Evolution My ToE

[dad]

Since it is you that is describing evolution as a religion, contrary to what every normal person thinks, I think maybe it is you that needs to define what you mean by it.

I generally think of TOE when using the word evolution. If not I would probably specify. For example if we are talking about some evolving that goes on, I might call it evolving or even evolution, but that has nothing to do with the TOE belief set.

We observe evolution happening, under our noses, whether it be the peppered moth, or Lenski's citrate experiment, or the acquisition of drug resistance by bacteria and cancers. There is no doubt about it at all.

No problem. I think evolution like this is a gift from God, and something we were created with. It certainly is not where we came from. I even think that evolving and adapting in the former nature was super fast. So a lot of evolution went on in the past also.
That has zero to do with the TOE.

 

[Valjean]

Your priori belief system claims that there was a same nature in the past. Your models of the past are built on that belief. Don't badmouth other beliefs. At least they do not pretend to be science.

So you think the laws of physics, chemistry &c just change periodically, for no apparent reason; that you might, at any moment, float off into space or drop through the sidewalk? that water could become flammable or gasoline inert?

What evidence do you have to support this capricious reality? It strikes me you're grasping at straws, in an effort to discredit science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, most Christian denominations see no conflict between science and Christianity. But that is because the idea of taking everything in the Old Testament literally is a recent - and retrograde - idea, only adopted by certain fundamentalist sects. You are wrong to believe all Christians think like you: they don't at all.

I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem when postulates disagree with what the Bible clearly says. Such as evolution as in a unicell eventually becoming after billions (?) of years a homo sapien. In slow stages, of course. By "natural selection."
definition of postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, yes I certainly agree the theories of science are never proved and that history shows they change, sometime radically indeed. Strictly speaking they are our best models of reality, and as such can never claim to be final reality itself, as there may always be more to learn. So a degree of reservation about scientific theories is indeed appropriate. So far so good.

When you say theories of science are the best models of reality, here is where I can see why some might get into a discussion of what is reality. But anyway, I disagree, especially with the use of the word 'model,' in "best models of reality."

But it is depressing to see you say you can't figure out how scientists figure the age of the universe, and so on. Because It's all out there, on the internet, and not that hard to follow. If you were interested (which I do not really think you are), I could help you understand it quite simply. You are an articulate person and I don't think you would struggle to understand.

Thank you for your opinion in that you think I am articulate. Since I can't figure how someone can figure the age of the universe, I don't mind looking at an explanation of it. It's kind of like saying I'd like to sit with Einstein for a while (perhaps a long while) to see how he came up with some of his theories.

I'm afraid I suspect that what this indicates is that you have avoided finding out, in order to avoid the conflict you perceive with your favoured interpretation of the bible. I may be wrong and apologise in advance if I am. But I see this avoidance behaviour all the time with creationists. In fact I have only come across one, in years of forum discussions, who understood the science he was dismissing (He was an astronomer, amazingly enough, and you would not believe the contortions he had to adopt to square his - partial and selective - version of biblical literalism with astronomy and earth science.). Generally, creationists go to great pains not to understand the science in these areas.

OK. Here I skip some points to get to the main point. So when God said, "Let us make man in our image," while I can't say that ants are equal in all respects to homo sapiens, I also can't say that God did NOT make man in the image of God. So, logically speaking, it is not said that God made chimpanzees in God's image, but man in His image. Therefore -- (I leave the rest up to you about parsing out the Biblical account and comparing it to scientific speculation about ages, formations, and evolving biologic elements.)

The established Christian churches (those with a history of the thought of theologians who have pondered these things) practically all support everything on my list above, without seeing any conflict with the teaching of Jesus or the bible more generally. For centuries the bible was not seen by these theologians as all to be taken literally, any more than we take literally all the imagery in a Shakespeare play. The bible was read as literature and the underlying, deeper, meanings were teased out and taught to the faithful. This is why Methodists like @Dan From Smithville, Catholics (and I don't mean just semi-detached ones like me), Anglicans like my late mother and Presbyterians like the Scottish clergymen friends of my Methodist grandfather, all have, or had, no problem with any of this.

Somehow I believe that may unfortunately be true. But, since we're on the subject of evolution vs. creation, more or less, I'll stop there. Although I can't see how anyone could not see a conflict between what the Bible says, what Jesus said, and the ToE.

 

[dad]

So you think the laws of physics, chemistry &c just change periodically, for no apparent reason, that you might, at any moment, float off into space or drop through the sidewalk? that water could become flammable or gasoline inert?

No. But I do think that the new world coming will see animals eating grass rather than each other. I do think that there will be no more need of the sun. I do think that God will create a new heavens. All this will not be due to some 'periodic' change! Nor was the flood due to some periodic change. Nor was the former nature due to some periodic change. God changes stuff as needed.

Science has no evidence that the future will be the same nature! None at all. Their prophesies of doom about the sun going out and universe going dark etc are all baloney. Baseless. The models of the past are also based on this present nature only. The jig is up, and they stand exposed. Flailing in the wind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course there is evidence supporting "fish emerging into landcrawlers." Have you not bothered to Google the mudskipper yet?

Yes. I can't say how it happened. I have a lot of questions.

 

[Valjean]

No. But I do think that the new world coming will see animals eating grass rather than each other.

By what mechanism will their dentition, musculature and digestive systems be altered to accommodate this new diet? How will the numbers of the new grazers be kept in check?

I do think that there will be no more need of the sun.

With all this heavy grazing going on, what's the grass going to eat, if it can't photosynthesize?

I do think that God will create a new heavens.

I'm still waiting for evidence of an old Heaven.

All this will not be due to some 'periodic' change! Nor was the flood due to some periodic change.

There is no credible evidence of worldwide flood.

Nor was the former nature due to some periodic change. God changes stuff as needed.

How is "as needed" different from "periodic?"

Science has no evidence that the future will be the same nature! None at all.

It has history, and a coherent picture of reality based on a stable physics.
What evidence do you have that natural laws are suddenly going to flip?

Their prophesies of doom about the sun going out and universe going dark etc are all baloney. Baseless.

Prophesies of doom?
Where did you get your degree in astrophysics?

The models of the past are also based on this present nature only. The jig is up, and they stand exposed. Flailing in the wind.

What has exposed them? Link?

It's easy to declare scientific knowledge bunk, but harder to back it up. Nor do you have any evidence supporting any alternative world-views.
You're religious views are incompatible with the world we experience, and you seem to think that if you declare something untrue, it magically becomes so. You also seem to support an entirely unevidenced reality. Why? How did you come to such a world-view?

 

[dad]

By what mechanism will their dentition, musculature and digestive systems be altered to accommodate this new diet? How will the numbers of the new grazers be kept in check?
With all this heavy grazing going on, what's the grass going to eat, if it can't photosynthesize?

Numbers will be kept in check by God's planning. Photosynthesis is just something that works with this nature, and all processes in the future new earth will work as they should in their new nature. Body systems can rapidly change in a different nature. You seem to be pegged in all thinking to this present state only.

By what mechanism did Lazarus rise from the dead, or people lame all their lives grow healthy legs to walk and leap suddenly? By what mechanism did Jesus rise from the dead? All of these thing involved more than normal physics and laws. When the creator of the universe and all universes wants nature changed, it gets done!

I'm still waiting for evidence of an old Heaven.

The different nature in the pre and early post flood days was not heaven!

There is no credible evidence of worldwide flood.

There is Scripture which is the epitome of credible. There is worldwide legends. There is the KT layer, which may be evidence of that flood year. There is no evidence from science against the flood.

How is "as needed" different from "periodic?"

Well what God needs God gets. Instantly. Your imaginary periods are invented and belief based.

It has history, and a coherent picture of reality based on a stable physics.

Our physics have not much history actually. Science has far less!

What evidence do you have that natural laws are suddenly going to flip?

God says so.
What evidence do you have that our nature is forever! None.

Prophesies of doom?

Yes, science calls them predictions. You know, like how the sun will go out one day etc?

Where did you get your degree in astrophysics?

Astrophysics is a con job. Anyone with a degree in that has wasted a lot of time.

What has exposed them? Link?

I exposed them right here and now. Your failure to show them anything but faith based hooey is evidence.

It's easy to declare scientific knowledge bunk, but harder to back it up.

Easy as pie when to foolishness is not backed up to begin with!

Nor do you have any evidence supporting any alternative world-views.

Alternate world vies/beliefs are no excuse for your religious chicanery you call science falsely.

You're religious views are incompatible with the world we experience,

Speak for yourself. My wold does not include sitting down with ancestors of flatworms that science claims! My world does not include traveling (yet) to the far universe, and confirming the beliefs cosmology has about what time is like there or etc.

and you seem to think that if you declare something untrue, it magically becomes so.

That which cannot be supported needs no magic to dance all over it.

You also seem to support an entirely unevidenced reality

I do not find God or Scripture unevidenced. So called science is totally without evidence for it's origin fables.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your priori belief system claims that there was a same nature in the past.

I have no a priori belief systems. In fact, I barely have a belief system full stop - a priori or otherwise.

Your models of the past are built on that belief

No, they are build on evidence that we can study in the present.

Don't badmouth other beliefs. At least they do not pretend to be science.

But they do claim to know better then science. Some of them at least.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes the majority of christians may be unbelievers as far as Scripture goes.

That majority of christians would disagree with you on that.

Lots of times the majority in ancient Israel was idol worshipers. The majority in Israel in Jesus day rejected truth. Sorry if you thought that wearing a tee shirt or pin saying christian on it meant that God or Scripture was a lie. No.

The majority of christians that don't reject the findings of science, aren't calling god or scripture lies at all.
That's again just that quirk in YOUR brain.

Perhaps if you focused on what Scripture and prophets and apostles and Christ said bout the beginning and creation you might see things in perspective.

I have no interest in your iron age myths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I generally think of TOE when using the word evolution

I bet you can't even properly summarize what the theory of evolution is all about, nore what it actually says.

From experience, I know that very few evolution deniers can.

I even think that evolving and adapting in the former nature was super fast

There is no evidence for this at all. You only "think" this, because you need to force fit the evidence of reality in your little bubble of makebelief.

This is the difference between you and the rest of us...
You have an a priori religious belief that you need to "impose" on reality, so you need to forcefit the evidence to conform to your model and you have no problem with making stuff up along the way, like you just did here, with the whole "evolution was superfast in the past".

So a lot of evolution went on in the past also.
That has zero to do with the TOE.

Yes, your fantasies have zero to do with the sciences of biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you think the laws of physics, chemistry &c just change periodically, for no apparent reason, that you might, at any moment, float off into space or drop through the sidewalk? that water could become flammable or gasoline inert?

What evidence do you have to support this capricious reality? It strikes me you're grasping at straws, in an effort to discredit science.

His "evidence" for his views, is that he believes it.
His "evidence" against science, is that he doesn't believe it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem when postulates disagree with what the Bible clearly says

So, you have no problem with science, as long as it doesn't contradict your faith-based iron age mythology.

You can say the words, but that means that you actually DO have a problem with science.

. Such as evolution as in a unicell eventually becoming after billions (?) of years a homo sapien. In slow stages, of course. By "natural selection."
definition of postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

There are no such baseless assumptions in evolution theory.
Every aspect of it is demonstrable and testable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. But I do think that the new world coming will see animals eating grass rather than each other. I do think that there will be no more need of the sun. I do think that God will create a new heavens. All this will not be due to some 'periodic' change! Nor was the flood due to some periodic change. Nor was the former nature due to some periodic change. God changes stuff as needed.

Science has no evidence that the future will be the same nature! None at all. Their prophesies of doom about the sun going out and universe going dark etc are all baloney. Baseless. The models of the past are also based on this present nature only. The jig is up, and they stand exposed. Flailing in the wind.

So that new world.... is it coming next Thursday? ;-)

 

[dad]

I have no a priori belief systems. In fact, I barely have a belief system full stop - a priori or otherwise.

Denial is a trait of your belief system. What you needed to do was to show your beliefs were something more. Man have you failed.

No, they are build on evidence that we can study in the present.

In the present is the key phrase. That is where you are. That is what you use as the basis for models of the past. So, prove that the past nature was the same or else we all see that your belief is nonsense.

But they do claim to know better then science. Some of them at least.

? Ants know more than science! You kidding? Ants know about God. Ants do not think they share relatives with you.

 

[dad]

That majority of christians would disagree with you on that.

So might ten millions flies. You think that means they are right?

The majority of christians that don't reject the findings of science, aren't calling god or scripture lies at all.
That's again just that quirk in YOUR brain.

Belief is a matter of the heart, not the mind actually. That is why when I see people embrace the dark side, and lies with their hearts, I take what their poor little brains says with a grain of salt!

I have no interest in your iron age myths.

As I have no interest in your dark ages myths.

 

[dad]

So that new world.... is it coming next Thursday? ;-)

Well, there is a timetable in the bible. Before we see the new world come, and His kingdom rule here, Jesus will return to earth. He is due to land on exact coordinates. The mount of Olives to be exact.

 

[dad]

There are no such baseless assumptions in evolution theory.
Every aspect of it is demonstrable and testable.

What a crock. Demonstrate how you share ancestors with flatworms!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Denial is a trait of your belief system. What you needed to do was to show your beliefs were something more. Man have you failed.

Your mindreading device is broken.

I just told you that I don't have a priori beliefs and have no need for them.
The decent thing to do is to accept what I say when *I* am talking about what *I* believe (or not).

If you are going to insist that you know better then me what *I* believe or don't believe, then you're going to enter a whole new level of irrational arrogance.

In the present is the key phrase. That is where you are

Obviously. I don't have a time machine. Nore do I require one.

That is what you use as the basis for models of the past

That's what everyone uses. So do you. It's not like we have a choice or anything..... Examining the evidence at our disposal is the best we can do. And it works rather well, since events of the past leave evidence in the present. By analysing that evidence, we can reconstruct the past.

For example: someone walked here:

There was a fire here:

An car accident happened here:

See? That's how that works... Evidence of the present, giving us clues as to what happened in the past.

Now imagine that you have several "eyewitness testimonies" of that last picture and they all say that no accident happened at all. Or that the accident involved 2 trucks instead of 2 cars. Well... no matter the claims of the so-called "eyewitness testimonies" - the evidence shows them to be wrong.

See? That's how that works as well... when evidence contradicts testimony, it's not the evidence that is incorrect..........

So, prove that the past nature was the same or else we all see that your belief is nonsense.

I don't require evidence for the null hypothesis.
Unfortunatly, you don't seem to comprehend what a null hypothesis is.

That's your problem, not mine.

Ants know more than science! You kidding? Ants know about God. Ants do not think they share relatives with you.

This reminds me of how my 4-year old son argues on the school playground.

 

[dad]

I just told you that I don't have a priori beliefs and have no need for them.

Your stated belief in a same nature in the past stands in need of support.

Denying in not an option. (except inside your head)

Obviously. I don't have a time machine. Nore do I require one.

And obviously you cannot tell us what the past was like.

That's what everyone uses. So do you. It's not like we have a choice or anything..... Examining the evidence at our disposal is the best we can do.

Examining evidence without your beliefs attached is the best we can do.

And it works rather well, since events of the past leave evidence in the present. By analysing that evidence, we can reconstruct the past.

What we observe here is here. That should be obvious.

See? That's how that works... Evidence of the present, giving us clues as to what happened in the past.

Sorry if you thought we were talking about last week. No.

Now imagine that you have several "eyewitness testimonies" of that last picture and they all say that no accident happened at all. Or that the accident involved 2 trucks instead of 2 cars. Well... no matter the claims of the so-called "eyewitness testimonies" - the evidence shows them to be wrong.

You deny what the folks who lived in the past and recorded history say. You deny for example there were spirits among men and that we lived many centuries.

I don't require evidence for the null hypothesis.

Don't confuse dull hypothesis with null. You do require evidence for the very foundational basis upon which you build models of the past.

Your unsupportable, invented, and Scripture and history denying beliefs are confused utterances of bad religion.