Aegyptopithecus

[Earthling]

Evolution is as close to we come to fact in science.

This is what I'm looking for. This is the way I see Evolution. My question to you then, as if the voice of reason calling out to me on a stormy night, on a rolling sea of stupidity, is this. Why do you think that evolution seems to be presented to unbelievers (of evolution) as it is 100% infallible fact, and therefore without a doubt, proof of the non existence of God? If proof isn't the proper scientific terminology then I would except evidence. Because that is how the average Believer (in God) sees evolution as presented by atheists.

It's a time tested theory, just like the theory that the Earth orbits around the sun.

I know enough about scientific theory that it is not unheard of for one to endure a considerable amount of time and then be superseded.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I gave headlines from Time Magazine, the New York Times and Origins, stating that Aegyptopithecus was our ancestor. Were they wrong?

Journalists get the science wrong most of the time and there are very few good science journalists. Carl Zimmer is one of the few good science journalists I am aware of.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This is what I'm looking for. This is the way I see Evolution. My question to you then, as if the voice of reason calling out to me on a stormy night, on a rolling sea of stupidity, is this. Why do you think that evolution seems to be presented to unbelievers (of evolution) as it is 100% infallible fact, and therefore without a doubt, proof of the non existence of God? If proof isn't the proper scientific terminology then I would except evidence. Because that is how the average Believer (in God) sees evolution as presented by atheists.

You probably think that germs causing disease is a fact, but in truth it is a theory, the Germ Theory of Disease. If you don't object to germs being treated as a fact, then you shouldn't have a problem with evolution being presented as a fact.

There is also another underlying problem. People reject the theory of evolution because of their religious beliefs or ignorance, not because of the scientific evidence. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported and fundamental theories in science, and to treat it as something which is still up in the air is akin to spreading falsehoods.

I know enough about scientific theory that it is not unheard of for one to endure a considerable amount of time and then be superseded.

And yet you probably accept hundreds of scientific theories as being true even though they are disproven from time to time. You probably accept germ theory and atom theory, as examples.

 

[Earthling]

Journalists get the science wrong most of the time and there are very few good science journalists. Carl Zimmer is one of the few good science journalists I am aware of.

I suspect journalists in general get it all wrong most of the time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I suspect journalists in general get it all wrong most of the time.

The accuracy of journalism often relies on the expertise of the journalist. A sports journalist reporting on economics probably isn't worth your time. A journalist with 20 years of experience reporting on economics probably can be trusted to accurately report on economics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I'm looking for. This is the way I see Evolution. My question to you then, as if the voice of reason calling out to me on a stormy night, on a rolling sea of stupidity, is this. Why do you think that evolution seems to be presented to unbelievers (of evolution) as it is 100% infallible fact, and therefore without a doubt, proof of the non existence of God? If proof isn't the proper scientific terminology then I would except evidence. Because that is how the average Believer (in God) sees evolution as presented by atheists.



I know enough about scientific theory that it is not unheard of for one to endure a considerable amount of time and then be superseded.

Whoa Nelly! When has someone every used evolution as a refutation of God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I'm looking for. This is the way I see Evolution. My question to you then, as if the voice of reason calling out to me on a stormy night, on a rolling sea of stupidity, is this. Why do you think that evolution seems to be presented to unbelievers (of evolution) as it is 100% infallible fact, and therefore without a doubt, proof of the non existence of God? If proof isn't the proper scientific terminology then I would except evidence. Because that is how the average Believer (in God) sees evolution as presented by atheists.



I know enough about scientific theory that it is not unheard of for one to endure a considerable amount of time and then be superseded.

This is a case where Wiki fails. Many of those "theories" were never scientific theories. And yet ironically Wiki does have an excellent article on scientific theories:

Scientific theory - Wikipedia


"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

 

[Earthling]

You probably think that germs causing disease is a fact, but in truth it is a theory, the Germ Theory of Disease. If you don't object to germs being treated as a fact, then you shouldn't have a problem with evolution being presented as a fact.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if tomorrow morning I woke up to the headline: "Science no longer think germs cause disease." I take all of those claims, no matter how popular, respected or old they are, with a grain of salt.

There is also another underlying problem. People reject the theory of evolution because of their religious beliefs or ignorance, not because of the scientific evidence. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported and fundamental theories in science, and to treat it as something which is still up in the air is akin to spreading falsehoods.

And the ramifications of rejecting evolution, were it true, ultimately would be ideological. If there were a creator and evolution weren't true then billions of people could be denied everlasting life in paradise on earth without all of the corruption, sickness, poverty and crime in the current system. While I realize that doesn't make it true the significance is far greater in the case of the later.

And yet you probably accept hundreds of scientific theories as being true even though they are disproven from time to time. You probably accept germ theory and atom theory, as examples.

In the ancient Hebrew a number of nouns are translated as knowledge. To know by being told, to know by observing to know by personal acquaintance or experience or to be experienced and skillful. Jehovah, for example, knows by observing what it's like to sin, but he doesn't know what it's like from personal acquaintance or experience.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is what I'm looking for. This is the way I see Evolution. My question to you then, as if the voice of reason calling out to me on a stormy night, on a rolling sea of stupidity, is this. Why do you think that evolution seems to be presented to unbelievers (of evolution) as it is 100% infallible fact, and therefore without a doubt, proof of the non existence of God? If proof isn't the proper scientific terminology then I would except evidence. Because that is how the average Believer (in God) sees evolution as presented by atheists.



I know enough about scientific theory that it is not unheard of for one to endure a considerable amount of time and then be superseded.

I suppose there may be some atheists who attempt to claim that the ToE is somehow proof that there is no God, but that completely ignores the reality that the vast number of people who believe in a god ALSO believe that the ToE is valid. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive.

And yes there are those who will claim that the ToE is infallible fact, even though science ALWAYS leaves the door open to new evidence. However, the truth is that there is considerably more verifiable evidence to support the theory of evolution than there is verifiable evidence that the Earth orbits around the sun. Now, it is certainly POSSIBLE that we will uncover evidence that indicates that the Earth actually does NOT orbit the sun, however, the chances of that happening are extremely small. And it is also POSSIBLE that we will one day uncover verifiable evidence that evolution is NOT the method by which less complex lifeforms develop into more complex lifeforms, but again, the chances of that happening are extremely small.

 

[Earthling]

Apes have two eyes. We have two eyes. Apes have two ears. We have two ears. Apes have hair. We have hair. Apes nurse their babies. We nurse our babies. Apes have finger nails. We have finger nails. Apes have 10 fingers and 10 toes. We have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Apes have a spine. We have a spine. Apes have two lungs. We have two lungs. Apes have a heart. We have a heart. Apes poop. We poop. Apes copulate to make babies. We copulate to make babies. And so on, and so on....

Hmmmm, there sure a lot of similarities!

Similarities aren't a connection are they?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And the ramifications of rejecting evolution, were it true, ultimately would be ideological.

Not if you are a biologist.

If there were a creator and evolution weren't true then billions of people could be denied everlasting life in paradise on earth without all of the corruption, sickness, poverty and crime in the current system. While I realize that doesn't make it true the significance is far greater in the case of the later.

If there were a deity who expected you to accept evolution as true before being allowed into heaven, then not believing in evolution would also have serious consequences.

In the ancient Hebrew a number of nouns are translated as knowledge. To know by being told, to know by observing to know by personal acquaintance or experience or to be experienced and skillful. Jehovah, for example, knows by observing what it's like to sin, but he doesn't know what it's like from personal acquaintance or experience.

The first society of modern scientists is largely believe to be the Royal Society founded in London. Their motto is "Nullius in verba" which is Latin for "take nobody's word for it". The very idea of "it is true because so-and-so says it is true" runs counter to the whole idea of doing science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Similarities aren't a connection are they?

A nested hierarchy of similarities is evidence for evolution, not simply similarities. It is the pattern of similarities that points to evolution.

 

[dfnj]

Similarities aren't a connection are they?

I have the opposite opinion.

Let me ask you something, why do you care if man evolved from apes or not?

 

[Earthling]

I suppose there may be some atheists who attempt to claim that the ToE is somehow proof that there is no God, but that completely ignores the reality that the vast number of people who believe in a god ALSO believe that the ToE is valid. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive.

While I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, the majority of people who believe in God also believe that the soul is immortal (Ezekiel 18:4), Jesus was born on December 25th, he died on a cross, all good people go to heaven and all bad people go to hell. None of this is true.

And yes there are those who will claim that the ToE is infallible fact, even though science ALWAYS leaves the door open to new evidence.

That's all I need right there.

 

[Earthling]

I have the opposite opinion.

Let me ask you something, why do you care if man evolved from apes or not?

Would you accept that I think it is atheistic propaganda? Let me explain. Nowhere in the Bible is the age of the universe or planet earth given, which means, to me, a Bible believer, the ever changing estimation of science on the subject is insignificant. If the same could be said for evolution it would be insignificant as well. Now, my Bible beliefs lead me to be apolitical so I don't in any way try to influence political or social agenda's of any kind. Not abortion, homosexual marriage (though I'm a gay man), prayer in schools or what they teach in science class. Even if I were political I wouldn't support prayer in school or creationism taught in the classroom, but I . . . uh, I forgot what the hell I was talking about.

Oh, yeah, even though I disagree with evolution as fact I wouldn't influence legislation that hindered it (or science) in any way.

 

[QuestioningMind]

While I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, the majority of people who believe in God also believe that the soul is immortal (Ezekiel 18:4), Jesus was born on December 25th, he died on a cross, all good people go to heaven and all bad people go to hell. None of this is true.



That's all I need right there.

Honestly? You weren't aware that the scientific method is predicated on altering conclusions based upon the presentation of new verifiable evidence?

 

[Earthling]

Honestly? You weren't aware that the scientific method is predicated on altering conclusions based upon the presentation of new verifiable evidence?

Not that it matters much, but of course I was aware of that. It isn't presented like that though. The theory of evolution is presented like this. Evolution is fact, so God doesn't exist. That's wrong. Now, you and a half dozen other atheist will tell me it isn't fact, but it is, and do all sorts of mental gymnastics and double speak to say that it is fact, so God can't exist. That's a lie.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not that it matters much, but of course I was aware of that. It isn't presented like that though. The theory of evolution is presented like this. Evolution is fact, so God doesn't exist. That's wrong. Now, you and a half dozen other atheist will tell me it isn't fact, but it is, and do all sorts of mental gymnastics and double speak to say that it is fact, so God can't exist. That's a lie.

Do you do this often? Take attributes from a few people in a group and attempt to apply them to everyone in the group? Even if the ToE is 100% fact, it still doesn't prove that a god doesn't exist... thus the reality that the vast majority of people who believe in god also believe in evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that it matters much, but of course I was aware of that. It isn't presented like that though. The theory of evolution is presented like this. Evolution is fact, so God doesn't exist. That's wrong. Now, you and a half dozen other atheist will tell me it isn't fact, but it is, and do all sorts of mental gymnastics and double speak to say that it is fact, so God can't exist. That's a lie.

Wow! Once again with the strawman.

Where has anyone said that evolution disproves God? It can only refute certain versions of "God". If one demands that the Bible be taken literally then it refutes that "God" but there are countless Christians that accept the theory and still believe. They are not threatened by the theory of evolution in the least.

 

[Earthling]

Wow! Once again with the strawman.

Where has anyone said that evolution disproves God? It can only refute certain versions of "God". If one demands that the Bible be taken literally then it refutes that "God" but there are countless Christians that accept the theory and still believe. They are not threatened by the theory of evolution in the least.

Yeah, yeah, I know. War is peace, prison is freedom, blah, blah, blah . . .

Evolution isn't a threat it's a distraction. Keep in mind you are the minority. You are the ones that are threatened.