If Evolution is Not True...

[URAVIP2ME]

........then why is there a whole field of philosophy based on ethics? Most of which are completely secular?
Why am I a atheist pacifist that came from a military family then?

I find that the ' secular ' is mentioned at Romans 2:14-15 in that, unless damaged, we are born with an in-born conscience. That conscience can either ' excuse ' or ' accuse ' actions. We can listen or violate one's conscience.
Violate to the point that one's conscience can become hardened or calloused to the point of No more feeling.
No more feeling like skin branded by a hot branding iron - 1 Timothy 4:2

I had, and have, a military family background.
When I first read Revelation19:18 I felt my navy captain cousin was in that list.
He knew things were Not right with the Viet Nam war, but did Not resign yet at that time frame.
Perhaps you might see what I saw: we need to be neutral in the affairs of the world.
Jesus and his followers were neutral, they did Not even get involved in the issues of the day between the Jews verses the Romans. Jesus, of course, is Not a strict pacifist because Jesus, as Commander in Chief, will command angelic armies for us in order to usher in global Peace on Earth among person's of goodwill.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Ptolemaic epicyclic model has nothing to do with the spatial coordinate system.

It does if you are trying to use coordinates to navigate. I suppose if you just want to feel like you're the centre of the universe, it's less important.

It existed to preserve circular orbits, not geocentricity.

No, it existed because it was not known that orbits were elliptical, not circular, and because the assumption was geocentricity, and the model tried to explain that. In order to explain that, it required the assumption of epicycle. If they had known about even more objects within and without our solar system, the epicycles would eventually become too complex for computation even with large computers.

My mathematics topped out at the perturbation method for solution of PDEs, as a note.

Good for you. Nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, @URAVIP2ME, I find your posts completely filled with beliefs that I don't share, and precisely zero reason why I should share. I don't answer when internet trolls tell me that the Flying Monkeys of Oz will steal my children if I don't send money, either. I just look the other way so as not to embarrass them.

 

[pearl]

--- we have facts which prove it happened.

Might be more accurate to say that evolution is a theory which is explained by established facts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. You STILL don't get it-- and your figures are about 60% too low-- more than 50% of the US accept evolution as how it happened.

This is because Evolution isn't a belief--- we have facts which prove it happened.


Sorry about that, chief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Might be more accurate to say that evolution is a theory which is explained by established facts.

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[shunyadragon]

Might be more accurate to say that evolution is a theory which is explained by established facts.

No it is best to say 'evolution is a science' that is supported by the falsification of theories and hypothesis. No other explanation for the history of our physical existence and the origins of life, history of life and human origins has any scientific support based on the objective evidence.

Claims of 'facts' can be misleading.

 

[sayak83]

So that's 50% who believe in evolution.
Obviously every theist will believe that every physical, chemical and biological process in the universe is guided by God. Saying God has no part makes you a non-theist, even if it's quantum mechanics one is talking about. For example, I a Hindu would also say God (Brahman) is intimately involved in evolutionary processes though there is no teleology.

 

[shunyadragon]

So that's 50% who believe in evolution.

Sort of there are many qualifications among many Christians that accept evolution concerning a limited acceptance of science, such as the problem of the 'Fall and Original Sin.'

Obviously every theist will believe that every physical, chemical and biological process in the universe is guided by God. Saying God has no part makes you a non-theist, even if it's quantum mechanics one is talking about. For example, I a Hindu would also say God (Brahman) is intimately involved in evolutionary processes though there is no teleology.

The Baha'i Faith accepts the scientific conclusions concerning the scientific history of our physical existence, but Created by God by Natural Laws and natural processes. Science is of course not absolutely inclusive as to the truth of Creation, but it is accurately descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.

 

[sayak83]

Sort of there are many qualifications among many Christians that accept evolution concerning a limited acceptance of science, such as the problem of the 'Fall and Original Sin.'



The Baha'i Faith accepts the scientific conclusions concerning the scientific history of our physical existence, but Created by God by Natural Laws and natural processes. Science is of course not absolutely inclusive as to the truth of Creation, but it is accurately descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.

That is my belief too. But no theist would accept that God has no role whatsoever in the emergence of humans in the universe. That was how the poll question was stated

 

[Polymath257]

still a horse shoe crab, after 100's of millions of years, even if it has a couple of freckles it's ancestors didn't

You're not going to get from a single cell to a human being that way

And it lives in a stable environment so no changes are required to survive. You *do* get from single cells to humans via steps requiring change due to changing environments.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Might be more accurate to say that evolution is a theory which is explained by established facts.

Well--there is the theory of evolution, which is a theory that purports to explain the fact of evolution, which is a mass body of evidence showing life was once quite simple, and is now very complicated. Fact.

The fact is, life did change from the simple to the complex-- that is indisputable fact, and we have masses of data to prove it.

The theory of evolution explains these facts very, very well-- better even than the current theory of gravity explains gravity. (more support)

Evolution is both a fact and a theory-- which is why some folk get confused..

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh look! A pretty cartoon! With made-up data .. and no link for verification

Note how loaded the "question" was, too -- no doubt this "poll" came straight out of the Creationism BS camp...


Lying For Jesus is not really a lie, is it?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Not a strict pacifist because Jesus, as Commander in Chief, will command angelic armies for us in order to usher in global Peace on Earth among person's of goodwill.

By murdering untold amounts of people for not being raised with the Christian faith, for not believing in things for which there is no evidence, or simply finding Christianity amoral due to ideas like this.

 

[pearl]

Claims of 'facts' can be misleading.

I think some are mislead by assuming evolution is a proven fact, which it is not, there is no scientific proof outside of mathematics. The theory of evolution is supported by established, observable facts.

 

[Tomyris]

It does if you are trying to use coordinates to navigate. I suppose if you just want to feel like you're the centre of the universe, it's less important.

No, it existed because it was not known that orbits were elliptical, not circular, and because the assumption was geocentricity, and the model tried to explain that. In order to explain that, it required the assumption of epicycle. If they had known about even more objects within and without our solar system, the epicycles would eventually become too complex for computation even with large computers.

Good for you. Nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.

Sir, I don't think we're conversing ... As much as I would like, on this subject. Let us set 0,0,0 as being Earth. This does not impact the mass of Sol. Or Earth, or Jupiter. I will have some time in June and if you like, will actually perform the calculation with step by step mathematics. It's trivially more complicated because if you define the coordinate system at 0,0,0 to Earth's centroid of mass and then use Newtonian physics, nothing changes except the datum. The Earth is still the low-mass body in the Earth-Sol system, so the laws of planetary motion are conserved. We are simply measuring spatial position from the Earth. You may find the results odd since you've been raised in a Heliocentric model, but the mathematics are not more complex.

As a point, I don't think the universe is centred at Earth. It presumes that the creating force cared enough only to weave us into the fabric of the universe--quite unlikely. I was just using this as an example that science is far more fungible than atheistic humanism would presume. To be honest, I am astonished that you brought Ptolemy into this. I see no requirement in the laws of planetary motion that the datum be centred at the centroid of mass of the system primary -- how do you think multi-star planetary systems are calculated then? Nothing is at the centre of mass in that case.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think some are mislead by assuming evolution is a proven fact, which it is not, there is no scientific proof outside of mathematics. The theory of evolution is supported by established, observable facts.

One more time with Feeling:

The fossil record, the DNA record and other facts is indisputable: Evolution took place. Fact. The record is clear: Life was simple approximately 4 billion years ago, and gradually, got complicated over time until today. This is an indisputable fact-- unless you ignore pretty much 100% of chemistry, physics, geology, biology, etc.

The theory claims to explain how the fact of evolution happened.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And it lives in a stable environment so no changes are required to survive. You *do* get from single cells to humans via steps requiring change due to changing environments.

which according to the theory, required changing to leave that stable ocean environment.... hmm

I understand the temptation of the extrapolation, genetic apples fall not far from their trees,

Just as the observation of literal apples falling from trees was erroneously extrapolated out to account for all physical reality, it was similarly an intuitive and comprehensive explanation- superficially

But the point of the horseshoe crab was - in contrast to what whatsisname said- that not everything is changing, it's not only the explosive speed of change observed in natural history, but the stasis- highly 'evolved' species abruptly appear, remain with negligible change for vast periods, and/or disappear as abruptly as they arrived, The gradual incremental transition predicted and conceded as crucial to the theory 150 years ago... simply never showed up, it remains the realm of artistic impressions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh look! A pretty cartoon! With made-up data .. and no link for verification

Note how loaded the "question" was, too -- no doubt this "poll" came straight out of the Creationism BS camp...


Lying For Jesus is not really a lie, is it?

oops, touched a nerve I guess !- don't shoot the messenger, it's Gallup's poll, one of the more trusted sources I would think

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design
(www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx)


But I don't disdain your belief just because it's a minority one, I used to share it, I know how compelling it can seem and how passionate people can be about it. I don't think evolution is 'BS' it was a perfectly rational guess 150 years ago, but I think science has moved on.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

oops, touched a nerve I guess !- don't shoot the messenger, it's Gallup's poll, one of the more trusted sources I would think

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design
(www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx)


But I don't disdain your belief just because it's a minority one, I used to share it, I know how compelling it can seem and how passionate people can be about it. I don't think evolution is 'BS' it was a perfectly rational guess 150 years ago, but I think science has moved on.

I still dismiss the "poll" as fake-- the questions themselves were front-loaded, skewing the "results".

More rational polling puts around 47% of the US deny evolution, in favor of the silliness that is creationism.

The remaining 53? Or so percent accept the scientific validity of evolution. Which is rational, as evolution is a fact. There is a pretty theory which claims to explain the fact of evolution--but evolution is fact.