Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably about the same as the Tooth Fairy’s, I’d imagine.

For all everyone’s talk in this thread about evidence and proof, what is your evidence that Adam existed, or that if he did he had “preternatural gifts”?
 
Nope. Darwin started with similar species of birds, I believe, and wondered why they were so well adapted to the islands upon which they lived.

Evolution enjoys what’s called a convergence of evidence: different kinds of evidence all point to the same conclusion: that animal species are related in certain ways, and that they change over time in certain ways. We have multiple kinds of evidence which mutually support each other.

You have a book of stories written 3,000 years ago, and a complete lack of any details at all. Why do birds on different islands have different bills? God made them that way. Why do whales have finger bones. God made them that way. Why are people different colors. God made them that way.

I’m not against believing in God, but to have a disinterest in HOW God made things, and the way in which they work in the world, seems a pretty impoverished existence.

Repeat after me: “Evolution is real. God made the physical system in which evolution is possible. God made the atoms and the subatomic particles in such a way that evolution is possible. God made the cosmos, which eventually allowed for the formation of the Earth, and the gradual unfolding of all the living things therein. All this has, miraculously, led to me existing, and I thank God that all these things have unfolded such that I may exist.”

See? No conflict with God at all, and so much more interesting than just crowing “Goddidit” whenever someone wants to actually learn something.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Science is the study of the natural world, and God is supernatural. It’s not that God doesn’t exist, it’s that His existence and his nature are outside the physical observations upon which the process of the physical sciences depends.

Nobody complains that “There’s no place for God in the multiplication tables” or “There’s no place for God in tying my shoelaces.” Nobody thinks “Left foot, God, right foot, God” when they’re walking down the street.

That’s because you don’t need to contemplate God when learning times tables, you don’t need to contemplate God when tying your shoelaces, you don’t need to contemplate God when you’re walking down the street. . . and you don’t need to contemplate God when you are comparing the skeletal remains of various animals, or trying to figure out what genetic abnormality leads to cancer or other diseases, or trying to develop new antibiotics for resistant bacteria.
 
Last edited:
And because of that, science is not the complete answer. And evolution provides zero guidance for the last few sentences. Trial and error, trial and error. That’s all science has to work with.
 
Which paints one in the corner. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Its own frame of reference blocks its view. If someone from outside looking in, reveals something, it sure is worth being open to it.

But, you “cannot let the divine foot in the door”. RIght?
 
Comrade. You not understand Evolution Party dogma. It is a crime against the party to mention god. Evolution KGB are watching.
 
We get our information from historical narrative. You gets yours from guesswork.

Yet science admits a genetic Adam and Eve. At first they said they were hundreds of thousands of years apart. Then they said they were contemporaries but did not know each other. Maybe in a couple of years they will say they lived in the same village but were not married…😀
 
Science has nothing to do with that. They are different parts of life.
 
Maybe. It’s possible that the entire human species as it exists today was descended from a single breeding pair, i.e. an evolutionary bottleneck. Maybe there was a weather system that wiped everyone else out, but they found a nice save cave or something. Who knows?

But you need to learn the difference between inference and guessing. We don’t “guess” that birds are related to certain dinosaurs: we see the skeletal similarities, we see that some dinosaur fossils have feathers, and we can infer that one has evolved into the other.

If I have two kids, and one kid’s at camp, and I come home to a broken vase, I don’t say, “Well. . . I didn’t see it happen, so I guess I’ll never know who broke the vase.” I’ll turn to my one remaining kid and say, “Give me your phone. . . you’re grounded.” That’s because I’m not guessing who did it. . . I’m making an inference, and based on the evidence I have a high enough confidence level in that inference to take action on it.

It may turn out that kid #2 snuck out of camp, snuck into the house, broke the vase, and took off laughing. It’s possible. And if I make enough inferences about my kids’ behavior, I will sometimes get it wrong. That’s fine. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not going to bother trying to understand what’s happening in my house when I’m not there to physically observe it.

That’s how science works-- you go with the best fit for your observations. And if new observations show your ideas to be wrong, you amend or replace them. But so far, the convergence of evidence so heavily favors evolution that it would take a truly remarkable new source of evidence to unseat it-- and I’m sorry, friend, but the Bible ain’t it.
 
Last edited:
BTW if anyone really wants a good overview of the evidence for evolution, Khan academy has a mini-course on it that should prove interesting:

Loading…

www.khanacademy.org

They have a lot of less controversial stuff, too, like a very good math program.
 
Do you have an actual question or comment about the thing you just responded to?
 
I think your definition of “measure” is different than mine. If you want to use revelation to choose how much flour to put in a cake batter, go for it. But I’ll use a measuring cup, and my eyes, and a recipe.
 
Last edited:
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Pope John Paul II

We see God as absolute truth. Everything we see emanates from this one truth. For science to be true it must measure up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top