Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

[metis]

not sure about chance - but sure like the Divine creation part! I'm partial.

We pretty much know that chance must be a part of this through mathematical odds, such as which genes we will be receiving from our parents. This in no way implicitly states nor implies that there cannot be or have been Divine creation. Indeed, most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all.

Actually, our experience should include a metamorphosis - Metamorphoo

Wow, that word is way too big for me.

I did look it up, but I'm not sure how you may be relating it to this discussion, so could you clarify using much smaller words.

 

[Kenny]

We pretty much know that chance must be a part of this through mathematical odds, such as which genes we will be receiving from our parents. This in no way implicitly states nor implies that there cannot be or have been Divine creation. Indeed, most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all.

Wow, that word is way too big for me.

I did look it up, but I'm not sure how you may be relating it to this discussion, so could you clarify using much smaller words.

Yes, on the Greek Metamorphoo. I was thinking more on the Caterpillar/Butterfly whachamadoodle - not on the "chance' of parental DNA. To be frank, I can't wrap my brain on that process by chance thus a Creator (that may have used a basic DNA strand to start with). So on the macro sense... DNA manipulation by creation and not by chance - micro another story.

As far as us... nothing to do with the conversation side note that we are a new creation (one that didn't exist before) - we were spiritually metamorphosed and mentally in the process. Got to get out of my caterpillar thinking.

 

[gnostic]

In what sense does evolutionary theory assume that the natural world was always the same?

You do realise, that is a Young Earth creationist, and seriously believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old?

So he believe that the Precambrian to the end of Cretaceous period, are all associated with periods to Genesis 1 to 8.

I don’t know how he divide the geologic time scale, but at least day 1 to day 4 Genesis is supposed to be Precambrian to I have know idea which era and period, are not billions and tens f million years, but only 4 short days.

What I do know that he think the end of Cretaceous and extinction of dinosaurs (KT) occurred 1656 years after the creation of Adam to the time of Noah’s Flood, which estimated to be around 2350 BCE.

So to dad, the KT extinction didn’t 65 million years ago, but happened around 4350 years ago, when the biblical Flood occur.

He actually believe dinosaurs were still around from Adam’s days to the Genesis Flood.

He think the geologists and paleontologist and biologists don’t know what they are doing with dates.

 

[dad]

In what sense does evolutionary theory assume that the natural world was always the same?

In dating we see that radioactive decay, which exists today, also existed in the past. On this all ages are based. In the fossil record, they assume that fossilization would have happened as it would today in this nature. They also assume that the fossil record is a good cross section of what lived in each layer. If nature was different, we could have had a world where most creatures and man returned to dust too fast to leave fossilized remains. Therefore the few creatures that could would be useless in telling us what lived. Etc etc etc.

 

[metis]

So on the macro sense... DNA manipulation by creation and not by chance - micro another story.

When ya add up a lot of "micros" you eventually get "macro", and millions of years is a long time, almost as ol-- er, mature [I keep forgetting!]-- as I am.

As far as us... nothing to do with the conversation side note that we are a new creation (one that didn't exist before) - we were spiritually metamorphosed and mentally in the process.

Do any apes have "religion"?

There's no doubt that we are more intelligent than apes, although I have strong doubts that this applies to Republicans. I tend to see the evolution of religion likely happening in stages over maybe hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Thus, I cannot accept that Christianity, or even Judaism, is/are the first God-inspired religions. Why would we evolve over roughly 6 million years to have God only be concerned about us and teach us over the last few thousand years, which is less than even a "drop in the bucket"? And why only in one small area of the world? IMO, it doesn't add up.

Therefore, to me, I tend to think that "Something" has inspired humankind to become more humane and moral even if the "details" are not spelled out. Call it the "Holy Spirit" or "God's Spirit" [Tanakh reference], but I don't think we're the Lone Ranger here, if you know what I mean. And that "Something" I call "God"-- just don't ask me for descriptive details.

Got to get out of my caterpillar thinking.

Wow, it must cost you a fortune for shoes.

 

[Yerda]

You do realise, that is a Young Earth creationist, and seriously believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old?

I wasn't aware of his exact beliefs. It makes no real difference to me; I'll engage with anyone who is honest.

In dating we see that radioactive decay, which exists today, also existed in the past. On this all ages are based. In the fossil record, they assume that fossilization would have happened as it would today in this nature. They also assume that the fossil record is a good cross section of what lived in each layer. If nature was different, we could have had a world where most creatures and man returned to dust too fast to leave fossilized remains. Therefore the few creatures that could would be useless in telling us what lived. Etc etc etc.

Ok. I see what you mean.

It would be an assumption to say that decay rates have stayed constant but it seems to me that would be the best assumption until there is reason to make changes. Kinda like a default. I'm sure if you spoke to a nuclear physicist they'd have something to say about the matter.

Would you accept that given those assumptions then the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best fit for the evidence?

 

[dad]

It would be an assumption to say that decay rates have stayed constant but it seems to me that would be the best assumption until there is reason to make changes. Kinda like a default. I'm sure if you spoke to a nuclear physicist they'd have something to say about the matter.

It is not a question of whether things of our nature (like radioactive decay) existed at a faster or slower rate. The question is was there any rate and how do you know? We see that it happens today. That is known. WE know the rate it happens at today. That is known. That is all a nuclear physicist can see. What they do is extrapolate from this data. So say we have a ratio percentage of daughter material, and parent material in a rock. They look at how much daughter material there is, and how fast the decay rate of that particular isotope (s) is. Then they do math to see how long it 'would have' should have' must have' taken for this process of decay to produce all that daughter material.That is nothing more than a belief in a same nature in the past that they express in numbers and 'ages'.

Would you accept that given those assumptions then the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best fit for the evidence?

No. The theory that all life evolved from a thermal vent, pond slime, or comet waste...etc etc is utter foolishness and baseless and has zero evidence. Yes we have evolving today. That does not mean we came to exist because of this process (any more than we came to exist by brushing our teeth or urinating). That just means that we came equipped to adapt. To extrapolate backwards from this to claim we all owe existence to the process of evolving is screamingly religious. In the same vein, to use present growth rates for trees (rings), or current ice deposition rates, or current plate speeds as the way to calculate what the past was like is nothing but belief.

 

[Kenny]

Wow, it must cost you a fortune for shoes.

I told my friend John the caterpillar to "HURRY IT UP!! We are late for church".

He replied, "HOLD ON TO YOUR HORSES! I'm tying my shoes".

When ya add up a lot of "micros" you eventually get "macro", and millions of years is a long time, almost as ol-- er, mature [I keep forgetting!]-- as I am.

Yes . time was not a factor.

Do any apes have "religion"?

There's no doubt that we are more intelligent than apes, although I have strong doubts that this applies to Republicans.

WAIT A MINUTE... we are in the process of evolution.

I tend to see the evolution of religion likely happening in stages over maybe hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Thus, I cannot accept that Christianity, or even Judaism, is/are the first God-inspired religions. Why would we evolve over roughly 6 million years to have God only be concerned about us and teach us over the last few thousand years, which is less than even a "drop in the bucket"? And why only in one small area of the world? IMO, it doesn't add up.

Remember? You don't know everything like me I'm younger!

I think God's relationship with mankind was perfect. After continual sin, mankind began to amplify Adam's "I have a better way" and created their own religions with some truth in it but adapted to their needs and desires. Then Abraham came along and God said, "They are really going off based here... Let us get them back on track and Gen 12"12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

And, thus, we can trust the Jewish scriptures.

Therefore, to me, I tend to think that "Something" has inspired humankind to become more humane and moral even if the "details" are not spelled out. Call it the "Holy Spirit" or "God's Spirit" [Tanakh reference], but I don't think we're the Lone Ranger here, if you know what I mean. And that "Something" I call "God"-- just don't ask me for descriptive details.

I would agree that the "Something" is always trying to reach and inspire mankind.

Numbers 8:24-16 - my friend.

 

[Yerda]

It is not a question of whether things of our nature (like radioactive decay) existed at a faster or slower rate. The question is was there any rate and how do you know? We see that it happens today. That is known. WE know the rate it happens at today. That is known. That is all a nuclear physicist can see. What they do is extrapolate from this data. So say we have a ratio percentage of daughter material, and parent material in a rock. They look at how much daughter material there is, and how fast the decay rate of that particular isotope (s) is. Then they do math to see how long it 'would have' should have' must have' taken for this process of decay to produce all that daughter material.That is nothing more than a belief in a same nature in the past that they express in numbers and 'ages'.

I see. But you do agree that today we do observe particular rates for particular materials/isotopes? Is there any reason to suppose that in the past it was any different?

No. The theory that all life evolved from a thermal vent, pond slime, or comet waste...etc etc is utter foolishness and baseless and has zero evidence. Yes we have evolving today. That does not mean we came to exist because of this process (any more than we came to exist by brushing our teeth or urinating). That just means that we came equipped to adapt. To extrapolate backwards from this to claim we all owe existence to the process of evolving is screamingly religious. In the same vein, to use present growth rates for trees (rings), or current ice deposition rates, or current plate speeds as the way to calculate what the past was like is nothing but belief.

I would describe a lot of it as educated guessing.

Here's my view: to take the idea of common descent, there isn't any major piece of evidence or even strong line of argument against it. To the contrary what we find in the world around us is what we'd expect to find in a world where all of the living creatures shared common descent. Just one lineage that didn't use DNA/RNA to reproduce would be a strong piece of evidence that not all organisms are related by descent. We don't see that. We see what we would expect which is shared genetic material and conserved genes from humans all the way to bacteria.

Before you write a response please consider that I'm not trying to convince you to accept my perspective. Just expressing it and hoping that you can at least see how someone looking at some of the evidence might honestly arrive at it. I think the assumption that nature was the same in certain important ways is justifiable but I don't think I have any way of demonstrating it.

 

[dad]

I see. But you do agree that today we do observe particular rates for particular materials/isotopes? Is there any reason to suppose that in the past it was any different?

Yes we observe how it works today. If someone wants to make a claim based on 'supposing' it was the same since creation they are welcome to suppose all they like. I prefer to suppose God is right.

I would describe a lot of it as educated guessing.

Here's my view: to take the idea of common descent, there isn't any major piece of evidence or even strong line of argument against it. To the contrary what we find in the world around us is what we'd expect to find in a world where all of the living creatures shared common descent. Just one lineage that didn't use DNA/RNA to reproduce would be a strong piece of evidence that not all organisms are related by descent. We don't see that. We see what we would expect which is shared genetic material and conserved genes from humans all the way to bacteria.

What we see is also what we expect if God created life and genetics were different in the past. If things were different that would also explain how the recorded life spans of people could be so different....etc.

Before you write a response please consider that I'm not trying to convince you to accept my perspective. Just expressing it and hoping that you can at least see how someone looking at some of the evidence might honestly arrive at it. I think the assumption that nature was the same in certain important ways is justifiable but I don't think I have any way of demonstrating it.

No problem you are welcome to assume the unknown was any way you like. It is also a good thing you are honest about it, unlike some folks here.

 

[metis]

Yes . time was not a factor.

But it certainly is a factor whether or not one just believes in "micro" or accepts the reality "macro".

WAIT A MINUTE... we are in the process of evolution.

Yep, but in your case I think it's devolution! Or is it "devilution"?

Remember? You don't know everything like me I'm younger!

No, your less mature. Or is it that you're more manure?

And, thus, we can trust the Jewish scriptures.

Depends on what you mean by "trust". For example, "Can we trust the Bhagavad Gita"? Why or why not?

IOW, it depends on what we might focus in on, especially intent.

I would agree that the "Something" is always trying to reach and inspire mankind.

Numbers 8:24-16 - my friend.

Which is why I do tend to believe in what's called "on-going revelation", but I don't think any one denomination/religion/society has a monopoly on it.

Also, your Numbers link is not posted correctly, so when I excused your horrendous mistake and looked up what I think you were trying to cite, I couldn't see the connection in terms of what you were referring to in context.

And you & yours take care as well, my friend.

 

[Kenny]

But it certainly is a factor whether or not one just believes in "micro" or accepts the reality "macro".

What I meant was I didn't have an issue with how much time. Sorry.

Yep, but in your case I think it's devolution! Or is it "devilution"?

No, your less mature. Or is it that you're more manure?

I will be making good fertilizer.

Depends on what you mean by "trust". For example, "Can we trust the Bhagavad Gita"? Why or why not?

IOW, it depends on what we might focus in on, especially intent.

Where the meet I agree. If it is to revere a sacred cow, I would have to disagree. But I can't find a scripture in the Jewish TaNaKh where I would disagree with within the light of the NT.

Which is why I do tend to believe in what's called "on-going revelation", but I don't think any one denomination/religion/society has a monopoly on it.

Also, your Numbers link is not posted correctly, so when I excused your horrendous mistake and looked up what I think you were trying to cite, I couldn't see the connection in terms of what you were referring to in context.

And you & yours take care as well, my friend.

OOPS on numbers. Numbers 6: 23-26 - but I think you knew that.

 

[metis]

What I meant was I didn't have an issue with how much time. Sorry.

OK, I'll forgive you THIS time! Next time you'll get flogged. Although maybe you like that.

I will be making good fertilizer.

You do a good job of that here!

Where the meet I agree. If it is to revere a sacred cow, I would have to disagree.

I don't think that's mentioned in the Gita. It's really a very interesting read, especially because of the symbolisms that are involved.

But I can't find a scripture in the Jewish TaNaKh where I would disagree with within the light of the NT.

Well, ... [I don't want to get into that]

OOPS on numbers. Numbers 6: 23-26 - but I think you knew that.

So, please explain the context per our discussion.

Just a final word that I'll be "off the air" fairly shortly for the weekend, so have a good one.

 

[Kenny]

So, please explain the context per our discussion.

Just a final word that I'll be "off the air" fairly shortly for the weekend, so have a good one.

It was my closing remark - a blessing to a dear friend.

 

[metis]

It was my closing remark - a blessing to a dear friend.

Ditto!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course, I could not know the answer to that.

Sure you can ; just ask your parents. (I think they’ll say “yes.”)

And trust - ahem, have faith, ahem - that what they tell you is the truth.

 

[Secret Chief]

Sure you can ; just ask your parents. (I think they’ll say “yes.”)

And trust - ahem, have faith, ahem - that what they tell you is the truth.

Sure you can't. When I said "all human minds" that of course includes the minds of my parents, not "all human minds except those of my parents."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sure you can ; just ask your parents. (I think they’ll say “yes.”)

And trust - ahem, have faith, ahem - that what they tell you is the truth.

Yes, this works for various unavoidable facts and ideas (axioms of a sort). You can't claim to know with 100% certainty, of course, but coming into contact with the world now, as any one of us has, and seeing how things play out here, one can interpolate the past with some amount of tentative accuracy that is "good enough" to help us moving into the future.

The idea of "God," however, is not one of those "unavoidable facts." If anything, God is entirely avoidable, unnecessary and downright fluffy. Someone handed you the cake of life, and you refused to eat it without a repulsively thick layer of overly sweet frosting. My favorite part happens to be the cake, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think God's relationship with mankind was perfect. After continual sin, mankind began to amplify Adam's "I have a better way" and created their own religions with some truth in it but adapted to their needs and desires. Then Abraham came along and God said, "They are really going off based here... Let us get them back on track and Gen 12"12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This reflects an an ancient worldview. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that our world is not a very natural billions of years old, nor humanity was ever perfect as your religious world view asserts.

And, thus, we can trust the Jewish scriptures.

Today, no, ancient scriptures reflect a worldview of science thousands of years old. The Jewish Tanakh scriptures reflect the Hebrew traditions and beliefs, and not the Christian view of the Old Testament. By far most JEws believe in the sciences of abiogenesis, evolution, and a natural universe Created by God billions of years old.

The evidence demonstrates tha humans lived in died, fought, suffered diseases, waged wars and conflicts for the whole existence as long as humans have been human for hundreds of thousands of years. Animals as well lived their lives and died just as they do today for billions of years.

 

[shunyadragon]

This reflects an an ancient worldview. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that our world is not a very natural billions of years old, nor humanity was ever perfect as your religious world view asserts.




Today, no, ancient scriptures reflect a worldview of science thousands of years old. The Jewish Tanakh scriptures reflect the Hebrew traditions and beliefs, and not the Christian view of the Old Testament. By far most JEws believe in the sciences of abiogenesis, evolution, and a natural universe Created by God billions of years old.

The evidence demonstrates tha humans lived in died, fought, suffered diseases, waged wars and conflicts for the whole existence as long as humans have been human for hundreds of thousands of years. Animals as well lived their lives and died just as they do today for billions of years.

As per the subject of the thread, 'What is Science?', the above reflects what science demonstrates concerning the issue of 'Why evolution and the science of history of our earth and universe has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt as opposed to the ancient religious beliefs thousands of years old? Science is based on the actual physical evidence.