the science of faith.

[gseeker]

This doesn't make sense.

If evolution can be proven on any scale then it has been proven, all scales equate to the essential understanding and meaning we see in concept and how they correlate to our own scales used to measure and exercise judgement.

Not when one is explaining genetic changes within a species and the other is claiming that primordial slime became life, that reptiles became mammals fish became birds and species became other species. By believeing that then by your logic I can do a documentary. And it can be nothing but lies with one bit of truth in it and by association because its all under a single title your going to say the documentary is a true and proven representation of what I'm seeking to prove? That would be very foolish to make that assumption.

 

[outhouse]

I'll take your high school biology class and raise you by a college education paleontology class. What you call evidence of evolution is natural selection within a species that is not evolution by itself. You also refer to fossil records? Again, paleontology is the study of the fossil record, to prove evolution though is to ignore that the fossil record is incomplete and proves nothing accept that something existed at one time. You say evolution is proven? Then why is it only referred to as a theory even by the scientists who believe in evolution? Why is it that I have also met many paleontologist and biologists who believe in creation and not evolution? Simple, because no true evidence has been discovered that proves that claim. The only reason so many people believe in evolution is because they are sheeple unwilling to think for themselves but would rather be spoon fed by the governmental school system. I do have respect for those people who acknowledge that evolution is a theory but choose to believe it because to them it makes sense but those who try to claim it is a fact, not so much.

first

there is no dispute about evolution, the fact's regarding evolution have been observed.


many theist claim theistic evolution, as in placing a god and creation in substitute for abiogenesis. it doesnt make them right, it just shows you theist can follow evolution.




the reason people follow evolution is because they know about evolution. if one lacks the education it is their own fault.



there has been a lack of understanding in exactly what a scientific theory is for many theist. IT IS as close to law or fact as it can get. It means the information stands valid and credible



the fossil record stands as solid proof of evolution, and it is the weakest evidence of evolution, but even with fossils alone we see a perfect record of evolution. If you choose to discount the knowledge and evidence based on preconcieved theistic values its your choice. It doesnt make it correct in any way shape or form.

anyone can take evidence and poorly interpret it. the real challenge, is gaining knowledge, not refusing it

 

[Orias]

Not when one is explaining genetic changes within a species and the other is claiming that primordial slime became life, that reptiles became mammals fish became birds and species became other species. By believeing that then by your logic I can do a documentary. And it can be nothing but lies with one bit of truth in it and by association because its all under a single title your going to say the documentary is a true and proven representation of what I'm seeking to prove? That would be very foolish to make that assumption.

I guess I just don't understand where you're coming from, you're contradicting yourself in every post.

I underlined the part that may reveal the source to your problem here.

 

[Orias]

I think you're just trying to make it seem like evolution contradicts what you believe, and it doesn't. You're turning evolution into something its not.

 

[gseeker]

first

there is no dispute about evolution, the fact's regarding evolution have been observed.


many theist claim theistic evolution, as in placing a god and creation in substitute for abiogenesis. it doesnt make them right, it just shows you theist can follow evolution.




the reason people follow evolution is because they know about evolution. if one lacks the education it is their own fault.




there has been a lack of understanding in exactly what a scientific theory is for many theist. IT IS as close to law or fact as it can get. It means the information stands valid and credible



the fossil record stands as solid proof of evolution, and it is the weakest evidence of evolution, but even with fossils alone we see a perfect record of evolution. If you choose to discount the knowledge and evidence based on preconcieved theistic values its your choice. It doesnt make it correct in any way shape or form.

anyone can take evidence and poorly interpret it. the real challenge, is gaining knowledge, not refusing it

I'm going to make this simple for you, if evolution is a fact then why is it listed as a theory? And what do you know of the fossil record you keep mentioning? Let me teach you something you obviously didn't learn in biology class. Do you know how they determine the age of a fossil, by the layer of earth it is found in. Do you know how they decide the age of the earth layer it is found in, by the fossils found in it. A guy one day decided to date the earth and the fossils found in the earth and do you know how he came up with the dates? He guessed with no scientific evidence. Every paleontologist I've met agrees that this is circular reasoning and is highly inaccurate but they continue to use this system because they have no definitive way to date the earth. So their THEORY on the age of the earth and fossil records support the THEORY of evolution. That is paleontology 101.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I'm going to make this simple for you, if evolution is a fact then why is it listed as a theory?

Theory is the highest grade in science. There's also the theory of gravity, theory of germs, theory of atoms etc. Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact (supported by so much evidence that it is very unlikely to be refuted). When theory is used in a scientific context it does NOT mean "unconfirmed guess".

There are more scientists named Steve than there are scientists that support creationism. At least 99% of all biologists agree that evolution is a scientific fact. There is absolutely no debate in biology whether or not evolution occurs, because we have observed it directly (here's a few examples of speciation: Observed Instances of Speciation) and all the evidence points towards it. It is a confirmed scientific theory.

And what do you know of the fossil record you keep mentioning? Let me teach you something you obviously didn't learn in biology class. Do you know how they determine the age of a fossil, by the layer of earth it is found in. Do you know how they decide the age of the earth layer it is found in, by the fossils found in it.

The reason we didn't learn that in biology class is that it's false. We don't determine the age of the rock layers by the fossils it contains. We use radiometric dating and several other methods.

A guy one day decided to date the earth and the fossils found in the earth and do you know how he came up with the dates? He guessed with no scientific evidence.

Might be that the very first dating were estimated guesses, but nowadays we have plenty of accurate methods to date the layers and the fossils.

Every paleontologist I've met agrees that this is circular reasoning and is highly inaccurate but they continue to use this system because they have no definitive way to date the earth. So their THEORY on the age of the earth and fossil records support the THEORY of evolution. That is paleontology 101.

Have you met many paleontologists? Because you're describing a method that is very rarely used in honest paleontological science.

 

[gseeker]

I've studied geology at both auburn university and Montana tech of the university of Montana so yes I've known many paleontology teachers and students. How many do you know? Radiometric dating is not used very much because it is highly inaccurate and still relies on best guess, carbon isnot a constant in the environment and the carbon count can be altered through such things as pollution environment and geology even weather. It requires a computer and where do you think they got the information that they programed into the computer to tell them the age? Best guess anyone?

 

[mycorrhiza]

I've studied geology at both auburn university and Montana tech of the university of Montana so yes I've known many paleontology teachers and students. How many do you know? Radiometric dating is not used very much because it is highly inaccurate and still relies on best guess, carbon isnot a constant in the environment and the carbon count can be altered through such things as pollution environment and geology even weather. It requires a computer and where do you think they got the information that they programed into the computer to tell them the age? Best guess anyone?

Not a single one. But the general support for evolution among paleontologists is extremely high. Radiometric dating is not highly inaccurate, and carbon dating is only used on young objects. If the paleontologists at your school told you it was inaccurate and wasn't used, then they were simply being dishonest.

First of all, radiometric dating is done by measuring the decay of isotopes. This decay is constant and could be used alone to measure things. When it comes to carbon dating, it has been compared to tree rings, and has thus been confirmed. There are several other dating methods that can be used independent of eachother.

Pollution and weather are taken into account when dating things, and they don't do just a single dating, but rather many and then compare them to eachother, as to not mistakingly let pollution affect their results.

It has nothing to do with guessing. If it was guessing, then it wouldn't be science.

 

[gseeker]

Not a single one. But the general support for evolution among paleontologists is extremely high. Radiometric dating is not highly inaccurate, and carbon dating is only used on young objects. If the paleontologists at your school told you it was inaccurate and wasn't used, then they were simply being dishonest.

First of all, radiometric dating is done by measuring the decay of isotopes. This decay is constant and could be used alone to measure things. When it comes to carbon dating, it has been compared to tree rings, and has thus been confirmed. There are several other dating methods that can be used independent of eachother.

Pollution and weather are taken into account when dating things, and they don't do just a single dating, but rather many and then compare them to eachother, as to not mistakingly let pollution affect their results.

It has nothing to do with guessing. If it was guessing, then it wouldn't be science.

Oh, you are completely right, carbon dating is only used on newer objects, so how does that give proof to evolution? You are also talking about dating objects thousands of years old so how do they compensate for altering factors? They can't know all conditions existing in a single area over several thousand years to compensate for factors that might alter their dating system. So you have a system you claim helps define the fossil record but it can only be used accurately for a period of time around 3000 years and then only if they know everything that happened over several thousand years to make sure their dating is correct. Hmmm doesn't sound like an accurate system to prove evolution. You are correct though, it is more accurate than I thought, maybe because the last time I studied that system is when it first came out. Sorry for not staying current. God I feel old now. Lol

 

[gseeker]

You are correct that most paleontologist believe in evolution but what do you expect since their job is to provide evidence of evolution? I don't know many people who believe in creation who would want to spend their entire lives trying to prove something they don't believe. That includes myself, I love every aspect of geology but I will not touch paleontology as a professional occupation.

 

[Orias]

You are correct that most paleontologist believe in evolution but what do you expect since their job is to provide evidence of evolution? I don't know many people who believe in creation who would want to spend their entire lives trying to prove something they don't believe. That includes myself, I love every aspect of geology but I will not touch paleontology as a professional occupation.

So how can we expect you understand anything we offer if you don't even want to try and understand it in the first place?

You say evolution is theory but where is the bible listed as a factual encyclopedia?

Where in this entire mess, does it list God as a factual being?

Do you see the problem here? Its a two way street.

 

[Sir Doom]

Even if dating is 'inaccurate' all that would 'prove' is that evolution happens either slower or faster than expected. Which no one says how fast or slow its 'supposed' to happen anyway, so that argument is bunk on its face.

Here is the problem gseeker. If you ever wish to replace a commonly held scientific theory (such as the theory of evolution), the process is very simple. You ask the questions that evolution answers. Then you form a hypothesis that explains your theory. Then you conduct an experiment that illustrates the principles of the hypothesis that you have presented and also can be conducted in the future by as many people that want to. Then you have to interpret the results of your experiment so that it clearly shows that your hypothesis is correct. Then you present that interpretation to the world and allow them to scrutinize it.

If that stands up to the world as plausible, you've got a chance to debunk evolution. Until you are willing to go through all of those steps honestly and objectively, then you will never ever ever ever ever discredit the theory of evolution. Because they, in fact, DO go through this methodology and expect everything else to go through it as well or they don't have time for it.

You can't beat science with anything but science. So do that, or stop trying. That's my advice to you. You will never talk anyone into believing the scientific method doesn't work. Because it does.

 

[Orias]

Thats pretty damned good advice if I must say so myself.

 

[outhouse]

I'm going to make this simple for you, if evolution is a fact then why is it listed as a theory? And what do you know of the fossil record you keep mentioning? Let me teach you something you obviously didn't learn in biology class. Do you know how they determine the age of a fossil, by the layer of earth it is found in. Do you know how they decide the age of the earth layer it is found in, by the fossils found in it. A guy one day decided to date the earth and the fossils found in the earth and do you know how he came up with the dates? He guessed with no scientific evidence. Every paleontologist I've met agrees that this is circular reasoning and is highly inaccurate but they continue to use this system because they have no definitive way to date the earth. So their THEORY on the age of the earth and fossil records support the THEORY of evolution. That is paleontology 101.

im going to make this simple for you :sarcastic

many aspects of evolution are fact!


you are still showing ignorance towards what a scientific theory is. It is both fact and theory.

if we knew every fact regarding evolution it would still be a scientific theory. WHICH IS BASED ON OBSERVED FACTS.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory



Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.



maybe you can explain another problem your having. Why is it only certain theist that have issues with current dating methods???


most of these believe in a globalflood with ZERO evidence, and that he planet was created in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago.

 

[gseeker]

So how can we expect you understand anything we offer if you don't even want to try and understand it in the first place?

You say evolution is theory but where is the bible listed as a factual encyclopedia?

Where in this entire mess, does it list God as a factual being?

Do you see the problem here? Its a two way street.

Wow, did you miss the entire idea behind this thread? It wasn't intended to prove God exists and as far as I can remember I haven't even mentioned the God of the Bible one time, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convert you. The idea behind this was to simply prove that evolution is in fact accepted on faith. If i seem to have mentioned God multiple times it is simply to prove that scientific fact and laws that govern science not only can support the theory evolution but can also lead to a theory of God. If anything you people aren't willing to learn. When I say the idea of fossil records do not support evolution because of inaccurate dating systems and the fact that out of millions of fossils no record of transitional fossils even exist, this I've learned through extensive study in geology because that is my passion in life.when I say at least 3 scientific laws contradict the theory of evolution I'm ignored. All I'm saying is that evolution is faith based science.

 

[Orias]

Wow, did you miss the entire idea behind this thread? It wasn't intended to prove God exists and as far as I can remember I haven't even mentioned the God of the Bible one time, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convert you. The idea behind this was to simply prove that evolution is in fact accepted on faith. If i seem to have mentioned God multiple times it is simply to prove that scientific fact and laws that govern science not only can support the theory evolution but can also lead to a theory of God. If anything you people aren't willing to learn. When I say the idea of fossil records do not support evolution because of inaccurate dating systems and the fact that out of millions of fossils no record of transitional fossils even exist, this I've learned through extensive study in geology because that is my passion in life.when I say at least 3 scientific laws contradict the theory of evolution I'm ignored. All I'm saying is that evolution is faith based science.

You must not know what you're doing then.

If the only purpose of this thread was to prove that evolution is in fact accepted on faith then thats all you needed to say. I can agree with that, but I completely disagree with everything else you have said and the methods you have used to get your point across.

Which is why it is in my belief that you intend to express much more than you are capable of.

 

[outhouse]

The idea behind this was to simply prove that evolution is in fact accepted on faith.

you failed severely

 

[outhouse]

If anything you people aren't willing to learn.

using a mirror?

 

[outhouse]

when I say at least 3 scientific laws contradict the theory of evolution I'm ignored

because your wrong and wont admit it

 

[gseeker]

Even if dating is 'inaccurate' all that would 'prove' is that evolution happens either slower or faster than expected. Which no one says how fast or slow its 'supposed' to happen anyway, so that argument is bunk on its face.

Here is the problem gseeker. If you ever wish to replace a commonly held scientific theory (such as the theory of evolution), the process is very simple. You ask the questions that evolution answers. Then you form a hypothesis that explains your theory. Then you conduct an experiment that illustrates the principles of the hypothesis that you have presented and also can be conducted in the future by as many people that want to. Then you have to interpret the results of your experiment so that it clearly shows that your hypothesis is correct. Then you present that interpretation to the world and allow them to scrutinize it.

If that stands up to the world as plausible, you've got a chance to debunk evolution. Until you are willing to go through all of those steps honestly and objectively, then you will never ever ever ever ever discredit the theory of evolution. Because they, in fact, DO go through this methodology and expect everything else to go through it as well or they don't have time for it.

You can't beat science with anything but science. So do that, or stop trying. That's my advice to you. You will never talk anyone into believing the scientific method doesn't work. Because it does.

Great idea, where has evolution been proven through such tests, macro evolution? Have the had such tests? Yes, there was one they had trying to get a single cell from amino acids to develop and the study to get fruit flies to evolveand many other experiments so that must prove the theory of evolution. Wait it doesn't? That's why it is still called a theory and not fact? Why? Oh yes because every experiment conducted has returned negative results. Now I respect you doom, you normally have great insight but this time you are off base. One I'm not trying to prove God exists but simply that evolution is a science of faith and that theory is similar to the theory that God exists. Two when you commented that the inaccurate dates simply means that evolution happened faster or slower. That is a preconceived notion sir and unworthy of your great intellect.