FACEOFF: Science VS Evolution

[Plexus]

No more of this argument, please. I know that most people here are firm in their beliefs, and no one will convince them otherwise.

 

[Wyrmshadow]

You know greenmtnsun, it's that kind of blind indifference and ignorance that was the root of the Dark Ages, the last time that the West experienced Theocracy!

 

[Siegmund]

I am the lone vote for "not sure." That may seem a bit odd coming from someone with a geology degree, who has seen his fair share of fossils and sat through more than his fair share of paleontology lectures.

In broad outline, something like evolution seems sensible. It is easy to get hung up on the details though. One thing that was a big stumbling block for me was the fact that we have organisms with various numbers of chromosomes from 1 up to 60 or more.

Now, in humans, being conceived with 45 or 47 chromosomes almost always leads to spontaneous abortion, and, rarely, to birth of distinctly unhealthy children. The situation won't be as bad for all species and all numbers of chromosomes -- but a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the odds of any given population producing two fertile animals with the same new number and them meeting and breeding to be low enough it shouldn't have happened anything close to once. (There have been some examples recently of animals that do remain viable -- but only in a few special cases.)

I guess maybe the best way for me to put it is that evolution-as-it-now seems like a theory that is both incomplete and overly complicated. I imagine something better will come along eventually ... after all, evolution has only had 100 years of mainstream study thus far.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Siegmund
I guess maybe the best way for me to put it is that evolution-as-it-now seems like a theory that is both incomplete and overly complicated. I imagine something better will come along eventually ... after all, evolution has only had 100 years of mainstream study thus far.

A good point Siegmund. Yes, we today certainly don’t know all the answers, but we know a lot more than the people of say a hundred years ago. And no doubt people a hundred years from now will know a lot more than we do today. This shouldn’t surprise us however, as science is constantly evolving ( ) as new evidence becomes available.

As we all know, science works as follows: you observe certain phenomenon in the real world, you make a theory to explain why it is the way it is, that theory makes certain predictions, then you test to see if those predictions are true. If correct, then the theory is accepted, and if wrong, then it is rejected.

Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravity for example is fine as far as it goes, but it is not completely correct, as it doesn’t cover what happens to objects near light speed. So along came Albert Einstein with his Theory of Relativity. And today we know that Relativity is not 100% correct, because it does not tie up with the Theory of Quantum Physics, so yet another new theory is required. This doesn’t mean that Newton was wrong…just that his theory covered most, but not all, situations.

Our current understanding of evolution is in a similar situation. It now seems that although the original Darwinian concept of ‘gradual change’ does indeed have a place, it is not the whole story. Detailed examination of the fossil record in 1972 lead Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould to the conclusion that there is another mechanism at work, which they called “punctuated equilibrium”, in which most evolutionary change is related to rapid branching events, separated by long periods of relative stasis. The most striking evidence of this can be seen in the geological record at the K-T iridium boundary, which marks the end of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Tertiary period. Below this line there are the fossil remains of the dinosaurs, while above it we can see only small primitive mammal remains (and some avian & reptile remains of course), and these become progressively larger and more diverse as the early mammals rapidly filed the ecological niches left vacant by the demise of the dinosaurs.

But many questions still remain. Astrophysicists are quite happy with the notion that a large meteorite caused the K-T extinction, and is the source of the unusually high levels of iridium that are found in this narrow band of strata. But many palaeontologists disagree, and say that the fossil record shows that the dinosaurs were already becoming extinct before this event, probably due to the unusually large amount of volcanic activity occurring at that time in India, which was effectively poisoning the atmosphere.
Likewise, there is much controversy about how the first birds evolved (was it from a running dinosaur, or a tree climbing one?), and were the dinosaurs warm or cold blooded? There is even some debate over whether the Tyrannosaurs were predators or scavengers.

But this is the strength and power of the scientific method: new evidence means that new theories must be constructed as the old theories fail to take all the newly found facts into account….just as Newton’s Theory of Gravity didn’t go far enough and was found to be unable to account for all the newly observed phenomena (and the one thing that scientists love to do is to prove that another scientist’s theory is wrong! ).
So science constantly evolves and grows stronger and stronger as new theories are better able to explain and predict the phenomena that we see around us. Sometimes because the old theory was just plain wrong, and sometimes because the old theory was right as far as it goes, but cannot account for some newly discovered fact.

Now all his is the complete opposite of faith, Creationism and the literal belief in the bible.
This NEVER changes. It is fixed, unalterable, set in stone, cannot adapt itself to new evidence, and was determined by people who lived several thousand years ago, in a different society, in a different culture. And it never entered these ancient peoples minds to actually go out and have a look for themselves. Why should they....they already claim to KNOW all the answers, they are written in the bible, so any new facts must be ignored, dismissed, discounted, or distorted in such a way that they fit an already preconceived idea....
....I’m sure that people wouldn’t like it if they were on trial, and pronounced guilty before it had even started, so that the only function of the court would be to bend the facts to fit this preconceived outcome.

Palaeontologists are a bit like people trying to fit together a jigsaw puzzle, one in which they have no idea of what the final picture looks like, and have to actually go out and dig up the pieces and well as try and fit them together in a logical and consistent way.
Creationists on the other hand, think that they already KNOW what the final picture looks like, the bible tells them, so any piece that doesn’t fit this preconceived image must be discarded, or hammered into a different shape and forced to fit (they KNOW the outcome in the court before the trial has even started. ).

Sometimes I feel a great sympathy for Galileo, who after discovering the four moons circling Jupiter (thus proving that some heavenly bodies move round a centre other than the earth), told his religious persecutors to “look through my telescope, and see for yourselves.”
“We do not need to” was their reply, “for we already know the truth”.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
Truth does not require that you believe in it to still be true.

And this 'truth' is not exclusive to what you think it to be, sir.

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
We aren't defeated when people decide against God. God's providence is sweet comfort to my soul, I am always encouraged that people are considering the overwhelming proof of creation!

You are free to enjoy whatever comfort creation provides.

A myth is a myth.
That is a truism all people should know, and you do too, I suspect.

I refuse to treat a creation fable as anything other than such.

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
He's in control, and one day, you'll find out too!

Most amusing!

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
In Christ,

No thanks, but keep on trucking!

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
He's in control, and one day, you'll find out too!

Hmmm....and you too may find it a bit of a shock when you get to heaven to find that they are all wearing turbans......

 

[CurtSibling]

One day science will be all.

And myths will be put in their proper place, a book.

 

[Gothmog]

The rules are completely out of wack. Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with Religion. This is why Christians care to ensure their children are taught the truth in this debate. Evolution is 10000000% a religious topic, in every form, fashion and way.

Keep saying this and it will become true for you, but never for scientists. The theory of descent with modification has nothing to do with Religion, unless the Religion in question is trying to discredit the evidence upon which the ToE rests. Descent with modification may in fact be the work of God, who can say?

Truth does not require that you believe in it to still be true.

Whoa, deep thought . Neither has truth about the physical world revealed its self through scripture but through careful application of the scientific method.

We aren't defeated when people decide against God. God's providence is sweet comfort to my soul, I am always encouraged that people are considering the overwhelming proof of creation!

Accepting that the ToE is the best scientific theory that explains current evidence has nothing to do with ‘deciding against God’ unless we are talking about your own personal narrow definition of the term – and that definition defines it that way. Then it is a wonderfully self fulfilling prophecy.

The proof of creation is indeed all around us, insight into the nature of what was created is provided by application of the scientific method.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
One day science will be all.

And myths will be put in their proper place, a book.

As long as we're human, we'll have religion. We'll also always have science too so need to be glum Curt.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by WWWeasel
OK This is it.


The purpose of this thread is to provide scientific evidence which either supports or denies the theory of evolution, including the big bang, origin of life, advancement of species, etc.

We have the remaining of a tail, in french its call coccyx i guess its the same in english. At the end of our spine.

Appendix is also a remaining of something lost xillion year ago.

So if creation was right, why do we have the remaning ( useless) of our ancestor. It prove creation is wrong and evolution happened.

 

[Gothmog]

Oh, we were supposed to provide evidence...

I’ll throw the amazing coincidence between the ‘tree of life’ predicted from the fossil record, and that more recently predicted by gene and protein studies into the hat.

 

[Finmaster]

The evolution could be true, but I haven't seen strong evidence about it. All they show is a fossill and then another fossill that looks a bit like the first fossill. And nobody bothers to tell me how that is supposed to prove something.

Seriously, people, nobody has the right to assume that the second fossill has evolved from the first one only because it looks a bit like it. It's just a wild quess.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Finmaster
The evolution could be true, but I haven't seen strong evidence about it.

Read my post , we have the remains (ing) of a TAIL, the coccyx.

 

[Wyrmshadow]

Maybe Finmaster, you have not seen it because you lack the imagination to see the connection between the two.

 

[Gothmog]

I did say that the modern genetic and protein evidence supports the hierarchy originally worked out from the fossil record. Wouldn’t that amount to strong evidence that the second fossil was the ancestor of the first? Two independent measures agreeing like that? Morphological studies did amazingly well, it was always more than a guess. We’re talking about a whole lot of smart people who spent their lives doing these studies; and now modern genetic/protein studies have shown how good they were, how well based all their assumptions were, how careful their analysis.

 

[greenmtnsun]

You know greenmtnsun, it's that kind of blind indifference and ignorance that was the root of the Dark Ages, the last time that the West experienced Theocracy!

I'm not indifferent. I am in seminary so I can be there for people like yourself, and why I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will do my part to bring Christ to everyone I know. That is why I am investing $45,000 in my education to spread Christ across the Earth. That is why I am here today.

The person that comes to know God's truth realizes the personal responsibility to truth. We do not hide it from you, we desperately seek to show it to you because we know the consequences. Because we also know the liberation it brings to everyones lives. We aren't cold, instead we wish to love and declare God's truth.

Ignorant? Would you have me believe the computer you are typing on just "poofed" out of thin air? NO WAY!!! It was created by someone. How much more complex is this earth? But evolutionists ask me to believe it poofed out of thin air in a big bang? That's ignorance. Is that is what you think is informed?

This analogy is at the absolute center of the discussion. If evolutionist can't tell me thier PC poofed out of nothingness, then they can't tell me the earth did!

In Christ,

Keith

p.s. About bad governments... they are run by sinful man, not God. Only God can lead a theocracy, so I do not reject what creation hasn't seen yet.

 

[greenmtnsun]

Keep saying this and it will become true for you, but never for scientists.

Hmm, that is interesting. I was talking to a Medical Doctor yesturday about that. He see's creation in science more than anyone. He doesn't run from science, he embraces it for what it reveals about God.

Christianity does not need to abandon science, we can easily embrace true science. The question is what assumptions are made in calculations, those assumptions better be correct, but unfortunately, scientist who are Christians consistently discover cover ups in the scientific assumptions of evolutionary theories. We love to uncover them, and then the lost likes to pretend those coverups never happened. Would you like more information about creation science, and the way they uncover the underlying assumptions? http://www.icr.org/abouticr/

We hide from nothing. We embrace truth.

Grace and peace,

Keith

 

[Gothmog]

But evolutionists ask me to believe it poofed out of thin air in a big bang?

No scientist that I know would ask you to believe that, why would they? If the theory of the ‘big bang’ is correct, then we have no information about what happened before the ‘big bang’. So speculation is useless. On what basis would we say that it ‘poofed out of thin air’?

This analogy is at the absolute center of the discussion. If evolutionist can't tell me thier PC poofed out of nothingness, then they can't tell me the earth did!

See above, there is no use in trying to speculate about that for which there is no evidence. It could be though that by studying the insides of your PC you could come to understand some of the physics that helps it work, and the manufacturing techniques used to build it. Would it be more useful to make the a priori assumption that an unknowable creator built the device in a way that cannot be investigated or any part of it reproduced, or that the device operates based on mechanisms that we can elucidate and eventually understand.

Hmm, that is interesting. I was talking to a Medical Doctor yesturday about that. He see's creation in science more than anyone. He doesn't run from science, he embraces it for what it reveals about God.

You need to define what you mean by ‘creation’ here to continue this train of thought. I too see creation in my pursuit of science and do think of it as a reflection of God, but never has it suggested to me the name Jesus; that there is a better scientific theory than descent with modification to explain available evidence; that the best explanation for available data is that the earth was created 6000 years ago; or that there was a global flood since the advent of the modern human that wiped out all but an ark full of non sea dwelling life.

Christianity does not need to abandon science, we can easily embrace true science. The question is what assumptions are made in calculations, those assumptions better be correct, but unfortunately, scientist who are Christians consistently discover cover ups in the scientific assumptions of evolutionary theories. We love to uncover them, and then the lost likes to pretend those coverups never happened. Would you like more information about creation science, and the way they uncover the underlying assumptions?

I am well aware of the institute for creationist research thank you. I never said that Christianity needs to abandon science, I know a good number of scientists from a range of religions, but the icr certainly has abandoned the scientific method. The wonderful thing about science is that mistakes are actively looked for and corrected by its adherents. Science’s validation processes are at the heart of its power. Far from pretending a ‘coverup’ didn’t happen scientists jump at such an opportunity to see where the new information will take them. What theories have been discredited, and what theories have gained strength as a result.

I am happy to admit that there are different ways to organize any data set, I am also happy to admit that God may have played a roll in the history of the earth and in evolution. If you would like to make any specific statements regarding these events I can be more specific. God may have created the earth yesterday just as we found it when we woke up for all I know. However God is not a testable hypothesis, science moves forward on the back of reproducible evidence and testable hypotheses. As yet there is no reason to include a non reproducible, non testable force into the mix. Who can say what the future holds though.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Gothmog, are you getting soft? Admitting the possibility of Creation. jk

Anyway, I usually avoid most of this discussion as it is an exercise in futility. But I felt strangely moved to add something here. Some of you may know that I am a Christian from past brief discussions. Those of you who didn't know, do now.

I just wanted to say that I agree with the basic premise of the original theory of evolution in the sense that species change over time. Of this there can be no doubt. I, however, do not ascribe to the point of view that species of animals can change into completely different ones. A bird will always be a bird no matter how many changes it goes through. There is direct observable emperical evidence for such. Theories beyond that are merely narratives fabricated in an attempt to fit an horribly incomplete picture of "evidence". Evolutionists, whether they like it or not, fill in many gaps with faith just as much as anyone else. They just feel more comfortable calling it science.

I put forth this opinion simply to answer one of the original questions in an attempt to keep the discussion focused within its original intention. Unfortunately, the discussion has devolved into exactly what was undesired.

--CK

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I just wanted to add that it seems funny to me that, those who purport the ToE to be fact, turn right around and say, "Well, yeah, there are holes and stuff that's not exactly right, but science is great and we'll just figure it out later."

I think this attitude is what is so completely frustrating. I think most people who are against the ToE are more against its preaching of gospel truth than the fact that it is merely put forth as a possibility.

Many of you readily admit there can and are many flaws in the theory. But I believe I would be hardpressed to find one of you who would admit, that contemporary scientists could eventually be found to be desparately wrong. That one day, scientist will find the "real" explanation of life on earth.

It's frustrating how much of the propronents of the ToE treat it as fact when many will actually admit it is, at times, seriously flawed.

And don't give me that bologney about all science is made up of theories. No one's going to argue that the sky is blue because of the wavelength of the light hitting the Earth's atmosphere. Such things are directly observable.

The creation of the earth is not observable, so it is open to scrutiny. Please, at least admit that.

Thank you.

--CK


p.s. A lot of politics goes into this topic. Don't tell me it doesn't have a huge influence on scientists' "findings". The same goes for the global warming debate.