1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is Darwinism still fact after Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by questfortruth, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    5,029
    Ratings:
    +801
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

    Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

    In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
    But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

    Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

    However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

    Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
    1 Corinthians 13:2.
     
    #1 questfortruth, Feb 10, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Religion:
    None
    Darwinism was never a fact.

    Next question?
    Tom
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That's not accurate.
    Like the theory of gravity, darwinism is of such uncontested
    usefulness that calling it "factual" is quite reasonable. It's
    even an engineering tool of the bio-mimicry type.
     
  4. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Religion:
    None
    Yes it is. As you illustrated with:
    Theory is not fact. Some theories are so well supported by mountains of facts that they are treated similarly.
    Tom
     
  5. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    15,621
    Ratings:
    +15,986
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I think that is right, evolution is both an observed fact (we've seen it happen) and a theory of how it happens. I'm not sure what "Darwinism" is, though. It is term thrown, widely thrown around, that seems to mean different things to different people. I suppose we call the theory of evolution by natural selection Darwinian evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You're welcome to treat the theory of gravity as mere speculation if you wish.
    But I'm glad you're not an engineer designing bridges & spacecraft.
    Stick to picture framing.

    Btw, I have a bunch of vintage machine photos needing conservation
    mounting. Do you offer that? Do I get a discount?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    15,621
    Ratings:
    +15,986
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    In science a theory is NOT "mere speculation". And, as it happens, Newton's theory of gravity is now treated as a naive approximation. Though still good enough for engineering and most orbital mechanics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    36,300
    Ratings:
    +22,119
    Science hasn't been supplanted by magic, so yes.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Religion:
    None
    That's not what I said, you Deplorable you.

    Unsupported theories are speculation. Like genesis.
    Theories supported by mountains of evidence(facts) are scientific consensus. They might still be wrong. But the more evidence that accumulates the less likely that is. That's the difference between Scriptural biology and scientific biology. Despite centuries of effort on the part of biblical scholars there's no more objective evidence for genesis than there was 500 years ago. Evolution, speciation through natural selection, keeps being supported by an ever increasing, cross discipline, body of facts.
    Tom
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You make it sound so dismissive.
    It can range from speculation to the level of fact though.
    Approximation can be factual, eg,
    Pi approximately = 3.14159
    That is a fact.

    We're getting rather pedantic, eh.
     
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Genesis, as in the Bible story?
    That's not even a theory, just untestable magical thinking.
    Darwinism, ie, the TOE, is more that that. Testing comes
    also in the form of applying it to engineering design.
    And there is not one competing theory ever dreamed up.

    And what about my picture framing needs?
     
    #11 Revoltingest, Feb 10, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    15,621
    Ratings:
    +15,986
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Nope. A theory in science is a predictive model of an aspect of the physical world.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'm arguing that a theory which undergoes extraordinary testing,
    & results in entirely dependable utility rises to the level of fact.
    Your example of Newton's theory of gravity being an approximation
    in certain common circumstances is factual. Even newer better
    theories of gravity won't change the factuality of that approximation.
     
  14. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,942
    Ratings:
    +3,431
    Religion:
    Dual-aspect pantheist
    Modern evolution isn't really "Darwinism" anymore. The current theory is more like Evolution 2.0, containing things far beyond Darwin thought or knew. Some things Darwin was even wrong about, but that's for another discussion. The modern synthesis theory takes more things into account. When anyone talks about "darwinism" is really just a subset of what evolution is.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,201
    Ratings:
    +12,642
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Untested, unsupported theories are called hypothesis
     
  16. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Religion:
    None
    Sure it is.
    It's a model of reality where magic works and primitive people know more about God than we do.

    You probably can't afford me.
    Tom
     
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    If it cannot be objectively tested, then it's not a theory in the realm of science.
    It's just a sky fairy belief.
    You're a price gouger, eh.
     
  18. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Religion:
    None
    And you call yourself educated?

    You cannot objectively test a theory. What you can do is objectively test the data and predictions and such. Do they support the theory, contradict it, or suggest improvements.

    "Sky fairy" theories have been tested. Zillions of people have tried to produce objective data corroborating the theories. There's a whole thread about some dude who spent his life trying to find solid evidence corroborating Scriptural history. His personal sky fairy.
    The fact that he failed miserably is solid evidence on the subject.
    Tom
     
  19. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,782
    Ratings:
    +79,978
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I've never called myself that.
    What do you claim?
    You just described how to objectively test a theory.
    That's your idea of science?
    Oh, dear.
     
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    39,276
    Ratings:
    +19,766
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    "Evolution" is basically considered an "axiom" in science since all material objects appear to change one way or another over time, and life forms are material objects. It's the details of which that can be conjectural at times.
     
Loading...