Doesnt evolution and the Big Bang take little faith?

[ron4711]

How can you think someone can reasonably accept evolution without visual proof?

We accept many things without visual proof. For example, the orbit of Pluto is calculated to be about 250 earth years yet we have only observed its existence since 1930.

So you say that a species that breeds will eventlually evolve into another?

Yes bacteria do it all the time rather quickly.

So a human being can eventually breed a whole new species over time?

That is what the theory of evolution suggests (although you would need more than one human being )

My greatgreat times a million grand children will be another species all together?

Most likely, but as humans are adapting their environment to themselves, evolution may not be so natural anymore.

 

[EnochSDP]

We accept many things without visual proof. For example, the orbit of Pluto is calculated to be about 250 earth years yet we have only observed its existence since 1930.


Yes bacteria do it all the time rather quickly.


That is what the theory of evolution suggests (although you would need more than one human being )


Most likely, but as humans are adapting their environment to themselves, evolution may not be so natural anymore.

Creation Vs. Evolution
states,"Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. "

 

[EnochSDP]

We accept many things without visual proof. For example, the orbit of Pluto is calculated to be about 250 earth years yet we have only observed its existence since 1930.


Yes bacteria do it all the time rather quickly.


That is what the theory of evolution suggests (although you would need more than one human being )


Most likely, but as humans are adapting their environment to themselves, evolution may not be so natural anymore.

"Yes bacteria do it all the time rather quickly."Doesnt this contredict that evolution is over a period not quick if it was quick we could see it happening?
"Most likely, but as humans are adapting their environment to themselves, evolution may not be so natural anymore"Isnt this a nice loop-hole.

 

[EnochSDP]

As do all scientists. That's the Scientific Method.
I think the more appropriate word might be "unintuitive." Before you disparage dating methods you should understand them. You'll also need to explain why completely different methods yield the same results for a given application.
But there is evidence, Enoch, overwhelming evidence, visual and otherwise, which you seem to be unaware of.
No, it's not simple breeding that produces long-term change, there are mechanism's guiding the process. It's not random. These mechanisms are what the ToE is all about.
Of course they can. What's hard to understand about that? The same mechanisms are at play weather it's a protozoan or human.
This doesn't mean that they will, that depends on selective pressure, and there's also the possibility that your descendants will comprise a dozen different species, including a H. sapiens sapiens unchanged from yourself.

Fist we are created of randomness .from randomness we form mechanisms that determines growth.Seems far fetched.just like a man that thinks he can actually date something billions of years ago.side tracking that if you can date backwards you should forwards.But cant forwards because you do not what the future will hold, as the same you do not know what the past held.

 

[Quiddity]

The vast majority of it is fairly solid and takes zero faith.

Macro evolution and even more so with Abiogensis is more apt for discussion IMO.

 

[Me Myself]

Fist we are created of randomness .from randomness we form mechanisms that determines growth.Seems far fetched.

It is.

the bolded statement makes me wonder what you are takling about though, and how does it relate to evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

Why is your evidence any more than mine?
As you clearly say with double talk.
nothing is 100% in science but ignoring that is unreasonable.
I do question scientific methods.
I find it highly unreasonable to think a man can date billions of years back.If you can date billions of years back you should forward as well right?
How can you think someone can reasonably accept evolution without visual proof?
So you say that a species that breeds will eventlually evolve into another?
So a human being can eventually breed a whole new species over time?
My greatgreat times a million grand children will be another species all together?

Listen, I can't tell you that evolution is true, that you have to decide for yourself. But I can tell you that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I can try to show this evidence to you, I can try to explain this evidence to you. But if you are determined to reject science there is nothing I can do about that.

But don't compare your evidence to mine. I have overwhelming scientific empirical evidence. You have your faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[EnochSDP]

Listen, I can't tell you that evolution is true, that you have to decide for yourself. But I can tell you that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I can try to show this evidence to you, I can try to explain this evidence to you. But if you are determined to reject science there is nothing I can do about that.

But don't compare your evidence to mine. I have overwhelming scientific empirical evidence. You have your faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Thats why I right and your wrong.You need the evidence it is essential to you and your beliefs.Mine isnt and requires nothing more than my faith.
This is why people love under-dogs opposed to giants.
because with all the abilities and advanced tools available, no one still can not provide 100% accuracy.And the Bible with little advancmants and technology still reigns valid.

 

[painted wolf]

Thats why I right and your wrong.You need the evidence it is essential to you and your beliefs.Mine isnt and requires nothing more than my faith.
This is why people love under-dogs opposed to giants.
because with all the abilities and advanced tools available, no one still can not provide 100% accuracy.And the Bible with little advancmants and technology still reigns valid.

:biglaugh: :jiggy: :biglaugh:

I bow to your superior.... logic?... humor?... :bow:

wa:do

 

[cablescavenger]

With all the chatter on this forum about evolution and the big bang doesnt it take faith just like belief in God?
I know that these people with these theories have evidence.That is not a debate.But the question is does those theories rely on faith by dating techniques?

Get any bites yet? :fishing:

 

[Valjean]

Fist we are created of randomness .from randomness we form mechanisms that determines growth.Seems far fetched.just like a man that thinks he can actually date something billions of years ago.side tracking that if you can date backwards you should forwards.But cant forwards because you do not what the future will hold, as the same you do not know what the past held.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Yes, there are random changes, but selective pressures determine which of these are retained.

Why do you have such a problem with dating techniques? You give the impression you don't understand them.
Why does the ability to date past events necessitate being able to "date" the future -- whatever that means?

 

[fantome profane]

Thats why I right and your wrong.You need the evidence it is essential to you and your beliefs.Mine isnt and requires nothing more than my faith.
This is why people love under-dogs opposed to giants.
because with all the abilities and advanced tools available, no one still can not provide 100% accuracy.And the Bible with little advancmants and technology still reigns valid.

In a sense you are right. I am at the mercy of the evidence. I am limited by logic and reason. You on the other hand are free to completely ignore the evidence and be as illogical an unreasonable as you wish.

But knowing that your beliefs are based on ignoring the evidence and being unreasonable why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Is it just me or is there an increase "science is a religion" threads lately.

Did Ken Ham send out a memo or something.

 

[EnochSDP]

In a sense you are right. I am at the mercy of the evidence. I am limited by logic and reason. You on the other hand are free to completely ignore the evidence and be as illogical an unreasonable as you wish.

But knowing that your beliefs are based on ignoring the evidence and being unreasonable why should anyone take you seriously?

Im not asking you to take me seriously, I am saying take God seriously even if you do not believe in him.Because there is that possiblity that everything thought to be real fact mite not be.Only thing that really lets you know that mite not be is supernatural causes.Finding supernatural and seeking for proof is a logical reason to prove or elimate reason for God.

 

[ron4711]

"Yes bacteria do it all the time rather quickly."Doesnt this contredict that evolution is over a period not quick if it was quick we could see it happening?
"Most likely, but as humans are adapting their environment to themselves, evolution may not be so natural anymore"Isnt this a nice loop-hole.

Evolution is not a mechanism that requires a long amount of time. Evolution is change. Many things evolve. Your understanding of the world could be said to evolve as you had some concept of the world as a child and a different concept as an adult.

But we are talking about the evolution of organisms. Now this concept was known long before Darwin, it took Darwin to explain that evolution can occur through natural selection. Darwin at the time did not understand genetics. So the theory of evolution has continued to evolve.

Man has been tampering with evolution for thousands of years by selecting which crops to grow and which animals to domesticate and which to eradicate. This was called breeding, but in essense this is controlled evolution.

 

[Skepsis2]

Why is your evidence any more than mine?
As you clearly say with double talk.

Evidence in science is used first to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis then the evidence is used to determine the viability of assembled hypotheses into a working theory. Evidence in science is based on direct and indirect observation or experience and is always fact based. Evidence is not the hypotheses or the theory, evidence is the facts (observations) that support the theory to a reasonable conclusion.

nothing is 100% in science but ignoring that is unreasonable.
I do question scientific methods.

Science is a process of inquiry limited to natural phenomena and is usually not considered complete by inquiring minds. Scientific theories are always open to additions and revision based on newly discovered evidence

I find it highly unreasonable to think a man can date billions of years back.If you can date billions of years back you should forward as well right?

There are a number of methods used for dating artifacts from the past. Based on past event evidence astrophysicists can accurately predict future events such as the trajectory and destination of comets and meteors.

How can you think someone can reasonably accept evolution without visual proof?

Although I understand your desire to apply your definition of TRUTH to the theory of evolution it’s not relevant to evolution. The theory of evolution is simply the best natural explanation for the diversity of life on our planet based on what we’ve learned from the past through paleontology, geology, physics, genetics, etc… etc.

So you say that a species that breeds will eventlually evolve into another?
So a human being can eventually breed a whole new species over time?
My greatgreat times a million grand children will be another species all together?

Your wording seems to indicate that you think scientists believe that one species changes into another while we watch. What actually happens is that populations within species acquire changes due to mutations or other processes and may subsequently become isolated physically or for some reason stop breeding with the original population and no longer pass on the changes except in their isolated group and after time the changes become so significant that they no longer fit within the definition of the original species. The time for this to happen depends on many factors not the least of which is a changing environment.

Your “greatgreat times a million grand children” will probably be your same species if your species doesn’t go extinct. They may, however, give rise to a separate species somewhere along the line.

 

[EnochSDP]

Evidence in science is used first to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis then the evidence is used to determine the viability of assembled hypotheses into a working theory.

Ok I understand this.This is evolution we are talking about.
Can you be sure all factors signifiant for true results are vailable for the hypothesis?No of course not.In my belief neither can I.
Also you can not and have not because you do not know how to demonstrate supernatural or can you verify that it does not exists.If supernatural is real then it plays a role in our life and the calculations there isnt factor in scientific theory.My exsperience with God is more a reality than this reality.

Evidence in science is based on direct and indirect observation or experience and is always fact based. Evidence is not the hypotheses or the theory, evidence is the facts (observations) that support the theory to a reasonable conclusion.

I dont not doubt alot of scientific people are great honest people.But as everywhere thier are money hungry and dishonest scientific people.I have no doubts that the theory is in working order.

Science is a process of inquiry limited to natural phenomena and is usually not considered complete by inquiring minds. Scientific theories are always open to additions and revision based on newly discovered evidence

I have no problems.

There are a number of methods used for dating artifacts from the past. Based on past event evidence astrophysicists can accurately predict future events such as the trajectory and destination of comets and meteors.

Methods and predict?These are words I dont like in something that offers fact.Based on mans ability to predict and his methods I do not think he qualifies as being able to know this yet to be fact.Meaning man is way to young in knowledge and thinking to know theories today are in fact true.Esp if God exists and it is what the Bible says, would make it not true, even though you say its fact!

Although I understand your desire to apply your definition of TRUTH to the theory of evolution it’s not relevant to evolution. The theory of evolution is simply the best natural explanation for the diversity of life on our planet based on what we’ve learned from the past through paleontology, geology, physics, genetics, etc… etc.

I have no interest in evolution!I desire to apply my faith in God and provide by any means nesscary.

Your wording seems to indicate that you think scientists believe that one species changes into another while we watch.

So it is only not provable 'watching' because it takes eons of time?

What actually happens is that populations within species acquire changes due to mutations or other processes and may subsequently become isolated physically or for some reason stop breeding with the original population and no longer pass on the changes except in their isolated group and after time the changes become so significant that they no longer fit within the definition of the original species.

Sounds more like how different races of men and varity of animals arose.My real dilemia is:
There are many trees that are over 6000 years old.Why does it stop there?Im sure maybe other organisms have same dates.Im saying that Biblically the earth is over 9 to 6 thousand years.Why would trees that live 6000 years suddenly stop at that period or that is because trees have been here from the beginning and they tell the truth.The truth that this is a young earth atleast in the current life on it.Trees could live 10's of thousands of years but stop at a certain time in age for no reason.We havent seen many of these trees just die either they keeping on living throughout time.

The time for this to happen depends on many factors not the least of which is a changing environment.

All trees was wiped out and has around the same age as mans growth into civilzation?


Your “greatgreat times a million grand children” will probably be your same species if your species doesn’t go extinct. They may, however, give rise to a separate species somewhere along the line.

No i think not!

 

[painted wolf]

No. I think, not!

Truer words were never spoken... but your punctuation needed a little work, so I fixed it up some for you.

wa:do

 

[Skepsis2]

No i think not!

What I’ve tried to point out is that “supernatural” is beyond the bounds of science because “supernatural” inquires would yield no testable information to explain the intricacies of how the natural world works. Supernatural is an integral ingredient in religion and theology. Although science vs. religion makes for an interesting debate, science searches for an explanation of an observed phenomenon and religion generally searches for evidence to support an apriori conclusion. The two methods are incompatible and will not resolve any differences between science and religion. That does not mean that a religious person cannot do science, just that you can’t drag one discipline into the other and expect a rational conclusion. If you have no interest in evolution and know very little about the subject I would suggest that you do not attempt to use it to argue for your religious views. No-one here has the power to deprive you of your beliefs but you would appear more credible if you stick to what you believe you know rather than argue about something that you obviously know little about. If you want to argue in a science forum you might want to brush up on modern science.