• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Being skeptical is a good thing.

And I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am just debating in a debate forum. But even if I did try to convert you, I would expect you to convert me to theism. This is, at the end of the day, what debating is: make the other think about his/her position.

Since the possible existence of God is a pretty important thing, I am very interested to know if I missed something. If you have something substantial, then I am ready to change my mind. After all, I have no faith whatsoever, so a rational argumentation in favor of God is the only thing that interests me.
It would be nice it was as easy as that, to be able to change your own mind. Unfortuantely it does not work that way V
Alas, when arguments are challenged and analytically scrutinized, they tend to look like the classical emperor without clothes. Just a bunch of empty words without a clear cut meaning. They just serve the purpose of giving a cozy feeling to anyone who does not take the time to go deep into them, as long as they support his confirmation bias.
We all start from a position of Self and then follow that Self. Arguments only make sense in this subject if he allows them to make sense to you. It would be easy enough to make something physical so everyone knew without a shadow of a doubt, but he has not. So it is something that has to be, as you imply, haas to be gone into deeper. Again, unfotunately, there are many depths of ''deep''. When one picks arguments apart, as I have, they think they have the answer, when in fact, they have the question.
Leading me to the conclusion that finding rational evidence of God is a waste of time, or an exercise of self assurance.

But why do you look for independent evidence? Is faith not enough?

Ciao

- viole
Faith comes from the proof within. It is not just hope for something there is no evidence for. No one believes in something they don't know.

And you will have faith or belief in something.... even if you don't know it, otherwise you could not come to a conclusion in the first place.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
There are no peer-reviewed anything in that. They do not perform science. You might as well bring up astrology and alchemy while you're at it.

there are several peer reviewed astrology and paranormal journals, it just means people in the same field- who by definition accept the premise of that field- review each others studies, preferably anonymously to allow dissention without reprisal , ideological fields like climastrology, often do the opposite, require the reviewer to declare his identity to curb dissention.
But there is no getting around the fact that science is a method, not a consensus.

it doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact (Einstein)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sometimes "facts" have been later found to be wrong, and some of Einstein's hypotheses have been proven wrong, such as the steady-state theory that he believed in and quantum mechanics which he didn't believe in. Science is always a work-in-progress, and peer-review is a very valuable tool.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
there are several peer reviewed astrology and paranormal journals, it just means people in the same field- who by definition accept the premise of that field- review each others studies, preferably anonymously to allow dissention without reprisal , ideological fields like climastrology, often do the opposite, require the reviewer to declare his identity to curb dissention.
But there is no getting around the fact that science is a method, not a consensus.

it doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact (Einstein)
But they are trying to perform science on the inherently untestable.

our brains doubled in size , developing sentience in an extremely short space of time only a 100K or so years ago- a matter of mere thousands of generations, something dinos didn't do in countless millions despite far larger skulls all along- in geological terms that's practically instantaneous
You know how we still get wisdom teeth? And that in a lot of people they crowd the jaw, and in ages past that was a leading cause of death? In other apes, who do not cook their food, those extra teeth are vital to their existence beyond a certain age, because they have to keep on chewing and chewing to make food digestible.

As it turns out, the gene that grows those teeth(which we share with the other apes), is faulty in us. However, that particular gene? It doesn't just govern tooth growth. It also governs jaw muscle, which is why our jaws are so pathetic compared to others of our kind. Know what else it governs though? Brain growth. More specifically, areas of the brain that we have come to realize are vital to our abstract thought and other such things that allow for us to do what we do. In other primates it works just fine, and it therefore limits their brain size. But it also means that brain cancer is almost unheard of in primates, whereas we can get it rather readily, and compared to our cousins it's a downright epidemic to us.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
It's an interesting question though, certainly to the human ear an analogue signal would be more recognizable-
but to a computer, it would depend- if it were a binary signal of any kind, that in itself would be interesting enough to look for meaning.
As in the Arecibo message, the length of the strings might be a place to start- signs of buffered/segmented sequences etc
but it would be much more difficult to interpret a code that was not directly meant to be interpreted.
As I recall their explanation, it is easy to look for patterns in analog signals but digital signals themselves are hard to detect, they just blend into the background white noise of the universe unless you know exactly where, when and what to listen for.
Speed of communication keeps scientists, bad science, the media and politicians more in sync also- the 'earth like' Gliese 'discovery' , melting Himalayas, the Higgs Boson... all might have benefited from a little more careful scrutiny before being communicated?
Speed of communication helps debunk bad science in a jiffy ... think cold fusion and stem cells.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Speed of communication helps debunk bad science in a jiffy ... think cold fusion and stem cells.
Cold Fusion; Isn't that less "bad science" and more "we do not have near the technology for it to be viable"?

Stem cells; What happened there?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
But they are trying to perform science on the inherently untestable.

not according to the peer reviewed studies by the experts in the field!
likewise there are some scientists who swear blind that we can actually measure noticeable effects on weather of a couple extra molecules per 10000
what constitutes 'science' is entirely subjective

You know how we still get wisdom teeth? And that in a lot of people they crowd the jaw, and in ages past that was a leading cause of death? In other apes, who do not cook their food, those extra teeth are vital to their existence beyond a certain age, because they have to keep on chewing and chewing to make food digestible.

As it turns out, the gene that grows those teeth(which we share with the other apes), is faulty in us. However, that particular gene? It doesn't just govern tooth growth. It also governs jaw muscle, which is why our jaws are so pathetic compared to others of our kind. Know what else it governs though? Brain growth. More specifically, areas of the brain that we have come to realize are vital to our abstract thought and other such things that allow for us to do what we do. In other primates it works just fine, and it therefore limits their brain size. But it also means that brain cancer is almost unheard of in primates, whereas we can get it rather readily, and compared to our cousins it's a downright epidemic to us.

that's interesting about Brain growth being connected to wisdom teeth, I didn't know that, kind of ironic! anyway take care, must run, thanks for the interesting discussions- helps me get through some tedious work at the moment
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Cold Fusion; Isn't that less "bad science" and more "we do not have near the technology for it to be viable"?

Stem cells; What happened there?
Let's' see, I'm trying to remember the details. Cold fusion was an outright fraud, I think the guy's name was Pons and no one could replicate his experiment. Stem cells, damn, I gotta look it up:

From wiki::

Hwang Woo-suk (Korean: 황우석, born January 29, 1953)[1] is a South Korean veterinarian and researcher. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in high-profile journals, in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. He was called the "Pride of Korea" in South Korea.[2][3]

On May 12, 2006, Hwang was charged with embezzlement and bioethics law violations after it emerged much of his stem cell research had been faked.[4] The Korea Times reported on June 10, 2007, that Seoul National University fired him, and the South Korean government canceled his financial support and barred him from engaging in stem cell research.[5] While being charged with fraud and embezzlement, he has kept a relatively low profile at the Sooam Bioengineering Research Institute in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, where he currently leads research efforts on creating cloned pig embryos and using them to make embryonic stem-cell lines.[6] Since the controversy subsided, despite the history and his lost credibility as a scientist, Hwang's lab has been actively publishing manuscripts, many of which have appeared on PubMed, the online database for biomedical research. In June 2010, a groundbreaking ceremony was held in Guro-gu, Seoul, for a new addition to Hwang's Sooam Bioengineering Research Institute.[7] In February 2011, Hwang visited Libya as part of a W150 billion project in the North African country to build a stem cell research center and transfer relevant technology. However, the project was canceled when civil war started there.[8]

Hwang was sentenced to a two years suspended prison sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on 26 October 2009, after being found guilty of embezzlement and bioethical violations but cleared of fraud.[9][10] On this same day, CNN reported that the scientist in 2006 admitted faking his findings, after questions of impropriety had emerged.[11] He had his conviction upheld on 15 December 2010 by an appeals court in South Korea, which knocked 6 months off Hwang’s suspended sentence.[12] In 2014 the South Korean Supreme Court upheld its 2010 ruling.[13]
 

mainliner

no one can de-borg my fact's ...NO-ONE!!
Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence" Richard Dawkins.
your apendix :)........but thats due to adapting to our surroundings.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
that's interesting about Brain growth being connected to wisdom teeth, I didn't know that, kind of ironic! anyway take care, must run, thanks for the interesting discussions- helps me get through some tedious work at the moment
It is indeed rather funny, but I'd like to mention that they're only called "wisdom" teeth in the West. In Asia & Africa they've got different names for them. So it's a quirk that really only works in our hemisphere, which is a crying shame honestly.
 

Not Bob

Member
Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence" Richard Dawkins.

Have you ever wondered why you get a flu shot every year, rather than just once in your lifetime?
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
Aren't we watching evolution or at least adaptation by watching the polar bear changing from a land dweller to an quatic creature? It will take time but it might be the polar bear
will eventually become more like a seal.
The brown bear is changing from a brown bear, very , very slowly becoming for like
a polar bear.
Lutherans evolved from Catholics.:D
(kidding)
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Aren't we watching evolution or at least adaptation by watching the polar bear changing from a land dweller to an quatic creature?

No.

If it could survive on a fish it only found and ate from water, and taught its children to do so, and its children and their children and on and on.

Maybe in a million years it very well could.

BUT REALITY dictates, it is opportunistic and would find a land diet before feeding solely in water.
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
No.

If it could survive on a fish it only found and ate from water, and taught its children to do so, and its children and their children and on and on.

Maybe in a million years it very well could.

BUT REALITY dictates, it is opportunistic and would find a land diet before feeding solely in water.

Maybe in a million years it very well could. Really? That is exacly what evolution is.
Change over a very looooooooooong period of time. Millions of years.
Wanna know where I heard the notion of the polar bear changing before our eyes?
Knew ya would. On the Science Channel about evolution.
I'm a Christian and have no problem believing evolution happens.
So what is the point? Does believing in evolution deny God?
Not to me.
I was on a Christian board once where a fellow kept insisting the earth was literally 6 thousand years old.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
not according to the peer reviewed studies by the experts in the field!
likewise there are some scientists who swear blind that we can actually measure noticeable effects on weather of a couple extra molecules per 10000
what constitutes 'science' is entirely subjective

You mean "vulnerable to lies".
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Change over a very looooooooooong period of time. Millions of years.

Im talking about speciation. Not small changes in a species. Evolution is also about small changes that lead to different species.

What you stated or asked in context was major multiple speciation events that do not happen quickly.

I would ask you supply sources so we can see the context of change you report.
 
Top