Do you believe in evolution?

[Cirdan_XII]

We know more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works. But both are facts.

I disagree.

We maybe don’t fully grasp some of the finer points behind gravitation theory, but we have models of gravitation that can predict gravity-realted effects and explain events in the present, past and future with great accuracy. Ranging from asteroid collisions to the formation of galalxies.

If evolutionists were on that level they wouldn’t need to be digging out bones of extinct specied to study but could boot their computer and fill in every imagineable gap in the theory here and now.

Or put it this way.

Look how often the finding of some bone fragments of a hitherto unknown hominid have led to a total rethink of human evolution.

By comparison, how often has an apple doing something unexpected while falling from a tree, or even a long-range astronomical observation, led to a total rethink of gravitation?

The point at which you change from new findings changing your theory to new findings confirming your theory marks a sort of maturity of your theory. Evolution isn’t there yet.

 

[Rau]

But you are fully convinced that the earth is 4.54 b years?!

I said this was the best available estimate. I know of no sound basis to prefer a different value. Nor do I have any basis to doubt the soundness of the science of estimating geological age. Nor do I have any reason to believe a hoax is being perpetrated on us all.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

My reasons:
1.Mathematically it is impossible. Some will say extremely improbable, but it is the kind of extremely improbable that is the same as saying impossible.
2. The evidence for this narrative simply does not exist.
3. The obvious, unmistakable evidence that life is designed .
4. The overwhelming complexity of life, down to the tiniest systems in an organism
That’s a few reasons.

I’m not sure I see a contradiction here.

Impossible is not the same as improbable. Proof is that there are lottery winners. Given enough time and enough attempts, the improbable can happen.

Improbable can also reflect some level of godly guidance.

Just because things happened according to some mechanistic chain of events does not prove there was no godly plan behind it, that created the laws of physics if you like, that permitted and even necessitated that chain of events to come into action.

 

[Noose001]

I said this was the best available estimate. I know of no sound basis to prefer a different value. Nor do I have any basis to doubt the soundness of the science of estimating geological age. Nor do I have any reason to believe a hoax is being perpetrated on us all.

Nobody has any basis to doubt their preferences, we are all sheep it seems. It is the conviction that matters but it is problematic to go on and say 4.5 b years when you haven’t defined ‘Time’.

 

[Salibi]

It is worth noting that ‘belief’ in evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the Catholic Church takes no definitive stance on the issue. Anyone introducing a dichotomy between God and science is doing so at their own discretion and not at the discretion of the Church. In other words, it’s just their opinion.

 

[Dan123]

It is worth noting that ‘belief’ in evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive.

This is worth repeating a million times. It confuses me how some folks, including a few posters here, have trouble with big time scales, as if God operates on a human schedule.

 

[Dan123]

Nobody has any basis to doubt their preferences, we are all sheep it seems.

There’s plenty of evidence to support the numbers given which is why they keep getting more specific. That isn’t being a sheep to accept evidence. If you or someone can present more evidence, better evidence, stronger evidence, then you’ll draw a lot more people to your claim. Your evidence will need to present a strong argument for a different number and ideally would also explain why the previous evidence pointed elsewhere. This is for example how newton’s concepts of gravity and motion were superceded by general relativity, which explained things Newton’s model couldn’t but also demonstrated why Newton’s model still worked in most human-level situations.

 

[Noose001]

There’s plenty of evidence to support the numbers given which is why they keep getting more specific. That isn’t being a sheep to accept evidence. If you or someone can present more evidence, better evidence, stronger evidence, then you’ll draw a lot more people to your claim. Your evidence will need to present a strong argument for a different number and ideally would also explain why the previous evidence pointed elsewhere. This is for example how newton’s concepts of gravity and motion were superceded by general relativity, which explained things Newton’s model couldn’t but also demonstrated why Newton’s model still worked in most human-level situations.

Well, 4.5 b years which is supposedly a portion of time can not have evidence if time remains undefined.
What is Time?

 

[sealabeag]

Impossible is not the same as improbable. Proof is that there are lottery winners. Given enough time and enough attempts, the improbable can happen.

If you look at the mathematical probabilities, and there’s a lot of good work on this out there (if I remember the specific book I’m thinking of I’ll edit this post and link it), the probabilities of macroevolution happening are so laughably improbable, that the odds of winning the lottery look like like a p(name removed by moderator)rick beside a black hole by comparison. It is literally so close, mathematically, to impossible, that it can reasonably be described as impossible.
You may have heard the argument about a million monkeys at a million typewriters - in reality this argument has been disproved - said monkeys will actually never write Shakespeare’s works.

 

[Rau]

No, I do not say it like that. I said your argument was an appeal to authority.

My “argument” as you call it is merely the basis of my acceptance of that position. I don’t seek to make a case, for I have not the expertise to do that. Like when I received a medical diagnosis and a recommended treatment. All I could establish was that the medical advice accorded with widely accepted principles and experience.

 

[Rau]

Just because things happened according to some mechanistic chain of events does not prove there was no godly plan behind it, that created the laws of physics if you like, that permitted and even necessitated that chain of events to come into action.

Quite correct. It can be that God steering the evolutionary path is quite indistinguishable from random occurrence.

 

[sealabeag]

My “argument” as you call it is merely the basis of my acceptance of that position.

So the only reason you accept a certain version of evolution is because other people said it’s true?

 

[Rau]

It is literally so close, mathematically, to impossible, that it can reasonably be described as impossible.

This must be taking the scientific world by storm? Does it suggest that God intervened such that what we call evolution stayed on an appropriate track? Quite possibly. But I suspect that track is indistinguishable from random change filtered by natural selection.

 

[IWantGod]

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes, and there is nothing you can do about it. :crazy_face:

 

[Rau]

So the only reason you accept a certain version of evolution is because other people said it’s true?

I’m not expert enough to opine on various versions of evolution.

Not just “other people” favour evolution as explaining the variation of life in earth over time, but the preponderance of human expertise has concluded the evidence better supports that than any other explanation. Absent a very deep personal expertise, or a reason to suspect a hoax - it seems that accepting their assessment is the reasonable course.

 

[Dan123]

Nobody has any basis to doubt their preferences, we are all sheep it seems. It is the conviction that matters but it is problematic to go on and say 4.5 b years when you haven’t defined ‘Time’.

It’s what we call the phenomenon we observe where the location and state of matter and energy change. You know what time is, say what you want to say.

 

[Dan123]

You may have heard the argument about a million monkeys at a million typewriters - in reality this argument has been disproved - said monkeys will actually never write Shakespeare’s works.

How has that been disproven? It’s just a metaphor for seemingly unlikely events being inevitable given enough time. It’s not just a million monkeys it’s a million monkeys and sufficient time. And it’s not a literal experiment any more the Schrodinger’s Cat is.

 

[sealabeag]

If you Google it there’s plenty articles on the topic and why it is impossible. Yes but it is a clever argument that people accept unthinkingly - “Ok, time and chance = x”. However this is not true, mathematically.

 

[Mythicalbio]

Here are two blog posts reconciling evolution with the faith. My posting these does not endorse their views, I am just showing it is possible:

Loading…

afkimel.wordpress.com

Loading…

ronconte.com

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I believe in the 13 billion year age, and I believe in evolution. However, I do think we may have the driving force of evolution wrong. There was a study done recently that seems to suggest that life evolves relatively quickly to fill niches after an extinction event.

Loading…

phys.org