Can Science and Religion be reconciled?

[Runt]

Darwin himself stated that there is no body of evidence that species evolved from other species.

Horsepucky, although the quote below is relavent:

Ever try testing the validity of another's statement before you automatically shoot it down? It's not horsepucky; it's absolutely true.

After Darwin’s death his son Francis wrote a book entitled “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”, in which he transcribes a letter written by Darwin in 1863. Darwin wrote:

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

However, this was 141 years ago. Darwin WAS a macroevolutionist; he believed that species changed from one to another, but in his time he could not PROVE it (lack of evidence… probably because people weren’t looking for it back then when Creationism was considered to be “science”). We have, since then, observed speciation, and proved macroevolution.

 

[(Q)]

O Runt, you silly girl - here is the quote:

"In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change."

Pauls quote is completely fabricated.

 

[Runt]

O Runt, you silly girl - here is the quote:

"In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change."

No duh. Where do you think I GOT the quote?

Pauls quote is completely fabricated.

Paul's quote cannot be fabricated if he didn't quote anything.

He make a true statement (that Darwin said there was no evidence to support speciation), but used it to come to a false conclusion (that this meant that the theory of evolution is questionable because Darwin suggested there is no evidence, when that was only true in Darwin's time and now there IS evidence). You made a false statement (that Darwin never said any such thing) but used it to come suggest a correct conclusion (that the shortcomings Darwin proposed for the theory of evolution do not exist today).

Geesh. Stop whining.

 

[(Q)]

Darwin never made that statement - you and Paul have been hoodwinked by the creationists. They made it up - they are liars.

I'm not whining - you called me out and I corrected you.

 

[Runt]

Darwin never made that statement - you and Paul have been hoodwinked by the creationists.

Have we?

Prove it. Prove that the quote doesn’t exist. Saying it doesn’t means nothing; you claim to be a proponent of logic and reason, so you know that it is ridiculous to consider a belief unsupported by evidence a “fact”. And I think your statement is just that; a belief. I suspect you have been stating that the quote doesn’t exist simply because you don’t want others to be right, and not because you actually possess, or have even looked for, any valid evidence to support your belief. So, prove to me that “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”, written by Francis Darwin, does not contain that quote. Until then, stop making unqualified statements.

 

[(Q)]

Ok Runt, but I have to give you fair warning of the embarrassment you're about to undergo.

Are you ready?

 

[Runt]

Enough with the patronizing statements, on with the evidence.

 

[(Q)]

Heres what Paul said:

Darwin himself stated that there is no body of evidence that species evolved from other species.

And heres what Darwin said:

When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.

http://www.literaturepost.com/chapter/7746.html

Do you see now that Paul lied?

 

[paul_an_apostle]

LOL

Darwin wrote that at a time in his life when he believed that the theory was valid. He recanted his belief before he died. And there continues to be NO current evidence to validate the theory, which is why the alternate theory (or follow on theory?) of random selection came into being. The body of evidence shows no connection among species at all - no logical transition - from species to species.

There is no evidence today and there will never be any evidence - evolution doesn't happen.

 

[(Q)]

He recanted his belief before he died. There is no evidence today and there will never be any evidence - evolution doesn't happen.

Paul, please stop lying. Not only do you insult the intelligence of those who use their minds to think, you are showing that theists are dishonest people.

If you don't think evolution happens, that's fine, but please try to argue without making stuff up as you go along.

Quite frankly, it appears you know nothing about evolution. Perhaps you should at the very least read a book so that the topic is somewhat familiar to you. Then you can argue the points relevant to evolution.

 

[Rex]

Taken from link below.

-------------
Darwin himself admitted that speculation was necessary in the formulation of a theory, "I am a firm believer that without speculation there is no good and original observation..." (8)[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His Theory of Evolution published in his book "Origin of Species" has been accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way. It is indeed strange that scientists speak with absolute conviction of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, when it has been calculated that out of one billion species that have lived since the Cambrian period, that 99.9% of these species left no fossil record, thus leaving scant evidence (some of which is contradictory) to support this theory[/font]

more (scroll half way down)
http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And there continues to be NO current evidence to validate the theory, which is why the alternate theory (or follow on theory?) of random selection came into being. The body of evidence shows no connection among species at all - no logical transition - from species to species.

There is no evidence today and there will never be any evidence - evolution doesn't happen.

There is a ton of evidence, just go to your local natural history museum. It's free!

 

[dharveymi]

I do not personally believe in the Quran. I am unimpressed with the origin of the Quran, there are few corroborating works. I do not believe it is internally consistant. I do not believe that the effect it has on its adherents is positive. I do not believe that the Quran was inspired by God.

Admittedly, I am not an expert. I cannot quote from the Quran, or any other non-Christian source, but there are a lot of books from which I can't quote. I really only have time for books that I believe are of the highest quality.

This is not intended to offend anyone. I have the highest respect for religious people of all faiths. I think that anyone who searches after truth, will find it.

 

[Runt]

(Q)-

Okay.

The disagreement, then, is not whether the quote I posted came from Darwin, but whether Paul's statement reflects Darwin's point of view. Right?

If so, I am neither embarassed, nor annoyed. Anymore . Previously, I thought you were stating that the quote I provided did not come from Darwin, and so naturally I was a little irritated, but now I understand we were arguing about two different things, and I agree with you.

Paul--

Darwin suggestied that there is no CONCLUSIVE body of evidence to prove that a species changes from one to another. Not that there was no evidence at all (if there was no evidence, where did he come up with the theory? How did he write 3 well documented books on evolution-- the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man being the most important--in my humble opinion-- if he did not have any evidence at all? He was not stating that there was no evidence, but showing some unanswered questions, some gaps in his argument. Presenting both sides of the coin, so to speak, as any good researcher should do if he wants to be true to his work.)

However, his statement is irrelevant to this particular debate. Those gaps have been filled in over the last 140 years by transitory fossil evidence. However, this point is irrelevant, because although there may have been no evidence available in Darwin's time, there IS evidence today, and an abundance of it, to suggest that Darwin's theory about speciation was right.

 

[dharveymi]

Concerning evidence for evolution, I have a few questions:

1. Can anyone describe the evidence that even one species evolved from another? Has anyone witnessed one of these events?

2. Can anyone describe the evidence that natural selection is the origin of even one species?

3. Can anyone describe a test that would prove that the theory of evolution is false (a requirement of any scientific theory)?

4. Can anyone describe the mechanism for punctuated equalibrium?

5. Can anyone explain the anomalies in the geologic record? (fossils of decendents found in the geologic column before its supposed ancestors)

I have more, but this is enough to get started.

 

[Runt]

1. Although nobody has literally WITNESSED speciation (because it takes place over a longer time span than any one human has to live), there is ample evidence for speciation. This evidence is called transitory fossil evidence. The particular evidence I can think of is the transatory fossil evidence for the evolution of man from primates.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1. Can anyone describe the evidence that even one species evolved from another? Has anyone witnessed one of these events?

Yes.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

If you want to ignore all the evidence that has been found in the search for truth because you feel it goes against what you already believe the truth to be, go back to the Dark Ages. If you want to actually learn something, do some research here, where this quote is from: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The Catholic Church even says evolution does not contradict Christianity.....and they burned people for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun! No wonder religion and science cannot be reconciled....so many religious people rely on faith to come to their beliefs, but then set out to prove their beliefs with evidence...how hypocritical.

 

[Runt]

Some transatory evidence for evolution of man from ape: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15059#post15059

Look aboout halfway down the page at Muad'dib's post.

 

[paul_an_apostle]

Quite frankly, it appears you know nothing about evolution. Perhaps you should at the very least read a book so that the topic is somewhat familiar to you. Then you can argue the points relevant to evolution.

LOL - There is nothing to know about evolution - it didn't happen.

Back to the main subject - -

Truth backs up truth. What I mean by that is that where there is a valid religeous belief, science will validate that truth, either empirically, or by an objective body of evidence. I quess what I'm saying is that Yes, Science and religion are reconcilable - when you are dealing from truth to truth. Afterall, 'science' - that is - the laws of science, were originated by God, and everything He did, was done within the rules He set up.

Yes - there are things that are not explainable withint the body of science that we currently know, but that just means we don't know everything. for those things that we still don't know, Jesus said (To Thomas - remember him?):

Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." [Jn.20:29]

May God Bless

 

[(Q)]

LOL - There is nothing to know about evolution - it didn't happen.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions - you argue about that which you know nothing about.

Did you know that the Bible is not the only book in print? As well, there are institutions called, "Libraries" that are full of such books.

Check it out sometime.