10 million years ago, and that life was very different from life 50 million years ago, etc.

Now, if we look back for our ancestors 2 million years ago we have a couple of choices.

1) Our ancestors are something like one of the species that existed at that time.
Thus, if there are no species exactly like us at that time, but some that are somewhat similar, we could conclude our ancestors are like the similar species.
OR
2) We could assume our ancestors were always just like us, but for some reason, evidence of beings like us only goes back 200,000 years and no evidence of our ancestors past that time continues to exist or has been found.

Now, if we were talking only about one species, one might conclude 2 is more reasonable than 1. The problem is, we are presented with this choice for every single of the several million currently existing species on the planet.

For some of these species we DO find a long record of their existence on the planet. Coelocanth and sharks are two examples.

For almost all species, we do not see a record of our existence in the distant past, only we do see some that are similar to us in the recent past, a little less similar a little further back, etc.

THus, 1) is really the only reasonable choice. To think otherwise one must come up with some mechanism for how the fossil record got to be what it is other than evolution, including a mechanism for how, many millions of different times, evidence of existing species got somehow obliterated from the record for most but not all of the existing species.



Accepting evolution actually takes much LESS faith than the alternatives.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 170:

I am not surprised about how theists are biased. I am querying that the atheists are the same.

Humans. What can you do? I agree there's plenty bias to go around.

Hearsay, and useless unless you offer this scientist's words in context for analysis.

It's not a hearsay, it is quoted but I've lost the link thou. A famous evolutionist scientist. Rather, it shows that how you atheist are rigid enough to open to possibilities.

I know a better qualified scientist that refuted your unnamed, unquoted scientist.

Do you see the problem with claiming folks said something without offering that quote in context?

I ask again, who is this scientist, and what does he say in context?

If you are unwilling, or unable to offer this information I request you refrain from making claims regarding what this person says.

Or do you mean to say the in the history of the development of the ToE, there's no subjective or even fraud conclusions are made?! If you think so, that's out of your religion.

Of course there's been frauds, but in the vast majority of cases the scientists are able to get past these.

I ask again, do you contend no frauds have been put forth for a given religious point?

I never was much for the "true X" qualifier. I consider it more a reflection of one's perspective.

Or rather one's belief.

Belief, perspective, whatever. My point is that using the qualifier "true X" is an indication one will disregard the evidence.

Science is never about "evidence", it is about rules which are testable and thus falsifyable by the use of critical data.

This is the second time you've said or implied science is not built on evidence. This is so far from the mark I'll leave your claim to the observer.

No. It does however lead to a reasonable and logical conclusion that supports the idea that all species do evolve, some more than others.

There's no religion which is totally nonsense. That's your belief anyway. And it's not science, that's the point.

Please reread what you quote me as saying. Nowhere in that quote do I say religion is totally nonsense. I merely said that when we observe many species evolving we can reasonably and logically conclude all do. Of course there are "ancient" forms, such as crocodilians, but the fact remains that evolution occurs.

You miss the point here. If bacteria is evolved from, say, virus, will you be able to conclude that human is evolved from monkeys.

Not so much from monkeys, but from a common ancestor. The evidence and conclusions regarding human evolution are not so dependent on bacterial/viral evolution, but are supported by b/v evolution, in that we see both have evolved.

If it is found today that bacteria don't evolve, we still can make a reasoned, logical conclusion humans have evolved from previous forms.

That's a matter of perspective, bearing in mind that God's belief is a religion while ToE is claimed to be science. Unless in your perspective relgion makes no difference from science.

Is it your contention there is no data supporting the ToE?

Religion is different from science, in that scientific claims are built on often volumes of data. The only "evidence" for religion is built on speculation, personal incredulity, and the flimsiest of logic.

You miss the point again. The point is, history can hardly be proven scientifically. Again it doesn't mean that you can't make reasonable deduction. Yet it's not science, it is history study.

I think you're trying too hard to equate the study of history with the study of scientific issues. Surely when one looks back they are studying history, this is fair to say. However, it is by the application of the various scientific principles, studies and conclusions of the evidence that science has the better track record.

Scientifically, it predicts nothing, not before it figures out under what environmental conditions evolution shall occur, such as temperature, humidity and so forth.

I say again, the ToE makes the prediction that "advanced" forms, such as rabbits, will not be found in the Cambrian. This prediction has yet to be shown in error. Even if that error is eventually shown, there's still plenty of evidence to suggest that animals evolve.

The so called prediction by ToE is a joke, unless you consider prediction of evolution is possible without knowing those environmental conditions.

The ToE predicts you will not find fish in locations that were not previously under water. It's held for quite some time now, with no indication we'll find fish fossils in what was (at 'fossilizing' time) a desert.

And you dare to claim what is and is not science? Please offer some means to verify this "mark of the beast".

Right, that's why your weighing in a scientific way is hilarous. Prophecies are always something spiritual, something abstract but can be mind-bogling. So leave it there for those having a spiritual sense to comprehend.

So then, you are admitting you can't verify this "mark of the beast"?

Much like your claims of a scientist saying stuff, and the inabilit or refusal to offer the scientist's name, much less his contextual quote, you make claims and are unable or unwilling to offer any means to verify you speak truth.

Notice, we must have a "spiritual sense" to comprehend your claims. We must, because they confound any scientific sense.