Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[camanintx]

If evolution was refuted, dna would still continue to be modified over the course of generations through the processes of natural and sexual selection. Any refutation by human beings doesn't change reality.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[Matthew78]

I believe the weight of evidence is overwhelming against the ToE.

I know this much about you. You believe that evolution is contradicted by all the scientific evidence. My question is suppose that all of us were to agree with you, however grudging that is for us: then what?

Still, that will not prevent people from believing in it. And it is not my intent to convert the world.

I can say the same about the Bible. No matter how many errors, discrepancies, failed prophecies, and lies are in the Bible, people like you will still believe that it's the word of God. Even if God were to come down and tell you to your face that the Bible is just one big fraud that he created for his own amusement, I imagine you would still believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God and, that God was just testing your faith when he revealed himself to you and told you otherwise.

The implication of believing in Creation vs Evolution is that there is a Creator, to whom we are responsible.

That assumes that biblical creationism is the only rationally possible alternative to evolution. I defy you to prove this.

To believe in Evolution, one must deny what the Bible teaches about God, his purposes, about Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, and the hope of everlasting life. (John 17:3,Matthew 20:28) You must believe that much, if not all, of what the Bible says is myth or allegory, not reality.

Not really. There are Christians, even theologically conservative, who accept that evolution is factually true and is a method of God's creation. I disagree with them, completely.

I don't believe that the Bible is any kind of divine revelation because I'm convinced that it's totally errant, filled with errors, discrepancies, failed prophecies, and lies. Even if evolution was refuted and we originated by some kind of divine creation, I would believe that the divine creator is something other than Yahweh.

Incidently, if I ever became convinced that the Christian faith is true, I would totally end my life and take my rightful place in hell. Nothing can possibly convince me that I'm loved by any kind of deity and if Jesus Christ is God the Son, really did die for our sins, rose from the dead, and everything you believe about him is true, then I'm going to hell anyways. Why delay the inevitable by living?

Personally, I don't want to be a Christian. I can't imagine being one. I loathe the very thought of it. But if you like it, then I'm very much content to let you be a Christian. I have no interest in trying to deconvert or deprogram you.

Each person can and should search for the truth; truth about where life came from, about God, about the meaning of life.

I agree.

Evolutionists (in my opinion) seek to deny persons the opportunity to do this by trying to silence anyone who disagrees with their theory. I hope each person has the opportunity to hear both sides of the story and not be bullied by the ToE proponents OR believers in Creation from examining the facts for themselves. Where those facts lead each person is for each person to decide.

I'm glad that you state this as your opinion. Otherwise, you give me the impression that you a something of a conspiracy theorist when you state this as a statement of unquestionable fact.

 

[blackout]

Actually I think the problem here may be people view science as being either right and wrong. Where as many scientists take the useful or not useful approach. A model can be "wrong" but useful because what it omits have no real effect on the outcome.

As a non-science type, I am finding this thread completely fascinating.

I rarely participate in these discussions,
because I really don't know enough about science
on a higher level
to have anything much to say.

I think I have read numerous times on the forum
(science type) posters state that the ToE is 'right' or 'correct',
and to most of us that is taken as a "right" or "wrong"
type assertion.

I LIKE this idea of the useful/not useful approach.
I GET that, whereas the whole "right/wrong" thing
often leaves me quietly puzzled.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the thread,
but I think sometimes even as ritual/religion and all that is concerned
many people cannot get their heads out of "right and wrong"
long enough to consider
that to a vast number of us
what we do is more a matter of useful, or not useful.

So here the conversation shifts from
science vrs religion
to
"right/wrong" vrs "useful/not useful".

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, not even that. If evolution were refuted that does not by default mean that anything was designed. I suppose that it would leave open the possibility of design, but it would also leave open the possibility of some as yet undiscovered non-design naturalistic mechanism.

Oh, I was being a bit facetious

 

[Me Myself]

I wake up and mommy makes me waffles.

I want it to happen already!:drool:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

As a non-science type, I am finding this thread completely fascinating.

I rarely participate in these discussions,
because I really don't know enough about science
on a higher level
to have anything much to say.

I think I have read numerous times on the forum
(science type) posters state that the ToE is 'right' or 'correct',
and to most of us that is taken as a "right" or "wrong"
type assertion.

I LIKE this idea of the useful/not useful approach.
I GET that, whereas the whole "right/wrong" thing
often leaves me quietly puzzled.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the thread,
but I think sometimes even as ritual/religion and all that is concerned
many people cannot get their heads out of "right and wrong"
long enough to consider
that to a vast number of us
what we do is more a matter of useful, or not useful.

So here the conversation shifts from
science vrs religion
to
"right/wrong" vrs "useful/not useful".

Honestly, it's more a case of 'right' meaning 'correct' or 'accurate'. The Theory of Evolution is, in a few short words, a description of a process. It is a description of why we observe the evidence; when taken all together, what does all this evidence mean? What occurrence is it all describing?

The ToE is as accurate a description as we can make, at this time.

 

[Alceste]

Honestly, it's more a case of 'right' meaning 'correct' or 'accurate'. The Theory of Evolution is, in a few short words, a description of a process. It is a description of why we observe the evidence; when taken all together, what does all this evidence mean? What occurrence is it all describing?

The ToE is as accurate a description as we can make, at this time.

She has a point though. It is both useful and correct, but the fact that it is useful is what makes it so important that we teach it to our kids.

 

[painted wolf]

As a non-science type, I am finding this thread completely fascinating.

I rarely participate in these discussions,
because I really don't know enough about science
on a higher level
to have anything much to say.

I think I have read numerous times on the forum
(science type) posters state that the ToE is 'right' or 'correct',
and to most of us that is taken as a "right" or "wrong"
type assertion.

I LIKE this idea of the useful/not useful approach.
I GET that, whereas the whole "right/wrong" thing
often leaves me quietly puzzled.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the thread,
but I think sometimes even as ritual/religion and all that is concerned
many people cannot get their heads out of "right and wrong"
long enough to consider
that to a vast number of us
what we do is more a matter of useful, or not useful.

So here the conversation shifts from
science vrs religion
to
"right/wrong" vrs "useful/not useful".

I'm glad you are finding something that helps you engage in the conversation more.

I think it's also important to remember in the "useful/not useful" category that the more useful a scientific model is the closer it will be to how reality works. Because a useful model will be able to not only describe what is going on in nature but make predictions about what will happen in the future.

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

With all due respect (literally), how would you know? What credentials do you possess that leads you to believe yourself capable of properly weighing the evidence?

Every thinking person has the credentials to properly weigh the evidence. Surrendering your ability to think, examine the evidence,and make decisions about what to believe about evolution to a scientific priesthood is just as unbalanced and wrong as surrendering to a religious clergy class the perogative to tell you what to believe about God. The movie Expelled exposes the scientific and academic cultures that prevents consideration of alternatives to evolution and that tries to still any voices that won't mouth the ToE mantra. The Bible urges us to "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) To do this, we must examine the evidence and not put faith in every word. (Proverbs 14:15)

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Not really. We frequently observe genetic changes from one generation to the next, and people that have been breeding domestic plants and animals for specific features, at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, have realized that evolution happens. As far as we know biological evolution is irrefutable. You having traits your parents don't is proof of it. As is bacteria becoming resistant and immune to anti-biotics.

OK, perhaps we should define what is meant by "Evolution". Without getting to hung up on semantics, my definition for the ToE is: The theory that changes occurring as a result of natural selection, mutation, or other events results in the development of all living species. That all animals and plants are the result of changes occurring in other organisms."
That definition or something similar is what I'm talking about when I says the evidence is overwhelming against the ToE. This theory is at odds with the Bible's account of creation that states God created plants and animals according to their kinds.
Changes within a species is not evolution in the definition above, since no new species are formed. Variation within a species or what the Bible calls a "Kind" are not evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

So god made Lions and Tigers separately... and new species are never ever are formed?

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Every thinking person has the credentials to properly weigh the evidence. Surrendering your ability to think, examine the evidence,and make decisions about what to believe about evolution to a scientific priesthood is just as unbalanced and wrong as surrendering to a religious clergy class the perogative to tell you what to believe about God. The movie Expelled exposes the scientific and academic cultures that prevents consideration of alternatives to evolution and that tries to still any voices that won't mouth the ToE mantra. The Bible urges us to "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) To do this, we must examine the evidence and not put faith in every word. (Proverbs 14:15)

​

​

You don't see the irony of scolding us for refusing to research the evidence while you yourself repeatedly reference the movie Expelled -and nothing else- as the source of all your views?

 

[McBell]

Every thinking person has the credentials to properly weigh the evidence. Surrendering your ability to think, examine the evidence,and make decisions about what to believe about evolution to a scientific priesthood is just as unbalanced and wrong as surrendering to a religious clergy class the perogative to tell you what to believe about God. The movie Expelled exposes the scientific and academic cultures that prevents consideration of alternatives to evolution and that tries to still any voices that won't mouth the ToE mantra. The Bible urges us to "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) To do this, we must examine the evidence and not put faith in every word. (Proverbs 14:15)

Sourcing the movie Expelled shows that what you do is NOT research, but rather ratification.

 

[blackout]

My life would go on as usual.

Seriously.
No difference whatsoever.

 

[rusra02]

So god made Lions and Tigers separately... and new species are never ever are formed?

wa:do

God created cats (and dogs), etc. If two animals can successfully interbreed, they are of the same kind.

 

[rusra02]

Sourcing the movie Expelled shows that what you do is NOT research, but rather ratification.

I am not surprised that the ToE faithful do not like this documentary (Expelled), since it exposes the ugly truth about so-called evolution 'science'. That aside, I do not base my belief that God created all life (sans evolution) on this documentary. One more attempt at redirection. The point is that each person is qualified and has the right to think and research for themselves, and not just drink the ToE Kool-Aid.

 

[painted wolf]

God created cats (and dogs), etc. If two animals can successfully interbreed, they are of the same kind.

So Housecats and lions are different kinds then?

Brown bears and polar bears are the same kind but not black bears or panda bears or sun bears?

wa:do

 

[McBell]

I am not surprised that the ToE faithful do not like this documentary (Expelled), since it exposes the ugly truth about so-called evolution 'science'. That aside, I do not base my belief that God created all life (sans evolution) on this documentary. One more attempt at redirection. The point is that each person is qualified and has the right to think and research for themselves, and not just drink the ToE Kool-Aid.

Are you actually that stupid or are you intentionally being dishonest?

 

[camanintx]

God created cats (and dogs), etc. If two animals can successfully interbreed, they are of the same kind.

So if Species A can interbreed with Species B, they are the same kind. And if Species B can interbreed with Species C, they are the same kind too. But what if Species A cannot interbreed with Species C. Are they not the same kind?

 

[crystalonyx]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

Saying evolution can be refuted is like saying physics can be refuted. They both are sciences and have a number of theories that are their basis.