Creationism vs. Evolution

[hym 358]

I don't ordinarily reply in this thread since I literally have no interest in the origins of mankind.  However, a couple of things are bugging me.  (And don't take what I say personally as none of it is meant in such a fashion.)

Originally posted by: astronelson

Originally posted by: manticorefan What, exactly, about the work of Faraday, Oppenheimer, Lister, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Babbage, Herschel, Agassiz, Reimann, etc. etc. etc. contradicted the Bible in any way, shape, or form?quote>

 

Maybe not Faraday, et. al., but Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, etc. etc. etc. did. They showed that the earth 1. Orbited the sun, thus, 2. Was not the centre of the universe......quote>

Whether this is an issue to the whole concept of Creation is really a matter of personal opinion.  For those that translate the Bible literally, then yes it could logically be considered an issue. For those that don't translate the Bible literally, then the whole "the bible says the earth doesn't move but it does!!" argument is completely meaningless.  Not only have you failed to advance your argument (because your opponent doesn't disagree with you), you've actually weakened your argument by giving evidence that you don't understand your opponent's point of view.

p.s. Could someone please find me some firmament? I'd like to know what it looks like.quote>

"Firmament" is nothing more than a Medieval term for what we call the sky or space.  When you're working with ancient texts, it's important to understand what all the terms mean, because the comment...

3. the sun, moon and stars were not in the "Firmament"quote>

...is actually incorrect.  The wording might be different, but the concept is the same.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Duke87

Yes, modern science was pioneered by Christians. Would be hard for it not to have been since back then pretty much everyone was Christian.

quote>

Oh, you mean the 1940s? Yeah, way back when. Sure.quote>

I was thinking more along the lines of ~1500-1800. You know, Da Vinci, Gallileo, Newton, all those guys. I guess we define "modern science" a bit differently.

What, exactly, about the work of Faraday, Oppenheimer, Lister, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Babbage, Herschel, Agassiz, Reimann, etc. etc. etc. contradicted the Bible in any way, shape, or form?quote>

Directly contradicting the Bible... that's a bit tough to find, since much of scripture is, at least today, open to interpretation. But contradicting the church and its beliefs? Happened all the time.

Though, how many times can you reinterpret the bible to fit it around new knowledge before it becomes ridiculous? Eventually you'd think it would be prudent to just give up, say enough is enough, and realize that if it was really a genuine source of divine knowledge for use through all time, we wouldn't have to keep doing all this reinterpreting. But that doesn't happen. People are notoriously thickheadded that way.

That is merely opinion, I thought you dealt only with empirical evidence. So much for unbiased analysis.quote>

Whoever said I wasn't allowed to have an opinion?

In any case, if you've got an argument as to how Christianity is more rational and logical than paganism, I'd like to hear it.

I refer to the victims of Nietzsche's philosophical offspring: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao primarily, and Pol Pot et al secondarily. Institutional atheism is many times over the biggest murderer of humanity, far greater than all religious wars in the history of mankind combined.quote>

Oh yeah, like institutional religion has a completely clean record. What about the crusades? The Spanish Inquizition? All those "witches" burned at stake and whatnot? And need I bring up "Islamic" terrorism?

Besides, don't generalize the actions of the few as representative of the group as a whole. I am an athiest, and I will firmly say that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were evil men who did evil things.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I refer to the victims of Nietzsche's philosophical offspring: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao primarily, and Pol Pot et al secondarily. Institutional atheism is many times over the biggest murderer of humanity, far greater than all religious wars in the history of mankind combined (I believe I made this point before, either in this thread or the sister thread about the existence of God). quote>

 

Be mindful where you thread: if you think that the "victims of atheism", such as Stalin & Hitler (Pol Pot, whom I interviewed once, was not an atheist by a long shot), were the biggest mass murderers of the human race, then I suggest you take a look at the history of the Catholic Church. The 30-Year war, fought between Protestants and Catholics could give both thos monsters a run for thier money. Religious fervour always killed - in he name of God - and still does.

As for the Lowell quote: it appears the man has not travelled very far. In modern days such a place does not exist, regardless of which religion has gone before.

Creationism, undeniably an American invention, seeks to undermine the future by keeping people ignorant - it was thus always the way of the churches. It is nothing but a means to return church denominations back towards the kind of control they had in medivial times.

[Cypherus21 0]

then I suggest you take a look at the history of the Catholic Church. The 30-Year war, fought between Protestants and Catholics could give both thos monsters a run for thier money. Religious fervour always killed - in he name of God - and still does.quote>

No one would ever deny the acts of the inquisition or the crusades, but the overall essence of the crusades were to keep back Muslim invaders, especially the Moors, from entering Europe. Perhaps it was the best for western society in this regard but certainly Catholicism is not without its dreadful past of murder. In any case, while the crusades or inquisition were done "in the name of God," it is not compatible with the religious scripture, notably from Jesus, who taught peace and humility with enemies. Ergo, one must deduce the hijacking of teachings for ulterior agendas.

As for the Lowell quote: it appears the man has not travelled very far. In modern days such a place does not exist, regardless of which religion has gone before.quote>

Faith allows us to think outside the box beyond the limitations of our senses - to use reason and logic to determine the validity of things outside our physical constraints that require certainty. Some atheists vehemently deny this essence while contradicting the inner human propensity to seek knowledge and truth beyond perception. Faith involves a degree of absolute certainty that goes beyond what can be rationally justified under science limited under mundane senses.

Creationism, undeniably an American invention, seeks to undermine the future by keeping people ignorant - it was thus always the way of the churches. It is nothing but a means to return church denominations back towards the kind of control they had in medivial times.quote>

First, you must be careful with the subset of creationism. Theistic evolutionism and old earth creationism are compatible with science all while being under the creationist labeling. Secondly, church attendence is indeed increasing but many defectors remain theists with a personal belief in God. And that said, many theists become closer to God than ever before because the church has skewed the wondrous elements of the Bible and Jesus' teaching with an emphasis on Jesus' death/resurrection instead.

[DocRorlach 25]

First, you must be careful with the subset of creationism. Theistic evolutionism and old earth creationism are compatible with science all while being under the creationist labeling. Secondly, church attendence is indeed increasing but many defectors remain theists with a personal belief in God. And that said, many theists become closer to God than ever before because the church has skewed the wondrous elements of the Bible and Jesus' teaching with an emphasis on Jesus' death/resurrection instead.quote>

Just like scientists of every ilk, so believers of every denomination will be able to take any idea and insert schisms. Admittedly, I did (and do) discard all appearances of Creationism outright, without further study. The reason for this is simple: it is based, ultimately, on a document of dubious origins: the Bible. Doubious because Part I has evolved into three majour and very fractitious religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity (even if the latter claims to base itself on Part II). Moreover, the document in question only really became a document centuries after its origins. Part I is a set of wonderous stories and allegories entirely based on hearsay and word of mouth. In Abraham's times writing barely existed.

Part II is based on twelve men (a jury?) whose understanding of the world around them was extremely limited, and whose grasp on the nature of said world was curtailed by preconceived notions of the various ruling classes around them. It is thus a relatively save assumption that, by the time their words were written down and distributed, they were distorted in telling and retelling. 

For centuries the Bible was used as a tool of control by those who could read over those who could not. Just like the Koran and the Talmud, and the various other holy texts surrounding them. To base a science on such is tantamount to lying, however unconciously it may be done.

The ideas  attributed to Jesus, the man, were and are great, but for no other reason than that they ought to be the most fundamental rules of human interaction. In that he was - if indeed he was - ahead of his time and thus applaudable. But no more.

To deny the existence and history of the universe as we can decipher in our limited ways is simply a foolish throwback to biblical times.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Cypherus21

the overall essence of the crusades were to keep back Muslim invaders, especially the Moors, from entering Europe. quote>

And the sad part about it? The Muslims were completely tolerant of other religions. There were plenty of Christians and Jews living and practicing their faiths in all parts of the Caliphate, including the Near East, quite peacefully and openly.

Then the crusaders came in to "liberate" Jerusalem, and under their rule now Muslims, Jews, and members of Christian sects which were deemed heretical were all of a sudden not welcome. So they killed a bunch of people and actually made the place far less free. Oops.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Duke87

Yes, modern science was pioneered by Christians. Would be hard for it not to have been since back then pretty much everyone was Christian.

quote>

Oh, you mean the 1940s? Yeah, way back when. Sure.quote>

I was thinking more along the lines of ~1500-1800. You know, Da Vinci, Gallileo, Newton, all those guys. I guess we define "modern science" a bit differently.

quote>

I used Oppenheimer specifically to avoid the 'ancient history' dodge so popular with religion-bashers. There are plenty others, even today. I'm sure you can find them, the trick is wanting to find them.

What, exactly, about the work of Faraday, Oppenheimer, Lister, Einstein, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Babbage, Herschel, Agassiz, Reimann, etc. etc. etc. contradicted the Bible in any way, shape, or form?quote>

Directly contradicting the Bible... that's a bit tough to find, since much of scripture is, at least today, open to interpretation. But contradicting the church and its beliefs? Happened all the time.

quote>

Let's define terms here...the Catholic Church is not the Bible, nor did it teach the Bible for the most part after about 400AD. The Catholic Church was all about its own power and traditions, not Biblical truth. Most Christians will not accept the burden of the actions of an apostate church any more than most atheists want to be tarred with the murderous actions of Communism.

Though, how many times can you reinterpret the bible to fit it around new knowledge before it becomes ridiculous? Eventually you'd think it would be prudent to just give up, say enough is enough, and realize that if it was really a genuine source of divine knowledge for use through all time, we wouldn't have to keep doing all this reinterpreting. But that doesn't happen. People are notoriously thickheaded that way. quote>

You don't say... I hadn't noticed. And I suppose you mean just religious types, no? But seriously, evolutionary theory has been rewritten to fit new knowledge every few months, too...but that's different, right?

I refer to the victims of Nietzsche's philosophical offspring: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao primarily, and Pol Pot et al secondarily. Institutional atheism is many times over the biggest murderer of humanity, far greater than all religious wars in the history of mankind combined.quote>

Oh yeah, like institutional religion has a completely clean record. What about the crusades? The Spanish Inquizition? All those "witches" burned at stake and whatnot? And need I bring up "Islamic" terrorism?

quote>

The sins of the Church are well documented. But when the body count is compiled, atheism is the clear winner by a huge margin and that has been thoroughly established. The Spanish Inquisition was the result of heresy and power-madness within the Catholic church attempting to drive out truth, and its victims only numbered about about 30,000... about the same as the French Revolution's drive to eliminate religion from France. To which Napoleon is quoted as saying that (paraphrasing) "One does not govern such men, one cuts them down. They have descended to the level of the beasts." No religious zealot, Napoleon nevertheless understood that religion was necessary to keep men civilized and moral. And, contrary to popular misunderstanding, no one was ever burned at the stake in America for witchcraft. 20 people were hanged, about 80 years before the Revolution. Which, by the way, wasn't called the American Revolution in England; it was called the 'Presbyterian Revolution'.

Besides, don't generalize the actions of the few as representative of the group as a whole. I am an athiest, and I will firmly say that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were evil men who did evil things.quote>

quote>

[fukuda 351]

Branding an entire viewpoint as merely sophism is easy, and a great way for those without an inclination to understand to dodge the issues.quote>

Behe's arguments are based on ignorance instead of empirical evidence, with this I mean that "irreducible complexity" is based on our lack of knowledge about fossil metabolism instead of real evidence of any kind. Behe states that the proteins that form some of the complex structures (namely motor proteins, he seems amazed with them) couldn't have evolved separately to produce the actual results and quickly dismisses any kind of evolution and goes into design.

There's just a problem there, if proteins were designed its designer wasn't very intelligent.... from failing Chlore ion channels to exaggerately bulky enzymes there are tons of failures in that so called design, inactive proteins, enzymes with weird-acting active centers, enzyme paths that are metabolic failures like RuBisCo's Photorespiration[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration], toxic intermediate metabolites, joyful energy wasting, relics of completely useless proteins and way more. But well, you can skip all of this if you are completely sure about a perfect metabolism coming from perfect design!

Obviously, there's no hypothesis building of any kind and his thesis can't be backed by experimental evidence, so it can hardly be considered a scientific text...

[DocRorlach 25]

manticorefan, neither goose nor gander. Science, in any form or shape, is not an ultimate truth, but has evolved over the centuries since the first Sumerian scratched a stone tablet. And will continue to do so as long aas the universe permits mankind to survive. A very simple example for this evolution of hought is how we think of the atom now, as compared to the days I went to school. The simple model we were taught some five decades ago bears no resemblance to what we know now. And so it will always go.

As for Islam being based on Pageanism, I take your word for it. Nevertheless, besides the Roman gods of old, Muhammed had really only Judaism to go by since it was surprisingly prevalant in that region, with Jews (like Greeks and Phoenicians) belonged to the ravelling classes even then. The similarities between he three great western religions seesm to indicate a common root. I cannot claim to know that for sure, though.

But I do stand by my final statement: creationism in the US. It may have different roots elsewhere, but it is primarily an American theory. Seeing how even fundamentalists like Fawell lost ground in the strive to evangelize every aspect of daily life, the established churches needed a new foothold. And creationism fits that bill perfectly by permitting thinking Christians a way to seal with the anachronisms and discrepancies comparing the Bible with real life will always throw up.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Oh boy, here we go again.

Both Alfred North Whitehead and J Robert Oppenheimer stressed that modern science was born of a Christian worldview. Whitehead said in his book Science and the Modern World said that Christianity is the mother of science due to "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God".quote>

Considering the Christian worldview has gone pretty much unchallenged in western-European cultures since the 500s, it's no surprise scientific research was influenced by this fairly dominant cultural component.

Dr Malcolm Reeves in his book The Scientific Enterprise and the Christian Faith says, "It was with the rediscovery of the Bible and of its message at the time of the Reformation... that a new impetus came to the development of science. This new impetus, flowing together with all that was best of Greek thinking, was to produce the right mixture to detonate the chain reaction leading to the explosion of knowledge which began at the start of the scientific revolution in the 16th century, and which is proceeding with ever-increasing momentum today."quote>

The reformation came at the heels of the Renaissance, and took place in a time when consolidating national entities focused more on pushing outward, competing with eachother, than before. This flowery bit of prose by dr Jeeves gives a very summary picture of the period, and seems to treat it as the starting point of an unbroken and constantly climbing line of development. Jeeves is a respectable professor of psychology, and probably using this as some sort of introduction, which is fine and dandy if you're not going for absolute historical precision. For you to use it as an absolutely accurate depiction of history, however, is misguided.

Going back to the subject of evolution, it might be a good idea to point out to the boys and girls in the audience just when dr Jeeves was publishing: 1969. The whole of science hasn't exactly stood still in the intervening years, and evolutionary biology in particular was only just putting its running shoes on in 1969 for the race it was going to run between the 1970s and today.

7 of the 10 scientists who founded the Royal Society of London were Puritans, at a time when they were a tiny minority in England. Stop claiming a false dichotomy between science and religion; there isn't one except in the mind of a nonbeliever. quote>

"In the mind of a nonbeliever"! Very fire and brimstone, hardly a substantial argument. The rest of this paragraph is a bit of a non sequitur. No, for a long time there wasn't much of a dichotomy between science and religion. Education took place in monasteries, then catherdral churches and then in universities where the study of theology was often regarded as one of the higher pursuits. The Catholic church was the main institution that needed scholars, and so, since they were the only real institution with that capacity, they had to raise their own batches of them.

None of which actually adds up to your apparent conclusion of the bible being the font of all knowledge. Neoplatonism was an early focus, with churchfathers like Augustine being well-versed in classical philosophy, since basic tenents of Platonism could be compared with those of the Christian faith. (copying from my notes, it mainly involved an infatuation with the idea of jehovah fitting into the hi

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

The Seleucid empire collapsed at least 700 years before Muhammed was even born. Just what are you on about?quote>

My mistake, I meant the Seljuk Turks (ca. 11th century). I did indeed mis-type. Thank you.quote>

[Odainsaker 2,134]

I refer to the victims of Nietzsche's philosophical offspring: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao primarily, and Pol Pot et al secondarily. Institutional atheism is many times over the biggest murderer of humanity, far greater than all religious wars in the history of mankind combined.quote>

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the rest may have rejected what we understand to be traditional theistic religions, but then they setup up their hierarchical personality cults, dogmatic ideology, and doctrinal thought control to create state religions without the name.  It is the same same rationalizing process as traditional zealous religion, just carried by modern resources to a new extreme.  The slaughterhouses were on larger or more efficient scales given the technology, but the enticement to gore wasn't different from what has been seen in the past.  I would offer that it is the extreme level of circumscribed and dehumanized thought control that created the murderousness of the modern totalitarian regimes or the past witch hunting inquisitions and crusades, and has little to do with actual belief or disbelief in God.  The horror of human psychology is that with application of the right levers, even the most faithful or most enlightened can be made evil, regardless of their own beliefs or principles.

Originally posted by: Duke87  The Muslims were completely tolerant of other religions. There were plenty of Christians and Jews living and practicing their faiths in all parts of the Caliphate, including the Near East, quite peacefully and openly. quote>

I guess you've never heard of the Seleucids? No, it was not always a middle eastern Utopia under the Muslims. History is just as easily selectively ignored by both sides here, I guess.quote>

Err, the Seleucids were a Greek-based or Hellenistic empire in the Near East spun off from the conquests of Alexander the Great by one of his generals.  The Seleucid's empire died out against the Romans and Parthians almost 700 years before Muhammed established Islam.  (Ah, nevermind, my posting is slow, and I see you have corrected youself with the Seljuqs, one of the many brief empires blowing back and forth across the chaotic crossroads of the Near East).

Still, "completely tolerant" is not accurate either.  As similar monotheistic religions, upon which Islam claims successorship by having God's final correct revelations, Christians and Jews were subject to religious taxation, but were not necessarily targets for persecution or conversion, despite the greater conflicts of the region's empires.  Orthodox Byzantine Christianity became so violently intolerant of dissent, that some of its Christian subjects welcomed the alternative Muslim rule, and it was the Ottomans who welcomed the forcibly expelled Jews after the Spanish Reconquista.  However, co-opting of holy sites claimed by the other faiths happened, as churchs were forcibly converted into or replaced by mosques (and vice-versa as the fortunes of war played out).   Meanwhile, non-Abrahamic, polytheistic faiths, be they earlier paganisms in Arabia or Hinduism in India, could expect no such brotherly generosity.  Today's deep hostilities between many of the region's Muslims and Jews are a modern phenomenon centering on post-Ottoman ownership of the lands of Israel, while the religious fighting on the Indian subcontinent goes back even beyond the Partition to the original Muslim and Persian invasions.

Old history, I know, but we should all try to keep some semblance of it straight, lest we repeat it.  Oh, too late, hehe.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

We were preparing posts at the same time, I have acknowledged my error concerning the Seljuk/Seleucid confusion on my part.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

This thread is growing at ludicrous speed!

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Let's define terms here...the Catholic Church is not the Bible, nor did it teach the Bible for the most part after about 400AD. quote>

Eh? I've been to several Catholic ceremonies. They read from the bible all the time. Since when do they not teach it?

The Catholic Church was all about its own power and traditions, not Biblical truth.quote>

Well, I'll agree with you there.

Most Christians will not accept the burden of the actions of an apostate church any more than most atheists want to be tarred with the murderous actions of Communism.quote>

Hence why so many different protestant churches broke off from it a few hundred years ago.

Still, you'd think the church of a true god would be able to hold itself together, wouldn't you?

You don't say... I hadn't noticed. And I suppose you mean just religious types, no? quote>

I never said that.

But seriously, evolutionary theory has been rewritten to fit new knowledge every few months, too...but that's different, right?quote>

Very. For one thing, evolutionary theory has pretty much not been rewritten since Darwin published it. What's changed over the years is the details of our understanding of what evolved into what when. That's not rewriting the theory, that's rethinking and reevaluating its application.

Besides which, no one ever claimed that evolutionary theory was handed down from god as an absolute truth. Like all scientific theories, it is vulnerable to counter-evidence... but so far the evidence has supported it. And rewriting it to fit new evidence would be acceptable. It happens in science all the time.

On the other hand, when you'd dealing with divine inspiration, the word of god in writing, you'd expect it to be right the first time and the instant you have to reevaluate or rewrite it it calls into question just how divine it is.

The sins of the Church are well documented. But when the body count is compiled, atheism is the clear winner by a huge margin and that has been thoroughly established. quote>

Please, as if body count is the only measure of things.

You can't forget that the further back you go, the fewer people there were on this earth, so the fewer people there were to kill... and the less advanced our technology was, so we couldn't kill as efficiently.

And, as JanYpe already pointed out, calling the Nazis atheists is not entirely accurate.

And, contrary to popular misunderstanding, no one was ever burned at the stake in America for witchcraft. 20 people were hangedquote>

Yes, I know, the Salem witch trials. Been there. Seen the museum.

But don't pretend like those were the only "witches" ever executed. Burning at the stake of witches did occur in Europe in medieval times.

Without a guiding moral principle that transcends humanity, good and evil are irrelevant and subject to opinion quote>

Subject to opinion, yes. Very few bad guts ever believe themselves to be evil, after all.

But irrelevant? Not so much. Good and evil, while not such black and white absolutes, are still things which mean something to us as atheists. The difference is that it's of our own internal conscience, not of an external divine force.

Islam isn't part of it, as its history shows upon thorough examination. It is a pagan-based counterfeit of Judaism that resurfaces a pantheism based on the lunar calendar (Allah, nee Aaliyah, being the moon god, was represented by the crescent moon. It has no basis in Judeo-Christian theology regardless of what they want you to think.quote>

No basis at all? I suppose the fact that they count figures like Abraham, Ishmael, Moses, and Jesus as prophets doesn't count as a basis, then?

Muslim teaching is that the Koran is not a new teaching, it is merely a correction of the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel which have been changed by human interference.

The Allah of the Koran does not resemble the Yahweh of the Talmud, or Jehovah of the Bible, any more than I resemble Marilyn Monroe. But if you reject them all outright, you can't be expected to know that. quote>

The problem here is the subjectivity of the matter. To Christians, Allah is not the same as their god. To Muslims, he is. You can't objectively say either way. It's entirely a matter of who you chose to believe.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87 This thread is growing at ludicrous speed!quote>

As I recall, that's even faster than warp. (Sorry, the random Mel Brooks reference just came over me.)

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

...

It's not that I accept literal creationism, I stand by the assertion that large pieces of the puzzle are missing for whatever reason.

quote>

Such as?

Originally posted by: manticorefan

...

 The key word is, Darwinian.

...

quote>

Darwin is not the be all and end all of evolution. He's neither a prophet or a god. He simply had a good idea with some good evidence behind it, but that was just the start of evolutionary biology, not the end of it. Many other scientists have used Darwin's work as a starting point but have greatly expanded on the understanding and evidence since then (for more than 150 years). There's been a lot of science between Darwin and now. Even of the evolutionary biology there's a lot more than Darwinian evolution. The ideas Darwin first discovered and pulled together into his theory are still used, but there is so much more known today about the mechanisms and how they work. In particular in the last few years genome sequencing has become commonplace and there are genomes from several species now sequenced. The findings from these have confirmed evolutions predictions with such precision that would have been unimaginable in Darwin's time.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Again, what empirical evidence by those outside of an extremely narrow focus, (which evolutionary theory is, compared to science as a whole) contradicts Christianity? Do you mean Medicine? Anatomy? Chemistry? Quantum Physics even? How about Agricultural sciences? Computer science? You get my point.

...

quote>

Not really. What do you mean by narrow focus?

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Macroevolution is not unproven.quote>

Nor is it proven, then, if you want to split terms.

quote>

Science is not about proof. Its about evidence and finding explanations that fit the observations and which can be used to make future predictions.

Macro-evolution is just evolution at the species level and above (as opposed to microevolution which refers to evolution within a species. However there is no difference in mechanism between micro and macro. Macro is just more micro.  There is no magical barrier that stops micro from becoming macro. In fact its so much the same that you very seldom hear the terms used since there is really nothing to distinguish.

Macro-evolution has been observed many times, in the wild and even in the laboratory. There is also abundant evidence that it occurs from both the fossil and genetic records.

What more evidence could you possibly want? Its a non-issue in science. The scientists aren't debating if it occurs, that's been settled long ago. What is being worked on are applications of the theory to the betterment of humanity (eg new disease treatments etc). Evolution works.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

But seriously, evolutionary theory has been rewritten to fit new knowledge every few months, too...but that's different, right?

quote>

I really don't understand what you are trying to say with this statement. You make it sound like they have a quarterly committee meeting and vote on it. What is your evidence for your statement?

[DocRorlach 25]

But seriously, evolutionary theory has been rewritten to fit new knowledge every few months, too...but that's different, right?quote>

While quite an overstatement, you really did hit science (evolution) vs pseudo-science (creationism) on the nail: that's the point about theories - they change. If hey do not, they become dogma and thus irrelevant.

Everyone can believe what they want: bu let's not make it official state belief that is forced down everyone's throat as christians are sometimes wont to do..

[ididntdidit 0]

Anyone seen religuous?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ididntdidit Anyone seen religuous?quote>

Meh. That movie reeks of propaganda.

And with the price of tickets what they are these days (10 bucks to see a stupid movie!?), it ain't worth it.

Probably will rent it once it comes out on DVD just out of curiosity, though.

[Shane_ 0]

Not worthy of debate.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Stephen J. Gould said it best:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. [stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.]

That's all.

[astronelson 339]

To become fact, a theory has to be shown to work under all circumstances. Thus, it is almost certain that there will be something that someone will be able to pick at. What happens here defines scientists. If they're not a scientist, they will point this out and either do nothing or point it out as a disproof. If they are a scientist, they will investigate it, do research, and find out how to modify the theory to explain it along with all other observations.

The only things that can be truly proven are all mathematical.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Well, actually the Theory of Evolution is not a fact -- it is a theory, which explains the facts, and whose predicted effects have all been observed.

The "fact" of evolution is the observations and data which the theory explains and connects.

A theory can be "proven" if it works under all known conditions and circumstances. Such as the planets of our system orbiting the Sun. It has never been directly observed, but the evidence is wholly in favor of the theory, so it is "proven", in the common sense of the word.

If the observations and evidence change, so does the theory. That is one of the defining marks of Science as compared with religion.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Well, actually the Theory of Evolution is not a fact -- it is a theory, which explains the facts, and whose predicted effects have all been observed.

The "fact" of evolution is the observations and data which the theory explains and connects.

A theory can be "proven" if it works under all known conditions and circumstances. Such as the planets of our system orbiting the Sun. It has never been directly observed, but the evidence is wholly in favor of the theory, so it is "proven", in the common sense of the word.quote>

 

..and with that you refute your first sentence..do apply logic and you see what you say makes Darwin's basis - and all we learned since - a fact..

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[astronelson 339]

Just to note, I do support the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I was pointing out how "proof" in itself is so hard to come by. True, evolution has enough evidence to support it to call it, in layman's terms, a law, it's just that before it can technically be called a law it must cover every result, from every initial circumstance.

What I meant by "the only things that can be truly proven are all mathematical" is that in mathematics, it is possible to generalise to cover all circumstances.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Well, actually the Theory of Evolution is not a fact -- it is a theory, which explains the facts, and whose predicted effects have all been observed.

The "fact" of evolution is the observations and data which the theory explains and connects.

A theory can be "proven" if it works under all known conditions and circumstances. Such as the planets of our system orbiting the Sun. It has never been directly observed, but the evidence is wholly in favor of the theory, so it is "proven", in the common sense of the word.quote>

 

..and with that you refute your first sentence..do apply logic and you see what you say makes Darwin's basis - and all we learned since - a fact..quote>

 

I will clarify.

The Theory of Evolution is the theory which explains and connects the observations and facts. 

The observations and facts are the "fact of evolution", such as natural selection being observed in many species, and mutation being observed in every species which has been studied. These observations are facts.

When a theory is "proven", it works under all known circumstances, and all evidence is wholly consistent with the theory's predictions. Notice that I put 'proven' in quotes.

When I said "proven", I put it in quotes because it was applied in a colloquial meaning of the word, and not a scientific meaning.

When something is proven, it works under every single circumstance and in all conditions. We don't know if it works for all life-forms (i.e. those on other planets or undiscovered) or for all conditions.

Therefore, my statement still stands. It has been proven in the colloquial sense of the word, but it has not been proven in a scientific sense of the word.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa