proof against evolution

[Endless]

Since you wrote the following:

"The Earth" is not what has evolved; it's the life on earth that has.

Perhaps you could provide the definitive answer as to how the earth has not evolved?

 

[JerryL]

Since you wrote the following:

Perhaps you could provide the definitive answer as to how the earth has not evolved?

Again you push for a negative proof, which is an appeal from ignorance.

That said: the theory of evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. As the Earth is planet, not a "population of organisms", the Earth cannot evolve in the sense ment by the thread.

Is your next challenge "prove the Earth isn't a population of organisms"?

 

[Endless]

Again you push for a negative proof, which is an appeal from ignorance.

Nope, just wondering what information you had - because obviously you were under the impression that the earth did not evolve - i was just curious

That said: the theory of evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. As the Earth is planet, not a "population of organisms", the Earth cannot evolve in the sense ment by the thread.

Ah, so that's what you meant by '"The Earth" is not what has evolved;it's the life on earth that has. My bad :slap: i should have read that into it.
I'm sorry, i'm just messing around here. Gotta head and see if there's something constructive i can do

 

[dorcas3000]

I have a question: Why is it that evolutionists can use their own theories as arguements against Creationism, but Creationists can't use their own arguements against evolution?

Playing the "science" card is lame. Science is technically the study of matter through observation. No one can observe evolution that has already taken place using the scientific method. You cannot test it. You cannot repeat it. How is evolutionary theory science then? From what I understand, evolutionary theory claims the earth is, well, really really old. Yet somehow, our 100+ years of recorded scientific study of observable evolutionary processes has the credibility to prove processes that occured over several million years? That's a huge leap of faith, IMO.

I can't disprove evolution, neither can anyone else prove it. I don't see much of a difference between using fossils to formulate evolutionary theory and an archeologist digging up ancient ruins and speculating about the culture. Historical speculation and science are two very diffent things.

I'm not saying that anyone who believes in evolution is stupid or misguided, but I find it annoying when people assert that it is "SCIENTIFIC FACT." That is impossible, if we are to use the definition of 'science.' I don't believe in evolutionary theory because I have no reason to. I have yet to come across evidence that it is any more credible than what I believe in the Bible.

Oh, and for the record, I do not believe in 7-day creationism. Genesis 1 was not written as documentation, but as a statement of faith. If you read the bible from a literary standpoint, it is easy to come to this conclusion. Instead, it asserts a belief that God created the earth and heavens, and that he did it with power, authority, and order.

 

[Ormiston]

I have a question: Why is it that evolutionists can use their own theories as arguements against Creationism, but Creationists can't use their own arguements against evolution?

Playing the "science" card is lame. Science is technically the study of matter through observation. No one can observe evolution that has already taken place using the scientific method. You cannot test it. You cannot repeat it. How is evolutionary theory science then? From what I understand, evolutionary theory claims the earth is, well, really really old. Yet somehow, our 100+ years of recorded scientific study of observable evolutionary processes has the credibility to prove processes that occured over several million years? That's a huge leap of faith, IMO.

I can't disprove evolution, neither can anyone else prove it. I don't see much of a difference between using fossils to formulate evolutionary theory and an archeologist digging up ancient ruins and speculating about the culture. Historical speculation and science are two very diffent things.

I'm not saying that anyone who believes in evolution is stupid or misguided, but I find it annoying when people assert that it is "SCIENTIFIC FACT." That is impossible, if we are to use the definition of 'science.' I don't believe in evolutionary theory because I have no reason to. I have yet to come across evidence that it is any more credible than what I believe in the Bible.

Oh, and for the record, I do not believe in 7-day creationism. Genesis 1 was not written as documentation, but as a statement of faith. If you read the bible from a literary standpoint, it is easy to come to this conclusion. Instead, it asserts a belief that God created the earth and heavens, and that he did it with power, authority, and order.

Can you give an example of an argument that an evolutionist has used to disprove creationism, because I would find that annoying too. I do believe in evolution, but I also wouldn't say it is a scientific fact. The evidence does seem very convincing that evolution is accurate or close to the proper explanation for how life changes over time. And evolutionary theory is science because scientists use it when they're doing their science. It's an important tool to scientists. Creationism isn't. Creationism might however be useful to a scientist when he's in church, but definately not useful when he's doing his science. It all comes down to usefulness. That's all a scientist cares about when he's working whether it be tablets and ruins or fossils or theories about genes.

 

[dorcas3000]

The kind of frivolous statements I am referring to include: " I don't believe in God, therefore Creationism is false. I don't believe in God because I follow scientific fact. Evolution is science, therefore it's true. Because evolution is true, creation is false and therefore there is no God."

I'm really just venting here, and most people who post here seem level headed enough to not go around saying such things. Today is my first day 'round here, so i apologize for my rantings! But honestly, these are arguements people give me, all in an attempt to prove I am stupid for believing there is a God. Maybe this is because I'm from Indiana, and most people are just plain ignorant, including me, haha.

And OH MY! An evolutionist is admitting that evolutionary theory involves lots of speculation and is not necessarily fact? I love this place!

All in all, i think evolution should really be divided into two concepts: 1) scientifically observing evolutionary processes that occur today to understand how life forms 'evolve,' 2) a grand theory that supposedly explains the origins of the universe. I have no problem with part 1. I am all for part 1. Frankly, I really don't have much of a problem with people believing 2. That is an opinion, and I have room to respect that. I do have a problem with claiming that the existence of 1 proves 2 and that I am stupid. Part 1 is science, part 2 is philosophy and historical speculation.

 

[Ormiston]

The kind of frivolous statements I am referring to include: " I don't believe in God, therefore Creationism is false. I don't believe in God because I follow scientific fact. Evolution is science, therefore it's true. Because evolution is true, creation is false and therefore there is no God."

I'm really just venting here, and most people who post here seem level headed enough to not go around saying such things. Today is my first day 'round here, so i apologize for my rantings! But honestly, these are arguements people give me, all in an attempt to prove I am stupid for believing there is a God. Maybe this is because I'm from Indiana, and most people are just plain ignorant, including me, haha.

And OH MY! An evolutionist is admitting that evolutionary theory involves lots of speculation and is not necessarily fact? I love this place!

All in all, i think evolution should really be divided into two concepts: 1) scientifically observing evolutionary processes that occur today to understand how life forms 'evolve,' 2) a grand theory that supposedly explains the origins of the universe. I have no problem with part 1. I am all for part 1. I do have a problem with claiming that the existence of 1 proves 2, and that I am stupid. Part 1 is science, part 2 is philosophy and historical speculation.

I came here for the first time to vent too. It's cool! As for the "part 2", I do think there is a place for this sort of thing in science. Basically I think there's a place for every QUESTION in science. It's the answers that you have to be careful with. As far as the origins of the universe and Earth, scientists are not just guessing about the things they say. They look deep into space and see what's going on. For example, looking through a telescope allows you to actually and truly look into the past because the light is coming from such great distances. Scientists are actually looking at events that occured when the Earth was created and using this information to SPECULATE about Earth. I find this in no way irresponsible and should definately be taught in science class. Now the study of the origin of life has a name I'm sure (I don't know off the top of my head what that might be....help!?). And I think this too is a valid science.

 

[dorcas3000]

See? That is interesting. Everything you bring up, I don't have a problem with. I think in general i have a problem with the way evolution is presented. When someone says "we observe this and therefore have reason to assume or speculate this" that is fine. When someone says "science proves that everything randomly evolved," well, that's a little different. And when it comes to mapping out the evolution of the earth from start to present using fossil evidence- we've just concluded in the "evolution in schools" thread that such matters are possibly more appropriate in an archeological/historical classroom setting.

 

[Ormiston]

See? That is interesting. Everything you bring up, I don't have a problem with. I think in general i have a problem with the way evolution is presented. When someone says "we observe this and therefore have reason to assume or speculate this" that is fine. When someone says "science proves that everything randomly evolved," well, that's a little different. And when it comes to mapping out the evolution of the earth from start to present using fossil evidence- we've just concluded in the "evolution in schools" thread that such matters are possibly more appropriate in an archeological/historical classroom setting.

This has been a fun conversation. The thing about science is that it proves nothing. Zero. Nadda. First off, science and math have begin by defining certain "truths". They can't prove that these "truths" are true but they can define them. For example, 1 equals 1. Then they work within the confines of their own rules to try and make all of their "proofs" logical. So, in my opinion, ALL of science is speculation. The difference between speculating about God and speculating about atoms is that the latter can actually help build things and cure diseases, etc. Speculating about God might possibly get you into heaven and help people interact (like here!) but it isn't very useful for that other stuff.

 

[dorcas3000]

Good point. Religion and science have 2 different agendas...so why are they at war? lol

I like science, I like religion. To me, religion without science is ignorance, and science without religion is meaningless. When it comes to curing my cold symptoms, i generally reach for Sudafed before my Bible. When it comes to understanding where we came from, I reach for the Bible before by biology textbook

 

[Ormiston]

Good point. Religion and science have 2 different agendas...so why are they at war? lol

I like science, I like religion. To me, religion without science is ignorance, and science without religion is meaningless. When it comes to curing my cold symptoms, i generally reach for Sudafed before my Bible. When it comes to understanding where we came from, I reach for the Bible before by biology textbook

Well, look at the effect statements like "we all evolved from monkeys" has on people. And, subjects like the Origin of Humans is discussed by both. But you're right in that they do have two different agendas. Usually during those types of discussions I just try and focus on this fact.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

From what I understand, evolutionary theory claims the earth is, well, really really old. Yet somehow, our 100+ years of recorded scientific study of observable evolutionary processes has the credibility to prove processes that occured over several million years?

But the problem I think many pro-science people have is that creationists sometimes make statements that they "believe" in all kinds of science: biology, neurology, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, astronomy, etc., but when it comes to geology and evolution, they claim that those sciences can't be "proven" and that they conflict with the Bible.

And it's not just the last 100 years of evolutionary theory. Throughout its history, the church has constantly combated science that opposed the teachings of the church. In the Middle Ages people were imprisoned and killed for believing in astronomy and medicine. Galileo. Copernicus. Michaelangelo. Darwin. The list continues to the present day of people whose ideas have opposed that of the church, and the church has been on a mission of distortion and defaming since people believed the Earth was flat and was at the center of the universe.

The earth IS round. The earth is NOT at the center of the universe. Someday, maybe the creationists will finally accept that the earth IS more than 6,000 years old and people DID evolve from monkeys. Maybe then we can all share the same bananas.

 

[dorcas3000]

Maybe someday science will reach a point where Christians will have to give up and except such a 'fact.' But as of today, evolution is a very loose theory. Not all scientists believe it is true! Why should I drop everything and believe it? I don't find the 'origin of the species' to be credible enough for me to even bother trying to merge that theory with my own on creation. It was scientists that first claimed the earth was flat. Changing the word flat to round is a big jump, especially when you're taking a few scientists at their word. No wonder Christians resisted.

Science has also been very fad oriented. 100 years ago scientists thought that humans had reached their full intellectual and technological potential. That was mainstream thought then. And then it changes. I really think that evolution is 'the next big cool thing to believe in science,' and that someday the theory will fall flat on its face and evolutionists will put their feet in their mouths. Until then, I have no problem with studying it. I am just tired of people trying to mold all the evidence to fit their own theories about the earth's origins, instead of truely, openly looking at the evidence. Evolution is popular more because people WANT it to be true, not because the evidence supports that conclusion best.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

I really think that evolution is 'the next big cool thing to believe in science,' and that someday the theory will fall flat on its face and evolutionists will put their feet in their mouths. Until then, I have no problem with studying it. I am just tired of people trying to mold all the evidence to fit their own theories about the earth's origins, instead of truely, openly looking at the evidence. Evolution is popular more because people WANT it to be true, not because the evidence supports that conclusion best.

You very well could be right. Evolution may prove to be wrong. But that's the point of science, right? To constantly question theory? Maybe you're right - maybe we don't go all the way back to swinging on the vines, but there is enough evidence to support human connection to neanderthals, zinjanthropi, and such, the remains of which are much older than 6,000 years.

Nor does evolution necessarily conflict with scripture. I believe evolution to be true. But to believe that, then there must be one exact point in history when ape DNA became human DNA. Therefore, there was a First human. To give him the name of Adam is a matter of faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe evolution to be true. But to believe that, then there must be one exact point in history when ape DNA became human DNA.

No, there does not.

 

[darkwaldo]

Maybe someday science will reach a point where Christians will have to give up and except such a 'fact.' But as of today, evolution is a very loose theory. Not all scientists believe it is true! Why should I drop everything and believe it? I don't find the 'origin of the species' to be credible enough for me to even bother trying to merge that theory with my own on creation. It was scientists that first claimed the earth was flat. Changing the word flat to round is a big jump, especially when you're taking a few scientists at their word. No wonder Christians resisted.

Science has also been very fad oriented. 100 years ago scientists thought that humans had reached their full intellectual and technological potential. That was mainstream thought then. And then it changes. I really think that evolution is 'the next big cool thing to believe in science,' and that someday the theory will fall flat on its face and evolutionists will put their feet in their mouths. Until then, I have no problem with studying it. I am just tired of people trying to mold all the evidence to fit their own theories about the earth's origins, instead of truely, openly looking at the evidence. Evolution is popular more because people WANT it to be true, not because the evidence supports that conclusion best.

I wouldn't call science fad oriented. Its a constant pursut of truth. The scientist who claimed the world was flat had no way to know at that time. Scientist are always discovering new things that may contradict the past but, at least they're trying. Many christians like yourself start believing and then seem to stop thinking soon after.
I do agree that the origin of species is outdated. If I where you I would read a book like Darwins Ghost. It is written very well and is a more modern account of the origin of species.
Contrary to your belief, evolution is observable. Scientist have been observing it for years.
Don't critisize people for molding evidence to fit there beliefs. Call it a hunch but, i think you do the same.

 

[dorcas3000]

Evolution is observable, but not for 1000000 years. We can't observe 'evolution' that occured a ways back. I think that's what I meant....

Science may be the pursuit of truth, i can agree with that, but that doesn't mean I am required to accept the latest theory as such. When science discovers the Truth, i'll be listening.

And...OF COURSE I do the same. I just think everyone does it, Christians and non-christians alike, especially people who don't really study evolution but claim it is the answer to the universe and proves there is no God.

 

[Atheist_Dave]

You would have to be a bit of an idiot to claim that evolution explains the universe.... infact Ive never heard anyone say that before.

 

[dorcas3000]

lol I hear it all the time, probably because I'm from Indiana and no one knows anything. Bunch of rednecks!

 

[Atheist_Dave]

Haha, poor you.