I dont believe in evolution

[Zzyzx]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 35 by Bust Nak]

Well, before we even get started here, allow me to go ahead and share with you the same thing I shared with, "Zzyzx."

I was having this same debate with another member who happen to supply articles which would be in support of evolution in its totality. I actually read these articles, and although they come right to the edge of proclaiming that, "evolution in its totality would be a fact", they all stop short of this, and for good reason.

The reason is the fact, that evolution in its totality has not been demonstrated to be a scientific fact, and here is a direct quote from one of those articles that would have been championing the idea of, evolution in its totality.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

It's that simple! You can believe it to be a fact. You can infer it to be a fact. But you cannot proclaim it to be a scientific fact, because it is not, because it does not measure up to the standard in order to be considered a scientific fact.

I will also suggest that there are reasons for holding this standard, and one of those reasons would be so that we as laymen would not be dependent on the opinion of the majority of what would be a scientific fact, and it also protects from bias being involved.

So then, either you agree that evolution in its totality would not be a scientific fact. Or you are under the burden to demonstrate how it has met the standard, which would necessarily involve, observation, and it is impossible for evolution in its totality to be observed.

No, I don't see. We do have empirical evidence" for evolution in its totality, including but not limited to what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species.

Here is a definition of, "empirical evidence."

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

So what kind of observation, or experimentation has been performed, that would constitute that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact? Because as you can clearly see, we have a scientific article, which would clearly be defending evolution in it totality, and it clearly states, "evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

I think one can clearly see, how it regretfully acknowledges this fact.

Why not? It's fairly easy to observing evolution in totality, a process that takes million of years, in a lab over a few years. That's how we use small changes in organisms to demonstrate that evolution in its totality as a scientific fact.

I am afraid that is not how it works, which is exactly why the article had to admit, "evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact" because it would be impossible to observe, and small changes in organisms would in no way demonstrate that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact.

In fact, these small changes in organisms would not even demonstrate that evolution in its totality would even be possible. Rather, the most that can be said is, "it may be evidence that may be possible." It certainly does not demonstrate that it is possible. There is no way to demonstrate that evolution in its totality has ever occured.

So infer away, that's the whole point of producing empirical evidence. It seems you have a very different idea of what empirical evidence and scientific observation is, you don't seem to be connecting "inferred" with "demonstration."

INFER: to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
to guess; speculate; surmise.
to hint; imply; suggest.

DEMONSTRATE: to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove:

My friend, there is a tremendous difference between something that is inferred, as opposed to something which has been demonstrated to be a fact, and evolution in its totality can only be, inferred, because it has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

Sure, see any number of genetic experiments, fossils, and directly observed example of speication.

spe-ci-a-tion: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

My friend, this has never been observed. Now, there have been small changes that have been observed in different organisms, but they continue to be the same organisms. What we are talking about is, one type of organism, evolving into another type of organism, and this can only be, inferred.

You know like me? I can look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, and I can infer that it did indeed take place, but this is not the same as actually observing the event, and it certainly would not demonstrate it to be a fact, and it is the same with evolution in its totality. It can only be, inferred!

But that simply isn't true.

Sure it is! Let's clear this up. There is evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus. There would also be evidence to support evolution in its totality. However, this evidence for the Resurrection, and evolution in its totality, does not demonstrate, or prove, the Resurrection, or evolution in its totality would be a fact. Rather, one can only infer these things based upon the evidence.

The fact of the matter is, if evolution in its totality has been observed, and demonstrated to be a fact, then we could not be having this debate, because the matter would be settled.

[Zzyzx]

.
RWJ, I appreciate your thoughtful and coherent responses. Weve been doing this for years, havent we? Although we both tend to be a bit verbose, I have taken mercy on readers by replying to only some of your post. If anything particularly significant was omitted, kindly let me know.

New twist? "Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

Well, I happen to run across this phrase when I was having this same debate with "filthy tugboat" on another thread, and I was attempting to explain to him that evolution, (meaning what we have classified as one species, evolving from what we have classified as another) would not be a scientific fact.

He continued to argue that it would be a fact, and even supplied articles in which I assume he believed that the articles were saying that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact. However, I actually read these articles which were indeed in support of evolution in its totality, and they skate real close to the edge of claiming evolution in its totality would be a fact, but they stop short.

In fact, here is a direct quote from one of these articles, which would indeed be in support of evolution in its totality, and this is where I ran across this phrase that has saved me some typing.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

So then, as you can see, this article would be in support of "evolution in its totality", and they say everything but, it would be a scientific fact, and this is where I found the phrase which has indeed helped me out.

That discourse avoids answering the question, "Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

Has anything about Christianity or the Bible been established 'in its totality'?

I thought I explained this pretty thoroughly in the other post when I said,

Like evolution (and when I refer to evolution I will be speaking of evolution in its totality) the Resurrection of Jesus would not be a demonstrable fact. Also like evolution, there may be very good, and solid reasons, along with evidence to come to the conclusion that the Resurrection may have indeed taken place.

I think this should pretty well explain that neither, evolution in its totality, nor Christianity in its totality, have been established. With this being the case, no matter where you stand on either issue, the most you can do, is to explain what you believe, and why you believe it.

You are using the term evolution in its totality without saying exactly what it means. If we are to intelligently discuss a subject, it must be identified / defined / described.

What is the evidence to support resurrection beyond:

Tales of a tomb
Tales of Joseph of Arimathea
Tales of 'men' or 'angels'
Tales of a tomb being empty
Tales of people seeing the deceased

ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales.

This is the whole point. Neither, Christianity, nor evolution in its totality have been substantiated to the point that they can be demonstrated to be facts.

Correction: the tales mentioned above are substantiated by NOTHING other than the tales themselves and opinions expressed by believers.

Biology, genetics, evolution are supported by tens of thousands of studies worldwide.

I trust that readers realize that attempting to equate the two is folly (and an unproductive debate move).

And yet, there are those who believe evolution in its totality took place, while there are those who doubt, along with there being those who believe Christianity, along with those who doubt, and there very well may be those who accept both.

Much the same could have been said when disagreement arose concerning the Solar System " with some maintaining that the Sun was central (based on astronomy) and some maintaining that the Earth was central (based on ancient tales, mythology, and personal testimonials)

Eventually the latter group found that their position was untenable after a century or so " slow learners.

However, I would like to point out what I believe to be some faulty logic on your part, and that is when you say,

ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales.

What source are you talking about? Because you see, the Bible cannot really be said to be a source.

I agree that the Bible should not be regarded as a source for anything other than a study of ancient tales and mythology. Unfortunately, many seem to regard it as a reliable source of information about history, knowledge, morals, and extraterrestrial / supernatural beings " not to mention The WORD of God.

Not the first Biblical author would have had any idea at all, that what they were writing would have been contained in what we now call the Bible.

So what? Many authors write articles on various topics have no idea that their work may later be included in an anthology (a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler). Does that somehow verify their work as being truthful and accurate?

In fact, all the letters contained in the NT would be evidence of those who wrote them, what they were proclaiming, how they lived their life, and some of these letters would demonstrate this, as being decades of their life, well into their old age.

A person proclaiming things is no evidence of truth or accuracy or significance beyond themselves.

Of course, we can insist that it all must have been based upon a lie, that they all knew it to be a lie, but this possibility would not explain everything. Moreover, if it was indeed all based upon a lie, that all these authors were aware of, then this story would be just as amazing as if they were actually reporting the truth.

Rather than considering said writings a lies, they may be regarded as beliefs of the author (which are not necessarily true and accurate (such as delusions, sales literature)

I mean think about it? All these men would have been ordinary men, who knew what they were proclaiming in these letters, to only others at the time, would have been based upon a lie, knowing full well this lie would have caused them much trouble as we see in the life of Paul, and not only do they continue to proclaim these things, all the way up to things such as prison, there is evidence they did so, well into their old age.[/quote]
Has someone in this discussion based their position on declaring that Gospel writers were lying?

If not, why raise a straw man?

And, these ordinary men, not only succeed in continuing with these lies in their own lifetime, they are somehow able to make this lie succeed, some 2000 years in the future, so much so, that the very man they are proclaiming, somehow is proclaimed to be "the most influential man in the history of the world" by "Time" magazine, among others.

Time magazine is not known as a paragon of historical knowledge. Have you consulted multiple professional historians?

I am telling you, either way, this is an amazing tale, and I am not sure which one would be the, most amazing.

Of course then, we can look at other possibilities such as, delusion, deception, etc., but I am here to tell you, that none of these ideas work out any better. I can tell you I have thought through all these possibilities, as I read these letters contained in the Bible, and they simply do not add up, and they end up being just as amazing as if they were reporting the truth.

Opinion noted.

As you can see, this subject becomes very in depth, and we would just be getting started here, because there would be much more to consider. I understand that it is extremely difficult to believe some of the things written in these letters that are contained in the Bible, but the fact of the matter would be, the only reason we have to doubt these things, is only, and simply the miraculous content. If you take away the miraculous content, I highly doubt anyone would give these things a second thought.

If we take away the miraculous content, Christianity based on notions of people as they lived thousands of years ago " and is limited by the real world knowledge base of people from that era.

However, it is also not as simple as "ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales." Nor is it as simple as "these things are simply to extraordinary to believe." Because you see, there would be a lot more involved than this, and this would be simply looking for simple, and easy answers to a question that is far more complex.

Have any supernatural tales (miraculous content) been substantiated by observers / writers OTHER THAN those telling biblical tales?

With all this being said, (and again it is just the tip of the iceberg) I have no problem with those who may doubt, and even do not believe. My problem comes in with those who insist that it must and has to be false, and that there would be no reason, nor evidence to base a belief upon.

I, for one among many, DOUBT the truth and accuracy of bible miraculous content " WITHOUT declaring the tales false.

Because you see, there must, and has to be an explanation for the letters we have contained in the Bible, and simply claiming that they all must be based upon some sort of lie, simply does not explain it.

AGAIN, I (and many others) do not claim lie. Kindly drop that straw man argument when addressing my comments.

In the same way, there are many who may be convinced that evolution in its totality has indeed occurred, and I have no problem with this, as long as they do not insist that it must, and has to be true, and that I must accept it as a fact, when it has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

Again, evolution occurs when bacteria become antibiotic resistant.

Does Evolution in its totality demand that all parts be true? Geneticists, and sciences in general, do not make that claim. Instead, ongoing research is used to update, correct, modify, replace information found lacking.

Christianity in its totality or The bible in its totality would be comparable. Unless one claims inerrancy and infallibility, they acknowledge that neither are true in totality. So what?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 42 by Zzyzx]

RWJ, I appreciate your thoughtful and coherent responses. Weve been doing this for years, havent we?

Well thanks! And yes we have, and I am certainly happy to have you back, the challenge is much welcomed.

If anything particularly significant was omitted, kindly let me know.

Well just one thing I can think of, which would be your response to what was said in the article which would have been in support of evolution in its totality, which was,

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

Of course, now your question would be,

"Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

I am sort of surprised that you would not understand this, since this article was in absolute support of evolution, and yet they knew that "evolution in its totality" should not be called a fact.

At any rate, allow me to attempt to explain. I would think that when most ordinary folk think of evolution, they are thinking of the process of, what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species. As an example, I would think, that when most folks think of evolution, they are thinking of say, the human evolving from the ape.

With this being the case, when these ordinary folk, such as myself, hear scientists, or read scientific articles, which say, "evolution is indeed a fact" they are thinking then, that science has demonstrated, that species such as the human, have evolved from other species, such as the ape.

However, what I have discovered is, this is not what they are saying in the least. Rather, the small changes in particular organisms, such as bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, or certain bird species, whose beaks have been observed to have changes, are now considered to fall under the definition of, evolution.

With this being the case, this would be the only way in which evolution can be said to be a fact. However, we all know that evolution would entail far more than these type of things.

As I have said in the past, "when I was coming along in school, these sort of small changes was not referred to as evolution, but was rather referred to as, "adaptation." As an example, here is the biological definition of adaptation from an online dictionary,

a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

So then, while these small changes in certain organisms have been observed, the evolution of what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species, has not been observed.

In other words, the human evolving from anything else, has not been observed. So then, as the article explained so well, "Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

Well, while I would really love to respond to the rest, allow to simply respond to the very next thing to keep it from becoming so long, and we will take it from there.

Correction: the tales mentioned above are substantiated by NOTHING other than the tales themselves and opinions expressed by believers.

At least you are moving in the right direction by removing the word, "Biblical" in order to describe the tales, which brings us to the next question.

Since all these authors cannot really be said to be tied to the Bible, how many independent reports would it actually take, in order for one to come to the conclusion, that the reports may indeed have some sort of validity?

Because you see, when we understand that we have authors, who were simply writing letters to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would have ever been read by anyone else, other than their intended audience at the time, and they certainly were not writing in order to be contained in the Bible, which they could have known nothing of, we begin to see, we have multiple reports, which can only be demonstrated to be tied together, simply because they have been composed in the same book, without their knowledge of such a thing.

So again, how many reports does it take? How can we demonstrate that these authors were tied together in any way, other than being contained in the Bible, which they would have had no idea of?

Biology, genetics, evolution are supported by tens of thousands of studies worldwide.

And yet, even though there are many who would love to be able to say, "evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact" according to one article, which would be in support of evolution in its totality, it does not "quite measure up."

I trust that readers realize that attempting to equate the two is folly (and an unproductive debate move).

Well in fact, the two can indeed equate very well, depending on which way you look at it.

In other words, there seem to be many Christians who seem to insist things like the Resurrection, would be a foregone conclusion, and insist that it must, and has to be true, when there would be far more involved.

On the other hand, we have those who seem to be under the impression that evolution in its totality would be a foregone conclusion, when it does not measure up to the standard to be considered a scientific fact.

It seems to me, we would all be better served, to stick to the facts. In other words, there would be evidence to support the Christian claims, and there would be evidence to support evolution in its totality. However, neither Christianity in its totality, nor evolution in its totality, have been demonstrated to be facts.

[Zzyzx]

.
Apologies to readers for the length of this post. RWJ and I have a years-long history of verbose posts . . .

"Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

I am sort of surprised that you would not understand this, since this article was in absolute support of evolution, and yet they knew that "evolution in its totality" should not be called a fact.

My understanding of evolution, though far from complete, is based on many years of exposure to writing / research of a large number of geneticists " not upon reading one article promoting one persons opinion.

At any rate, allow me to attempt to explain. I would think that when most ordinary folk think of evolution, they are thinking of the process of, what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species. As an example, I would think, that when most folks think of evolution, they are thinking of say, the human evolving from the ape.

Yes, ordinary folk equate evolution with human evolving from ape.

I am not much impressed with what average people think about nature. A quarter of the US population thinks that the Sun revolves around the Earth https://www.livescience.com/43593-ameri ... ience.html and about the same percentage believe that Bigfoot is real.

With this being the case, when these ordinary folk, such as myself, hear scientists, or read scientific articles, which say, "evolution is indeed a fact" they are thinking then, that science has demonstrated, that species such as the human, have evolved from other species, such as the ape.

I do not take responsibility for mistakes of others

We address these issues from considerably different perspective. Although I am not a geneticist, I did take undergraduate and graduate courses in bacteriology and genetics (slightly afield from my concentration in Earth Science).

I do not pretend to be well informed in fields outside my specialty " and do not claim to understand advanced electronics, engineering, aeronautics for instance " and do not critique the work of specialists in those fields. The general public does not understand the intricacies of those fields either and generally acknowledges being unqualified to pass judgment on the work of experts.

However, when it comes to evolution many Apologists seem to feel qualified to not only apply their own definitions but also to expound upon their own interpretation and critique / criticism of professional studies " after reading ancient texts and perhaps reading a few articles. That would be akin to untrained people feeling qualified to judge the merits of the design concepts involved in bridges or airplanes.

However, what I have discovered is, this is not what they are saying in the least. Rather, the small changes in particular organisms, such as bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, or certain bird species, whose beaks have been observed to have changes, are now considered to fall under the definition of, evolution.

That is not a recent conclusion (now considered) to geneticists. That you (generic term) recently encountered the concept does not make it a recent development.

With this being the case, this would be the only way in which evolution can be said to be a fact. However, we all know that evolution would entail far more than these type of things.

What, exactly, does evolution entail?

As I have said in the past, "when I was coming along in school, these sort of small changes was not referred to as evolution, but was rather referred to as, "adaptation."

Perhaps we all should keep learning beyond what we learned in school. I, and many others, suggest that learning should be a lifetime activity.

As an example, here is the biological definition of adaptation from an online dictionary,

a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

So then, while these small changes in certain organisms have been observed, the evolution of what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species, has not been observed.

Evolution is NOT one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species according to geneticists (people who actually study such things).

Instead, evolution is defined by geneticists as genetic change through generations

Those are VERY different concepts.

Shall we go with your definition or the definition used by professional geneticists?

I suggest that we use the definition of evolution supplied by geneticists rather than one preferred by the general public (that is still doubtful of the heliocentric solar system) or Apologists or Theologians.

In other words, the human evolving from anything else, has not been observed.

A large boulder is at the base of a cliff. Its makeup matches rock hundreds of feet higher. No one observed the boulder falling. Shall we conclude that a supernatural force placed the boulder OR shall we conclude that the boulder originated high on the cliff?

Changes through mutation (evolution) might be illustrated by considering little changes becoming big changes in anything " say modes of transportation. First came (likely) foot travel, then riding animals, then wagons, then horseless carriages, then airplanes. Small changes occurring along the way result in big changes overall. Exact identification of the instance of change from foot travel to riding animals (which none of us observed) is immaterial to understanding that change has occurred.

So then, as the article explained so well, "Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

Notice that the Theory of Evolution is identified as Theory. Those who actually study such things realize that there are gaps in knowledge and understanding.

However, evolution (as defined by geneticists; genetic change through generations) HAS been and IS observed.

I understand that many people dislike the idea that they (humans) are evolved from (and closely related to) other animals. In fact, some maintain that humans are NOT animals, but are above them. Not many who actually study biology and genetics maintain that notion.

Since all these authors cannot really be said to be tied to the Bible,

Kindly list the authors substantiating bible miracle tales that are NOT tied to the Bible (or part of the Bible)

how many independent reports would it actually take, in order for one to come to the conclusion, that the reports may indeed have some sort of validity?

Are there ANY independent reports (not tied to the Bible or part of the Bible) of the miracle stories and claims on which Christianity is based? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Casting demons into swine (and/or other miracle tales)?

Because you see, when we understand that we have authors, who were simply writing letters to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would have ever been read by anyone else, other than their intended audience at the time, and they certainly were not writing in order to be contained in the Bible, which they could have known nothing of, we begin to see, we have multiple reports, which can only be demonstrated to be tied together, simply because they have been composed in the same book, without their knowledge of such a thing.

Are the writings to which you refer part of the Bible or are they not?

The Bible is an anthology (a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler). Notice that the compiler selects works to be included. A selection process was evidently used by church officials to accept some writings for inclusion and reject others.

So again, how many reports does it take? How can we demonstrate that these authors were tied together in any way, other than being contained in the Bible, which they would have had no idea of?

A company brochure is produced from writings by salesmen that are selected by management to be included. Would anyone claim that the writings selected were not tied together?

Biology, genetics, evolution are supported by tens of thousands of studies worldwide.

And yet, even though there are many who would love to be able to say, "evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact" according to one article, which would be in support of evolution in its totality, it does not "quite measure up."

There are likely to be dissenters to ANY idea, scientific or not. One opinion does not equal or negate general acceptance.

It seems to me, we would all be better served, to stick to the facts.

If we stick to the facts WHAT does Christianity have to offer beyond an anthology of unverified tales by writers whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians?

In other words, there would be evidence to support the Christian claims,

Kindly cite verifiable evidence to support Christian claims that is independent of the Bible.

[William]

I personally have no problem with the idea that my idea of GOD as it stands, created everything through the device of evolution.

Splendid!

Awesome!

[Bust Nak]

The reason is the fact, that evolution in its totality has not been demonstrated to be a scientific fact

But that's not a fact at all. The opposite is true.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

It's that simple!

It would be simple, if not for the fact that evolution in its totality does match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

You can believe it not to a scientific fact. You can infer it to be a falsehood. But you cannot proclaim it is not a scientific fact, because it measures up to the standard in order to be considered a scientific fact.

I will also suggest that there are reasons for holding this standard, and one of those reasons would be so that we as laymen would not be dependent on the opinion of the majority of what would be a scientific fact, and it also protects from bias being involved.

Right, but the problem isn't with the standard itself, the problem is with the failure to recognised that the standard has been met.

So then, either you agree that evolution in its totality would not be a scientific fact. Or you are under the burden to demonstrate how it has met the standard, which would necessarily involve, observation...

Easy enough when all the hard work has already been done by scientists, all I have to do is link to their work.

Here is a definition of, "empirical evidence."

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

So what kind of observation, or experimentation has been performed, that would constitute that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact?

My favourite go to example would be Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment.

Because as you can clearly see, we have a scientific article, which would clearly be defending evolution in it totality, and it clearly states, "evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

There seems to be a mixed of terms there. Sure evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact, but it does meet the the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

I am afraid that is not how it works...

But that's exactly how it works, you see, "it has been tested many times, and we see so many examples of the process, along with an abundance of evidence pointing to it, and no evidence against it." That's how we observe and demonstrate that evolution in its totality as a scientific fact.

INFER: to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
to guess; speculate; surmise.
to hint; imply; suggest.

DEMONSTRATE: to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove:

I don't see how that help you case, when the inference in question is derive by reasoning, concluded from evidence, making evident and establish by reasoning, prove evolution.

My friend, this has never been observed.

Of course it has been, see the links already provided for a list of such observations.

You know like me?

Not particularly, no. Because none of what you referred to here is empirical.

Sure it is! Let's clear this up. There is evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus. There would also be evidence to support evolution in its totality. However, this evidence for the Resurrection, and evolution in its totality, does not demonstrate, or prove, the Resurrection, or evolution in its totality would be a fact. Rather, one can only infer these things based upon the evidence.

Unacceptable. Evolution in its totality has been observed, and demonstrated to be a scientific fact, and we are only having this debate, because it contradicts with certain literal interpretation of certain holy text.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 44 by Zzyzx]

My understanding of evolution, though far from complete, is based on many years of exposure to writing / research of a large number of geneticists " not upon reading one article promoting one persons opinion.

I don't really know all that much about evolution, and have not studied it very much at all. However, I really do not believe one has to put a whole lot of study into the subject, to understand what would constitute a scientific fact. From the internet,

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

With this being the case, one does not have to study evolution very much at all, to understand that the human evolving from anything else, has not been observed. So then, as the article which I referred to, which would have been in support of evolution in its totality, explained so well, "Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

Now, this statement is either correct, or it is incorrect. I happen to understand it to be correct. In other words, a human evolving from anything else, has not been observed, or verified.

In fact, this would not be the only article which "tugboat" supplied which said the same thing. Another article he supplied, which again would be in support of evolution in its totality claimed, "evolution must be inferred."

So again, either evolution in its totality would, and can be considered a scientific fact, or these articles would be correct to say that, "it does not quite measure up to the standard to be referred to as a scientific fact."

Yes, ordinary folk equate evolution with human evolving from ape.

Okay, the question then would be, would these ordinary folk be correct, to be under the impression that this sort of thing would be evolved with evolution? In other words, would evolution entail the human evolving from other life forms, and has this been observed, and verified to the point that it can be referred to as a scientific fact? Or, can it only be inferred?

I am not much impressed with what average people think about nature. A quarter of the US population thinks that the Sun revolves around the Earth https://www.livescience.com/43593-ameri ... ience.html and about the same percentage believe that Bigfoot is real.

But this is not the question. The question again would be, would the average person be correct to understand that evolution in its totality, would involve the human evolving from other life forms?

I do not take responsibility for mistakes of others

Is this to say that evolution in its totality would not involve the human evolving form any other life form?

We address these issues from considerably different perspective. Although I am not a geneticist, I did take undergraduate and graduate courses in bacteriology and genetics (slightly afield from my concentration in Earth Science).

I do not pretend to be well informed in fields outside my specialty " and do not claim to understand advanced electronics, engineering, aeronautics for instance " and do not critique the work of specialists in those fields. The general public does not understand the intricacies of those fields either and generally acknowledges being unqualified to pass judgment on the work of experts.

As I have said, I do not believe that any of us has to be all that informed to be aware as to whether or not it would be a scientific fact, that the human evolved from any other life form? Or, is it simply inferred?

However, when it comes to evolution many Apologists seem to feel qualified to not only apply their own definitions but also to expound upon their own interpretation and critique / criticism of professional studies " after reading ancient texts and perhaps reading a few articles. That would be akin to untrained people feeling qualified to judge the merits of the design concepts involved in bridges or airplanes.

As I have already demonstrated, I do not need to refer to any "ancient texts" in order to demonstrate that the human evolving from any other life form, has not been observed.

Listen! I am not the one who came up with the idea of what it would take to constitute a scientific fact. You seem to be asking me to ignore this definition, and simply accept it as a fact?

That is not a recent conclusion (now considered) to geneticists. That you (generic term) recently encountered the concept does not make it a recent development.

I understand this, but it is a fact that these small changes are also referred to as "adaptation" and I am simply attempting to demonstrate how many of us may be confused, since we would have been under the impression that evolution would entail far more than this.

However, no matter what it involves, either the human evolving from any other life form has been observed, and can be referred to a a scientific fact or, it is simply inferred.

What, exactly, does evolution entail?

Well, does it entail the human evolving from any other life form? Or, is it simply the small changes in different organisms? If it only involves the latter, then I stand corrected, and may even accept evolution in its totality to be a fact.

I think we both know it would involve more than this, and I am not claiming that it would be false, or incorrect. Rather, I am simply pointing out the fact, that it cannot be referred to as a fact, but can only be inferred.

Perhaps we all should keep learning beyond what we learned in school. I, and many others, suggest that learning should be a lifetime activity.

Again, this is not the point! Either I am correct to say that the human evolving from any other life form has not been demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Or, I am incorrect, and science has indeed demonstrated, and declared that, the human evolving from a different life form has been observed, and is a scientific fact. Again, it does not take a lifetime of study in order to understand this.

Evolution is NOT one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species according to geneticists (people who actually study such things).

Okay? Is this to say that evolution would not in any way involve, "what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another?"

Instead, evolution is defined by geneticists as genetic change through generations

Okay? Is this to say that evolution would only involve the small changes that have been observed in different organisms, and would have nothing to do with, "what we have classified as one species evolving into another?"

Those are VERY different concepts.

You are quite right, and if evolution only involves, the small changes that have been observed, and demonstrated to have occured, then I am a evolutionist after all, and did not realize it.

Shall we go with your definition or the definition used by professional geneticists?

By all means, let's go with this one, as long as it does not involve the human evolving from another life form, to be a fact.

I suggest that we use the definition of evolution supplied by geneticists rather than one preferred by the general public (that is still doubtful of the heliocentric solar system) or Apologists or Theologians.

Agreed!

A large boulder is at the base of a cliff. Its makeup matches rock hundreds of feet higher. No one observed the boulder falling. Shall we conclude that a supernatural force placed the boulder OR shall we conclude that the boulder originated high on the cliff?

I suggest we stick to the facts. Once we do this, we can then analyze the facts, and draw certain conclusions from these facts. However, in the end, we should be careful to understand that we have not demonstrated our conclusions to be facts, until, or unless, it has been observed, and demonstrated.

As far as the "supernatural" this should not even enter into the equation, until, or unless, there may be certain witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the event. Of course at this point we should analyze their testimonies in order to determine if there could possibly be any legitimacy.

But this should not involve, science. Science, should only be involved in explaining what would, and would not be scientifically possible. It should not attempt to determine if something could possibly occur that we have deemed to be, scientifically impossible.

Changes through mutation (evolution) might be illustrated by considering little changes becoming big changes

Right, I understand this. And like you have said, we cannot assume that these "little changes" are limited. In other words, we cannot be certain that these "little changes" would not continue on, until they become, "big changes."

However, we also cannot simply assume that these "little changes" are not limited. In other words, we cannot be certain that these "little changes" would continue on, until they become, "big changes."

My argument is, it is better to stick to the facts. Which would be, it may be possible that this "little changes" continued on until they became "big changes", and there may even be evidence to support such changes. However, it has not been observed, or demonstrated to be a fact, that these "little changes" have indeed lead to "big changes." Rather, this can only be, inferred. Please explain what the problem would be here?

First came (likely) foot travel, then riding animals, then wagons, then horseless carriages, then airplanes. Small changes occurring along the way result in big changes overall. Exact identification of the instance of change from foot travel to riding animals (which none of us observed) is immaterial to understanding that change has occurred.

GOOD GRIEF! You are comparing apples to oranges, and I don't even know where to start?

So is your argument, "we know there were those whose only transportation was on foot, and then this gradually began to change, and we know that it has progressed to the point that we now travel in planes, and this is evidence of evolution in its totality?" If not, then what is the argument?

Next, I think we KNOW these things, because they have been observed, because this would not involve science, but rather history. In other words, we can know these things, not by science, but rather by reading history. Which by the way, much of which would include letters written between different audiences at the time, which would be certain evidence of how folks may have traveled during different time periods.

So, I really do not understand in the least, how in the world, the small changes in transportation, which has developed into big changes in transportation, would have a thing to do with, a human evolving from anything else?

Notice that the Theory of Evolution is identified as Theory. Those who actually study such things realize that there are gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Exactly! Which is why it is best to stick to the facts as we know them, which means, we do not insist that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact. Meaning, that it would not be a proven, observed, fact, that the human evolved from anything at all.

However, evolution (as defined by geneticists; genetic change through generations) HAS been and IS observed.

And you see, I have no problem with this, as long as we are talking about, the small changes that have been observed, and demonstrate to have occurred in certain organisms.

However, I would like to ask, would it be correct to say, the human evolving from anything else, "HAS been and IS observed?" Would it be correct to say, "since we know "little changes" have occured in certain organisms, we can be confident that "big changes" have occurred as well? Or, would this simply be something that would have to be, inferred?

I understand that many people dislike the idea that they (humans) are evolved from (and closely related to) other animals.

Maybe so, but this would not include me. Why in the world would I "dislike this idea" if it could be demonstrated to be a fact? Because you see, if it were demonstrated to be a fact, then this would include all humans, and not just me. So, what would be to, "dislike?"

Of course your response will be, "because it contradicts your ancient tales." However, whether you believe it or not, I do not think like this. In other words, I would be happy to find that evolution in its totality would be a fact. Because you see, if this were indeed the case, I will assure you I would adjust my thinking, even if it meant, I would have to reject Christianity, because I am not afraid of this in the least.

So then, it has nothing to do with "liking or disliking" the idea. Rather, it is the fact that, humans evolving from anything else, does not measure up to the standard to be considered a scientific fact, and yet there are those who pretend that it does.

Next, just above you define evolution simply as, "genetic change through generations" and you acknowledged this, "HAS been and IS observed." However, now you seem to have included, "the idea that they (humans) are evolved from (and closely related to) other animals." The question here is, has this been observed?

In fact, some maintain that humans are NOT animals, but are above them.

Well, what I maintain is, while we may share many things in common with animals, and even be considered a type of animal ourselves, there are also major differences, and we clearly understand these differences between the different animals, which is exactly why we have classified them.

Not many who actually study biology and genetics maintain that notion.

And again, this is perfectly fine, and I have no problem with this. The problem comes in when they pretend it somehow has been observed, demonstrated, and would measure up to the status to be considered a, "scientific fact."

Kindly list the authors substantiating bible miracle tales that are NOT tied to the Bible (or part of the Bible)

All of them my friend! How in the world could anyone sit down to write anything at all, with no idea, nor any concern at all about what they were writing at the time, being contained in a book, hundreds, and even thousands of years later, which they could not possibly have known anything about, and be said to be "tied to" that book?

Better yet, how in the world, can you have those who were clearly sitting down to write personal letters to audiences at the time, with no idea, or any concern as to whether anyone else would ever read these letters other than their original intended audience, and surely would have had no idea that these letters would be contained in a book they could not have known about, and be said to be "tied to" this book?

You do understand that for many, many years, we had all these writings, and then some, but we did not have a Bible. So then, at that point, how in the world could these writings that existed long before there was a Bible, be said to be "tied to" this Bible, that did not even exist?

With all this being fact, we have a number of writings which can only be "tied" together, because they have been contained in the same book, hundreds, and even thousands of years after they were written, while the authors would have has no idea, and would have been unconcerned about such a book.

So then, how can these authors be tied together other than, they were contained in the same book, of which they would have had no knowledge?

Are there ANY independent reports (not tied to the Bible or part of the Bible) of the miracle stories and claims on which Christianity is based? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Casting demons into swine (and/or other miracle tales)?

Again, all these writings were written independently of each other, and the Bible. In other words, none of them could have possibly known anything at all about the Bible. So then, how in the world could the Bible, tie them together, as somehow being one source?

Are the writings to which you refer part of the Bible or are they not?

When all of them were written hundred, and even thousands of years before the Bible, and the authors had no way to know about a Bible, would they have then been considered tied together, and part of the Bible, that did not exist?

You are losing here, because these writings contained in the Bible, were written independently of each other, and if you claim they are somehow tied together, then you must demonstrate how they would be tied together, other than being contained in a book, they could not have possibly known about.

You do understand that before the Bible came along, all these writings would have been independent of each other. Moreover, there are many other writings that Christians were reading before the Bible came along, that were not included in the Bible. So, would these other writings that were not included be somehow tied to the Bible? Or, is it only when they are contained in the Bible, which they would have known nothing of?

The Bible is an anthology (a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler). Notice that the compiler selects works to be included. A selection process was evidently used by church officials to accept some writings for inclusion and reject others.

Okay? But what would this have to do with the authors, who could not have possibly known about this process? It is not like they had knowledge of the process, and what it would take to gain entry into this Bible, and attempting to be sure they met those qualifications.

Rather, as is plainly evident, many of these writings would simply be letters written to friends, and other audiences at the time, with no other concerns at all. So then, how in the world could a letter to a friend, with no other concerns, be considered, "tied to the Bible?"

A company brochure is produced from writings by salesmen that are selected by management to be included. Would anyone claim that the writings selected were not tied together?

GOOD GRIEF! Your argument is becoming self defeating! Salesmen in companies more than likely would love to be "selected by management to be included", and would aim to measure up to the standard. However, as demonstrated, the authors contained in the Bible, could not have possibly known about the Bible, or what it would take to qualify.

This is the whole point. One who is simply sitting down in order to write a letter to a friend, is certainly not thinking about anything other than attempting to communicate certain information to this friend.

There are likely to be dissenters to ANY idea, scientific or not. One opinion does not equal or negate general acceptance.

A couple of things here. First, these are not in any way whatsoever, "dissenters." Rather, this, and another article all but said, "evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact." In other words, the authors were in complete support of the idea.

However, since "a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation" they seem to understand that they had to acknowledge this, and therefore went on to say, "Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact."

To go on to demonstrate that the authors would not be "dissenters", the very next sentence reads,

However, because it has been tested many times, and we see so many examples of the process, along with an abundance of evidence pointing to it, and no evidence against it, scientists do treat evolution as a reality.

Of course I would love to go on to talk about this sentence, but it would only make the post longer. Therefore, suffice it to say, it certainly sounds like a "bait and switch" to me. But, as you can clearly see, they are not "dissenters."

Next, we are not talking about "opinions" here. In other words, either a scientific fact would necessarily involve, "objective observation", or it does not? With this being the case, either the human evolving from any other life form, has been observed, or it has not?

So, which is it? Is a scientific fact, necessarily an "objective observation?" Or, would something less qualify? If a scientific fact would necessarily involve, "objective observation", has the human evolving from other life forms, been observed? You tell me?

If we stick to the facts WHAT does Christianity have to offer beyond an anthology of unverified tales by writers whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians?

First, when I say, "we should stick to the facts", I am not referring to what we may believe, based upon the facts.

In other words, when I look at the evidence concerning the Resurrection of Jesus, I, myself, am personally convinced by this evidence, that the Resurrection of Jesus did in fact occur.

However, even with this being the case, I stick to the facts. In other words, I do not insist that it must, and has to be a fact, but rather acknowledge the fact, that the Resurrection cannot be demonstrated to be a fact. The point is, unlike others, I acknowledge, what it actually takes to qualify as a known fact.

Next, in the same way in which I simply do not just accept what scientists want to tell me, I also do not simply sit back and accept what the "Christian scholars and theologians" are disputing." Rather, I tend to read, and study these things myself. Because of this, I understand that we can have confidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, of who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been.

We also can know beyond any reasonable doubt, that Paul would have authored all the letters that have been attributed to him. Now of course I understand that many of the scholars dispute that Paul would have been the author of all the letters attributed to him, and I am prepared to take on this argument, and I have in the past, so I more than welcome this opportunity if you would like to "open that can of worms."

At any rate, I will not go into great detail, (although I enjoy doing so) however, there are a good number of things we can deduce just from these two authors, that we can know beyond any reasonable doubt.

So then, while it would involve far more than simply reading, and accepting these things as true, it certainly would involve far more than simply saying, "these things are an anthology of unverified tales by writers whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians."

Kindly cite verifiable evidence to support Christian claims that is independent of the Bible.

Here again, you are making an argument that simply does not make sense. There was a time, which would have been many, many years, when these writings were not contained in the Bible, which means at that point they could not have possibly been tied to the Bible, which would have been unknown at the time.

With this being the case, we have independent writings by different authors, who could not have been possibly tied to a book, which did not exist.

[Guy Threepwood]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

I'd say both are matters of faith, whether or not people acknowledge those faiths as such.

Having said that, not all faiths are equal of course

Between an animal developing powers of speech through the divine intervention of it's creator

and an animal developing powers of speech though pure blind chance,

I'd say the latter is the more logically/ mathematically problematic..

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 47 by Realworldjack]

Several people write stories claiming that the president of their club can walk on water and accomplish other rather unlikely tasks.

Someone gathers those writings / letters into book " an anthology.

Can the accounts of club members in that anthology be rationally claimed to be disconnected / independent?

Are the writings to be believed because they support one another?

Members of the club may choose to believe the tales because they WANT to believe, and perhaps attempt to recruit members for their club by convincing others that the tales are true (and are independent accounts).

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 49 by Zzyzx]

Several people write stories claiming that the president of their club can walk on water and accomplish other rather unlikely tasks. Someone gathers those writings / letters into book " an anthology.

Would this be to suggest that, the authors contained in the NT would have been members of the same club, and shared the same, club president?

Can the accounts of club members in that anthology be rationally claimed to be disconnected / independent?

Would this be to suggest that the authors contained in the NT would be somehow connected as far as, time in history, place, and that they were somehow associated with each other?

Are the writings to be believed because they support one another?

I cannot imagine anyone would simply stop right there. In other words, I cannot in my wildest imagination, imagine one who would have half a mind imagining that, "well these guys all support each other, so they must, and have to be reporting the truth."

Rather, what I would imagine is, this would be one of the initial tests, and if the witnesses were to pass this test, you would then move on to others.

Members of the club may choose to believe the tales because they WANT to believe, and perhaps attempt to recruit members for their club by convincing others that the tales are true (and are independent accounts).

Well, this would certainly be a possibility. However, in the same way that I "cannot imagine one who would have half a mind imagining that, "well these guys all support each other, so they must, and have to be reporting the truth." I also can't imagine anyone with half a brain who may understand that it may be a possibility that, "Members of the club may choose to believe the tales because they WANT to believe, and perhaps attempt to recruit members for their club by convincing others that the tales are true (and are independent accounts), Stopping right there, and coming to the conclusion that it all must, and has to be false, because of this possibility.

Can you imagine such a thing?

Next, I don't quite think we settled the issue, as to whether, evolution in its totality, would only involve the "little changes" which have been observed, and demonstrated? Or, whether it would go on to involve the "bigger changes" as well?

Because you see, if it only involves the "littles changes" that have been, observed demonstrated, then I would like to join, "the club." However, if it would involve the "big changes" that have not been observed, and demonstrated, then I would like to withdraw my membership to "the club."