Total Posts:175|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution is faith...

Thinker0
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 3:49:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Both Creation as declared in the Scriptures and the man-made philosophy of evolution are based on faith.
"The more one studies paleontology( the fossil record) the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Louis T. Moores, evolutionist
"What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen - belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works'. - Arthur N. Fields, geologist
"Mean while, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of 'species'." - William Bateson, evolutionist
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." - Dr. Dwane Gish, biologist
"In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in 2 seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in 2 million years, it becomes a prince. That is not science. It is simply faith." - Dr. D James Kennedy
"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature (an eye-witness to its occurrence) which is needed to place the theory on a scientific basis." - Evolutionist T.H. Morgan
Evolution is no fact it is simply a faith.
Veritatem Cognoscere
"To know the truth"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 3:56:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Faith is believing in something that cannot be verified with evidence or observed reality. That accurately describes religious belief.

Fact is stating something exists because it can be verified with evidence and observed reality. That describes evolution.

Or if you're not too sure, then a Theory is stating something may exist based on observed reality and evidence which points in its direction, but is not completely concluded. That can also describe evolution, though that definition is beginning to pass as more and more information comes to light.

So, no - evolution is not faith. It is either fact or theory, based on what you think the evidence shows. This is because there is much evidence which backs the idea of evolution which has been peer reviewed and shown to be true in every circumstance.

By the way - why is this in science?
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:08:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didn't know that today was 'start insanely moronic threads' day!

There is no reasoning, logic, empirical evidence or, well, -anything- behind your hypothesis. You made a statement, then backed it up by quotes.

You're implying that evolution is no greater than say, faith in god, which is blatantly false.

To some extent, yes, belief in evolution relies on faith. However, it is not correct to simply lump it in with faith in god because doing so would imply that our existence is based only on faith. That is to say that if you define 'faith' as merely a blind trust into something and do not discern between faith in science and faith in religion, then there is a plethora of associated arguments that can be made.

For example, if you say evolution is faith just like a faith in god, then the same must be said for heliocentricity and gravity. While there is an endless supply of evidence behind both, they can never -really- be concretely be proven. The question then begs; what is proof? Can anything really ever be proven? If I hit a vase with a baseball bat, and it subsequently smashes, is that to say that I, while employing the bat, broke the vase? Or could it be that through the power of my thoughts, my soul disturbed the molecules of the vase at the exact same time they came into contact with the bat? Who is even to say that the molecules exist? Can I really put faith in my ability to see or experience?

This, of course, is moronic. Through observing cause and effect, I know that the bat broke the vase. If I employed scientific instruments, I can tell you that the bat broke the internal structure of the vase by displacing molecules. My "faith" in science allows me to believe this as fact.

So faith in religion and faith in evolution are two completely different things. Faith in evolution relies on scientific reasoning, empirical evidence and consensus amongst those analyzing that evidence. Every leap between each step is small. That is to say that I have faith that there is little to no gap between the evidence and the scientific consensus. It does not require a very large leap of faith to believe that these experts know what they're talking about. However, faith in god requires enormous leaps of faith. For example, to believe in Christianity I have to have faith in the idea that a series of extraordinary events transpired that cannot be proven or reproduced. The evidence relies on one book, written by non-experts, that has been passed along for 2000 years, 300 of which it cannot be accounted for. I further need to have faith in something that I literally cannot prove or demonstrate. I need to have faith in something that does not follow a logical process other than "It's there."

That's not to say, however, that such a large leap of faith is wrong. On the contrary, it's totally understandable. However, don't come on here and tell me that your gigantic leap of faith is equal and as reasonable as your's. It, by definition, is not.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:38:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"The more one studies paleontology( the fossil record) the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Louis T. Moores, evolutionist

Who? According to Google and Wikipedia there is no biologist by that name.

"What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen - belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works'. - Arthur N. Fields, geologist

Again, who? Google only finds a lawyer with this name.

"Mean while, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of 'species'." - William Bateson, evolutionist

Right, we have no acceptable account of the dawn of life. Focus your misguided efforts on biogenesis, not evolution.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." - Dr. Dwane Gish, biologist

Anything to back this up from old Dwane Gish?

"In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in 2 seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in 2 million years, it becomes a prince. That is not science. It is simply faith." - Dr. D James Kennedy

Frog to human in 2 MILLION years? This guy doesn't even warrant a response.

"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature (an eye-witness to its occurrence) which is needed to place the theory on a scientific basis." - Evolutionist T.H. Morgan

This guy died in 1945. Scientists have since observed speciation in the lab.

Also... "Far from rejecting evolution as the title of his 1916 book may suggest, Morgan not only laid the foundation of the science of genetics, but by doing that, he also laid the theoretical foundation for the mechanism of evolution: natural selection. Heredity was a central plank of Darwin's theory of natural selection, but Darwin had a wrong theory of heredity. Therefore, Darwinism could not progress without a correct theory of genetics. Morgan created that foundation. That's why Morgan's work is so important for the neo-Darwinian synthesis despite his criticism at the beginning of his career."

Teehee.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:41:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's a theory, not faith. Faith implies a lack of physical evidence, which isn't the case for evolution.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:42:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:41:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
It's a theory, not faith. Faith implies a lack of physical evidence, which isn't the case for evolution.

OP stole your old avatar wjm. :D
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:43:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:42:19 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
OP stole your old avatar wjm. :D

I know. And he's a conservative... Conservatives can't be Friedman!
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:46:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:43:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/11/2009 4:42:19 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
OP stole your old avatar wjm. :D

I know. And he's a conservative... Conservatives can't be Friedman!

Challenge him to an avatar bet. :D
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:57:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:38:47 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
"The more one studies paleontology( the fossil record) the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Louis T. Moores, evolutionist

Who? According to Google and Wikipedia there is no biologist by that name.

The only book reference I can find in relation to this Moore, and anti evo quotes comes from this book:

"Kennedy, D. James, Why I Believe, Word Publishing, 1980.

Kennedy is a Christian theologian who uses reason and evidence to defend Christianity. This book is an excellent summary of several essential doctrines of the Christian faith."

As of now I call bs. ;) Princeton has no record of Louis T Moore, paleontologist, professor, of which this person is supposedly. All that exists is the quote, in a vacuum of other information.

The only reference to a Louis T Moore is:

Wilmington Through the Lens of Louis T. Moore
Susan Taylor Block
(336pp, clothbound, b&w photos)
$45.00

Louis Toomer Moore (1885-1961) was an intensely focused local historian and an impassioned champion of his hometown, Wilmington, North Carolina. While serving as director of the Chamber of Commerce, he took roughly 1000 panoramic photographs. Though the primary target of his camera was New Hanover County, the images also form a summary of life in a southern coastal town during the 1920s and '30s: the hilarity of the Roaring 20s, stealth of Prohibition, tragedies of the Great Depression and the creativity of rebuilding lives and livings. The timeless beauty of subjects like little girls in white dresses, cherubic babies on the beach and rippled water dappled in sunlight are merely red-eye gravy.

Using facts and identifications gleaned from interviews, publications both well-known and rare, and extensive newspaper research, author Susan Taylor Block has provided text that brings the old photographs to life. Wilmington Through the Lens of Louis T. Moore is a vehicle to the past, a time machine that invites the passenger back, again and again.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 5:07:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Final call on bs. ;)

"Australian geologist Arthur N. Fields said "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes *that evolution is based on faith alone*."
I note that this quote is attributed to "Dr. Louis T. Moore, Professor of Paleontology, Princeton University" at <http://www.why-the-bible.com...; and other sites, to "Professor T.L Moor of the University of Cincinnati" at <http://www.derwentside.org.uk...; and other sites, to "More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati" at <http://www.anointed-one.net...; and other sites, and to "Randy Wysong" at <http://evolution-facts.org...;. Apart from the fact that there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to who made this statement, and what their credentials were, there is no indication of when or where it was stated. "
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 5:04:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 11/11/2009 3:56:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
Faith is believing in something that cannot be verified with evidence or observed reality. That accurately describes religious belief.

Fact is stating something exists because it can be verified with evidence and observed reality. That describes evolution.


Yeah I agree, but you have faith in the concept of evolution, the millions of years part. You may logically say that because you can see different types of dog, over millions of years a non-dog will of appeared from the dog family. That is assumption and speculation to it's highest dregree, and it isn't science!

Facts make up theories, it is a fact that there are many types of dog, the faith is applied when you say these fact prove the theory. Evidence only point to one past event, why they does the fossil record account for both a flood and evolution?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2009 5:22:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 5:04:00 AM, GodSands wrote:
Yeah I agree, but you have faith in the concept of evolution, the millions of years part. You may logically say that because you can see different types of dog, over millions of years a non-dog will of appeared from the dog family. That is assumption and speculation to it's highest dregree, and it isn't science!

Facts make up theories, it is a fact that there are many types of dog, the faith is applied when you say these fact prove the theory. Evidence only point to one past event, why they does the fossil record account for both a flood and evolution?

You're an idiot and don't understand a single thing about evolution or geological history, and probably get most of your ideas and/or arguments from sites which pre-write half the crap you spew.

I've been waiting to get that out of the way for awhile!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:06:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/12/2009 5:04:00 AM, GodSands wrote:
Yeah I agree, but you have faith in the concept of evolution, the millions of years part. You may logically say that because you can see different types of dog, over millions of years a non-dog will of appeared from the dog family. That is assumption and speculation to it's highest dregree, and it isn't science!

Facts make up theories, it is a fact that there are many types of dog, the faith is applied when you say these fact prove the theory. Evidence only point to one past event, why they does the fossil record account for both a flood and evolution?

Yeah, just like we have Faith in the concept of Gravity. Oh wow! youre right. How absurd it is to believe in Gravity. Clearly your argument follows logic. Clearly Gravity is invalid.

Yeah right. Please come back when you grow a brain. Or perhaps you can pray for one from God.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 10:43:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 3:49:27 PM, Thinker0 wrote:
Both Creation as declared in the Scriptures and the man-made philosophy of evolution are based on faith.
"The more one studies paleontology( the fossil record) the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Louis T. Moores, evolutionist
"What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen - belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works'. - Arthur N. Fields, geologist
"Mean while, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of 'species'." - William Bateson, evolutionist
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." - Dr. Dwane Gish, biologist
"In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in 2 seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in 2 million years, it becomes a prince. That is not science. It is simply faith." - Dr. D James Kennedy
"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature (an eye-witness to its occurrence) which is needed to place the theory on a scientific basis." - Evolutionist T.H. Morgan
Evolution is no fact it is simply a faith.

The thing I find interesting is how "Evolution" is defined...I mean the "Evolution" that is taught in schools is one thing...then when you try to discuss evolution with someone else...(the kind of evolution that is taught in the schools to the children)...then they seem to want to change that definition into something else...I mean my atheist roommate for example defines evolution as "Change over time'...well...a person who lifts weights will "Evolve" by that definition...as the person's physique changes through the weeks of working out...So is that "Evolution"? I mean the semantics comes into play a lot is what I am getting at...I think in a discussion the terms must be clearly defined...because that is NOT the "Evolution" that they are teaching in the schools!!

There are different kinds of "Evolution"
1. Cosmic evolution (Big bang)
2. Chemical evolution (elements changing into different elements)
3. Stellar evolution (stars evolving)
4. Organic evolution (life from non living material becoming living matter)
5. Macro evolution (where an animal changes into a different kind of animal)
6. Micro evolution = a misnomer...aka. "variations"

the first 5 kinds require faith...
and some of those are the kind taught in the schools!

for ex:
first law of thermodynamics = matter cannot be created or destroyed.

And the humanist view of cosmic evolution = 1. something came from nothing OR 2. all the matter was condensed or something and we came from this dot and the dot came from nothing...

so supposedly they call that science and put it in a science book?
it doesn't match up with the aforementioned "scientific law"...I see that as a problem..that is just one law...there are other scientific laws which also seem to be disregarded (ex: the law of conservation of angular momentum...
everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...some galaxies are spinning backwards...)

Where did the dirt come from? they don't know...so the main difference =
In the beginning God created the earth vs. In the beginning dirt created the earth.
(it is a "religious" point of view!)

Another difference is evolution is tax supported and couldn't survive without tax support. It should be taught in private schools (not funded by taxpayer dollars) if it is just a "religious" belief...right?

anyway, just a couple of ideas on the topic...
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 12:09:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 10:43:35 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 11/11/2009 3:49:27 PM, Thinker0 wrote:
Both Creation as declared in the Scriptures and the man-made philosophy of evolution are based on faith.
"The more one studies paleontology( the fossil record) the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Louis T. Moores, evolutionist
"What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen - belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works'. - Arthur N. Fields, geologist
"Mean while, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of 'species'." - William Bateson, evolutionist
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." - Dr. Dwane Gish, biologist
"In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in 2 seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in 2 million years, it becomes a prince. That is not science. It is simply faith." - Dr. D James Kennedy
"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature (an eye-witness to its occurrence) which is needed to place the theory on a scientific basis." - Evolutionist T.H. Morgan
Evolution is no fact it is simply a faith.

The thing I find interesting is how "Evolution" is defined...I mean the "Evolution" that is taught in schools is one thing...then when you try to discuss evolution with someone else...(the kind of evolution that is taught in the schools to the children)...then they seem to want to change that definition into something else...I mean my atheist roommate for example defines evolution as "Change over time'...well...a person who lifts weights will "Evolve" by that definition...as the person's physique changes through the weeks of working out...So is that "Evolution"? I mean the semantics comes into play a lot is what I am getting at...I think in a discussion the terms must be clearly defined...because that is NOT the "Evolution" that they are teaching in the schools!!

Evolution does mean, in its most basic form, change over time. With reference to the scientific theory however, it means the changing of one species, or a portion of one species into a new species over time.

There are different kinds of "Evolution"
1. Cosmic evolution (Big bang)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of the universe.
2. Chemical evolution (elements changing into different elements)
Not related to evolution. And doesn't happen, save in radioactive elements, or those which are fused or fissioned.
3. Stellar evolution (stars evolving)
Not related to evolution. Stars don't evolve, they change.
4. Organic evolution (life from non living material becoming living matter)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of life, not the changing of life.
5. Macro evolution (where an animal changes into a different kind of animal)
6. Micro evolution = a misnomer...aka. "variations"

5 and 6 are the same thing over different time spans.

the first 5 kinds require faith...
and some of those are the kind taught in the schools!

for ex:
first law of thermodynamics = matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Are you claiming this is incorrect? If so, evidence please.
And the humanist view of cosmic evolution = 1. something came from nothing OR 2. all the matter was condensed or something and we came from this dot and the dot came from nothing...
Not really related to evolution.
so supposedly they call that science and put it in a science book?
it doesn't match up with the aforementioned "scientific law"...I see that as a problem..that is just one law...there are other scientific laws which also seem to be disregarded (ex: the law of conservation of angular momentum...
everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...some galaxies are spinning backwards...)
1: Backwards is relative. 2: How does the conservation of angular momentum mean everything should be spinning the same way?
Where did the dirt come from? they don't know...so the main difference =
In the beginning God created the earth vs. In the beginning dirt created the earth.
(it is a "religious" point of view!)
Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. No tract on evolutionary theory discusses the creation of life because it is not relevant to evolution, which discusses what happens once life exists.
Another difference is evolution is tax supported and couldn't survive without tax support. It should be taught in private schools (not funded by taxpayer dollars) if it is just a "religious" belief...right?
But its not. It is a scientific theory (which means backed up by all available data).
anyway, just a couple of ideas on the topic...
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 7:34:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 12:09:27 AM, LB628 wrote:

The thing I find interesting is how "Evolution" is defined...I mean the "Evolution" that is taught in schools is one thing...then when you try to discuss evolution with someone else...(the kind of evolution that is taught in the schools to the children)...then they seem to want to change that definition into something else...I mean my atheist roommate for example defines evolution as "Change over time'...well...a person who lifts weights will "Evolve" by that definition...as the person's physique changes through the weeks of working out...So is that "Evolution"? I mean the semantics comes into play a lot is what I am getting at...I think in a discussion the terms must be clearly defined...because that is NOT the "Evolution" that they are teaching in the schools!!

Evolution does mean, in its most basic form, change over time. With reference to the scientific theory however, it means the changing of one species, or a portion of one species into a new species over time.

There are different kinds of "Evolution"
1. Cosmic evolution (Big bang)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of the universe.
2. Chemical evolution (elements changing into different elements)
Not related to evolution. And doesn't happen, save in radioactive elements, or those which are fused or fissioned.
3. Stellar evolution (stars evolving)
Not related to evolution. Stars don't evolve, they change.
4. Organic evolution (life from non living material becoming living matter)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of life, not the changing of life.
5. Macro evolution (where an animal changes into a different kind of animal)
6. Micro evolution = a misnomer...aka. "variations"

5 and 6 are the same thing over different time spans.

the first 5 kinds require faith...
and some of those are the kind taught in the schools!

for ex:
first law of thermodynamics = matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Are you claiming this is incorrect? If so, evidence please.
And the humanist view of cosmic evolution = 1. something came from nothing OR 2. all the matter was condensed or something and we came from this dot and the dot came from nothing...
Not really related to evolution.
so supposedly they call that science and put it in a science book?
it doesn't match up with the aforementioned "scientific law"...I see that as a problem..that is just one law...there are other scientific laws which also seem to be disregarded (ex: the law of conservation of angular momentum...
everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...some galaxies are spinning backwards...)
1: Backwards is relative. 2: How does the conservation of angular momentum mean everything should be spinning the same way?
Where did the dirt come from? they don't know...so the main difference =
In the beginning God created the earth vs. In the beginning dirt created the earth.
(it is a "religious" point of view!)
Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. No tract on evolutionary theory discusses the creation of life because it is not relevant to evolution, which discusses what happens once life exists.
Another difference is evolution is tax supported and couldn't survive without tax support. It should be taught in private schools (not funded by taxpayer dollars) if it is just a "religious" belief...right?
But its not. It is a scientific theory (which means backed up by all available data).
anyway, just a couple of ideas on the topic...

LB628 - thanks for the ideas...I guess my main point is that the "Evolution" that you are talking about...is not the SAME "Evolution" that is being taught in the public schools. Is it??
I mean would you agree or disagree if I said "Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools."?
How about if I said "The Big Bang Theory presented as the origin of life is taught in public schools."?

I don't know how it is nowadays but I was taught those things in public schools.

And as I think about it now, it wasn't "science" that I was taught then, but instead it was speculation. It was all lumped together and presented as the origin of life and as the origin of the human species.

...and what I was trying to point out is that doing that...it is a "religious" point of view...and if we are going to have religion in the schools ...well over 80% would rather be taught creationism... as that is what most believe in, according to the polls....most people just don't seem to believe that "dirt" created mankind, but rather that "God" created mankind.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:32:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:34:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 12/3/2009 12:09:27 AM, LB628 wrote:

The thing I find interesting is how "Evolution" is defined...I mean the "Evolution" that is taught in schools is one thing...then when you try to discuss evolution with someone else...(the kind of evolution that is taught in the schools to the children)...then they seem to want to change that definition into something else...I mean my atheist roommate for example defines evolution as "Change over time'...well...a person who lifts weights will "Evolve" by that definition...as the person's physique changes through the weeks of working out...So is that "Evolution"? I mean the semantics comes into play a lot is what I am getting at...I think in a discussion the terms must be clearly defined...because that is NOT the "Evolution" that they are teaching in the schools!!

Evolution does mean, in its most basic form, change over time. With reference to the scientific theory however, it means the changing of one species, or a portion of one species into a new species over time.

There are different kinds of "Evolution"
1. Cosmic evolution (Big bang)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of the universe.
2. Chemical evolution (elements changing into different elements)
Not related to evolution. And doesn't happen, save in radioactive elements, or those which are fused or fissioned.
3. Stellar evolution (stars evolving)
Not related to evolution. Stars don't evolve, they change.
4. Organic evolution (life from non living material becoming living matter)
Not related to evolution. That refers to the start of life, not the changing of life.
5. Macro evolution (where an animal changes into a different kind of animal)
6. Micro evolution = a misnomer...aka. "variations"

5 and 6 are the same thing over different time spans.

the first 5 kinds require faith...
and some of those are the kind taught in the schools!

for ex:
first law of thermodynamics = matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Are you claiming this is incorrect? If so, evidence please.
And the humanist view of cosmic evolution = 1. something came from nothing OR 2. all the matter was condensed or something and we came from this dot and the dot came from nothing...
Not really related to evolution.
so supposedly they call that science and put it in a science book?
it doesn't match up with the aforementioned "scientific law"...I see that as a problem..that is just one law...there are other scientific laws which also seem to be disregarded (ex: the law of conservation of angular momentum...
everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...some galaxies are spinning backwards...)
1: Backwards is relative. 2: How does the conservation of angular momentum mean everything should be spinning the same way?
Where did the dirt come from? they don't know...so the main difference =
In the beginning God created the earth vs. In the beginning dirt created the earth.
(it is a "religious" point of view!)
Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. No tract on evolutionary theory discusses the creation of life because it is not relevant to evolution, which discusses what happens once life exists.
Another difference is evolution is tax supported and couldn't survive without tax support. It should be taught in private schools (not funded by taxpayer dollars) if it is just a "religious" belief...right?
But its not. It is a scientific theory (which means backed up by all available data).
anyway, just a couple of ideas on the topic...

LB628 - thanks for the ideas...I guess my main point is that the "Evolution" that you are talking about...is not the SAME "Evolution" that is being taught in the public schools. Is it??
I mean would you agree or disagree if I said "Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools."?
I would agree, or at least in the school I am going to.

How about if I said "The Big Bang Theory presented as the origin of life is taught in public schools."?
The Big Bang Theory is presented as the origin of the universe, and while relatively little time is spent on the origin of life, the electrical excitation of proteins is the generally given reason.
I don't know how it is nowadays but I was taught those things in public schools.

And as I think about it now, it wasn't "science" that I was taught then, but instead it was speculation. It was all lumped together and presented as the origin of life and as the origin of the human species.
Why do you think this though? What evidence do you have which says it is speculation or not backed up by evidence? Everything I have seen suggests these theories are correct, and while they are continually updated, that occurs with every theory. The basic premise remains the same.
...and what I was trying to point out is that doing that...it is a "religious" point of view...and if we are going to have religion in the schools ...well over 80% would rather be taught creationism... as that is what most believe in, according to the polls....most people just don't seem to believe that "dirt" created mankind, but rather that "God" created mankind.

But it is not a religious point of view. That's the entire point. If it was religious, it would be believed without evidence, without experimentation. These theories would never be updated because they would be considered perfect.

When it comes to religion in schools however, I do not believe any form should be taught, regardless of what the majority believes.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:05:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:34:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I like to use washed-up Kent Hovind arguments without looking into any of the copious scientific disagreement there is with these arguments.

Really, kinds? Please, go about defining that in a scientifically rigorous way, and then showing that there is some barrier between kinds that prevents the genetic variations you admit happen from snowballing into changes big enough to cross the kind barrier.

Also, how about you check out some of the evidence for Evolution. I'm not just talking about the observed instances of speciation. I'm not just talking about the fact that we know natural selection occurs and we know genetic information can be created that neither parent had. I'm not just talking about the fact that the fossil record outlines a picture of gradual change in species. I'm not just talking about how endogenous retroviruses are shared between evolutionary cousins. There's a wealth of evidence, but I'm betting you don't care too much to examine it. It's enough that Kent Hovind or some other creationist creates an argument that confirms what you want to believe. You don't need to confirm that his data's accurate, his argument's sound, or his conclusion's valid, because you're not interested in the truth.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:12:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:34:53 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
How about if I said "The Big Bang Theory presented as the origin of life is taught in public schools."?
It's this kind of statement that really shows your scientific ignorance. The big bang isn't supposed to be the origin of life. It's simply the best cosmological model for the early universe.

I don't know how it is nowadays but I was taught those things in public schools.

And as I think about it now, it wasn't "science" that I was taught then, but instead it was speculation. It was all lumped together and presented as the origin of life and as the origin of the human species.
It was neither speculation nor all taught as the origin of life and humanity. Only evolution is taught as being the process by which humanity came about. They don't even teach an origin-of-life theory in schools, or at least they didn't when I took high school biology a few years back. This is likely because no theory on the origin of life has the extreme wealth of evidence we require from all other major theories we teach in schools. There are many hypotheses for abiogenesis, but we don't really know which, if any of the current hypotheses, is correct.

...and what I was trying to point out is that doing that...it is a "religious" point of view...and if we are going to have religion in the schools ...well over 80% would rather be taught creationism... as that is what most believe in, according to the polls....most people just don't seem to believe that "dirt" created mankind, but rather that "God" created mankind.
Science is not a democracy. It's determined by observation and testing, not by popular consensus.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 9:33:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:49:29 PM, Harlan wrote:
How is microevolution a misnomer?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

What I meant by that is that if there is a small dog and a big dog...those could be called "variations" rather than "microevolution".
that way I can say it is true that I believe in "variations" without feeling like I am being conned into saying I believe in "evolution" albeit it is "MICROevolution"....
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 11:26:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 8:32:03 PM, LB628 wrote:
I mean would you agree or disagree if I said "Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools."?
I would agree, or at least in the school I am going to.

How about if I said "The Big Bang Theory presented as the origin of life is taught in public schools."?
The Big Bang Theory is presented as the origin of the universe, and while relatively little time is spent on the origin of life, the electrical excitation of proteins is the generally given reason.
I don't know how it is nowadays but I was taught those things in public schools.

And as I think about it now, it wasn't "science" that I was taught then, but instead it was speculation. It was all lumped together and presented as the origin of life and as the origin of the human species.
Why do you think this though? What evidence do you have which says it is speculation or not backed up by evidence? Everything I have seen suggests these theories are correct, and while they are continually updated, that occurs with every theory. The basic premise remains the same.

Ok...here is one basic example..."Life came from non-life"....is that scientific?
Does science really support that claim? and yet that is what is being asserted...dirt to a living man means that "life came from non life"...that doesn't seem "scientific" to me...

...and what I was trying to point out is that doing that...it is a "religious" point of view...and if we are going to have religion in the schools ...well over 80% would rather be taught creationism... as that is what most believe in, according to the polls....most people just don't seem to believe that "dirt" created mankind, but rather that "God" created mankind.

But it is not a religious point of view. That's the entire point. If it was religious, it would be believed without evidence, without experimentation. These theories would never be updated because they would be considered perfect.

It is not a religious view? then where is the "scientific" evidence of life ever having originated from "non life"? I am asserting that that is EXACTLY what is being believed WITHOUT EVIDENCE....and that is NOT science...is it? and if it is not a scientific belief, then what kind of belief is it?
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 6:54:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 10:43:35 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I mean my atheist roommate for example defines evolution as "Change over time'...well...a person who lifts weights will "Evolve" by that definition...as the person's physique changes through the weeks of working out...So is that "Evolution"? I mean the semantics comes into play a lot is what I am getting at...I think in a discussion the terms must be clearly defined...because that is NOT the "Evolution" that they are teaching in the schools!!

I would just like to point out that you cited your roommate as a scientific source. That is hilariously stupid.

There are different kinds of "Evolution"
1. Cosmic evolution (Big bang)
2. Chemical evolution (elements changing into different elements)
3. Stellar evolution (stars evolving)
4. Organic evolution (life from non living material becoming living matter)
5. Macro evolution (where an animal changes into a different kind of animal)
6. Micro evolution = a misnomer...aka. "variations"

the first 5 kinds require faith...
and some of those are the kind taught in the schools!

To turn the table on your argument; how do you define 'faith'? My theist roommate defines faith as 'believing in something.' We need a clear definition. There are two kinds of faith

1. Faith in God; the irrational, non-empirical, illogical belief that there is something overseeing the earth and the only way to make this conclusion is by looking at the absolute absence of proof and therefore affirming the positive.
2. Faith in Science: The opinion that our means of empirical and sensible scientific method has brought forward several basic tenets of our world that, ceteris paribus, are always true on earth. These are, generally; evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, the atomic structure and maybe a few others.

for ex:
first law of thermodynamics = matter cannot be created or destroyed.

And the humanist view of cosmic evolution = 1. something came from nothing OR 2. all the matter was condensed or something and we came from this dot and the dot came from nothing...

so supposedly they call that science and put it in a science book?
it doesn't match up with the aforementioned "scientific law"...I see that as a problem..that is just one law...there are other scientific laws which also seem to be disregarded (ex: the law of conservation of angular momentum...
everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...some galaxies are spinning backwards...)

Wrong. This is a misappropriation of fact. No science book will ever answer this question because there isn't one. The absence of fact means that we do not know, it does not affirm the existence of God. Furthermore, while some postulate about the possibilities, the scientific community does not pretend to know what happened before or at the big bang, they do however know what happened immediately after.

Where did the dirt come from? they don't know...so the main difference =
In the beginning God created the earth vs. In the beginning dirt created the earth.
(it is a "religious" point of view!)

Another difference is evolution is tax supported and couldn't survive without tax support. It should be taught in private schools (not funded by taxpayer dollars) if it is just a "religious" belief...right?

...No? What? Are you smoking something? The definition of religion is determined by who receives tax money?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 7:25:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 10:43:35 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

everything should be spinning the same way...but 2 or 3 planets are spinning backwards...and 8 of 91 moons are spinning backwards...

If if the solar system is formed from coalescing planetesimals, then it feasible for both planets moons to revolve backwards. The early stages should, and likely are, characterised by collisions of proto-planets. Our moon is thought to have been formed from similar debris, ejected when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth.

Collisions of this magnitude could cause a shift in rotation. What is patently lacking is evidence that this can not occur.

some galaxies are spinning backwards

Galaxies too have collisions, and consume other galaxies, which results in 'arms' from the smaller galaxies.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 4:16:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 6:54:43 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

I would just like to point out that you cited your roommate as a scientific source. That is hilariously stupid.

It is pretty funny huh! Well...what if he happened to be quoting the foremost authority on evolution and science? would it then be wrong what he said??? Does it really matter what the source of the idea is?...or could you discuss the idea itself without caring about where it came from?


To turn the table on your argument; how do you define 'faith'? My theist roommate defines faith as 'believing in something.' We need a clear definition. There are two kinds of faith

1. Faith in God; the irrational, non-empirical, illogical belief that there is something overseeing the earth and the only way to make this conclusion is by looking at the absolute absence of proof and therefore affirming the positive.
2. Faith in Science: The opinion that our means of empirical and sensible scientific method has brought forward several basic tenets of our world that, ceteris paribus, are always true on earth. These are, generally; evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, the atomic structure and maybe a few others.

So you quoted your roommate too? haha
actually I like his definition of faith 'believing in something.'
But I would make the 2 categories:
1. A person can have faith and believe in something that is true.
OR
2. A person can have faith and believe in something that is false.

There is no conflict between religion and true science.
Certainly I have faith in gravity and the law of thermodynamics...

But I don't have faith in science that isn't REALLY science...and believing that life came from non life (that a rock or primordial ooze became an amoeba by itself through mutation) is certainly not science!!...and so I don't have faith in that principle...Do you think the "scientific method" proves that? Is it observable? testable? repeatable?

I think it is MUCH MORE LOGICAL to believe that God could do that...a being that has more power and knowledge than we have could do something like that....if you can accept that there is someone or something that actually might know more than us humans and have more power than humans do???...that seems logical to me...
even an explanation like "panspermia" or "exogenesis" seems more logical to me than Darwinistic evolution being carried to that level (rock to amoeba level)....

Wrong. This is a misappropriation of fact. No science book will ever answer this question because there isn't one. The absence of fact means that we do not know, it does not affirm the existence of God. Furthermore, while some postulate about the possibilities, the scientific community does not pretend to know what happened before or at the big bang, they do however know what happened immediately after.

The scientific community may not be pretending to know, but the schoolbooks seem to be pretending to know...
also do the scientists really know those steps between the "Big Bang" and now? Is that what you are asserting?

...No? What? Are you smoking something? The definition of religion is determined by who receives tax money?

Ha...no I'm not smoking anything....that's not what I'm getting at...my point is that since that theory (evolution as the origin of mankind) is not based on scientific evidence either (I admit that religion is a "religious" belief also)...that because that theory is not based on science then it is based on something else...it is based on faith (it's a religious point of view that life was created that way - evolution)...
THEREFORE...if it is just a religious point of view (not scientific)...then why should taxpayers be obliged to support it? (the taxpayers pay for the schools and the books!!!) that is kinda where I was coming from with that idea.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:42:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 4:16:30 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
It is pretty funny huh! Well...what if he happened to be quoting the foremost authority on evolution and science? would it then be wrong what he said??? Does it really matter what the source of the idea is?...or could you discuss the idea itself without caring about where it came from?

Is he the foremost authority on evolution and science?

If he were, I imagine you would have said so instead of saying "my roommate."

So you quoted your roommate too? haha

No, I was mocking you.

actually I like his definition of faith 'believing in something.'
But I would make the 2 categories:
1. A person can have faith and believe in something that is true.
OR
2. A person can have faith and believe in something that is false.

There is no conflict between religion and true science.
Certainly I have faith in gravity and the law of thermodynamics...

But I don't have faith in science that isn't REALLY science...and believing that life came from non life (that a rock or primordial ooze became an amoeba by itself through mutation) is certainly not science!!...and so I don't have faith in that principle...Do you think the "scientific method" proves that? Is it observable? testable? repeatable?

No, you don't get to do this. I absolutely agree, much to the chagrin of some of my more atheistic friends, that science and religion do not contradict each other. However, that can't just be a motto. You can't say this, then allow your religious convictions influence your belief in some fields of science. You have no authority to say that evolution isn't science because doing so would throw everything else into question, as evolution is exactly as highly regarded as, say, the theory of gravity.

If you do not believe that evolution is observable, testable and repeatable, you have a screw loose. I'll point you in the direction of wikipedia, because it collects the data nicely. If you really want proof; go read a biology book. The internet is too ripe with inaccuracies in this case (dinosaurs lived with men, Darwin's tree of life was spot on, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think it is MUCH MORE LOGICAL to believe that God could do that...a being that has more power and knowledge than we have could do something like that....if you can accept that there is someone or something that actually might know more than us humans and have more power than humans do???...that seems logical to me...
even an explanation like "panspermia" or "exogenesis" seems more logical to me than Darwinistic evolution being carried to that level (rock to amoeba level)....

There is nothing logical about god. I'll say it again; the absence of proof does not affirm the positive.

I also have no idea where you're coming from with this whole 'we all evolved from rocks' thing. Given the molecular differentiation of the primordial ooze of prokayotic cells, it makes perfect sense. Look at it this way; if, in my genetic makeup, one of my genes mutated I could grow an extra thumb. If all of my genes mutated in the exact right sequence, I could become a rock (this is completely impossible.) If a single cell organism had one mutation, it becomes something else.

(Any biology majors can correct me on any of this science if it's faulty.)

The scientific community may not be pretending to know, but the schoolbooks seem to be pretending to know...

No they're not. Prove it.

also do the scientists really know those steps between the "Big Bang" and now? Is that what you are asserting?

Most of it is theory reaffirmed by experimentation. Take the Miller-Urey experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ha...no I'm not smoking anything....that's not what I'm getting at...my point is that since that theory (evolution as the origin of mankind) is not based on scientific evidence either (I admit that religion is a "religious" belief also)...that because that theory is not based on science then it is based on something else...it is based on faith (it's a religious point of view that life was created that way - evolution)...
THEREFORE...if it is just a religious point of view (not scientific)...then why should taxpayers be obliged to support it? (the taxpayers pay for the schools and the books!!!) that is kinda where I was coming from with that idea.

Completely wrong. You have no idea what science is. A 'theory' is no just a synonym for 'guess.' For something to be labeled a theory, it needs to be backed up by testable fact. The only differentiation between a law and theory is that a law must be true 100% of the time. For example, gravity is not a law because in certain situations, such as inside a black hole, our concept of gravity is wrong. That is to say that while evolution is predictable in nearly every instance, there are some things we do not know.

You have not backed up a single point you have made, so I request that you either come back here with some evidence or just stop posting and concede defeat.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 10:14:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:42:31 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

I also have no idea where you're coming from with this whole 'we all evolved from rocks' thing. Given the molecular differentiation of the primordial ooze of prokayotic cells, it makes perfect sense. Look at it this way; if, in my genetic makeup, one of my genes mutated I could grow an extra thumb. If all of my genes mutated in the exact right sequence, I could become a rock (this is completely impossible.) If a single cell organism had one mutation, it becomes something else.

(Any biology majors can correct me on any of this science if it's faulty.)

I'm not a bio major, but I'm pretty sure rocks don't have genes, and that even if all of my genes mutated to a gross extent I would not be a rock. and the only way I could become a rock is after having decomposed.

First Life didn't come from mutation, but rather through chance interactions of matter. After this diversity of life seems to have come from mutations. I guess the only diff. between mutation and chance interaction of matter is that "mutation" acts on life.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."