No theories aren't facts, neither do they always explain facts ... they can explain facts as in the previously quoted example of gravity - but they are also presented in an effort to explain how the belief of the proposer(s) may have been possible - a classic example of which is evolution. I say again evolution is not a fact, it is unproven, it is believed by many and taught by many as fact but it remains unproven and theoretical. It is discredited for exactly the reason David Berlinkski says, "how much has been assumed", or as Johnson puts it, "philosophy" rather than "science". The small quotes previously used are just a fraction of those available from other reputable sources. Whatever you think about the quoted words of Darwin, that is what he said and how he felt in respect to just the intricacy of the eye making the comment that it made evolution "absurd" - yes he then proposes how it could happen but again he provides no proof only theories. If you are informed in the field of scientific research you will know that there is division of opinion amongst those within that field as to whether evolution or 'some sort of design' is behind life. If as you say evolution was a fact, such dispute would not be possible. With respect you are talking fantasy - no one, least of all me is talking "conspiracy". I am fully aware that most of those involved with research into and commitment toward science and other fields that share in or touch the evolution debate are indeed sincere in their research and published material. I happen to believe that they are sincerely wrong, but in the main I do not accuse anyone of conspiracy, (though there have been conspiracies e.g. Piltdown Man). Most people want to believe in evolution, it gives them an explanation that their 'brain' can cope with and it absolves them from the need to be subject to or to accept that there could be a 'higher authority'. With that background desire it is unsurprising that there should be a push to accept as fact, that which has not been proven as fact - it's a popular concept so it is readily accepted.
Dangerous? Yes! Some organizations are dangerous if you have a close look at their deeds and their agenda. Can't for the life of me understand how the organization I belong to can ever be called "dangerous". You obviously have no idea at all. Col
Oh, I most certainly do. Look at some of the quotes in your last post: "God does not want intellectuals who refuse true wisdom in his new world. That is why it is revealed to "Babes"." In other words, intellect and the critical faculties are bad, and people should suspend critical thinking in favour of following leaders who claim to know God's word. In other words, back to the pre-Enlightenment days of superstition and ignorance. "You are absolutely correct. This 21st Century is full of terrible people. Selfish, proud, greedy and brutal. Who would want to stay in this place anyway? I would much rather have what God promises any day. There is nothing this world offers that even compares to the world that God offers." And there, in a nutshell, is the rationale of suicide bombers. OK, so instead of the Christian heaven they get paradise with 72 virgins or whatever if they martyr themselves for the faith, preferably taking a few or a few thousand "infidels" with them. On the other hand, you have fundamentalist Christians yearning for the Rapture and interfering in the Middle East in the hopes of bringing it about. This is the mindset that led to "Kill them all, God will know his own." I'm getting really tired of hearing the fundamentalist Christian response to concerns about global warming: "we were told about this in the Bible; this is a sign of the End Times, praise Jesus." And their version of a solution for global warming? "Get right with Jesus." Do nothing else because why bother when the end of the world is coming? As Richard Dawkins said in this very powerful essay, "I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place."
A scientific theory is an explanation of a body of facts, based on the laws of nature. Since theories have to be testable by experiment and observation, and since the methods used by scientists are reproducible from one scientist to another, beliefs unsupported by evidence aren't within the parameters of the scientific method and hence can't be explained by scientific theories. And I say again that you are betraying a profound ignorance of the basics of science by that statement. You only need to read the research and review sections of scientific journals like Science and Nature, to say nothing of the more specialised ones like Journal of Evolutionary Biology and Molecular Biology and Evolution to know that this is a branch of science just like any other, with scientists doing research in the lab and in the field. There is a theoretical branch of evolutionary biology - population genetics - but the experimental work is far more widespread. David Berlinski is a philosopher, and Phillip Johnson is a lawyer. They are both intelligent-design creationists. You will excuse me for not considering either of those two gentlemen to be great authorities on what does and does not constitute science. Stephen Hawking and Francis Crick think evolutionary biology is science; why would you reject their opinion in favour of the opinions of two nonscientists? Certainly not for scientific reasons. No. These sources are not reputable. When a person comes along and takes a "this is appears to be a problem, but in fact it isn't" statement and plasters it all over the internet as a "this appears to be a problem, end of story" statement, that person has lied. No, he said it APPEARED to be absurd and then explained why it wasn't. I'm about as informed as a person with a science PhD might be expected to be. There is no division of opinion among biologists about whether evolution happens. There is a division among biologists, just as among other scientists and nonscientists, about whether God exists. However, just about all the scientists who believe in God will also accept the results of evolutionary biology, physical geology, astrophysics, palaeontology, and all the other branches of science. Creationists are the one making this nonsensical distinction of "either evolution or God but you can't have both"; most scientists know better. Evolution is no more atheistic than any other physical process; evolutionary biology is no more atheistic than any other branch of science; and the theory of evolution is no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. Sure it would. Fundamentalist Christians have made biblical literalism a non-negotiable part of their faith, and therefore, as far as they're concerned, evolution can't occur. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious ideology. OK, so you happen to believe that, over the last 150 years, tens, even hundreds, of scientists are all sincerely wrong, independently, in the same way (or they wouldn't be able to share each other's results and build on each other's work). These are people with years of training and experience in research; some of them have come into evolutionary biology research from other fields of research where presumably you'd agree that they did know what they were doing. Yet as soon as a scientist comes near evolutionary biology and its related subjects, all of a sudden he loses the ability to do correct research. How likely is that? Honestly? Your evidence that Piltdown Man was a conspiracy rather than the work of a lone hoaxer is what, exactly? Nonsense. Evolutionary biology isn't atheistic, and evolutionary biologists aren't exclusively atheists. And I come back to the point I made above - if evolutionary biology was some sort of fabrication created to allow people to reject God, that means that all these evolutionary biologists are knowingly collaborating in a massive falsehood. Because if they've developed evolutionary biology as a way of avoiding having to become Christians, they must know very well what they're doing. And your explanation for all the Christians who accept evolution is what?
Not in those words at all. There is nothing wrong with being smart, intellectual, or even highly intelligent. Read what I said "intellectuals who refuse". Therefore, it is about ones who do not give credit where credit is due and actually do something about it. Did I say anything about suicide bombing or Rapture or interfering with the Middle East? Where on Earth are you coming from? You categorize people faster than a Nazi-Librarian.....LOL Get off your soap box and have a cup of tea my friend. Settle down. When you have calmed yourself. Maybe we can discuss some of the finer details about what I said, instead of you going off on your tirade of blind accusations. Col
Wow this thread moved fast! We went from talking about whether god exists or not to evolution! Suppose for a moment that there is a supreme being. Now suppose that nothing anyone has ever said or done in gods name was actually intended by that being. Now suppose that god doesn't give a rats ass what we do down here and has other more interesting things to contemplate. From that perspective evolution does not prove or disprove god in the least.
That adaptation within a species occurs is a fact. That mutations occur is a fact. The extrapolation drawn from the facts, that the species that exist today came from common ancestors, is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is also a fact. See that phrase I bolded? That's one of the driving forces behind evolution and part of what allows speciation to occur. There is plenty of evidence that speciation occurs, of course. For example, it’s occurring in mosquitoes in London. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html The punch line is that speciation (in part) has been observed in fruit flies http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml As soon as two populations lose their ability to interbreed, they have crossed the species barrier. This has been observed in part multiple times and there is plenty of additional evidence that it occurs. You’re using one of the most common straw men of evolution. Evolution does not state that we evolved from apes; it states that we share a common ancestor with apes that both species evolved from. Why is it more reasonable? Because you assert it? There is absolutely no empirical evidence for God or creationism, but there is empirical evidence for evolution. I'll give you a chance to prove to me that God exists if you'll do it via an e-mail exchange or PMs on this board.
Occurring in mosquitoes? What is occurring in mosquitoes? Have they evolved from another species? Or are they evolving into something other than a mosquito? Please, do tell!! Ditto question for this too. These fruit flies are evolving from what other species? Or evolving to what other species? Are you certain this is not "adaptation" within a species? Col
New species of mosquito have been detected. Not only are there many species of mosquito, there are also several genera, a higher classification than species. They're evolving from other species of fruit fly. Are you using a different definition of "species" from the one used by scientists?
Why even mention intellectuals, then? Why not just "God does not want people who..."? By talking about "babes," you're saying that God wants people with undeveloped critical faculties. I'm telling you why I think religion, including the Christian religion, is dangerous. Since you said in your previous post "Can't for the life of me understand how the organization I belong to can ever be called "dangerous"." I'm telling you why I don't think religious organisations can be exempted from the dangerous ones. Maybe your particular organisation is tolerant and pacifist, but most religious organisations, particularly monotheistic ones, are based on "us and them" exclusivity and intolerance.
It seems you have not even studied the Bible, if, you are not aware of simple verses as the one's I have quoted. How can you provide your argument if you don't know anything about the one's you are arguing with? You need to do a bit more digging sir! There are thousands of religions on this planet if not more. Yes, most have the "us and them" exclusivity and intolerance. That does not mean they all are like that. Specifically the one I belong to, anyway. There is never "danger" in finding out the truth about God or God's people. Sure, there are millions or billions that say "we are God's chosen people". However, their actions speak a lot louder than their words. Especially, when it comes to doing what they are supposed to do according to the Bible. I can safely say "I do my best to adhere to God's Word" and the people I associate with and worship the True God with can say the same. Our faith is not a "blind" faith like many have. It's real, backed by understanding of all scripture. Well, it's a bit confusing if there are more than one definition of "species". I mean, you might be referring to "cross-breeding", whereas I am referring to "cross-species". A new type of mosquito being bred from another type of mosquito is a completely different understanding to a type of horse being bred from a cat, for example. I think, your scientific terminology of "species evolving" here might be the same as my terminology of "species adapting". Col
That's ma'am, thank you. Then I take it you aren't a Christian. Horses and cats are not only different species, but different genera, different families, and different orders. Mosquitoes are members of the same family although there are different genera and species. The usual definition of species in sexually reproducing lifeforms is based on reproductive isolation, so even though the mosquito species are similar in form, they're still different species if they tend not to reproduce with each other. Obviously horses can't breed with cats to produce viable offspring, but evolution doesn't work that way anyway. Modern species are descended from common ancestors, they aren't descended from each other.
LOL. Sorry about that. It's hard to tell in cyberland. Yes I certainly am. I am a follower of Christ. I actually do what he teaches us to do, unlike many "so-called" Christians. That's interesting. Many people believe it does work that way. Many people say evolution teaches man evolved from the ape, and ape evolved from something else, and something else evolved from something else, and so on, leading back to a single cell of some kind. However, man and ape are certainly not of the same ilk and never have been. There are some genes that the two share and also some DNA the two bodies share, and probably some other things (I am not a scientist by any means). However, there is no proof to show that humans evolved from apes. They are two completely different living beings. Col
Then you belong to a very us-and-them type of organisation. Well, many people are being a bit simplistic, then. Mind you, I don't recall anyone claiming that humans evolved from modern apes, simply that humans and modern apes have descended from a common ancestor. Here's a drawing of human and ape chromosomes. Looks like pretty similar ilk to me. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html If God wanted it to be clear that humans and apes are not of the same ilk, he used a mighty strange way to go about it. Humans and apes share a great deal of DNA, not just "some." Apart from the closeness of the DNA, you mean? And the existence of hominid fossils with characteristics shared by humans and characteristics shared by modern apes? Just wondering about something. If there really was proof that humans and apes had no common ancestor, yet our DNA was 95% identical, would that closeness bother you at all? How about if there was abundant evidence of common descent but the species were only 80% similar? It sounds as though you aren't really bothered about the fact that humans and apes are so very closely similar genetically as long as you can be sure that the similarity is due to something other than common descent.
hahahaha...that's very funny. If that's how it goes, then so do you The closeness does not bother me in the slightest. However, that is as close as it will ever get and has ever been. We are of a different "design" point blank. We are gifted with free-will and vision. We understand completely the "cause and effect" thinking. Animals, such as apes, simply can not. There is no evidence that says they did, do or will. Sure, animals can learn and mimic, but without human intervention, they are just animals. NO matter how clever they are at what they do. Col
Didn't god say something about not bearing false witness? You just completely misquoted Darwin you liar. Post all of what he said or retract it. This is how low the religious go for further their agenda. They are willing to flat out lie about what someone said. It's sickening. They say this kind of thing to children too. Because to them it's not about being correct, It's about being believed. They will lie to people all day long if it makes them look as though they have a point. But unfortunately for them, On here there are people prepared to check up on their claims and expose them as filthy liars. I was going to respond, But then i see you quoted that fairy story again, So that mean i have to automatically disregard everything you say as being complete nonsense. try harder next time, Nobody cares what Matthew said.
Lucia-mia with a science PhD, evolutionists and creationists have been arguing amongst one another for years and doubtless will continue to do so. Amongst those who argue in favour of creation are many learned people of science and other fields of learning including philosophy, law etc. Whether you believe that all of these people are fooled and only those who believe in evolution are right I will leave up to you, the debate will continue whatever you and I think. I will say though that I stand completely by my statement that the theory of evolution is not fact and therefore cannot be proven as true, you may cloak evolution or defend it with whatever scientific terminology or reasoning that you wish but it will never change that simple fact. The day that evolution were to be proven as fact it would be headline news and there would be no further need to try to convince everyone by means of regular news appearances with bone fragments etc trying to tell us that it is the 'missing link'. I am glad for you that you are happy in your belief, though I believe you are misguided, I also admire you because you demonstrate faith, you have to have faith to believe in evolution. I too demonstrate faith, faith in the existence and purpose of our Creator. I believe that my faith is more beneficial because if I am right this earth, and mankind upon it that want a secure and peaceful life, will be able to enjoy the transformation according to God's promises. Those who have faith in evolution on the other hand must hope that eventually mankind and the animal life will change to fit in with an ever changing environment, currently becoming more and more hazardous to us all. You ask how I expalin christians who believe in evolution and that is the easiest thing to answer - such people do not truly believe the bible! Like so many people today they may claim to do so, they may believe that they do, they may go to church and they may even read the bible ... but they do not really believe it, they choose for themselves what they will and what they won't believe from its pages. A Christian is literally a follower of Jesus Christ, Peter speaks of them as 'footstep followers of Christ'. At Matthew 19:3,4 Jesus said:- At Mark 13:19 he said:- Now there are many bible references to the creation, to Adam and Eve etc etc, those are just two examples from Jesus' own words. You cannot be a follower of Jesus and refute his beliefs, therefore I will leave it to you to decide if you can truly be a Christian and at the same time believe in evolution - Jesus clearly didn't. In response to one of your previous posts, I do not think Christianity is in any way "dangerous", it requires people to love their fellow man and to care for the environment and the animal creation. It requires that followers pay their taxes and obey the laws unless those laws clearly conflict with the clearly-stated law of God. However I believe that religion can be dangerous ... when it is misused to justify what God condemns, for example in the taking of innocent life. We have witnessed this not only recently by some 'Muslims' claiming to bomb people in the name of 'Allah' and so-called christians abusing prisoners in Iraq but also in the past with Roman Catholics and Protestants killing one another in Northern Ireland, the Crusades, the Spanish Conquests and other wars ... the list goes on.
If you need religion to make you do good things then you aren't a good person. I pay taxes, care about people and abide by laws because that's what I want to do, Not because someone is threatening me with eternal damnation if i don't. Religion has the ability to make bad people do good things and good people to perform the utmost despicable acts.
Now we are back to denying reality. Someone else posted the rest of what Darwin said, And the whole quote (something which you conviniently left out) shows that while Dawin said it initially seems unbelievable it actually makes perfect sense. You misquoted him and lied about what he said, Which is probably something we should expect from people like you.