Victory for evolution in Texas

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

Do you have actual evidence or a story that was said around campfires for years before being written down? Why does this contradict other creation stories? Why is this one considered the "real one"? Under whose authority? Based on what? Has it been proven to be true? How so?

They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by estesbob

They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.

That's just speaking about creationists.

But you haven't provided evidence, just bible quotations.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

Scientists are men. They are subject to jealousy, greed, political pressure, etc as much as any other men.

The evidence does not lie though nor subject to human emotions or motivations.

[Arkadin]

The evidence for evolution is immense and further proving evolution. There is no other theory out there or one with evidence (or a large sum of evidence) supporting it.

People who claim creationism as a valid scientific theory of the origin of life are presenting a phony theory and provide no actually evidence for such theory except from religious beliefs. This idea of teaching creationism is just a mere attempt of getting religion into schools. Science is about looking at evidence and creationism has absolutely none.

For those criticizing a well-supported theory that is evolution, what is your alternative theory and what evidence do you have to show that it is a superior theory?

[Dan Daly]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

The evidence does not lie though nor subject to human emotions or motivations.

But the theory is not the evidence.

The evidence doesn't lie because evidence doesn't talk. (Although evidence can be purposely falsified). But men can come to the wrong conclusions from evidence either willfully or not.

The evidence that the world was flat wasn't wrong, but the theory was.

The evidence that man couldn't travel faster than sound wasn't wrong, but the theory was.

Another parallel between evolution and global warming is how the advocates try to argue that opponents are wrong because they are "out of the mainstream" and in an extremem minority.

Science isn't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter if 99 scientists believe theory A and 1 scientist believes theory B. That doesn't make A or B more or less likely to be true.

Examination of evidence is the key. The problem is that evolutionary theory dodges the question of evidence by claiming the process takes too long to observe within a human lifetime. No one has ever observed a species turning into a differnent species. But advocates of evolution demand we believe it- Not on evidence....but on FAITH. The same faith that is decried as superstion when used to argue against the theory. Just as Atheism requires as much faith as belief in God, thinking the vast mulitude of life arose out of...random chance, requires as much faith as believing in a loving Creator.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

No alternate theory has come close to what? Being a theory?

Evolution isn't "science", it's a scientific theory.

Just the same way man caused global warming was "settled" science.

The secular narrative is that religious folks and the Church are all self-interested hacks who can't be trusted. "SCIENCE" and scientists are portrayed as the impartial arbiters of the real truth. This is false. It was clearly shown to be false for everyone to see with the whole global warming deception. It didn't matter what the evidence said, most scientists agreed with the popular theory because they wanted to get grants and keep their jobs. Now that it's become impossible for anyone to keep squawking about global warming with a straight face they've simply changed the name to "climate change" and now warming or cooling, flooding or drought, absolutely anything can be blamed on CO2 emmisions caused by man.

Scientists are men. They are subject to jealousy, greed, political pressure, etc as much as any other men.

The "only a theor" argument is just wordplay. In science the word "theory" doesn't mean "maybe so, maybe not." We still speak of the "Thery of General Relativity." Are you going to throw that out too?

And are you aware that there are plenty of Christians, Catholics, and religious people in general who reject the "secular narrative" but have not only acknowledged the validity of evolution but are on the front lines of science, even evolutionary science. (see Francis Collins, Stephen Barr (a Catholic, author of "Modern Physics, Anciet Faith, a favorite ofmine), Gerald Schroeder; perhaps the most renowned mathematical biologist in the world, Martin Nowak, is an Austrian Catholic).

And global warming is irrelevant to this thread. For what it's worth though, as one who thinks anthropogenic global warming is probably real, I think there is a measure of doubt on that subject that intelligent, informed individuals can disagree about it (but I still don't appreciate the ad hominems and asinine and pretentious generalizations so often made by some enthusiastic ant0-AGWers on these frums about everyone who disagrees with them. With evolution, it isn't so much room for doubt. Evolution is much much much much more accepted and we can be much much much more surer about evolution than about global warming.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

But the theory is not the evidence.

The evidence doesn't lie because evidence doesn't talk. (Although evidence can be purposely falsified). But men can come to the wrong conclusions from evidence either willfully or not.

The evidence that the world was flat wasn't wrong, but the theory was.

The evidence that man couldn't travel faster than sound wasn't wrong, but the theory was.

Another parallel between evolution and global warming is how the advocates try to argue that opponents are wrong because they are "out of the mainstream" and in an extremem minority.

Science isn't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter if 99 scientists believe theory A and 1 scientist believes theory B. That doesn't make A or B more or less likely to be true.

Examination of evidence is the key. The problem is that evolutionary theory dodges the question of evidence by claiming the process takes too long to observe within a human lifetime. No one has ever observed a species turning into a differnent species. But advocates of evolution demand we believe it- Not on evidence....but on FAITH. The same faith that is decried as superstion when used to argue against the theory. Just as Atheism requires as much faith as belief in God, thinking the vast mulitude of life arose out of...random chance, requires as much faith as believing in a loving Creator.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by estesbob

Which doesnt mean that it is correct.

I dont have a problem with evoluton. What I do have a problem with the absolutre hostility and mockery anyone who care question it in any way must endure

I don't appreciate being mocked for my beliefs wither, though it happens enough on these forums that I'm getting used to it. I hold Dawkins/Hitchens, et al. as anathema as I do creationsists for their spite and meanness. They bring embarrassment science the same way creationsists bring embarrassment to the intellectual integrity of Christianity.


And as to whether it is correct or not, no scientific theory ever gets a stamp put on it saying "fact." All that can happen is it gain the status "most correct," best explanation based on available evidence." And that is what is taught in schools. Trying to teach biology without Darwin is like trying to teach physics without Einstein or Newton.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

No one has ever observed a species turning into a differnent species. But advocates of evolution demand we believe it- Not on evidence....but on FAITH. The same faith that is decried as superstion when used to argue against the theory. Just as Atheism requires as much faith as belief in God, thinking the vast mulitude of life arose out of...random chance, requires as much faith as believing in a loving Creator.

http://creation.com/arguments-we-thi...should-not-use

Fellow creationists would warn you not to say things like : "No one has ever observed a species turning into a different species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Dan Daly]

The key element out of it is that denial of the supernatural was a central element of Darwin's theory.

It's why I'm cautious of so-called theistic evolution. Atheism isn't a sidebar to evolutionary theory that can be casually discarded and replaced with one that says "ditto....PS God did it". Atheism is a key part of the theory. And when atheism is a key part of someone's theory, one should be cautious about the rest of the theory. Believing in a theisitic evolution is like beliving in Christian Marxism.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

Examination of evidence is the key. The problem is that evolutionary theory dodges the question of evidence by claiming the process takes too long to observe within a human lifetime. No one has ever observed a species turning into a differnent species. But advocates of evolution demand we believe it- Not on evidence....but on FAITH. The same faith that is decried as superstion when used to argue against the theory. Just as Atheism requires as much faith as belief in God, thinking the vast mulitude of life arose out of...random chance, requires as much faith as believing in a loving Creator.

Actually, scientists have watched viruses, bacteria, and even fruit fles evolve quite substantially. As for mammals and other higher taxa, we have historical evidence as well as biological evidence in the species themselves that refer to their ancestors. Your "I can't see it, ergo it's not there" argument makes as much sense as the argument that Jesus didn't exist because there isn't enough evidence. No one who believes Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus existed has a remotely valid reason to doubt that Jesus existed. So why do you believe in Plate tectonics? Ever seen it happen? Did you see Pangea divide into seven continents? Why then do you take the geologists' word for it? Natural history yields evidence for it, even if it happens to slowly to be observed in real time, that's why.

Also, stop with this equation of evoltion with atheism. It's nothing more than a false dilemma used by people lacking in arguments, be they atheist or religious, to try to bully others into accepting their opinion.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

The key element out of it is that denial of the supernatural was a central element of Darwin's theory.

It's why I'm cautious of so-called theistic evolution. Atheism isn't a sidebar to evolutionary theory that can be casually discarded and replaced with one that says "ditto....PS God did it". Atheism is a key part of the theory. And when atheism is a key part of someone's theory, one should be cautious about the rest of the theory. Believing in a theisitic evolution is like beliving in Christian Marxism.

I am an atheist and former catholic. Besides the discrepancies in the bible and the false "miracles", evolution seems to prove that christianity and other Abrahamic religions are actually false. How one can remain a theistic and continue to observe the facts we are finding with evolution puzzles me. The only thing I could say is that the Deist god is the only somewhat plausible way to continue believing in a god and recognize the truths of evolution.

But that is me and in no way should deter someone from seeing evolution to be valid and believe in it. It may be possible to believe in christianity or some other religion and accept evolution. I personally can't, but that doesn't mean you could not believe in both.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

The key element out of it is that denial of the supernatural was a central element of Darwin's theory.

It's why I'm cautious of so-called theistic evolution. Atheism isn't a sidebar to evolutionary theory that can be casually discarded and replaced with one that says "ditto....PS God did it". Atheism is a key part of the theory. And when atheism is a key part of someone's theory, one should be cautious about the rest of the theory. Believing in a theisitic evolution is like beliving in Christian Marxism.

More nonsense, go figure. You've probably never even read a word about theistic evolution. Dismiss it though as you will. Yhile you're at it, why not dismiss theistic Newtonian physics because it conflicts with the Aristotelian view of physics pushed as uniquely consistent with Christianity for 15 hundred years? Why not reject the heliocetric solar system too? You, just like so mant atheists, seem incapable of understanding how scientific advancement effects theological truth, and more importantly, how it doesn't.

[Dan Daly]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

http://creation.com/arguments-we-thi...should-not-use

Fellow creationists would warn you not to say things like : "No one has ever observed a species turning into a different species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

The list of you linked to still doesn't show anyone observing one species turning into another. It shows someone observing a species and then coming back later (from 5 to thousands of years later) and observing a different species. But no one observes one species giving birth to an offspring which is a different species. Which is what must happen at some point for evolution to occur.

It's the old chicken and the egg conundrum. Which came first? You can't have a chicken that didn't hatch out of an egg. But you can't have an egg that wasn't laid by a chicken.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

The list of you linked to still doesn't show anyone observing one species turning into another. It shows someone observing a species and then coming back later (from 5 to thousands of years later) and observing a different species. But no one observes one species giving birth to an offspring which is a different species. Which is what must happen at some point for evolution to occur.

It's the old chicken and the egg conundrum. Which came first? You can't have a chicken that didn't hatch out of an egg. But you can't have an egg that wasn't laid by a chicken.

I'm borrowing this from estesbob.

They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.