Do you believe in evolution?

[Rau]

The clock just does what you (man) set it to do.

Right, so atoms continue to oscillate then.

 

[Rau]

So, a theory of the origin of the universe, as some attempt, that does not include God’s direct causality is false.

Incomplete might be more accurate.

 

[Rau]

I said, if i can show a specific trait that has nothing to do with mutation and natural selction, i will have disproved evolution. And i can.

Publish! You will become quite famous.

 

[Dan123]

Publish! You will become quite famous.

It turned out to be human language.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

A lack of knowledge can be cured by learning.

The more I learn about evolution and its proponents, the more certain I am that it is and they are wrong.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Incomplete might be more accurate.

We might argue that a theory that claims to offer a complete solution but is actually incomplete, has been falsified on that fact alone.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Then why are some becoming resistant to antibiotics?

In order to demonstrate the bacteria evolved into human beings, the answer often is that bacteria adapt to antibiotics.
For myself, I don’t find that to be a convincing argument at all.
I’ll suggest, there’s a bit more that needs to be shown.

 

[Rau]

We might argue that a theory that claims to offer a complete solution but is actually incomplete, has been falsified on that fact alone.

Or we might be sensible and say THAT claim (completeness) is not right, but much of the body of the theory appears to have legs.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

True, if we want to be generous we can grant that it is partially correct. Would we say the same about Intelligent Design theory?

 

[Rau]

True, if we want to be generous we can grant that it is partially correct. Would we say the same about Intelligent Design theory?

Other than that a deity is involved - I don’t know the claims. But I don’t expect science to ever say “and this bit here is done by God”. Science is likely to continue digging through infinite detail.

 

[Dan123]

In order to demonstrate the bacteria evolved into human beings, the answer often is that bacteria adapt to antibiotics.
For myself, I don’t find that to be a convincing argument at all.
I’ll suggest, there’s a bit more that needs to be shown.

Perhaps you could quit picking opposite ends of the spectrum and pretending the colossal amounts of evidence in between don’t exist then?

Could we agree at least then that it’s much more plausible that humans and great apes share a common ancestor, given the enormous similarities between modern apes and humans and the ample fossil record, dna evidence, and so on that goes with it?

We might argue that a theory that claims to offer a complete solution but is actually incomplete, has been falsified on that fact alone.

So are Newton’s laws of motion wrong then? Should we throw them out?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Other than that a deity is involved - I don’t know the claims. But I don’t expect science to ever say “and this bit here is done by God”. Science is likely to continue digging through infinite detail.

Some scientists propose that God was involved in the creation of the first body plans, the first life forms, DNA - and some Catholic scientists accept that God created the first human beings.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Could we agree at least then that it’s much more plausible that humans and great apes share a common ancestor, given the enormous similarities between modern apes and humans and the ample fossil record, dna evidence, and so on that goes with it?

There is an infinite difference between ape and human. So, I do not accept that proposal. Humans have a rational, immortal soul - they are destined for heaven or hell. Apes are animals - they act on instinct, do not have moral responsiblity and are not capable of union with God’s divine nature, as humans are.
I cannot accept that human beings came from animals. I can’t see any evidence that supports it. Even just the difference in body types is massive. The human brain alone is radically different and I cannot see evolution creating any new information at all.
Random (as evolution is) processes cannot create new functional information. That’s the proposal.
To falsify it, something needs to show an increase in functional information by random mutations.
I think Behe demonstrates that most mutations are neutral or harmful - there has not been enough time in the history of the universe to have enough beneficial mutations to create the changes needed from ape to human even on the physical level.
On the level of rational intelligence - again, physical, mindless, blind processes cannot create spiritual entities.

 

[Dan123]

Random (as evolution is) processes cannot create new functional information. That’s the proposal.

You repeatedly misstate the theory with such reliability that I can only conclude you know you’re misrepresenting it and are doing it intentionally. I tried to meet you in the middle by asking not if humans did evolve from ape like ancestors but if it was more plausible, and your response immediately went to religion instead of science, returning to science only to offer decades old unfounded claims about mutation not being able to create new ‘information’, before returning to spiritual matters that have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I tried to meet you in the middle by asking not if humans did evolve from ape like ancestors but if it was more plausible

I thought I gave a detailed answer on that.
I am not trying to be obstinate and I apologize if I came across that way.
I respect your point of view.

I accept that microevolutionary changes occur.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts Dan. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on these matters.

 

[Rau]

Some scientists propose that God was involved in the creation of the first body plans, the first life forms, DNA - and some Catholic scientists accept that God created the first human beings.

As scientists, they have to make evidence-based claims. I fear what might happen if there is a pre-disposition to incorporate God into scientific theories is to place him wherever something is unexplained: “God of the gaps”. The better course might simply be to say: “We don’t know how this part works/happened”.

 

[Freddy]

I think I might start a thread: Do you believe in gravity?

 

[Dan123]

I think I might start a thread: Do you believe in gravity?

Science can’t explain the origin of gravity so it’s all just magnets.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

As scientists, they have to make evidence-based claims. I fear what might happen if there is a pre-disposition to incorporate God into scientific theories is to place him wherever something is unexplained: “God of the gaps”. The better course might simply be to say: “We don’t know how this part works/happened”.

If we analyze artifacts that we know have been designed by intelligence - say something like functional software code, and then we find something in nature that shows the same characteristics as that which is only designed by intelligence - then it’s a good inference to say: “Our best explanation for the origin of this aspect of nature is that it was designed by intelligence, since it has all the characteristics of those things we know to have been designed by intelligence”.
So, that is better than just saying “we don’t know the origin”.
Instead, we make the inference to the best explanation.
At present, the origin of DNA code is best explained as having been designed by intelligence. That is a better explanation than having arisen from blind, unintelligent natural causes. Catholic believers could then refer to that intelligence as God. That is how God could be a part of science - as it is for many scientists today.

 

[Hume]

Bill_B_NY:

So, a theory of the origin of the universe, as some attempt, that does not include God’s direct causality is false.

Incomplete might be more accurate.

Or, perhaps, the direct causality of a deity isn’t there?