Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sorry, but evolutionary theory is settled science, and isn't going anywhere however threatening it is to actual religious beliefs like yours.
No, common descent is a scientific pronouncement - the result of applying reason to evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, and offers no evidence or valid arguments, just fallacious ones like the special pleading that a cell is too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, so lets propose an infinitely more complicated thing - a god, also said to be undesigned and uncreated - to explain the existence of the far simpler cell. Or that DNA looks like a program to somebody, therefore there must be an intelligent designer of it
The way we can tell which one is science is to see which one is useful. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.
Creationism can do none of those things and having no predictive power, can be used for nothing.That's all you really need to know about either subject. You don't need to know the science to know that it is correct, just that it works, and therefore must be correct in the main even if a few details are still being worked out. That's also how we know that the science and engineering that NASA brings to space travel is correct because it works. You don't need to know the calculus or the science behind the materials used to know that the people who do are correct by their success.
Furthermore, the science has already eliminated the Christian god from possibility. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow by some finding that showed that evolution did not actually occur, what are you left with but that mountain of evidence suggesting evolution had occurred and that one finding confirming that it didn't? The old data that strongly suggested that life on earth - millions of pieces of evidence from multiple fields of science such as comparative anatomy and biochemistry, biogeography, genetics, and paleontology - that old data doesn't disappear.
It would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new finding, and no other interpretation occurs to me than that an extremely powerful and deceptive agency intended for us to be deceived into believing that life had evolved on earth to the extent that it buried strata of life forms that never lived such that the most primitive appearing would be found deepest and with a combination of radionuclides that made them appear oldest, with progressively more modern forms appearing in shallower strata. And it went to the trouble of creating all of those nested hierarchies and inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattered the ring species to be found, and the like.
That pretty much eliminates the Christian god, who we are told wants to be believed in, obeyed, loved, and worshiped, not hide from us and deceive us with the evidence that we have that life evolved.
If you have an argument against the science, make it.
Fine, I have never used either. In fact by your standards your post is an "ad hom".I prefer not to debate with those who rely heavily on ad hom and distortion.
If you have evidence, present it. If you just want to heckle and disrupt, fine. I can't stop you.
Nested hierarchies.Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.
Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.
Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.
Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.
And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.DNA
It does not lie, all cellular life has it.
It really doesnt matter what unproven arguments are put forward.
It goes far beyond that. It is the pattern of similarities that we see in DNA that tell us that we are all related. Creationists have no explanation for the similarities except to claim that God is incompetent.And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.
To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.
And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.
To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.You are welcome to your opinion, to me, relating it to the myriad other evidence it is shown without doubt that evolution is valid.
The one designer idea is not about evolution but a/biogenesis. Different argument.
Universal Common Descent is different from Theory of Biological Evolution. Which one is up for discussion?I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.
I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.
This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.
Here are a few rules i request.
If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.
- Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
- Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
- Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
- Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
- Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
- Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
- Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.
My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.
I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
So you understand on the micro scale. What don't you understand about how small changes add up to larger changes on the macro scale? It's all the same, with the only difference being the amount of time involved.Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.
I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
Rolling back to darwins original drawing the tree cannot be debated its self evident no science even needed. And factually that itself isnt science but nature itself. A simple small child walking through the forest knows this. If the child has the opportunity.I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.
I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.
This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.
Here are a few rules i request.
If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.
- Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
- Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
- Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
- Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
- Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
- Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
- Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.
My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.
Well if you know it, I'm certainly not wasting my time to jump through the hoops just for your amusement. This is an old and tiresome creationist game: get the scientists to run around justifying scientific theories with their description of the evidence, while you take potshots at what they say and try to nickel and dime it to death. I'm not playing.How? Explain, not just link to an assumed authority. I don't debate links, and can only deal with evidence provided.
I know this argument, i would just like it presented. I won't go through some link as a proxy, and rebut their points.
How does the 'development of embryos', evidence common descent?
Which shows the evidence is there if only you bother to look
But that is only because you do not understand the concept of evidence. It won't take long to learn. The only problem is that you will no longer be able to claim not to see evidence for evolution without lying.Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.
I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
by definition evolution on the macro scale. You just contradicted your earlier claim of only seeing evidence for microevolution.No need to be snippy.
Believe me, I look at it all. I'm well aware of darwins finches.
..and, of course, if nobody has any evidence, or if they only wish to assert THEIR beliefs and ridicule other's, that is a common occurence in forums, too.
It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.
Actually this is not so. Phenomena that repeat themselves are not intrinsic to science.Your discussion is futile as evolutionists adapt a distorted concept of what science is. Evolutionists must first realize that ToE (as well as BBT) is not delivered the same way as all any other traditional science.
Traditional science relies on a predictable model on how a phenomenon repeats itself. It's an infallible (in a theoretical sense) prediction on how this phenomenon repeats itself from now till in a future time point where the phenomenon completes its end-to-end repetition.
ToE cannot be established this way because we can't possibly generally speculate how complicated organisms are formed from single cell organisms. It's thus a scientifically fallacious employment to use simple form of evolution (say from single to multiple cell) as a proof to conclude that more complicated organisms are formed from evolution.