Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

Faith is your weakness. Evolution is testable. It can be falsified. It has not been after millions of trials. Tell me, what reasonable test would show your beliefs to be wrong if they are wrong?

Oh!!!

Then show what animal has been observed over millions of years that has gradually changed. No such animal is known because there are huge jumps in the fossil record and no animal has yet been observed over many millions of years. All you have is an hypothesis and a circular argument. You began with the assumption that change in species is caused by natural forces and then set out to prove it. Obviously you found your "proof" because everyone always does when they start with an assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh!!!

Then show what animal has been observed over millions of years that has gradually changed. No such animal is known because there are huge jumps in the fossil record and no animal has yet been observed over many millions of years. All you have is an hypothesis and a circular argument.

Sorry but you do not even know enough to ask proper questions. Try again without the faulty understanding of the scientific method.

And yes. some animals have been observed over millions of years. No land animals of course, but that is what is to be expected. There are examples of sea animals that have been observed over millions of years.

 

[gnostic]

Science ignores the more important question....how did life originate

Science is attempting to answer such questions, through Abiogenesis and other possibilities (eg of extraterrestrial origin, like that coming from comets or meteorites), not evolution.

What you don’t seem to be understanding that these fields are still undergoing investigation and researching, and continued to so gathering data on possible causes of the origin of life on Earth.

They may not have the answers, but they are not ignoring the cause of the origin.

It is simply not the things that evolutionary biology are investigating, because there are already separate fields investigating it.

Your claim that science is not looking into it or asking questions, it is nothing but attacking straw man, making false claims about science don’t do.

Why do you keep making false claims, Deeje?

 

[ArtieE]

From God's perspective, they are one and the same.

Did God tell you that personally or did you just read that in an old book?

God is the Creator and he detailed his creative activities in Genesis and had Moses record them for our benefit.

Did he tell you that personally or did you just read that in an old book?

There is much detail in Genesis that was beyond men's knowledge at the time. The fact that the earth was at first "formless and waste", covered in water and blanketed in clouds....

And how did they know the Earth is flat? The Flat-Earth Bible.

You think God sees a difference? I don't....I see a bunch of people who have sold out to save face, or have tried to have a foot in both camps. It will not end well for them IMO.

Ah. And it will not end well for a person like you who deliberately singles out atheists as the bad guys when plenty of theists also is at fault according to you. God is just you see. I read that in an old book. From now on you better not be singling out atheists but also theists who believe in unguided biological evolution. I will help you correct this whenever I see you mention just atheists. Let's hope God missed your unjust treament of atheists or it might not end well for you.

Do you subscribe to this elaboration on the word of God? You don't identify with Urantia and its writings yet you want to promote things that have added to scripture? We are told not to do that.

Define "scripture". The Ethiopian Bible has 81 books. What have you taken away from scripture?

 

[ArtieE]

The idea that a minor event could have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events was featured in "A Sound of Thunder", a short story by Ray Bradbury about time travel published in the early 1950s. The exact phrase appears in a 1972 paper by Lorenz.

Watch the movie. It's not that bad. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=movies-tv&field-keywords=a+sound+of+thunder

 

[ChristineM]

For starters life isn't the product of evolution. Evolution is a product of life. When you understand that I will be glad to teach you more.

To be more precise it seems life is the product of evolution of the universe

Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of Biology—It Was Physics

A recent paper explains why life could be a natural product of entropy.

Interesting that on universal terms evolution of life is a product of increasing disorder.

 

[ArtieE]

You began with the assumption that change in species is caused by natural forces and then set out to prove it.

Should meteorologists begin with the assumption that weather phenomena are caused by Thor? Should seismologists begin with the assumption that earthquakes are caused by Poseidon? Should biologists begin with the assumption that change in species is caused by some god? Of course not. Not before theists have shown that any of their gods exist.

 

[cladking]

Should meteorologists begin with the assumption that weather phenomena are caused by Thor? Should seismologists begin with the assumption that earthquakes are caused by Poseidon? Should biologists begin with the assumption that change in species is caused by some god? Of course not. Not before theists have shown that any of their gods exist.

A scientist is supposed to start with an hypothesis and then design experiment around it. The ToE was designed around the musings of a 19th century scientist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A scientist is supposed to start with an hypothesis and then design experiment around it. The ToE was designed around the musings of a 19th century scientist.

Who was mostly correct - so congratulations Mr Darwin. Unlike yourself, when you are just speculating a bridge too far ....

 

[ChristineM]

A scientist is supposed to start with an hypothesis and then design experiment around it. The ToE was designed around the musings of a 19th century scientist.

Actually the toe in various forms was first proposed 500 years before jc. Darwin simply made observations and created a hypothesis on those observations... Hardly musings.

Since then Darwin's findings have been reviewed, refined, tested, observed, measured and so far have not been falsified.

It would only take one valid evidence of god dun it by magic to falsify evolution. In 150+ years despite the myriad claims of creationists

 

[metis]

It's a good movie... ...great post.

Yes! Life causes evolution. Consciousness and behavior are life and evolution. What we call "science" got it wrong. Darwin was completely wrong.

Evolution is much the basis for modern biology, and the only real opposition comes from those who really do not understand the theology behind the creation accounts as found in Genesis, thus they jump to a literalistic belief that simply doesn't make sense in today's day and age. Many churches realize this today and have made adjustments but, unfortunately, many other churches stick with the old paradigm that simply ignores reality. According to a Pew poll taken a while back, about 70% of Christian theologians here in the States accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God started it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A scientist is supposed to start with an hypothesis and then design experiment around it. The ToE was designed around the musings of a 19th century scientist.

What makes you think that? It appears that besides not understanding the concept of the scientific method or evidence now you do not understand the concept of experimentation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science takes things apart for study and then forgets that every single thing in reality is affected by everything else. Science doesn't even understand the nature of consciousness and then forgets that every single individual that has ever existed was conscious.

Not sure what this has to do with what I was pointing out.

 

[Sapiens]

Oh!!!

Then show what animal has been observed over millions of years that has gradually changed. No such animal is known because there are huge jumps in the fossil record and no animal has yet been observed over many millions of years. All you have is an hypothesis and a circular argument. You began with the assumption that change in species is caused by natural forces and then set out to prove it. Obviously you found your "proof" because everyone always does when they start with an assumption.

The perfect example is diatoms.

 

[Sapiens]

A scientist is supposed to start with an hypothesis and then design experiment around it. The ToE was designed around the musings of a 19th century scientist.

As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed site) notes:

Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival or by maintaining the theory as is and changing an auxiliary hypothesis. In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. While Popper recognizes that scientists can and do hold onto theories in the face of failed predictions when there are no predictively superior rivals to turn to. He holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific. Among other things, Popper argues that his falsificationist proposal allows for a solution of the problem of induction, since inductive reasoning plays no role in his account of theory choice.

 

[Deeje]

Did God tell you that personally or did you just read that in an old book?

Yes. It is plainly written in that "old book" that those who teach things that contradict God's word stand in opposition to him. Macro-evolution and the Bible are not compatible. Adaptation is accommodated because modifications due to changes in the environment or food sources are confined to a single family of creatures. (their "kind") Calling adaptation "micro-evolution" leads people to believe that one equals the other....that is no more true than the notion of "a little is good so a lot must be better". Science has no valid evidence to support its ideas. Suggestions are not facts and never will be. Macro-evolution is not provable in any way, so it should be treated like any other unsupported idea of man.....with skepticism by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. It's not hard to spot a con job.

Did he tell you that personally or did you just read that in an old book?

That "old book" was around long before scientists could even contemplate our place in the universe. If this old book was not from the Creator, it would have disappeared centuries ago. It still exists despite all attempts to destroy it and to silence its contents. It is still the most widely read and translated book in existence.
It will still be around long after evolutionists are gone.

And how did they know the Earth is flat? The Flat-Earth Bible.

There is no teaching of a flat earth in the Bible. In fact the word Isaiah used to describe the earth means "sphere". And the writer of the book of Job spoke of God "hanging the earth upon nothing". How could earth bound humans know that when they had no way to observe the earth from space? How long has science known about gravity?

Ah. And it will not end well for a person like you who deliberately singles out atheists as the bad guys when plenty of theists also is at fault according to you. God is just you see. I read that in an old book. From now on you better not be singling out atheists but also theists who believe in unguided biological evolution. I will help you correct this whenever I see you mention just atheists. Let's hope God missed your unjust treament of atheists or it might not end well for you.

Atheists make up the greater number of hostile supporters of macro-evolution even here on RF. I don't think I have ever come across a theist who is hostile when creation or God is mentioned. I can at least reason scripturally with such a person. But atheists are anti-God and get rather riled up when you mention him or the Bible.
It's as if atheism is a rival religion with its own gods...its own "scripture"....and its own "temples" that must be fiersly defended.

Those not smart enough to be scientists also have their rival religion....SPORT. It too has its idols and its temples where people stream each week with religious fervour to worship. Look closely and you will see it. We humans are so predictable that the devil has no trouble redirecting our natural instincts. "Worship" has many expressions.

Define "scripture". The Ethiopian Bible has 81 books. What have you taken away from scripture?

Since God is the author of the Bible, he also decided what its contents should be. There is much more about Jesus' life that is not recorded. So much so that the apostle John wrote..."There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written." (John 21:25)

I believe that all we need to know is there in the Bible....all we want to know, will come later.

 

[cladking]

It would only take one valid evidence of god dun it by magic to falsify evolution. In 150+ years despite the myriad claims of creationists

No!

Religion and science can both be wrong or both be right. I believe they are both wrong but religion is closer to the reality than science. This doesn't mean there is a God or isn't a God, merely that religion is closer on change in species.

 

[cladking]

The perfect example is diatoms.

Perhaps diatoms have never suffered a near extinction event. This would be natural for a simple species that inhabits much of the earth.

 

[ArtieE]

That "old book" was around long before scientists could even contemplate our place in the universe. If this old book was not from the Creator, it would have disappeared centuries ago.

Like the Iliad and the Odyssey... no, wait, they are still around. Must be from the Creator then. And Plato's Dialogues.They were mentioned on a tv show earlier today in connection with Atlantis. Also from your Creator then.

It will still be around long after evolutionists are gone.

It will? How long do you estimate before all evolutionists have disappeared from the Earth? Or did God tell you how many years it would take?

There is no teaching of a flat earth in the Bible. In fact the word Isaiah used to describe the earth means "sphere".

Nope. Everybody knows it means circle.

And the writer of the book of Job spoke of God "hanging the earth upon nothing".

And the Bible also says in other places that the Earth stands on pillars.

Since God is the author of the Bible, he also decided what its contents should be.

Then how come there are many Bibles with different contents? "Different religious groups include different books in their biblical canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books. Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon." God ordered different contents for different people?
Books of the Bible - Wikipedia

Edit: "What is with the pillars ? What are they for and what do they do ? They are there to hold up the foundations of the earth according to the Bible.(1 Sam 2:8 above). When the earth was created it was set on foundations and those foundations are held up by pillars. But why put the foundations on pillars at all? The answer lies in 2Pe 3:5 "...the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" It is to elevate the foundations so that the earth would not be submerged in the waters below."
The pillars of the earth - how many and where are they ?

 

[cladking]

As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer reviewed site) notes:

Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival or by maintaining the theory as is and changing an auxiliary hypothesis. In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. While Popper recognizes that scientists can and do hold onto theories in the face of failed predictions when there are no predictively superior rivals to turn to. He holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific. Among other things, Popper argues that his falsificationist proposal allows for a solution of the problem of induction, since inductive reasoning plays no role in his account of theory choice.

This presupposes an actual theory based on experiment. ToE is not experimental. It is based on observation and deduction as far as significant change in significant species is concerned.

Meanwhile I still contend that all change in species that have been directly observed were the result of population bottlenecks and behavior. Indeed all change in life is sudden and often based on behavior. Walking across a minefield for example can suddenly result in the cessation of life while walking on a sidewalk is usually quite safe.