On Episode 2 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, when host Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "Evolution is a scientific fact," is he going too far?
One has to recognize the "scientific fact" is not fact in truth. It is "fact" based on hypotheses, therefore not really fact but postulate. It may be accepted as fact in certain circles but fails to meet the definition of fact. Scientific fact only exists as fact in the minds of those who agree that fact need not be proven to be true 100% of the time and that guess-work may be added as needed to support the "facts."
As to Tyson, the well known astrophysicist, what is an astrophysicist. That is an astronomer with a bigger telescope and more study grants. He has become the "Edgar Cayce - Carl Sagan" of the evolutionary group, but generates a lot of following due to showmanship as opposed to depth of knowledge. Popularity generates larger grants and we all know that money talks and ... Well, good charlatans know most all the tricks.
How frustrating for you that the facts prove your god doesn't exist.
Is it your religious beliefs that are causing you to deny this scientific fact because much of Christianity has managed to belief both? It's becomes rather like the radical Muslims who believe dying for the cause of Islam will get them 72 virgins in heaven. Most Muslims understand that to be silly. Christians should also understand that the world was not created in 7 days a few thousand years ago, if not they are radicalized.
I see two issues here but one for discussion. First, as I have indicated before, I have never said or agree that the world or the universe was created in 7 days.
But second, and more importantly, regardless of the subject matter or the field of endeavor, a group may not, try as they might, turn theory into fact by virtue of a majority vote. As verbose and "logical" sounding as they might be, these folks cannot change turn theory into fact outside of their own world of thought. Their methods of advance "palm-reading" only plays to the efforts of the malcontents and humanists.
And as I said before, all truly scientific, principled write-ups on evolution (macro or micro) consistently and repeatedly use the words, "thought to be", "assumed to be", believed to be" and this type of postulate qualifier in their works. They are honest in their presentation.
It would seem the discord between science and Christianity is really not between these two groups. It is but a byproduct of groups that cannot fathom giving up their egos and self-assigned intellectualism.
You didn't answer my question. Is your religion preventing you from seeing the facts.
A fact is simply a thing that is indisputably the case.
Evolution is indisputably the case.
Therefore evolution is fact.
You can say it's not so, but you can't dispute the evidence.
BTW, Micro and Macro are terms not discussed in science, they are terms brought forth when creationist could no longer deny that some evolution takes place.
As for giving up egos, I maintain that assuming the entire universe was given to us for us is egotistical.
Wish I knew how to do that separator thing you guys do to highlight and address one item at a time in a response.
I believe what I believe based on facts.
Then, too, you mustn't confuse facts and scientific facts. They are not the same.
As to macro and micro, not sure you how you arrived at that assumption.
As to egotistical, I agree it is just that. My question would be who is the "Who" that gave you the universe? Or am I misunderstanding your comment.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it claim to. It's remarkable to me how many theists rail against evolution when they have no concept of what it actually is.
Not really sure how to take this. If evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then why do the studies of evolution look for the origin of life, absenting God from the mix.
Looking for the origin of life is another field altogether called Abiogenesis or biopoiesis.
As for micro and macro evolution, look them on a secular site.
Try this one.
That's not what evolution does. You're conflating the study of evolution with abiogenesis, and they are not the same field. At all. Evolution deals with the diversity of life once life was already here. Period.
"A fact is simply a thing that is indisputably the case.
Evolution is indisputably the case.
Therefore evolution is fact."
That all depends on what definition of evolution you use, and whether you are referring simply to certain uses of the term, or if you're referring to Evolution Theory in its entirety when you say "evolution".
Evolution is in one place defined as "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth". Here within the definition, it's acknowledged that this is not fact.
Let's start with what's fact: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals". If we add to this any inferences about common descent, as Evolution Theory does, then we've moved beyond the facts into theory that is not proven and not even provable.
Again, if you accept that things evolve slowly over time then that is the definition of evolution. It's only creationist who talk about macro and micro evolution because they have been forced to except the fact that it happens, but there religious beliefs are still preventing them from excepting facts.
Do you really think God at one point shaped his fingers and buffalo suddenly appeared grazing the grasses? Magic?
Do you agree that it is a fact that germs cause disease?
Well I feel a little word game coming on so I have to ask for more specifics. We have a lot of "old time diseases" of the heart and liver which are hereditary, etc. And we have some "new ones" to soften the lack of self control, such as alcoholism, sex addiction and such.
I'm talking about viruses, bacterias, etc. Are they or are they not caused by germs?
Also, can you define the word theory for me?
I can go along with germs being a cause.
Theory... I am sure there are many definitions. My understanding of the word is it is a postulate, a position taken based on proper reasoning and that though not totally provable on its face, is accepted as "truth" to a certain group.
Then you accept as fact the germ theory of disease, but not evolution theory? What's the difference to you?
What you've purposed about the definition of a theory as a guess is not how the term is used in scientific fields. A theory is the Pinnacle of scientific fields. Hypothesis all aspire to become scientific theories. It's the graduation point of science. Since you cannot actually articulate that, and are clearly not well versed in scientific terms or methods, what position are you in to decide that evolution is not a fact?
Scientific fact is theory by its own definition. The bottom line is that scientific fact need not be proven factual. It only needs to be accepted by the group based on study, evaluation, etc. They work under the premise of an old saying of a preacher friend when we would disagree on an interpretation. "I cain't prove it are, but you cain't prove it ain't."
Scientific facts need not be proven 100%. I don't know what the criteria might be.
True facts are proven and unassailable 100%. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts. Put your thumb over here and I'll prove it, 100%.
Pain is dependent of the brain. If someone has a neurological condition that does not allow them to feel or experience pain (which is a real condition) they will not feel pain if you hit their thumb with a hammer, which would defeat your point.
Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. That's how science works. It learns from New technology and innovation and information, unlike religion. That's what makes science work as the best method for understanding reality. Even if evolution was proven wrong, however, that does not mean a god did it. You have to prove that hypothesis. It doesn't win by default.
I have a son and a granddaughter with the "lack of pain" syndrome. One of the reasons these forums do not work is they begin in generalities for conversational purposes and maybe some informational sharing. They end with the "exceptions to the rule" just to prove mine is bigger than yours.
Regarding abiogensis, it is not separate from evolution except in debates. The word may be a category in the study of evolution but it is a part of the whole. It is a spin off word from someplace back in the 50's to not alienate the creationists. It is still a part and particle of evolutionary studies at U of C, Berkley. If I were that consumed by the subject, I am sure I could find other schools of thought promoting this also.
Reasonably speaking, the divisions of words and studies is a tool used by those that would increase ones stature in the world, not yourself necessarily. They take a subject, dissect the title, dissect the information, reclassify certain portions, then label them as the see appropriate. It is an age-old gnostic slight of hand. Then the average person, as myself, is supposed to (but not expected to) "put humpty dumpty together again." And there is an assumption that people across the board are interested in doing so. I am not. And this verbosity is not just in the "scientific realm." It is used by all fields, as I said, to increase the stature, including theology.
Scientific facts are not necessarily, if you will, "true" facts. They are theories and they are put to print.
Now belief in God does not require and does not have in-the-lab, written, printed proofs. The proofs are a combination of printed material (the Bible and secular history), personal experience and personal knowledge indisputable to the individual. The are facts to the believer. By comparison to "scientific facts," we might call them "theistic facts."
Of course, you may not believe as I do but thanks for your pleasant demeanor. It is unlike many others that air their positions here with nasty, hateful retorts. I feel sorry for them and not just because they do not believe, but their comments reveal what a wretched life they must be living.
I would conclude here but there is an open subject. You asked something about my believing in germs and disease. How does that fit?
The germ theory of disease is a theory, but it is also a fact. Diseases are spread through germs. You have admitted that you accept this as fact. So what is the difference to you between the germ theory of disease and evolution?
Again we come to labels. The Germ Theory. Is it a theory if facts support it? Microbiology is a legitimate science. I think my ma had us all get the inoculations required in the last century. Maybe that is why I never had whooping cough or polio.
Germs have been shown to exist and cause problems in humans, in fact. There is no legitimate contest that I am aware against this. There is a direct link established. On the other hand, as I have said scientific facts include adding in a certain amount of "guess-work" to close all the loops.
So why is Germ theory called a theory? Possibly it gives more veracity to other "theories." Just kidding, but why have they not removed that part. As many here are fond of says "facts are facts." It would seem now that they have found that germs cause disease, they are second-guessing themselves. Confusing.
One might question why CPR is accredited to the early part of the 19th century when the modern "theory of CPR" goes back at least to mid 1700's. Yet the first written notice of the technique may be found in I Kings 17:19-20, about 870 BC.
Oh, so it's special pleading. All those other scientific fields are real science, but evolution is just a guess so it's not a fact and can be dismissed. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work.
You realize that evolution has more facts and evidence than germ theory, right? You realize that gravity is a theory, right? You're talking about evolution as if it's just a guess, while all of these other theories are actual science. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Evolutionary biology is an actual scientific field as well.
But to tie it all in, you realize, don't you, that the reason there is a flu shot every year is because of evolution?
Let's approach this from a different angle. If someone walked up to you off the street, never having read the Bible, never having heard of Jesus and told you that it was all a bunch of crap, would you buy it? Of course not. Because they don't have the knowledge, experience or credentials to make that kind of determination. I feel the same way about laypeople theists and evolution. You can't even describe what a theory is, you don't know what evolution does or does not address, but you're standing here saying is a guess, not a fact. I find that incredibly arrogant, dismissive of the work of the overwhelming majority of scientists, and more than a little absurd.
We have an impasse. But, you convinced me of only one thing. After what I considered some pleasant conversation, you, as do several others here, have resorted to the well worn defense of degrading my position. When you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness. I had expect a bit more. Ah, well, on to the next subject and the next expert.
Your defence is not you. It's like saying my hat is me, if you make fun of my hat you make fun of me.
Let's instead have a look at the hat objectively.
Jmc attacked the evidence pretty well actually. You just happened to bypass all of that however. As for your position, its usually the case that the person claiming something similar to that is the one who degraded, or otherwise set themselves up for their own downfall.
when, exactly, did I degrade you personally rather than your position? What personal attacks have I made against your character?
You know what it looks like to me? It looks like you're willing to talk to people of opposing views as long as you still think you are intellectually superior. When you encounter someone who is intelligent and well versed, it's easier for you to accuse them off an ad hominem attack that they never made to avoid continuing a conversation where you've run out of your basic talking points and can no longer continue. Rather than admit you don't know enough to continue, you dishonestly make a false accusation and excuse yourself. It's disappointing.
The scientific theory (Germ Theory), is nonsense and has yet to have been proven, it's based on a poor scientific process and when measure against real facts (biblical facts) we see that Germs are code for demons. Only blessed medication can keep the Germs (demons for harming us). A far more productive remedy is exorcism. I've seen it with my own eyes, people at there death bed riddled with decease than then a few simple prayer later and they get up and walk around.
Does that sound silly enough for you?
A case of the pot and kettle?
"Yet the first written notice of the technique may be found in I Kings 17:19-20, about 870 BC."
It is only by the most incredible and tenuous exercise of imagination that this could be called CPR.
1. There is no indication the boy was dead and CPR is never applied to a living person; part of the process is verifying the person is indeed dead (defined by lack of a heartbeat).
2. CPR involves applying pressure to a very small, specific area of the body, not squashing the entire body flat.
3. CPResusitation requires that air be introduced into the dead body; Elijah did not do that.
4. CPR does not involve calling on a deity, which was necessary in the tale.
5. CPR never stops after 3 compressions, as Elijah did.
6. There has never been indication that a god heard the plea of the CPR artist, as is stated here, and it is not a part of doing CPR.
7. When CPR is successful it is not the work of a god but of the rescuer.
To go from an ancient tale of lying down on a child to calling it CPR is an enormous stretch of the facts; isn't this similar to what happens when you go from recognizing the evolution happens to saying it can't happen in more than small amounts without having even a tiny bit of evidence to support the statement? Just a huge stretch to conclude that a god did it instead of well known, understood and recognized natural forces?
Science is based on inductive reasoning. With inductive reasoning we derive general principles from specific examples. To verify a general principle "100%" we would need to observe every instance of the specific example. This is called the problem of induction. For example, testing germ theory 100% would require the observation of every example of a given germ in existence, now and in the future, under the same conditions. That's impractical. So scientists call it a theory because theoretically it can still be falsified. For practical purposes, it is reasonable to say we "know" germs cause disease, but what that actually means in a scientific context is that current evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that germs cause disease. That is the highest level of confidence we can have in scientific terms, such is the nature of inductive reasoning.
Here you have articulated the problem with a believer/non-believer discussion. Proof to the believer is the bible (known to be in error more than correct) and personal, subjective experience that is never tested to verify it is anything but coincidence.
The non-believer will not, of course, accept either proof and the believer will not accept anything that doesn't fit within the already defined conclusion of a deity regardless of how strong it is.
Well stated and I agree. One issue I do have though is regarding "scientific facts". Genuine science, meaning an observation of "what is" in regards to the material world, has never been an issue for believers. I just wish people would correctly label only actual observable / provable things as "scientific facts". Once people take those observations and add in their postulations, spinning them as "facts", (like evolution), it would be appropriate to label these as "scientism's facts" since they are nothing more than the reasoning and speculation of that belief system. I know this isn't going to happen as scientism hides behind the credibility of genuine science and benefits from promoting it's beliefs as "scientific facts".
Further confusion results from so many scientists who are part of that belief system exploiting their position by not delineating where their "what is" observations end and "what if" speculation begins. Instead they often choose to present both in composite form, as though it were all "what is". Textbooks are replete with their ideology, so I guess it is understandable why they have no motivation to police their own success in promoting their beliefs as reality.
I don't have a problem with your term of "theistic facts" representing those which go beyond materialism and are spiritually discerned. "Theistic facts" will remain foolishness in the eyes of those blind to spirituality just as "scientism's facts" will remain foolishness in the eyes of those who employ it.
"Genuine science, meaning an observation of "what is" in regards to the material world, has never been an issue for believers."
Tell that to Galileo, who spent many years locked away because he showed the earth wasn't the center of everything. Or Darwin, who showed that species evolve. Or the millions that were born gay. Anything that disagrees with religious dogma, true or not, observable or not, or proven or not has always been an issue for the believer.
Try again. Galileo suffered at the hands of Catholics. Evolution and born gay are your beliefs and you're welcome to them.
Wow, and Catholics are not believers? You think gay people choose a life of persecution? Do straight people choose to be straight? Do white people choose to be white?
Whether white people choose to be white or not, christians choose to be wilfully ignorant and dishonest.
Ignorance is bliss. Remember they fear knowledge because they feel God didn't want them to have it.
They simply refuse to see that it is the priests who live at their expense that do not want them to gave knowledge or think properly.
But without realizing they are proving evolution though, it is general paranoia of human species the priests exploit.
Well said. Galileo suffered at the hands of Catholics. And gays suffer at the hands of a variety of Christian sects. Evolution is denied by a great many religious.
Which is what I said, isn't it? The religious have "issues" with anything that disagrees with their religious views regardless of how firm the evidence is.
Thank you for your comments. I have identified legitimate sciences at such and touched on them here as in microbiology. However, the opposition cannot or will not separate the botanist, palm readers from the real and useful sciences. But enough in their ballpark.
Debating with those of a closed mind and acid tongue is fruitless. I would think we could do much better setting a Biblical tenor would be more positive. I am sure the trolls will show up, especially the 3 stooges, but the Hub is an open forum and they have access. Yet, the "Sermon on the Mount" was presented to all that wanted to attend.
It would seem we fall short arguing and debating the subjects they chose on a regular basis, so a change is needed. Properly presented, the Hub could be a great place for Christians and searchers alike. And Proverb 26:4-5 is a proper guide for presentations and responses.
I will begin with Matthew 7:6 in a few moments.
I agree with all except falling short, when often it is just saving breath to deaf ears. I will be away for a while but look forward to seeing what you have in mind.
"Sermon on the Mount"?
You mean this "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
I've never seen any Christian cut off his own hand or gouge out an eye?
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King."
Hope you don't pledge an oath to your country?
"Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. That's how science works. It learns from New technology and innovation and information..."
Well said on this point, JMcFarland. Many miss this and insist it's all factual, even implying that it could never be proven wrong, and no new information will ever surface to enlighten us.
LOL Got to admit it is funny to watch religionists talk of facts.
Thanks for the laugh.
I think JM meant that - if new evidences came along we would accept them - not that evolution is not a fact.
Thankfully the facts have proven your god does not exist. Oh wait - you don't accept facts.
Evolution is a fact. It has been tested, predicted and observed. It happens.
What i should have said is that new evidence comes to light that bumps evolution out of its spot for the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, there will be a new theory. Not that it will no longer be a fact.
I wonder if they accept the theory of gravity?
If there religion said gravity is Gods tub on our feet they wouldn't.
It's funny because the NT is riddled with Jesus healing and ridding people of demons when really some antibiotics were in order. Are bacterial demons? Is ebola a demonic plague? Yet we still have some people saying demons are responsible for illnesses.
I hope you won't mind me butting in, but....
Boy you guys are really tough on those folks of faith... whew!
But, would you snicker at them even more if they said;
"Of course we don't accept the Theory of Gravity!"
"But we accept the Law of Gravity, (Law of Universal Gravitation), and we also accept the Theory of General Relativity."
Of course I am just pulling your leg. You really meant to say Theory of Relativity all along didn't you?
No, I meant the theory of Gravity. Here's the thing. Theory is the graduation point of science. Laws are far different from theories. They are not higher than laws. they describe two completely different aspects of the same idea.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.
Again, phrased differently:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
You seem to be confusing scientific facts, hypotheses, theories and predictions.
You hit your thumb three times and it hurt three times. Assuming it was carefully measured, that would be a scientific fact (an observed/ measured phenomenon).
If someone hits their thumb with a hammer, it will hurt. That's a prediction (a statement about what will happen in the future). Predictions in science are usually based on scientific facts.
The central nervous system registers harmful stimuli, and processes it as an unpleasant sensation in order to cause a reaction that reduces further harm. That is a hypothesis (a proposed explanation of a phenomenon). Hypotheses can be supported or falsified by predictions.
A hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed by experiment, observation and prediction, is often adopted as a scientific theory (the current best explanation of a given phenomenon as determined by the scientific community).
Scientific theories are never "proven and unassailable 100%". They are only ever tentatively accepted. Theories can change as new observations and evidence are discovered, but only if the revisions are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is so overwhelmingly supported by available evidence, that (barring a major new development) there is no good reason to continue testing it. In science, this is the highest level of confidence there is.
So we have a choice. We can doubt the veracity of the theory of gravity on the grounds that technically it is not "proven and unassailable 100%". Or based on the high degree of confidence we have, and in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary, we can conclude that it is reasonable to accept the theory of gravity as correct and use it as the basis for our understanding of various phenomena. The latter approach has proven spectacularly successful. Religious sensibilities notwithstanding, the same approach must be applied to all scientific theories. Not doing so would be unreasonable.
To be accurate evolution is both fact and theory.
A scientific fact is something that has been objectively and verifiably observed. By saying evolution is a scientific fact, Tyson is saying that evolution has been objectively and verifiably observed, which it has. Changes over time have been observed in organisms. These are what scientists refer to as the facts of evolution.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis (explanation) that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, to the point where there is no practical benefit in continuing to test it. The explanation of those changes over time in organisms has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. This is what scientists refer to as the theory of evolution.
So evolution is both a series of facts (observed phenomena) and an explanation of those facts that has been repeatedly confirmed (scientific theory). Hence evolution is both fact and theory.
(also note: based on your criteria of a fact, nothing can be considered as fact)
Thanks for your input. Here is the problem as I see it. When I was a youngster, we learned that 2+2 =4. That was a mathematical fact then and is a fact now.
However, theories an postulates were devoid of the proofs necessary to call them "facts." So what does "man" do with these in order to "prove" apoint. He invents new and imaginative words and definitions to support the theory or postulate. Overtime and use these new items win popularity and eventually make it into the dictionary as well as mainstream thought. This is not a problem unique to science but also to theology, the two headliners in this forum. Its been many years since I watched my physics teacher post a theorum on the blackboard showing how one could logically prove that 1=2. He then went on to explain by adding in a certain unproveable, but accepted theory, his theorum could be accepted factual.
A fact is a 100% proveable item. One is free to add a "prefix" or "suffix" word to "fact" and it may be acceptable to mainstream thought, but does not change a theory or postulate into a fact.
It helps, too, that nothing from any point in our history can be proven 100%. After all, pictures could have been faked, and any people could have been ET actors instead of who we thought they were. Nor can the future be predicted with 100% accuracy (even such things as radioactive decay) as we may be swallowed by an unnoticed black hole tonight. Even proving 100% of something current and available for inspection is extremely difficult.
Point being that using your definitions (remember that part about making up new definitions?) there will always be a loophole. Example: I have a burgundy car. IF we agree on what "burgundy" is. Except that when they mixed paint for a repair job there were 4 different colors that went into it, including green, so it must be a green car.
All of which is used to attack evolutionary theory but, strangely, never the god that is the preferred replacement.
It would seem the point here is we accept what we accept based on what we know, trust, experience and inherently believe. And looking at these, none would pass in our world as 100% proofs. The issue, for me, is the pushing of an unprovable theory as fact, in any important area. Now you may say "that's what you are doing with God" and this could be a valid argument in a worldly debate. Yet, we are talking from two different economies. You believe what you believe based on your current knowledge and belief base. I do the same. What's that old book title "women are from venus, men are from mars" (I think?).
Do I reason out opposing comments? Yes, though with a certain subjectiveness. Do others do the same??
The world and its inhabitants continue to prove to me the correctness of the Bible and the God I serve, though my service is not in a perfect manner. Are there unanswerable questions on both sides? Yes, but being unanswerable only means there is no known answer. It is detestable to me when either side develops new and unusual avenues of proofs that are nothing more than "games people play" or "mine is bigger than yours."
Let's not change the 100% factor of correctness. To do so won't change the facts, it will just lower the bar of intellect.
"Do I reason out opposing comments? Yes, though with a certain subjectiveness."
But do you reason out your own comments? From what I can see, only with 100% subjectiveness, and always with an eye to what it might do to the conclusion already made. The only way to learn anything is to build on what we have, using the knowledge that we have. But when it comes to a god, we know absolutely nothing. You know because the world and it's inhabitants "prove" it to you, but once more the proof is accepted ONLY if it still leads to the desired conclusion. If it does not do that, why then it isn't 100% and thus ignored.
The end result is that what you "know" about a god is belief, not knowledge. It isn't 100% but that doesn't matter as it is only belief. Others require knowledge, all while recognizing and accepting that we can never know anything 100%, even our own existence.
It seems your acceptance of others claims of empirical knowledge is the basis for our disagreement. And you rely on it. Yet you say no such knowledge exists, yet we must keep searching til we find it. As I said, the Bible continues to prove itself, 2 Timothy 3:7.
Again, I don't object to your having a belief system adverse to mine. My objection is applying new words to old theories and thereby making them "facts, et al." And this, then, supposedly negates my belief, empirically.
By comparing 2+2=4 with scientific theories, you are comparing a priori knowledge with a posteriori knowledge respectively. So you are not comparing like for like. They are two different types of knowledge acquired in different ways.
A priori knowledge is not dependent on observation and can be acquired by pure reason. It is the same as saying "all bachelors are unmarried". These things are true by definition. In contrast, "Objects that have a mass are attracted to each other", is dependent on observation and cannot be acquired by pure reason. All scientific knowledge is like this (a posteriori knowledge).
You can't reasonably compare these as if they are the same. Instead let's compare evolution with another example of scientific knowledge: an apple dropped from a height of 100m in the air will fall to the ground if otherwise uninhibited. Is that a fact? To be "certain" of it we would need to observe every single apple in existence now and in the future, which is not practical. But I predict that most people would say they are reasonably certain apples fall to the ground if dropped from a height. Why is that? The key word is reasonable. Even if something is not certain, it can be certain enough that doubting it would be foolish and/or pointless. People tend to only doubt previous experience if they have very good reason to. In most people's experience objects fall from a height, an apple is an object, therefore an apple would fall from a height. This is reason. If previous experience points to a particular outcome, then it is perfectly reasonable not to doubt that outcome, even if you accept intellectually that it is not "certain".
The same is true of scientific explanations. Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation. So it is reasonable not to doubt that evolution has occurred, in the same way that it is reasonable not to doubt that apples fall to the ground, even though intellectually we know there is a theoretical possibility that one may not;
With a posteriori knowledge (scientific knowledge) it is not about complete certainty. It isn't practical to achieve such certainty. It is about what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to doubt our understanding on the basis of theoretical possibilities? Or is it reasonable to base our understanding on previous experience in the form of observation and experiment? To put it another way, do you think it is reasonable to doubt that apples fall to the ground because there is a theoretical possibility that one day we could observe one that does not?
Lots of stuff here. Accordingly, I am correct in believing that God does exist based on "a priori", that which is at hand for all to use, plus experienced "phenomena."
And I would also be correct in assuming that evolution is an on going study that has yet to be proven since, to date, (I could be wrong here cuz I don't follow every tidbit) "science" has yet to link the various modules of evolution in a perfect daisy chain.
And, accordingly, it is possible to take a position and develop a hypothesis a supports that position and prove 1=2, "a posteriori."
But without all the jargon, it appears that each is based on Faith. My faith is in the works of God.
When are you speaking again? And under what name? I can hardly wait.
Glad to witness such restless interest from you
Saying "god exists" is as meaningful as an a priori statement as saying "a bumblesqueak has 3 bindlebums". As long as I define a bumblesqueak as having 3 bindlebums, I am entirely correct in saying this statement is true by definition. That doesn't mean bumblesqueaks actually exist though. The point being that it is a mistake to consider a priori knowledge like 2+2=4 as somehow better than a posteriori knowledge like the facts of evolution, just because a priori is more certain. It is more certain, but as the above shows, a priori facts only reflect the definitions they are made up of. They are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the world.
Scientific ideas are either supported by evidence to such a degree that we tentatively accept them as true, or they are disproved. They are never "proven" in the sense you mean. There is no such finality in scientific knowledge. This is a very very important point to understand: The reason evolutionary theory has not be "proven" is not because it is wrong, but because no scientific theories have ever been proven. None. This is how science works. Scientific knowledge is acquired incrementally based on partial successes. Nothing is proven once and for all.
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong and so was the teacher who demonstrated 1 can equal 2. This is a classic mathematical fallacy. It makes for a nice trick, but I assure you these types of "proofs" are always wrong. It is logically impossible for 1 to equal 2.
No, as I have explained, a posteriori arguments (all scientific arguments) are dependent on observation. So a scientific theory is accepted only because it has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experiment, not because someone has "faith" in it. Such is the case with the theory of evolution. It is accepted because available evidence overwhelmingly supports it. It's entirely reasonable to tentatively accept something as true if empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports it. It is unreasonable for someone to reject something as being untrue, because they believe it conflicts with their religious belief.
From Mirriam Webster:
a pri·o·ri adjective \ˌä-prē-ˈȯr-ē, ˌa-; ˌā-(ˌ)prī-ˈȯr-ˌī, -ˌprē-ˈȯr-ē\
: relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation
What is this understanding of how things work that shows a god exists? All I've ever heard is a flat statement that we don't understand so there has to be a god, but that is not understanding but simple ignorance. So what do you know about how things work that no one else does?
Evolution is a theory...I believe God is a fact. He that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them who dilligently seek Him.
Evolution and god are both theories. The diffetence is that while evolution is a sensible theory, god is a nonsensical one.
The Bible never debates God's existence, why should we?
By Him we live and have our being.
Harry Potter never debates Harry's existence, why should we?
God is not a theory. It is merely a hypothesis with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
Because the bible is mostly nonsense?
That's because you, like so many believers, read it literally. Not very bright.
Kabbalists wrote the first 5 books (possibly more) in code. So, no one but the Kabbalists know what it means. Listening to you make pronouncements about spirituality is like listening to a blind man talk about the non-existence of color. Not very bright.
Harry Potter never debates the existence if harry potter, why should we?
Bible ia nothing but nonsense and sham history.
Can you give a short list of observed facts, tests, experiments and reasoning that led you to the extraordinary belief in another universe with a single intelligent entity that created this one?
Short list (though I doubt you'll understand it):
The universe exists, therefore He IS.
The physical reality we observe are the thoughts of God. Rene Descartes would understand.
There for he is? I thought universe was a 'she'.
And anyone who bothered to study will understand that Descarte was wrong.
Rene Descartes is my favorite atheist. You probably won't be able to understand.
The universe exists, therefore the pink unicorn IS.
The logic of your statement is in desperate need of fleshing out, as the conclusion does not follow from the premise in any way.
"The universe exists, therefore He IS."
That is an example of a meaningful declarative sentence, but it is not a statement but rather a matter of opinion or taste.
"The physical reality we observe are the thoughts of God."
That is an example of a declarative sentence but, lacks meaning, is neither true nor false and therefore is not a statement.
How do you prove that a god, let alone a specific god, is a fact?
JMcFarland and Wilderness:
Faith is the evidence of things unseen. No need to prove it to anyone. How could a human "prove" that which God has designed to occur by faith? Now if in faith you go to the Lord, you will get your proof. But no one can get it for you and give it to you. The "righteous" (that is, all sinners who are made righteous through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ) will live by faith. He rewards all those who come to him in faith, and according to your faith, it will be done for you.
Humbly we may pray: "Father, increase our faith", and even "I do believe; help me in my unbelief!"
Blessings to you, JMcFarland and Wilderness, according to God's unfailing love and mercies.
Wonderful - very encouraging...God bless.
Overall, I have no quibble with this...right up to the point where you claim that going to the lord will produce proof. It will not, at most it can only produce faith and opinion, not proof. This is something that most believers simply do not seem to understand; that their faith is proof of nothing outside of the obvious that they have faith. Even the statement that He rewards those that "come to him" is nonsense and not true or factual although faith CAN produce endorphins and a good feeling to some. Not all, but some.
Why not accept that God and evolution are facts?
Doesn't God have the ability to create great complexity? Why not life with a built-in ability to grow beyond its current constraints? That's the beauty of evolution as God created it.
Evolution is a fact. Some of the details discussed by anthropologists and other scientists are a bit questionable, but evolution as a whole is not one of them.
Too many (believers and atheists) put their literal interpretation of scripture above the Truth that God created.
Would it surprise you to find out that the first 5 books (possibly more) of the Bible was written by Kabbalists in code? None of it should be taken literally, according to modern Kabbalists. Their intent is merely toward spiritual awakening -- the salvation that Christ talked about.
A scientific theory is one supported by mountains of facts and is thus a veritable fact. But nothing in science is ever settled. Even the so-called "laws" of Newton were found lacking -- improved by Einsteinian Relativity.
Science does a pretty good job studying the reality that God created. But even scientists have egos. Some have refused to accept controversial evidence. Ignoring facts is something that even scientists can do. But many Christians seem to ignore facts with a wild abandon. Ignoring reality is tantamount to delusion. Not good.
With humility we can each learn new things. If we hold onto our old ideas too tightly, we blind ourselves to new revelations God has waiting for us.
And once we come to God, we feel HIs presence in our lives.
We are never the same.
Look at me.
I was a 'sick' person ----healthwise--- for twenty years
I was misdiagnosed and suffering
After I accepted Christ my whole life changed. Just read my hubs! Praise the Lord. Amen. and Hallelujah
As much as i try not to be immediately biased...i am astounded by people who say evolution is not fact but only a theory...yet claim an uber magical super being poofed everything out of thin air because he was bored.
Where is the sense in this?
To the 'natural man' these things are nonsense but one who has become 'Born Again' it makes all the sense in the world. Unless ye be born again you cannot see the Kindom of God.
So - did you have a partial lobotomy to make you a "superior" man?
You do understand that we know you can't see the kingdom of God right? You have no special powers that we "natural men" don't have. You are just like us only you have let your imagination take control of your thoughts. You have allowed nonsense to make sense.
Gravity is a fact, Math is factual, Physics is fact, all things that are consistently proven through the scientific method are regarded as facts.
Evolution is a theory which through an overwhelming lack of evidence has itself evolved into a religion for atheists.
Although it is not a religion, the theory of evolution has a following of apologists, and like some religious people when they are challenged on the validity of their beliefs they meet naysayers with hostility and mockery.
“Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things…one of the beginnings of the human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority. It’s indispensable.”
The late Christopher Hitchens
A mediocre quote from a defender of the faith of nothing.
And by what means did you come to that conclusion? Science?!
More like your opinion and your lack of accepting any other alternative. Another sad reminder of the true motive behind militant atheists ramming their beliefs where they don't belong. Rather than allowing people to come to diverse objective opinions based on evidence, we must be lead down a set path based solely the motives of the elitist presenters. Onward to fascism!
Actually your welcome to any opinion you want, just don't pretend it has to be respected without ridicule. Kinda like your attempt at ridicule. It appears you have lost your way and are attempting to insult it's what happens when you have nothing.
Science used to be based on observable facts, rather than the atheist agenda. And now that you have lost the debate you get to play the victim.
More mockery? How scientific of you.
Again you can't question the religion of evolutionism without upsetting the zealots.
Hmmmm, It's not nice to call people names… and I'm certainly not upset, those are laughing faces.
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
That's a new one. I've been called fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of my ideals by someone who is so fanatical and uncompromising in his pursuit of their religious ideals that they ignore any scientific facts that may compromise that position. Care to show me any scientific facts that I've ignored in my pursuit of my ideals?
Those are more smiley faces.
Yup, I'm confused. I read Don and he says that. And I read Wild and he says this. But they agree with each other (I think) so "this and that" must be the same thing.
And both are correct because facts are not longer facts. Facts are now accepted postulates, accepted by the largest and/or most vocal gatherings of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" sciences.
The OP is "Evolution is a scientific fact". And now we know the statement is correct. Facts do not have to be "facts," educated guesses will do just fine in most cases.
Suggest you go to a scientific dictionary, or some other source giving definitions of terms used in science, and look up "postulate", "hypothesis" and "theory". I suspect you will find that Don and I are both using the words in ways you are not.
You can try for "fact" as well, but doubt you will find anything to fit with the way you are using it - as the conclusion of a successful theory or study. Only as an observed phenomenon, which is different than very nearly scientific conclusions (commonly called "facts").
I understand the concepts proposed regarding "scientific fact." I believe I understand the various terms that have been used here, at least as far as need be.
My point is, and I won't belabor it further than this tonight, "scientific fact" does not rise to the level of true fact. And the arguments on this thread by those supporting it as such, contains the admission of this.
Though there are many and various theories that have been produced, until something is 100% unalterable or undeniable or whatever other empirical designate is provided, it is not pure. It remains a "fact" only in certain circles.
As you know, or may have guessed, I am "one those Christians" that causes so much discontent just by being, well, alive. I do not agree with the "mainstream" anything just because they are a majority. Man is a thinking and reasoning creature. If he has nothing else, he has these tools. These are my tools as well, even though my conclusions are adverse to that of other in certain areas.
I'm confused by your stance, and I'd love to get to the bottom of why you hold it. I'm genuinely curious. Let me go back to basics just to make sure we are using these terms the same way, then ask a simple question to see if it sheds any light on how you are thinking about this.
Phenomenon - An observable event or occurrence.
An apple falling from a tree is a phenomenon.
Scientific Fact - A careful observation or measurement of a phenomenon.
You note the details of an apple falling from a tree, and others are able to observe the same thing and note the details too; The phenomenon of apples falling from trees is a scientific fact (an observable event or occurrence that has been carefully observed or measured).
Hypothesis - A proposed explanation of scientific facts.
The idea that objects of mass are attracted to other objects of mass through the force of gravitation, is a hypothesis (an explanation of the fact that apples fall from trees).
Scientific Theory - A hypothesis (explanation) that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment.
Repeated tests, experiments and observation have confirmed that objects of mass (like apples) are attracted to other objects of mass (like the planet earth); It has been confirmed so many times, by so many people, that it is considered unreasonable to continue to doubt it, without very good scientific reason. This is the theory of gravitation.
Note: the theory of gravitation is not proven in the once-and-for-all sense that you are using. It does not satisfy your criteria of being 100% unalterable or undeniable because no scientific theory can or does satisfy that criteria. Not one.
So given all that, is it reasonable to accept that apples fall because objects of mass are attracted to other objects of mass? If so, why is it reasonable? If not, why is it not reasonable?
Scientific Theory - A hypothesis (explanation) that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment.
That's why many say the Theory of Evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory. While some aspects of the theory can be tested and are confirmed, no test exists that can confirm the central idea of universal common descent long, long before our existence.
But we do have fossil and DNA records that point perfectly in the same direction. For example DNA can be analyzed to tell us precisely what direction our of Africa our ancestors came from and if we are not African what percentage of our DNA is neanderthal.
But that only shows descent from people, not other species, and certainly not some universal ancestor that we all allegedly came from. Since this is the very central assertion within Evolution Theory, it's significant that it can't be directly tested and proven.
Well, I actually decided not to speak for or against the validity of evolution theory in the hub I had published today; just to speak against the false claim that evolution does away with the need for a Creator.
Where in the theory of evolution does it state that a creator is absolutely not needed? It seems i am not looking at the same theory you are.
I was referring to what people claim, not what's stated within the theory. I've heard it claimed over and over that the alleged process of evolution needs no Creator God, but that it does away with this need. That's simply not true, and that's what I was addressing in the hub/here.
For the record, I've not bought into the theory, which I see a multitude of problems with, but I have no revelation here and say nothing conclusively regarding most of it.
Oh, I have to agree with you that evolution does away with any concept of God. Even the Pope has acknowledge that. It's just some of these fundamental Christians who are having a difficult time with it and building entire museums that show humans interacting with dinosaurs when we thinking people know that never happened.
Many thinking people understand evolution and still maintain a belief in God.
I've heard it acknowledged by many that evolution does not do away with the POSSIBILITY / POTENTIAL for God, yet many falsely claim it does away with the NEED for God / Creator. Which it absolutely doesn't, as it's nothing but an alleged PROCESS.
You are correct; evolution does not do away with a God. There is no reason to think that God did not use that process to further His aims.
Even the claim that it does away with the necessity of God is touchy as evolution does not address how life began. Just how it developed and changed over time.
At the same time it pretty much gives the lie to the Adam and Eve tale, as one of the specific studies in the field is the development of Man, and the evidence not only does not support the story but says it is false.
Anyone who says evolution explains the beginning of life is sadly mistaken. There is a whole other process that explains the beginning of life without any Gods.
That's like saying the theory of gravity isn't a scientific theory because we have not visited Mars to verify that the planet will attract a person as the theory says it will. Or that, although we have tested some moon rocks, we haven't tested that each and every one of them is attracted to earth's gravity.
After all, the theory does say that every body of mass attracts every other body, and we haven't tested every mass against every other mass and never will.
Tested cheerios in my bowl with milk the other day, they come together for the same reasons planets are attracted to each other.
One more thing down.
If the central assertion of the theory of gravity is that a body of mass attracts other bodies, then at least the central assertion has been shown to be true. But if the central assertion of Evolution Theory is that we've descended from a common ancestor, then the very central assertion hasn't and can't be shown in tests.
No, the central assertion of evolution is that species evolve into something that they weren't (including the ancestors of modern man). The theory doesn't even say that there were not 5,000 instances of abiogenesis (creation of life) although it does say that it would be extremely unusual if they all happened of natural causes.
And the central assertion of gravity is that all bodies attract each other; something that has never been tested and never will be. At best we can say that the earth attracts everything on it and that the mathematical constructs of orbitals fits perfectly with observations of the planets and moons.
It has been formally tested. I'm sure you know of Theobald 2010. An accompanying article in Nature reads:
"Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA [Unified Common Ancestry] irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."
Combined with the confirmations you mentioned of other aspects of the theory, it is accurate to say that evolutionary theory as a whole has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment. It is also important to note that scientific theories are refined over time. The theory of evolution has been refined since Darwin, and will continue to be. That doesn't mean it is wrong. It just mean that the acquisition of scientific knowledge is incremental.
I think the point stands that it is unreasonable to doubt evolutionary theory without very good scientific reason. I have not seen any good scientific reason.
This may interest you from the Scientific World Journal:
...there is a fundamental flaw in Theobald's method which used aligned sequences. We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis, and we provide an example that Theobald's method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria). This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the “formal” test.
Read more at:http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/479824/
It would be very unusual for a scientific paper to be published and not receive criticism. The "Principal of Relativity" as it was known then received criticism too when it was published in 1905 and still does. So no, the above does not interest me. If a paper claimed to disprove the test, then that would interest me.
Theobald has published subsequent papers that further support his methods and outcomes, but I'm sure there will be further criticism. This is how scientific theories are refined over time.
Given the extent of the confirmation for various aspects of the theory of evolution, and an absence of scientific reasons to the contrary, I think it unreasonable to doubt the theory of evolution. It's also true that the majority of people in the mainstream scientific community accept that the theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for the facts of evolution.
While scientific papers may receive criticism regularly, the particular problem with Theobald's test (the tendency / bias to confirm the common ancestor hypothesis, so that it results in false positives) is more than a minor problem. It shows it really can't be trusted as an effective test at all.
As for all this supposed evidence, it's all simply too circumstantial to be considered strong evidence.
Thanks for your patience. I have read all of these several times. I believe we are in agreement on all of the definitions supplied, from an academic viewpoint. However, I will hold my stance on the difference between a true fact and scientific fact. They are not the same. Science may do as it pleases. People may chose to believe as they wish. I chose to stay with the position that, whatever the issue, in truth it is either fact or theory and cannot be both at the same time. We may sidestep truth with conjecture and rename it with "xxx" fact, it does not change the truth. And here, I am sure, I pushed another button by entering the word "truth" in the conversation. Let's not pursue that.
It would be much easier for the simple minded, such as myself, to accept a term such as "scientific theory," which is what we are talking about. (And given the comments on this thread on both sides of our responses, I am sure the simpletons will pick up on me being "simple minded.")
Again, I recognize the meaning of "scientific fact" and I do understand the processes utilized in developing these scientific facts. And I also appreciate your time and proper social responses However, I just don't accept the concept of "scientific fact" being the same as a true "fact." It is misleading on its face. A term I haven't used in many years best describes this, malum in se.
I could also thank you for your patience, because I clearly do not understand your point of view. You say you understand the process involved in developing scientific facts, but there is no process, other than careful observation and measurement. Literally anything that happens in the world that is carefully observed or measured is a scientific fact. The fact the earth revolves around the sun, the fact that people die, the fact that birds fly, the fact that light travels at a constant speed, the fact that it rains, the fact that children play. All these things are scientific facts, i.e. they have been carefully observed and measured.
Are you saying that because these are not "true facts" you doubt that any of them are true?
And I understand "malum in se" to mean wrong or evil. Are you saying these things are wrong/evil?
It is a "fact" of history that complacency has brought about many catastrophic happenings. Complacency begins with a "well it doesn't affect me, so why be concerned." When we wink or blink at one small issue in this manner, we have digressed. And then we do it again, and again, and so on until we wonder "How did we get into this mess?"
Several of the items you mentioned are fact and scientific fact at the same time. Others are scientific fact as you have explained. The scientific facts are accepted as such yet acceptable as not having been discredited. But lets take the speed on light, for instance, and I am a layman here so pardon my ignorance. If a "ray of light" (is that the proper term) passes through a certain (maybe unknown) phenomena in space, could it speed up or slow down? I don't think we can say light travels at a constant for a certainty under all circumstances, known and unknown. But it is a scientific fact for our world. Birds fly. That is a fact of our world. (If I'm not mistaken, science has not yet figured out the totally of how birds are able to fly.)
If science is 99% correct and acceptable in its studies, there is still the 1%. But if 99% correct becomes, in the mind and works of science, 100% then the next 99% certainty is actually less than 99%, when measured on the new 100% bench mark. How long before 90% is the new 100% scientific fact.
This game is played by theologians and politicians also. Complacency is the tool used to achieve change or, with science, acceptability.
You may be right that few things would qualify as fact using this thought process. So be it. At least we have a constant unchanging measure.
As to scientific fact, its not a proper label. I see this label as a way of winning acceptance with the complacent, the majority. Those that study, and it appears you are one of those, will know the difference, but most folks will confuse fact and scientific fact, especially when, somewhere down the line the theory falls apart.
If the label is used, at least qualify it such as "scientific fact, NTF" (not true fact). Call it what you wish, anything but fact.
No, it is neither fact nor scientific fact that the speed of light never changes. It's why a prism works.
While it is scientific fact that birds fly (except penguins and a few others) it is not fact at all. That bird sitting on the branch has not been seen to fly so it cannot be called fact that it flies.
If I'm understanding this right, then, there are no facts, ever, as it could have been hallucination or dream when you thought you saw the bird fly. Unlikely but possible and therefore not a fact.
If you want to go that far, you may be right. But it appears you are stretching the subject matter.
I don't know. The appearance is that anything you don't want to hear (evolution, maybe, or the possibility of abiogenesis) isn't fact because we don't know, but what you DO want to believe actually is fact even even if we still don't know.
If we can't agree that 99% known becomes fact, where do we draw the line? How can we decide what is factual and what is not when there is always some doubt? Just pick and choose what we want to be factual based on a belief system or can there be something else?
What your are proposing is probably technically true, but of no value in that we can never learn anything at all. We can't pass our knowledge to our progeny because we don't have any, and anything we tell them must be "verified" all over again. Truly, it sounds like a philosophical matter, not scientific, and a losing one at that.
Evolution is a scientific fact, as [partially] explained by the theory of evolution. We need not know every detail about the process for this to be the case. Furthermore, evolution's status as a fact is completely mute with respect to the truth value of propositions relating to the existance of gods.
Well, my friends, it would seem we have exhausted the subject. There seems to be some admissions and acceptance on both sides, and without any darts or name calling. That in itself is a plus for these forums. Thanks for the input and interesting conversation.
How is it that Darwin, who spent only a few hours on an island, is proclaimed the be the definitive authority of all life on this planet? Why do so many people rush to his side to believe his profound revelations such as we humans came from apes. If so why are there still apes or did they just not want to be human?
The idea of God creating all things as told in the Bible is written off as a lot of hooey! I don't believe anything related to Darwin except that he visited the island in the Pacific and was there only a few hours. Beyond that, he and his theories are just wild thinking supported by want to be's.
And yet your belief in the "bunk" of Darwin is obviously based on almost total ignorance.
Darwin is NOT considered the "definitive authority of all life on this planet" and in fact made it extremely clear in both his "Origin of Species" and later writings he did NOT address the formation of life. In addition although Darwin was the "father of evolution" in that he was the first to understand and communicate the basic tenets of the concept we have progressed much further than Darwin was ever able to go. Modern technology such as DNA testing affords us knowledge far beyond what Darwin could ever have.
"If so why are there still apes or did they just not want to be human? " is an almost textbook example of the ignorance of the layman taking the words of the priest as gospel. Neither Darwin nor anyone else (outside of those ignorant of our history) has ever claimed we were apes (in the common usage where "ape" means "monkey"). Such statements are useful only in a forlorn attempt to denigrate something not understood but hated and denied anyway.
Did you know that the taxonomy charts list humans as "apes", along with gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans? You are one of the family of great apes, just as I am.
And yet it's interesting that gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans are all quite similar in their abilities and limitations (differences conceded), while humans possess that certain quality that sets us FAR apart! This is God-breathed!
Outside of more intelligence, what would those attributes be? And how does that one attribute make us so much more different than our inferior strength does?
Humans think deeply, speak, discuss, understand, write, build, create in a multitude of ways, accomplish, advance, worship, come to know God and so on. This sets us radically apart in the most meaningful, most significant and most beautiful of ways. Our minds, our souls, our spirits are unique amongst the "animal" world in all this. The gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans are roughly similar when it comes to their inner beings. Animals have different abilities (whether climbing, grasping, flying, swimming, camouflaging, migrating and so on) and even differences in "intelligence", yet we are worlds apart from any of them in terms of these qualities that are God-breathed into us. No matter how "evolved", including how "intelligent", any animals have become or will become, they have never and never will possess these God-breathed qualities given to us!
All of which comes from that single event that produced the over grown brain. A brain that sets us apart just as the strength of an elephant sets it apart or the eyes of an eagle sets it apart.
Our minds are unique, yes, just as every other species has something unique in it. Although, come to think of it, we don't actually know that other animals are not just as intelligent - the cetaceans come to mind. As far as souls and spirit - you can't even show they exist let alone be able to show that other animals don't have one, too.
So God-breathed or evolved, each and every species is just as special as we are, just in a different way.
I like seahorses... although preying mantises and black widows will do in a pinch.
You can attempt to minimize it by saying it all comes from an overgrown brain, but the truth is it sets us worlds apart from any other creature. You can also argue that some animals may be just as "intelligent" and I don't really care what term we throw around, but no matter what you try to pretend, the evidence is there for all with any sense to see - we alone have created music and writings and paintings and buildings and vehicles and planes and machines and medical equipment and schools and computers and so on and so forth. Not only have no other animals come close to this creating and advancing and such as humans, but they will NOT in the future, no matter how their brains may grow or how they evolve. Because it isn't simply the size of the brain or anything else evolution can offer, it is the breath of God, the Creator, who has made us in his image and breathed His life into us.
Uh Huh. You can't learn Dolphinese and so that makes them stupid. How can you tell if you can't talk to them (I assure that they DO have their own language)? And that Dolphins can't create music (outside of singing) isn't surprising as they have no hands. Hard to use that as proof they aren't intelligent, and the same goes for all the construction; it's hard to have the basis for all of that (fire) underwater.
No, your reasoning hinges solely on the belief that a god created you to be King of the Universe. Your own ego has hung you out to dry here, claiming that because you can't see, can't hear and are probably the weakest animal of your size you are still "worlds apart" just because of a large brain. Try invading a hippo colony with babies and see who is superior or in another world 5 minutes later.
Even advanced dolphin (or any animal) language would demonstrate little, as language is only one of a whole host of "higher" capacities of the human soul / being. I'm not interested in proving animals "unintelligent"; you can call them "intelligent" and they may very well be in their own ways. Yet humans are "set apart" from all other creatures, and the evidence abounds. It may more accurately be described not as greater "intelligence", but as the capacity of humans to be great creators, breathed into us by the Creator of the universe Himself, that sets us apart.
To deny that we have been set apart and that our abilities, advancements, potential, and such far exceed any ability or strength given other animals (even those who could overcome and kill us individually) is to stubbornly refuse to see that which is right before our very eyes.
"...but as the capacity of humans to be great creators, breathed into us by the Creator of the universe Himself, that sets us apart. "
As always when someone makes a bald statement of opinion being presented as fact, I will ask for your proof, please. Show me that there is a creator of the universe and that he breathed anything at all, let alone life, into us. If it is right before our eyes, point it out.
What is right before the eyes of all is the vast difference between humans and animals in terms of all they create, accomplish, and have the potential for. The natural evidence abounds for this certain quality in humans that you will never find in other animals, no matter how they "evolve". To assert otherwise is simply to deny what is right in front of us and easily understood by the very part of us that is unique and God-breathed.
As for seeing the Creator God himself or knowing that he breathed this life / being into humans, causing them to be set apart from all other creations in their reflection of Him, this you will see only with spiritual eyes until the time when the Lord is revealed to all flesh on earth!
So? How many high rise complexes have you built, complete with air conditioning and heating systems? Termites do it all the time - can you?
The dinosaurs ruled the earth for far longer than man has, or probably will. I'd have to call that real potential, beyond the capability of self destruction that seems our major mark.
I see. We can't see what you claim is there but you still know it is there. I understand, believe it or not - such claims are not unusual and are quite easily deciphered into "I believe and therefore it is true". You might just say so, though, rather than making claims you then refuse to back up.
I'm not talking about merely dominating the earth, as perhaps dinosaurs did. And are you seriously comparing the "accomplishment" of termites with that of humans? It's almost silly even to debate this because if someone doesn't see the unique (God-breathed) soul of humans (made in the image of our Creator God), which is so evident, then they've turned a blind eye to it, so NOTHING said will convince them. I'm not referring to an understanding or acknowledgement that it came from God, only that the difference exists.
It's not really a matter of "refusing" to back up the claims I make about the Lord, because refusal implies I have some ability to do what you request, while the truth is that I cannot open your spiritual eyes for you. It is the Lord himself who does that. Currently you do not believe. I do. I won't present as opinion the truth that has been revealed by the Lord himself. "Let the redeemed of the Lord say so." Someday you also will see and thus know.
If you cannot back up statements (and you agree that you can't) that you know I will not believe without supporting evidence, why do you make them in the first place? Things like "god breathed" and "creator god" have already been rejected between us at least a dozen times; isn't it past time to quit making the same rejected claims over and over?
Yes, there is a difference between humans and other animals. Some are stronger, some are faster, some can tolerate cold or heat better, some see better, some can hear better, and the specific advantage we have is that we are smarter. It makes us a poorer choice for using the earth and it's life, but there it is.
But that you choose that single advantage to indicate that we are therefore superior, well, it just doesn't wash. We, not the lions or giraffes, have nearly ruined the ecology everywhere. We, not the hippos or monkeys, are the most likely to kill ourselves off. We, not the whales or dolphins, are the best (only) choice as likely to destroy all life above a bacteria. Superior? I think not. You make the claim because you believe a god made the entire thing just for us, but there is no reason to think it true at all. Even if we define "superior" as ability to stay alive, we're a most definite latecomer to the contest and, looking at the current situation as well as past history, the least likely to survive even a measly million years. Our much vaunted intelligence isn't likely to extend our lifespan as a species at all, and is quite likely to cut it very short instead.
Why make the statements about our Creator? Because they are truth. We share the truths we have. Truth benefits those who will hear and believe. Who will believe the message? Will you? I don't know, but God knows. Will others reading? I don't know, but God knows. Will the words of truth encourage someone who is already a believer? Quite possibly. And what if none here are benefited? Let us declare the truth of God nonetheless, for God is to be recognized and praised at all times!
You minimize the value of humans, who are created in God's image and loved above all other created things. We should appreciate animals and be good to them, but to pretend our abilities and worth are equivalent is ludicrous. Where does it end? Is the mosquito as valuable as the giraffe who is as valuable as the human? Should we be careful not to squash the mosquito that lands on us?
You may not consider yourself "superior" to animals, or bugs or even bacteria, but the Lord has already decreed that you are of much greater worth. Are we more likely to destroy this earth? Sure. Less able to survive than some other things? Without the blessing of the Lord, absolutely. But consider what makes OUR children so valuable to us. It's certainly not that they don't destroy things. Our own children probably destroy more things in our homes than anyone else. It's certainly not that they can survive easily. They need us to survive. It's simply that they're our children. You are of great worth simply because a loving God created you with meticulous care, created you as the only one of you he ever will create, created you in his very image with his own breath of life inside you, created you to be HIS child, if you will just accept the right given you through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Same as always; if your opinions are truth, prove it. Show at least evidence of truth beyond an unsupported claim. I will believe when that evidence is found, not before, as any reasoning person will.
You continue to talk of value, but "value" is a human concept and useful only to humans. Nature doesn't care one whit whether you life or die or if the entire human species does. As there is no god, value doesn't apply there, either. Only the human ego demands that our species has more intrinsic value than any other or that we are more "valuable" than any other animal.
But the Lord didn't decree anything as there is no lord. Yes, you can pretend there IS one, but it has nothing to do with reality or your value. Your children are valuable to you (and they DO exist), but as there is no god you can't be valuable to him. If you just learn to think and reason you will understand these simple principles.
(See how that works again? You claim your god is there, I refute the claim using the exact same evidence and reason you used.)
While both God and Evolution are theories, I believe in both. I have every reason to believe that evolution is the method by which the All creates the Universe in It's own image, and little reason to believe either theory is false.
Naturally I don't subscribe to the Christian belief of the world being created in 7 days. Though I do think that could be a metaphor for "over many ages and eons."
Many people do believe in God and evolution, but many (especially those who interpret the Word more literally) find too much conflict between the God of the Word (I Am) and evolution as proposed within Evolution Theory. I agree with you that the biblical creation account MAY be metaphorical, but I simply don't know, as I have no revelation there. I do know that God is the Creator of all things, that at his command they came into existence, and that he created humans (not the universe) in his image. Unlike other living things, including animals, we alone possess eternal souls / spirits that reflect God.
Personally I think Evolution Theory has hit on some truths (e.g., we evolve for purposes of surviving and thriving). Yet it also has made some unconfirmed inferences regarding common descent that are pushed as truth (possibly prematurely and quite possibly altogether falsely) based on some circumstantial findings that are already explained by our common Creator (e.g., commonalities in the DNA, structures, etc. of living things) and based on some tests designed to prove the beloved theory that are limited and faulty in a variety of ways, including their confirmation bias / tendency to give false positives / false relationships, etc.
Well I believe in theistic evolution but evolution is not a scientific law so
We are those who have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, who have been in His very presence, who have been awed by experiencing even a small portion of his glory, who know His name, who are the redeemed and the beloved... we cannot help but sing His praises and declare His truths.
Many ignore the evidence - the evidence within all of creation, the evidence within the human soul, the evidence in the Word and the prophecies, the evidence from the Spirit who speaks to our beings.
You are right that nature doesn't care, and it understands nothing about value. The very fact that we have a concept of value is further evidence that we are set apart. It is those with value who understand value.
When you attempt to use the "exact same evidence and reason", it seems nothing but a game to you. I'm not interested in games (which human rules of reasoning, debates and arguments, etc. are all a part of). I'm interested in truth. And I share the truth without regard to the human defined rules. In the natural, your intellect will serve you well. But your own intellect will never get you closer to spiritual truth, nor will anyone else's. For this you simply seek in humility and earnestness, and the Lord answers.
Can we re-phrase some of this to make it accurate and true?
You are those who have imagined a Lord and that it is good, who have pretended to be in His presence, who have been awed by their imagination of what his glory is, who pretend to know His name and who think they are redeemed and beloved...you cannot help but sing His praises and declare how wonderful the imaginary god is.
Once more, do you see how that works? You claim knowledge but refuse to support it, I claim your knowledge is imagination and belief instead becuase you refuse to support your own claim. It shall be that way until you figure out the difference between belief and knowledge.
No, you are not interested in truth or you would be testing your suppositions and beliefs. Instead you simply make claims they are true and expect others to agree. You even claim that every seeker "in humility and earnestness will have an answer" from your god, but you have to know that isn't true, either. Either that or billions of Hindus, Muslims and others have had conversations with your god and walked away. Even those that never even heard of Him.
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't about what you believe vs what I think. It's about how and why you came to the conclusion and what you used for evidence. You steadfastly refuse to supply either and thus your conclusions are not to be believed.
God will be found by those who seek Him earnestly, persistently and wholeheartedly. It is written: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13) He is looking for those who will worship in spirit and in truth (see John 4:24). If we turn to Him, he will not turn us away, as Jesus himself said: "If anyone does come to me, I will never send that person away." (John 6:37)
He is also faithful to generation after generation of his faithful ones. He has made promises to His people that He will keep. Yet through faith, we may ALL become the "descendants" and receive the same fulfillment of the promises given. He has grafted us in, and there are many more He will graft in.
Some worship what they do not understand. We need the message to understand who He is. He is revealed to all people in the Word and by the Spirit. He desires people from all nations, and the prophecies that once seemed impossible about the gospel spreading to every nation are now being fulfilled thanks to modern technologies - internet, TV, planes. So it is that Christianity is distributed throughout the world and His people come from all the nations (unlike many of the false religions that are primarily isolated to certain places). "As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” (Romans 9:25) Just as we who are of the gentiles have been grafted in and are now the beloved, so also many others (Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, etc.) are being grafted in and will likewise become the beloved.
"God will be found by those who seek Him earnestly, persistently and wholeheartedly."
"He is revealed to all people in the Word and by the Spirit."
See, this is the problem. You make such silly statements knowing full well that you haven't checked at all, AND that there have been thousands upon thousands of generations of whole societies that never even heard of the Christian god, let alone knew Him. Yet you make such statements - why? Because you have to believe this, and therefore will now claim that such people never searched, again without having the faintest notion of whether they did or not?
I remember how I felt when I accepted Christ and got saved. I felt on top of the world! It's a blessing to have faith, and know God has your back
by mishpat3 years ago
First, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, I believe grace through faith is the only way of salvation. I do not believe God or the Bible are short of the real meaning of fact or factual. We are addressing...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
What is the difference between a hypotheses and a theory?In the media, Internet, and even in science these two terms are used as if they can be interchanged. Why is it that they should not be interchanged in everyday...
by cresandsuzanne7 years ago
What is so convincing about evolution?Why should we believe this" theory"?
by Will Apse23 months ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical...
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
people and reality? There are some people who simply refuse to accept reality, especially scientific data and evidence, which disproves their religious reasoning. Scientific evidence authenticated that there...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.