Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[viole]

1. I just said bacteria have functions and are not "nasty", and I would question you if you believe bacteria are "evil". Do you think bacteria are evil?

2. Perhaps this rephrase will be helpful: Is the appendix creation consistent with the rest of fallen man, tending toward entropy and death?

No, I don't believe bacteria are evil. They just do their job.

What I am asking can be generalized: did Adam and Eve, assuming you believe in them, have the same defense mechanisms (immune system, etc) that we have today?

If yes, what does that mean? Did God already anticipate that we will need them, ergo that Adam will fall? Or did He just play it safe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If the argument you are making currently is the one I ought to deal with, the argument you are making currently is I'm a liar.

Yes it is. Why do you lie?

I find your comments offensive, especially since I've already told you I confused you with another poster who was making macro-evolution comments.

Covering up your lie by lying more doesn't help you. If that were the case, you would have corrected yourself far earlier. Instead, you reacted with total denial and indignation. Furthermore, nobody on this forum has ever claimed that humans having too many teeth to fit in their mouths, so you couldn't possibly have mistaken that statement for anything anyone has said. Just admit that what you said was a distortion of my argument, and apologize for misrepresenting my view. Can't you at least be that humble?

How I'd like to currently deal with you calling me a liar is to ask you to apologize,

Why should I apologize for you telling lies?

how I will deal with it is forgive you as a Christian and move on.

Now that you've been caught on in a lie and are desperately back-peddling (because you know you've been caught in an indefensible position), you are attempting to divert blame, play the victim, and "move on" from the conversation. I refuse to look past your brazen and unapologetic dishonesty, and your continued dishonesty in trying to present yourself as the injured party. This level of projection and total lack of shame is very telling.

Is there something else you want to argue with me, other than that you feel I'm a liar?

You do realize that YOU are the one who made our argument purely about me calling you a liar, right? I have made several points which you have thus far ignored and instead preferred to purely focus on my accusation as if it's the only thing I've written. These childish tactics should be beneath you.

 

[gnostic]

As long as you recognize that in addition to in-depth chat on biology, physics or chemistry, I am RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com to talk about religion, that's fine.

I think you are attempting to use biology, physics and chemistry to nullify my religious beliefs.

I actually couldn't care less what religion you follow or what deity/deities/spirit(s) you worship. Your religion, your belief and your faith are your own.

However, if you going to make a claim about this or that of science, or you are going to mix religious belief with science, then I am going to scrutinise what you have claimed, and tell you what are wrong about your claims when I know your claim is wrong. It's that simple.

If I am telling you what is wrong with your claims about the science, I am actually trying to help you re-examine your claim so that you can learn from your mistakes.

Is it not better to learn from your mistake then keep repeating the same mistakes, over, over and over again?

Is it not better to have understanding of particular field of science, that you don't have grasp for?

If I often appeared annoyed, is because you haven't understood the science that I or others have try to teach you or you haven't understood the errors you have made, and repeat your pseudoscience claims in the same thread later, or in other threads.

It is not your religion that you follow that I have problem with, it is you trying to involve your belief with science that I have problems with.

You have been here long enough, to learn from others that your view on science is incorrect or misguided, but you haven't learned. That we will have the same argument again and again, showed that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes. That's what makes it all so disappointing and annoying.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday habiru and all

Well, the peer review process has not removed the label of theory from evolution theory. And so once that is removed and replace it with the word facts, then I might listen to it. But according to the English language, that the word theory still doesn't means facts, but assumption.

Unfortunately, you have made a mistake there, a common mistake actually.
(It's like saying something like this - I learnt Bible stories about Jesus, and 'stories' mean fiction, therefore Jesus is a fiction.)

Let me explain it

It appears you have confused the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation", or "just an untested guess".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, very different meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
(i.e. a detailed scientific explanation.)


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Scientific theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.


The ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

So,
claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates a lack of understanding of the word itself - and that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation for the observed facts of evolution.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday habiru and all

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one. And I surely doesn't have any tendencies to have sex with an ape.

Sorry habiru, but yes, you ARE an ape.
So am I.
So are all humans - and gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons (did I miss anyone?)
(NOT monkeys though - apes are quite different to monkeys.)

We are also primates, mammals, chordates, animals, eucharyotes and more besides.

Women (and men) are also apes - do you not have attraction to have sex with women ? (or men?)


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,
Thanks folks, I like to write - to inform and explain, sometimes entertain.

Here are some ideas I hope creationists will consider -


A theory, or explanation, can be wrong.

Consider these two theories for disease :

1. The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by germs - a fairly modern theory, supported by facts, and now considered correct.

2. The Demon Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by demons - a traditional theory, supported by church doctrine, no longer considered correct.

In this case we have two competing theories (explanations) for disease - one theory is correct, one theory is wrong.
A theory can certainly be wrong (or right, or not yet known, or even not ever knowable.)
Depending on the evidence.


Theories CAN be SPECULATION

A scientific 'theory' is an explanation for facts, and a theory can be wrong.

Another example of a wrong theory would be the Phlogiston Theory of Burning - which explained burning as the giving off of a substance 'phlogiston', when in fact it later turned out to be the addition of Oxygen.

The Phlogiston Theory (explanation) of Burning was speculation based on the idea that burnt objects seemed to have lost something - fair speculation for early chemists, but it turned out to be WRONG.

This speculative theory (explanation) was wrong.

More test and observations and experiments lead to the Oxygen Theory of Burning - this was based on careful observations of weights before and after burning. Later, much better tests confirmed this was indeed so.

But initially, we could say the Oxygen Theory of Burning was speculation - not fully confirmed.
Eventually this speculative theory (explanation) turned out to be CORRECT.

Theories explain facts.
Theories can be wrong.
Theories can be speculation.
Theories can be confirmed(*) with evidence.

(*) Best to avoid the word 'proof' entirely.

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Some more thoughts on all this -


Theories are accepted based on EVIDENCE

So,
why did the Phlogiston Theory of Burning get rejected in favour of the Oxygen Theory of Burning?

Why did the Germ Theory of Disease win out over the Demon Theory of Disease ?

Obvious isn't it?

Because we FOUND germs.
And we found Oxygen.
We OBSERVED them, and saw their effects.
(And we never ever found Demons or Phlogiston.)


Theories do NOT get promoted to laws or facts

A theory does NOT get 'promoted' to a law or a fact when it is confirmed (or 'proven' in layman's terms, which are best avoided.)

The Oxygen Theory of Burning did NOT become the 'Law' of Burning once oxygen was confirmed.
The Germ Theory of Disease did NOT become the Germ Law of Disease when germs were observed.

These days - scientists tend NOT to make 'laws' anymore - it's considered out of date, mechanistic, Victorian.
The 'Law of Gravity' is an example of an old classic - and it refers to a clear and specific simple mathematical relationship F ~ m / d^2

There is ALSO a 'Theory of Gravity' - well, there are TWO :

• Newton's Theory of Gravity
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which covers gravity)

One is about 99% accurate and stood for 4 centuries, the other is 100.000% accurate and is about one century old.


Evolution is 100% supported by evidence

So,
Darwin (and the poor forgotten Wallace) had a theory (explanation) to explain the origin of species.
(NOT the origin of life.)

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains how species arise by a process of mutation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time.
Darwin proposed his theory based on his observations of living things, but of course initially it was speculation.

So why is it accepted?
Why is it considered true?
Why do we insist it's NOT speculation now?
Why is Darwin famous like Einstein?

Because we have OBSERVED that he is RIGHT, just like Einstein, every single time.

It's been 150 years now - in that time there have been MILLIONS of tests and observations and experiments by THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries which could have either :

• supported evolution
• disagreed with evolution

The score so far is:

• MILLIONS - for evolution
• ZERO - against evolution.

THAT'S why Darwin is famous like Einstein.

And THAT's what creationists don't seem to grasp - just how clear the result is - and just how VAST the amount of evidence that supports evolution is.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
It's not just some 'speculation', not just some ol' 'theory'.


Kapyong

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I don't believe bacteria are evil. They just do their job.

What I am asking can be generalized: did Adam and Eve, assuming you believe in them, have the same defense mechanisms (immune system, etc) that we have today?

If yes, what does that mean? Did God already anticipate that we will need them, ergo that Adam will fall? Or did He just play it safe?

Ciao

- viole

God foreknew of Adam's fall.

They could have had latent defense mechanisms (living white blood cells) that weren't a need until such time. I'm sure we can both think of other plausible, reasonable explanations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I actually couldn't care less what religion you follow or what deity/deities/spirit(s) you worship. Your religion, your belief and your faith are your own.

However, if you going to make a claim about this or that of science, or you are going to mix religious belief with science, then I am going to scrutinise what you have claimed, and tell you what are wrong about your claims when I know your claim is wrong. It's that simple.

If I am telling you what is wrong with your claims about the science, I am actually trying to help you re-examine your claim so that you can learn from your mistakes.

Is it not better to learn from your mistake then keep repeating the same mistakes, over, over and over again?

Is it not better to have understanding of particular field of science, that you don't have grasp for?

If I often appeared annoyed, is because you haven't understood the science that I or others have try to teach you or you haven't understood the errors you have made, and repeat your pseudoscience claims in the same thread later, or in other threads.

It is not your religion that you follow that I have problem with, it is you trying to involve your belief with science that I have problems with.

You have been here long enough, to learn from others that your view on science is incorrect or misguided, but you haven't learned. That we will have the same argument again and again, showed that you are incapable of learning from your mistakes. That's what makes it all so disappointing and annoying.

I understand the science involved, and many reasonable, highly intelligent people believe in God, creation and intelligent design. The evidence for design isn't "somewhere", it's everywhere.

 

[metis]

God foreknew of Adam's fall.

They could have had latent defense mechanisms (living white blood cells) that weren't a need until such time. I'm sure we can both think of other plausible, reasonable explanations.

I God made all with perfect knowledge, then He made Adam fail.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gday all,

Some more thoughts on all this -


Theories are accepted based on EVIDENCE

So,
why did the Phlogiston Theory of Burning get rejected in favour of the Oxygen Theory of Burning?

Why did the Germ Theory of Disease win out over the Demon Theory of Disease ?

Obvious isn't it?

Because we FOUND germs.
And we found Oxygen.
We OBSERVED them, and saw their effects.
(And we never ever found Demons or Phlogiston.)


Theories do NOT get promoted to laws or facts

A theory does NOT get 'promoted' to a law or a fact when it is confirmed (or 'proven' in layman's terms, which are best avoided.)

The Oxygen Theory of Burning did NOT become the 'Law' of Burning once oxygen was confirmed.
The Germ Theory of Disease did NOT become the Germ Law of Disease when germs were observed.

These days - scientists tend NOT to make 'laws' anymore - it's considered out of date, mechanistic, Victorian.
The 'Law of Gravity' is an example of an old classic - and it refers to a clear and specific simple mathematical relationship F ~ m / d^2

There is ALSO a 'Theory of Gravity' - well, there are TWO :

• Newton's Theory of Gravity
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which covers gravity)

One is about 99% accurate and stood for 4 centuries, the other is 100.000% accurate and is about one century old.


Evolution is 100% supported by evidence

So,
Darwin (and the poor forgotten Wallace) had a theory (explanation) to explain the origin of species.
(NOT the origin of life.)

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains how species arise by a process of mutation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time.
Darwin proposed his theory based on his observations of living things, but of course initially it was speculation.

So why is it accepted?
Why is it considered true?
Why do we insist it's NOT speculation now?
Why is Darwin famous like Einstein?

Because we have OBSERVED that he is RIGHT, just like Einstein, every single time.

It's been 150 years now - in that time there have been MILLIONS of tests and observations and experiments by THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries which could have either :

• supported evolution
• disagreed with evolution

The score so far is:

• MILLIONS - for evolution
• ZERO - against evolution.

THAT'S why Darwin is famous like Einstein.

And THAT's what creationists don't seem to grasp - just how clear the result is - and just how VAST the amount of evidence that supports evolution is.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
It's not just some 'speculation', not just some ol' 'theory'.


Kapyong

I grasp the vast number of anomalies present, now, in macro-evolution or switching between "kinds". I know 99% of fossils are sea life and that the fossil record is correlated well to a biblical, global flood.

Micro-evolution and adaptation do not nullify God, faith and religion, though skeptics pretend (to themselves and others) that they do!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I God made all with perfect knowledge, then He made Adam fail.

Knowledge has to be tempered with love, and free will. You seem to believe that God forced Adam and Eve to fall. Please state your thoughts here how you and I make choices every day to obey God or disobey God but as to how Adam and Eve didn't have free will:

Fact 1____

Fact 2____

Fact 3____

Aren't you by definition someone who chooses to disobey God? I'm not laying your choices at God's door, I chose to follow Him! I blame you for being a skeptic, never God.

 

[McBell]

I understand the science involved,

Your posts strongly indicate otherwise.

and many reasonable, highly intelligent people believe in God, creation and intelligent design.

And?
That people have hypocritically lower standards for their beliefs is nothing new, nor doe sit help your position.

The evidence for design isn't "somewhere", it's everywhere.

only if you lower your standards for evidence to the point of meaninglessness.

 

[gnostic]

I understand the science involved, and many reasonable, highly intelligent people believe in God, creation and intelligent design. The evidence for design isn't "somewhere", it's everywhere.

You can't have evidences for design, because you have no evidences for designer, or God.

If you did then present this nonexistent designer to us. That the only way to demonstrate conclusively that the designer is real, not your absurd claims, which no one believe in. Your credibility has long since evaporated, because your you have made one too many dishonest claims.

This so-called evidences of yours is nothing more than fallacious logic and circular reasoning.

 

[metis]

Knowledge has to be tempered with love, and free will. You seem to believe that God forced Adam and Eve to fall. Please state your thoughts here how you and I make choices every day to obey God or disobey God but as to how Adam and Eve didn't have free will:

Fact 1____

Fact 2____

Fact 3____

Aren't you by definition someone who chooses to disobey God? I'm not laying your choices at God's door, I chose to follow Him! I blame you for being a skeptic, never God.

No, I actually don't believe in the narrative as being literal history, so to me the question is moot. But what I asked you completely skirted around without answering it, and this is one of the questions that the likes of Spinoza, Einstein, and now Hawking have mentioned as a real problem: how could God not know if He created all, and if He created all while knowing what He was creating then He had to plan Adam's & Eve's fall to begin with. How could it logically be otherwise?

Now see if you can try and answer this without going into anything about the character of Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking.

 

[McBell]

Knowledge has to be tempered with love, and free will.

Says who?

 

[viole]

I understand the science involved, and many reasonable, highly intelligent people believe in God, creation and intelligent design. The evidence for design isn't "somewhere", it's everywhere.

If it's everywhere, how do you how undesigned things look like?

Ciao

- viole

 

[DawudTalut]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

Theistic evolution
In total = [creation + guided evolution]

 

[viole]

God foreknew of Adam's fall.

And yet, He created him? if you knew in advance that your next child will become someone like Hitler, would you try to have that child?

They could have had latent defense mechanisms (living white blood cells) that weren't a need until such time. I'm sure we can both think of other plausible, reasonable explanations.

Obviously, we do not need to believe in talking serpents to understand the genesis of the immune system.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Theistic evolution
In total = [creation + guided evolution]

Oximoron warning.

Ciao

- viole