Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter darknes
- Start date
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
LOL, you are better off not asking.
Perhaps, although I like to understand what people are trying to say.
LOL, you are better off not asking.
Perhaps, although I like to understand what people are trying to say.
reefreak29
Active Member
That certainly took a turn in a different direction.
Getting back on track... I may have misstated my intent with an earlier comment about hypothesis. I was a bit curt and was trying to say that many people linger at the hypothesis stage of discovery and never move on to prove or disprove it. So, at best it becomes a theory or unproven assumptions.
Here is a little tidbit from Wikipedia... "Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. To meet this additional criterion, it must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would disprove the proposition as false, even if one has not actually (yet) made that observation. A falsifiable hypothesis can greatly simplify the process of testing to determine whether the hypothesis has instances in which it is false. The scientific method involves experimentation on the basis of falsifiable hypotheses in order to answer questions and explore observations."
Thank you for that comment about using hypotheses for more than just scientific purposes. People hypothesize more than they think. I also want to encourage you in your pursuit of scientific discovery. Those who diligently seek the truth and can differentiate between fact and fiction, will hopefully be successful and fulfilled in thier endeavor.
I'm not a proponent of evolution. All those comments about things happening millions of years ago and whales once had feet simply can't be proven by simple scientific methodology. You can't observe it, you can't record it and you can't replicate it.
I have a hypothesis or theory. I believe that there have been more individuals, using a scientific approach to disprove the Biblical account of creation, who came to the conclusion the there is a God and now believe in intelligent design than there have been individuals who, through the same approach, have proven otherwise.
So, stick to the task and continue to learn and discover and from my perspective, you too will come to the same conclusion.
Getting back on track... I may have misstated my intent with an earlier comment about hypothesis. I was a bit curt and was trying to say that many people linger at the hypothesis stage of discovery and never move on to prove or disprove it. So, at best it becomes a theory or unproven assumptions.
Here is a little tidbit from Wikipedia... "Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. To meet this additional criterion, it must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would disprove the proposition as false, even if one has not actually (yet) made that observation. A falsifiable hypothesis can greatly simplify the process of testing to determine whether the hypothesis has instances in which it is false. The scientific method involves experimentation on the basis of falsifiable hypotheses in order to answer questions and explore observations."
Thank you for that comment about using hypotheses for more than just scientific purposes. People hypothesize more than they think. I also want to encourage you in your pursuit of scientific discovery. Those who diligently seek the truth and can differentiate between fact and fiction, will hopefully be successful and fulfilled in thier endeavor.
I'm not a proponent of evolution. All those comments about things happening millions of years ago and whales once had feet simply can't be proven by simple scientific methodology. You can't observe it, you can't record it and you can't replicate it.
I have a hypothesis or theory. I believe that there have been more individuals, using a scientific approach to disprove the Biblical account of creation, who came to the conclusion the there is a God and now believe in intelligent design than there have been individuals who, through the same approach, have proven otherwise.
So, stick to the task and continue to learn and discover and from my perspective, you too will come to the same conclusion.
jerthunter
Active Member
While I do understand that some people use evolution as an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator I do not feel that is the common goal. There is no reason I can think of why someone cannot study the changes they observe and try to learn about their past while still believing in God.
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
While I do understand that some people use evolution as an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator I do not feel that is the common goal. There is no reason I can think of why someone cannot study the changes they observe and try to learn about their past while still believing in God.
I agree with this statement and can't understand why the existence of one rules out the other.
When you think about it, the galaxy/universe never ends it just keeps going and going and going and to think that god created everything at once is silly at best. I like the idea that something somewhere is always being created and that the earth and our solar system came into existence some way and after that god moved on to other things. The basics of life were here and over the course of billions and billions of year’s life took hold and evolved.
On a side note, god doesn't baby sit us, it doesn't want or need our praise and adulation to glorify it.
While I do understand that some people use evolution as an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator I do not feel that is the common goal. There is no reason I can think of why someone cannot study the changes they observe and try to learn about their past while still believing in God.
I agree with this statement and can't understand why the existence of one rules out the other.
When you think about it, the galaxy/universe never ends it just keeps going and going and going and to think that god created everything at once is silly at best. I like the idea that something somewhere is always being created and that the earth and our solar system came into existence some way and after that god moved on to other things. The basics of life were here and over the course of billions and billions of year’s life took hold and evolved.
On a side note, god doesn't baby sit us, it doesn't want or need our praise and adulation to glorify it.
hattrick58
Member
Are you speaking of Darwins theory of evolution? We are always evolving.....
geridoc
Well-Known Member
All those comments about things happening millions of years ago and whales once had feet simply can't be proven by simple scientific methodology. You can't observe it, you can't record it and you can't replicate it.
But you can make predictions based on it, and test whether those predictions are valid. When the weight of such evidence accumulates from a variety of disciplines and lines of experiment, then, while the explanation may not rise to the level of a law, it becomes generally accepted as the best explanation for observed events, like whales and hippopotamuses.
But you can make predictions based on it, and test whether those predictions are valid. When the weight of such evidence accumulates from a variety of disciplines and lines of experiment, then, while the explanation may not rise to the level of a law, it becomes generally accepted as the best explanation for observed events, like whales and hippopotamuses.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
But you can make predictions based on it, and test whether those predictions are valid. When the weight of such evidence accumulates from a variety of disciplines and lines of experiment, then, while the explanation may not rise to the level of a law, it becomes generally accepted as the best explanation for observed events, like whales and hippopotamuses.
but i see that the best explanation for observed events are what the bible teaches
But you can make predictions based on it, and test whether those predictions are valid. When the weight of such evidence accumulates from a variety of disciplines and lines of experiment, then, while the explanation may not rise to the level of a law, it becomes generally accepted as the best explanation for observed events, like whales and hippopotamuses.
but i see that the best explanation for observed events are what the bible teaches
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
but i see that the best explanation for observed events are what the bible teaches
No...what the bible says is untestable, hence outside of science. That is the whole point - the theory of evolution is science, the bible not, nor should the bible need to be.
but i see that the best explanation for observed events are what the bible teaches
No...what the bible says is untestable, hence outside of science. That is the whole point - the theory of evolution is science, the bible not, nor should the bible need to be.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
I have a hypothesis or theory. I believe that there have been more individuals, using a scientific approach to disprove the Biblical account of creation, who came to the conclusion the there is a God and now believe in intelligent design than there have been individuals who, through the same approach, have proven otherwise.
So, stick to the task and continue to learn and discover and from my perspective, you too will come to the same conclusion.
.
I have a hypothesis or theory. I believe that there have been more individuals, using a scientific approach to disprove the Biblical account of creation, who came to the conclusion the there is a God and now believe in intelligent design than there have been individuals who, through the same approach, have proven otherwise.
So, stick to the task and continue to learn and discover and from my perspective, you too will come to the same conclusion.
.
skipperdz
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
What bothers me is that any article you read on evolution, the words "theory, think, suppose" are never used.
The truth is that no more evidence supports evolution than there is that we were all "placed" here.
so we are going with the research of many many anthropologists and comparing it to one book writen by man about a higher bieng?
What bothers me is that any article you read on evolution, the words "theory, think, suppose" are never used.
The truth is that no more evidence supports evolution than there is that we were all "placed" here.
so we are going with the research of many many anthropologists and comparing it to one book writen by man about a higher bieng?
garnet13aj
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i think i need to know what kind of evolution is being talked about, it can mean many things. i think people are saying they believe that one species can turn into another over time correct
I can only speak for myself but what I understand evolution to be is heritable changes over time based on the understanding the there is perpetual change and that there are selective pressures the influence which traits are most likely to be passed on.
I think we all know what kind of evolution we're talking about...I just think most people don't understand what evolution is, and that's why they are all bent out of shape about it. That's why it's so important that people get a straightforward explanation of what it is before they all go crying wolf. It's also important for people to understand the scientific vs vernacular meaning of a word. I don't want to bring up a whole other discussion about the word "theory" but it is a prime example of how the scientific meaning is distinctly different from the vernacular meaning...
I agree with jerthunter's explanation....I'm just worried that some people may not understand the term "selective pressures". I know I didn't until I took an intro bio course last year! Anyway, here's a few definitions if anyone's curious. http://tinyurl.com/2sbm8q)
i think i need to know what kind of evolution is being talked about, it can mean many things. i think people are saying they believe that one species can turn into another over time correct
I can only speak for myself but what I understand evolution to be is heritable changes over time based on the understanding the there is perpetual change and that there are selective pressures the influence which traits are most likely to be passed on.
I think we all know what kind of evolution we're talking about...I just think most people don't understand what evolution is, and that's why they are all bent out of shape about it. That's why it's so important that people get a straightforward explanation of what it is before they all go crying wolf. It's also important for people to understand the scientific vs vernacular meaning of a word. I don't want to bring up a whole other discussion about the word "theory" but it is a prime example of how the scientific meaning is distinctly different from the vernacular meaning...
I agree with jerthunter's explanation....I'm just worried that some people may not understand the term "selective pressures". I know I didn't until I took an intro bio course last year! Anyway, here's a few definitions if anyone's curious. http://tinyurl.com/2sbm8q)
garnet13aj
Active Member
I have a hypothesis or theory. I believe that there have been more individuals, using a scientific approach to disprove the Biblical account of creation, who came to the conclusion the there is a God and now believe in intelligent design than there have been individuals who, through the same approach, have proven otherwise.
I see what you're saying reefreak29...but the issue (at leat that I see) right off the bat is that, if God is real, he is a supernatural being not restricted by anything here on earth (like gravity, attraction, repulsion, etc.). He doesn't have to work w/the physical laws we do here on earth, thus, how can you test for him with a scientific process?
In The God Deslusion by Richard Dawkins, he makes the point that you can't test for God, all you can do is test for things that make the probability of his existance extremely slim. That's one opinion (and he obviously goes into a lot more detail), but based on what I said above, what Dawkins said makes sense to me.
I see what you're saying reefreak29...but the issue (at leat that I see) right off the bat is that, if God is real, he is a supernatural being not restricted by anything here on earth (like gravity, attraction, repulsion, etc.). He doesn't have to work w/the physical laws we do here on earth, thus, how can you test for him with a scientific process?
In The God Deslusion by Richard Dawkins, he makes the point that you can't test for God, all you can do is test for things that make the probability of his existance extremely slim. That's one opinion (and he obviously goes into a lot more detail), but based on what I said above, what Dawkins said makes sense to me.
garnet13aj
Active Member
sorry for all the posts right in a row, but I'm catching up.
While I do understand that some people use evolution as an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator I do not feel that is the common goal. There is no reason I can think of why someone cannot study the changes they observe and try to learn about their past while still believing in God.
I have conflicting views about this. On the one had, evolution describes how, not why or by whom, so no, there shouldn't be a great conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evolution...But on the other hand, it contradicts every creation story that I am aware of. I'm not comfortable with this because if that part doesn't mesh with what we can observe here on earth, what other parts of these holy and infallible books contradicts what we actually experience here on earth. I would love to say that religion and evolution can exist in harmony (and for many they do) but for me there's always something lurking at the back of my mind that says the 2 don't fit succinctly in one picture...
While I do understand that some people use evolution as an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator I do not feel that is the common goal. There is no reason I can think of why someone cannot study the changes they observe and try to learn about their past while still believing in God.
I have conflicting views about this. On the one had, evolution describes how, not why or by whom, so no, there shouldn't be a great conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evolution...But on the other hand, it contradicts every creation story that I am aware of. I'm not comfortable with this because if that part doesn't mesh with what we can observe here on earth, what other parts of these holy and infallible books contradicts what we actually experience here on earth. I would love to say that religion and evolution can exist in harmony (and for many they do) but for me there's always something lurking at the back of my mind that says the 2 don't fit succinctly in one picture...
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
sorry for all the posts right in a row, but I'm catching up.
I have conflicting views about this. On the one had, evolution describes how, not why or by whom, so no, there shouldn't be a great conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evolution...But on the other hand, it contradicts every creation story that I am aware of. I'm not comfortable with this because if that part doesn't mesh with what we can observe here on earth, what other parts of these holy and infallible books contradicts what we actually experience here on earth. I would love to say that religion and evolution can exist in harmony (and for many they do) but for me there's always something lurking at the back of my mind that says the 2 don't fit succinctly in one picture...
i agree
sorry for all the posts right in a row, but I'm catching up.
I have conflicting views about this. On the one had, evolution describes how, not why or by whom, so no, there shouldn't be a great conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evolution...But on the other hand, it contradicts every creation story that I am aware of. I'm not comfortable with this because if that part doesn't mesh with what we can observe here on earth, what other parts of these holy and infallible books contradicts what we actually experience here on earth. I would love to say that religion and evolution can exist in harmony (and for many they do) but for me there's always something lurking at the back of my mind that says the 2 don't fit succinctly in one picture...
i agree
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
I see what you're saying reefreak29...but the issue (at leat that I see) right off the bat is that, if God is real, he is a supernatural being not restricted by anything here on earth (like gravity, attraction, repulsion, etc.). He doesn't have to work w/the physical laws we do here on earth, thus, how can you test for him with a scientific process?
In The God Deslusion by Richard Dawkins, he makes the point that you can't test for God, all you can do is test for things that make the probability of his existance extremely slim. That's one opinion (and he obviously goes into a lot more detail), but based on what I said above, what Dawkins said makes sense to me.
interesting you bring that up this comeing up wedensday dawkin will be talking to a christian both of wich went to oxford . it will be on moody radio. i think you will be very surprised what is resolved
I see what you're saying reefreak29...but the issue (at leat that I see) right off the bat is that, if God is real, he is a supernatural being not restricted by anything here on earth (like gravity, attraction, repulsion, etc.). He doesn't have to work w/the physical laws we do here on earth, thus, how can you test for him with a scientific process?
In The God Deslusion by Richard Dawkins, he makes the point that you can't test for God, all you can do is test for things that make the probability of his existance extremely slim. That's one opinion (and he obviously goes into a lot more detail), but based on what I said above, what Dawkins said makes sense to me.
interesting you bring that up this comeing up wedensday dawkin will be talking to a christian both of wich went to oxford . it will be on moody radio. i think you will be very surprised what is resolved
garnet13aj
Active Member
interesting you bring that up this comeing up wedensday dawkin will be talking to a christian both of wich went to oxford . it will be on moody radio. i think you will be very surprised what is resolved
That sounds interesting. I'll try to check it out...
That sounds interesting. I'll try to check it out...
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
That sounds interesting. I'll try to check it out...
you should be able to acsess it thruogh the web moody radio or wmbi
That sounds interesting. I'll try to check it out...
you should be able to acsess it thruogh the web moody radio or wmbi