Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

The issue is what nature existed in the past.

That's not an issue at all.
That's, at best, a quirck in your brain.

Science uses an assumption that this current one reflects the past. Indeed it uses the present to model the past. No model is any better than that belief.

yet it works

You have no choice but the deal with it.

I do deal with it. I'm not the one who has to deny the evidence of reality in order to uphold some a priori belief system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For a Christian an evolutionist might be considered someone that denies creation and instead believes that man and animals came to exist by a long process of evolving. Not sure what you would call them.

Then the majority of christians are "evolutionists".

 

[exchemist]

Findings of science are not definite, or using another expression, written in stone. They are open to change, and sometimes radical change at that. Scientists are often coming up with new findings that overturn the older ways of looking at things. Yes, things like the polio vaccine have greatly helped the human population as far as I am concerned.
To respond to your points:
I can't figure how scientists figure the age of the universe.
Or the earth.
I realize there is a record in rock formation showing drifts and extreme changes and shifting soil.
I think there has been continental drift. I haven't really gone into it, though.
I realize fossils are chemically altered remains.
I believe the earth is spherical, as in roundish, meaning it is not a flat earth type thing.
I don't believe that evolution as shown in laboratories is representative of Darwinian type evolution, it does not depict evolution as some believe.
I believe that people of science have developed resistance to bacterias and other illnesses.
I don't believe that evolution caused the eventual existence of homo sapiens after billions of years stemming from a unicell.

OK, yes I certainly agree the theories of science are never proved and that history shows they change, sometime radically indeed. Strictly speaking they are our best models of reality, and as such can never claim to be final reality itself, as there may always be more to learn. So a degree of reservation about scientific theories is indeed appropriate. So far so good.

But it is depressing to see you say you can't figure out how scientists figure the age of the universe, and so on. Because It's all out there, on the internet, and not that hard to follow. If you were interested (which I do not really think you are), I could help you understand it quite simply. You are an articulate person and I don't think you would struggle to understand.

I'm afraid I suspect that what this indicates is that you have avoided finding out, in order to avoid the conflict you perceive with your favoured interpretation of the bible. I may be wrong and apologise in advance if I am. But I see this avoidance behaviour all the time with creationists. In fact I have only come across one, in years of forum discussions, who understood the science he was dismissing (He was an astronomer, amazingly enough, and you would not believe the contortions he had to adopt to square his - partial and selective - version of biblical literalism with astronomy and earth science.). Generally, creationists go to great pains not to understand the science in these areas.

The established Christian churches (those with a history of the thought of theologians who have pondered these things) practically all support everything on my list above, without seeing any conflict with the teaching of Jesus or the bible more generally. For centuries the bible was not seen by these theologians as all to be taken literally, any more than we take literally all the imagery in a Shakespeare play. The bible was read as literature and the underlying, deeper, meanings were teased out and taught to the faithful. This is why Methodists like @Dan From Smithville, Catholics (and I don't mean just semi-detached ones like me), Anglicans like my late mother and Presbyterians like the Scottish clergymen friends of my Methodist grandfather, all have, or had, no problem with any of this.

 

[exchemist]

If you want to call people 'apes,' because you believe they are, that's your choice.

Yes, but a "choice" based on observational evidence, from morphology and from DNA similarity. It is not a matter of mere opinion, as you seem to be suggesting.

This is how science works: it looks for patterns and common features in nature, classifies things into categories and searches out explanations for the similarities.

 

[Polymath257]

So you have videos of the insides of these animals (fish that are not landcrawlers) evolving into landcrawling fish and then more?

Do you think it happens in a single animal overnight? And no, since there were no videos when it happened, we don't have videos. But we do have fossils and genetics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I saw you used the term.
"You have no idea what "evolutionists" believe."

That seemed to indicate you have some idea what they believe and what they are.

I guess you didn't notice that it's in quotations. Or why I did that.

That's okay.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you have videos of the insides of these animals (fish that are not landcrawlers) evolving into landcrawling fish and then more?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. The insides? Why do you think we need a video?
Have you Googled "mudskipper?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you want to call people 'apes,' because you believe they are, that's your choice.

Why do you think we are not great apes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Findings of science are not definite, or using another expression, written in stone. They are open to change, and sometimes radical change at that. Scientists are often coming up with new findings that overturn the older ways of looking at things. Yes, things like the polio vaccine have greatly helped the human population as far as I am concerned.
To respond to your points:
I can't figure how scientists figure the age of the universe.
Or the earth.
I realize there is a record in rock formation showing drifts and extreme changes and shifting soil.
I think there has been continental drift. I haven't really gone into it, though.
I realize fossils are chemically altered remains.
I believe the earth is spherical, as in roundish, meaning it is not a flat earth type thing.
I don't believe that evolution as shown in laboratories is representative of Darwinian type evolution, it does not depict evolution as some believe.
I believe that people of science have developed resistance to bacterias and other illnesses.
I don't believe that evolution caused the eventual existence of homo sapiens after billions of years stemming from a unicell.

How do you think science managed to do that, if they've got evolution all wrong? Please explain.
Also, please explain why artificial selection works, if evolution is wrong.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. The insides? Why do you think we need a video?
Have you Googled "mudskipper?"

Good point. We have living examples of the various steps from water to land dwellers, as well as examples of land back to water stages.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good point. We have living examples of the various steps from water to land dwellers, as well as examples of land back to water stages.

Right! And you can see any of them with your very own eyes. You can even take a video, if you want.

 

[McBell]

So you have videos of the insides of these animals (fish that are not landcrawlers) evolving into landcrawling fish and then more?

Mind sharing your videos of creation?

 

[dad]

That's not an issue at all.
That's, at best, a quirck in your brain.




yet it works



I do deal with it. I'm not the one who has to deny the evidence of reality in order to uphold some a priori belief system.

Your priori belief system claims that there was a same nature in the past. Your models of the past are built on that belief. Don't badmouth other beliefs. At least they do not pretend to be science.

 

[dad]

Then the majority of christians are "evolutionists".

Yes the majority of christians may be unbelievers as far as Scripture goes. Lots of times the majority in ancient Israel was idol worshipers. The majority in Israel in Jesus day rejected truth. Sorry if you thought that wearing a tee shirt or pin saying christian on it meant that God or Scripture was a lie. No.
Perhaps if you focused on what Scripture and prophets and apostles and Christ said bout the beginning and creation you might see things in perspective.

 

[dad]

I guess you didn't notice that it's in quotations. Or why I did that.

That's okay.

People use the word evolution a lot. Since it is a religion, it means different things to different people. By putting it in quotes (or a derivative of the word) you merely show disdain for what those of other religions think about it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

People use the word evolution a lot. Since it is a religion, it means different things to different people. By putting it in quotes (or a derivative of the word) you merely show disdain for what those of other religions think about it.

LOL It's not a religion.
It's a scientific theory.

 

[exchemist]

People use the word evolution a lot. Since it is a religion, it means different things to different people. By putting it in quotes (or a derivative of the word) you merely show disdain for what those of other religions think about it.

Don't be disingenuous. The term "evolutionist", which is only ever used by creationists trying to denigrate science, is what was in quotation marks. The term "evolution" is a term used by science.

Evolution is no more a religion than Newton's laws of motion. If you want to describe them as a religion, you are free to do so. But do not pretend that evolution is on a weaker footing than Newton's laws.

 

[dad]

LOL It's not a religion.
It's a scientific theory.

Please don't preach about your religion and beliefs. You had every opportunity to show them as something more.

 

[dad]

Don't be disingenuous. The term "evolutionist", which is only ever used by creationists trying to denigrate science, is what was in quotation marks. The term "evolution" is a term used by science.

One refers to the other. But do define 'evolution'. We might then see why those nasty creationists use the words interchangeably.

Evolution is no more a religion than Newton's laws of motion.

When faith is required then it no longer is like observed laws. Science assumes and believes nature was the same in the past, and uses that in it's vile little anti logic, anti bible, anti actual science fables. Motion we can observe. Your same state past we cannot, it is only something believed in.

If you want to describe them as a religion, you are free to do so. But do not pretend that evolution is on a weaker footing than Newton's laws.

Define 'evolution'? Do you mean TOE that has the long list of simple creatures and lizards and etc that we supposedly descended from? Or do you mean actual observed evolving in the modern world? You see TOE is a fable. Really.

 

[exchemist]

One refers to the other. But do define 'evolution'. We might then see why those nasty creationists use the words interchangeably.

When faith is required then it no longer is like observed laws. Science assumes and believes nature was the same in the past, and uses that in it's vile little anti logic, anti bible, anti actual science fables. Motion we can observe. Your same state past we cannot, it is only something believed in.
Define 'evolution'? Do you mean TOE that has the long list of simple creatures and lizards and etc that we supposedly descended from? Or do you mean actual observed evolving in the modern world? You see TOE is a fable. Really.

Since it is you that is describing evolution as a religion, contrary to what every normal person thinks, I think maybe it is you that needs to define what you mean by it.

We observe evolution happening, under our noses, whether it be the peppered moth, or Lenski's citrate experiment, or the acquisition of drug resistance by bacteria and cancers. There is no doubt about it at all.