Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by PurpleChiten

What if evolution was God's way of creating mankind and the story in Genesis is just the "condensed version"?

I've seen theists in other threads argue that any time science and the Bible appear to be in conflict it's because of an improper or incomplete interpretation of the scripture.

Would creationists be able to accept that or would they still swear that there is no possible way that evolution could possibly have any credence at all?

I think you have to better define which creationists you're talking about. If you're talking about YEC's, I doubt that there's any interpretation you could give which would result in them accepting evolution; one YEC poster in this thread claimed that evolution couldn't possibly exist because it wasn't explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. There's a whole spectrum of "creationism" rationales from YEC up to and including theistic evolution, which holds that the Bible is compatible with all modern scientific understanding. The answer to your question would be that it depends on where on that spectrum a person's belief lies.

Would evolutionists be able to accept the possibility of a God or would they continue to deny it?

You seem to be conflating atheism, and gnostic atheism at that, with acceptance of evolution. I'm an agnostic atheist and what you would term an evolutionist -- I am open to the possibility that there is a God. Or maybe even Gods. I've just never been presented with any particularly compelling evidence that there's a deity out there, so I don't believe in one. I accepted evolution long before I was an atheist and that acceptance of evolution had nothing to do with my eventual turn to atheism.

Now I do realize that there are creationists that accept evolution, mostly on these grounds and there are evolutionists that accept God, but why do the extremes on each side refuse to look at the possibility?

Because they're extremes. A YEC believes that the Bible is the ineffable word of God and it's not up to us to interpret but to take it at face value, therefore God created everything in a week, created Adam and Eve, and evolution doesn't exist. A gnostic atheist who supports evolution says that God does not exist therefore evolution can only be a wholly natural process.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

And a wink of God's eye is said to be equivalent of 10 thousands years. Therefore God's week seems to be right around 14 billion Earth years long. Accordingly we are just seconds passed midnight on a very early Monday morning on God-time.

I always through that out to literal creationists. They balk at it. Then I say, "You do believe what is said in the Bible correct? If so use the brain God gave you and do the math. Atheists on the other hand say I'm merely rationalizing religious texts, and I say to that, "Yep do because I'm a rational man."

Exactly!
You da Man!

Originally posted by Confusion42

What if an invisible soda can, created the universe?

They both have the same amount of evidence... none...

Unless, ofcourse, talking snakes is what you call evidence?

So you take the stance, that there is no God.
Couldn't you have just said that instead of trying to be combative? Just sayin....

There are no ancient stories or large groups of people who are dedicated to the great omniscient soda can, so I disagree on the "evidence concept". Amount of proof, maybe, amount of evidence, no. Evidence is also dependant on the way it is interpreted and that's where the major contentions come in.

As far as the evidence... well, since we weren't there to take measurements, it is a bit difficult. Since there have been no fossil records or recovered archeological data that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt or anything that could be seen as evidence to both believers and non-believers, it probably won't ever be verified, at least not in this lifetime.
Yet, at the same time, if you step back and look at all of the various religions out there, all the various "myths" of creation, all the different possibilities, they all have an underlying theme, that we were created by something or someone, either on purpose or by accident. The ancient religions, the ancient stories all had that common underlying thread. That isn't proof by any means, but it certainly is a connection that can't be completely ignored.
The Bible is also a fascinating piece of literature. It contains stories that people say can't possibly have happened, it contains stories that people would go to their graves to defend, but most of all, it contains stories of how to treat your fellow man with kindness and, as do all the other religions, offers ideas to help us prosper as a society. ...unfortunately, it also contains stories that people twist in order to harm one another. I know they're there, we all do, but I'm trying to focus on the positives at the moment.
No matter what transpires in the general population, all people involved are going to have a different viewpoint of it. They are going to pass stories on to their children and those stories will be changed and passed to the next generation and so on. Then, eventually, maybe they'll be written down, refined, gathered together and put into a book that people can cherish as memories of those who came before them. 100% accurate? No. An "instruction manual"? No. A blow-by-blow account? No. A formal lab report? No. But valuable to us none the less.
For me, personally, I don't believe the bible is verbatem, 100% accurate and directly from the mouth of God. But I do have faith that God exists, and I could be wrong. Maybe that would label me "Agnostic", but it doesn't change my DESIRE to believe in God and my desire to want to prove he's there.
It may be that desire that makes me feel as though I've seen concrete proof or it may be the proof that fuels the desire. The thing is, as long as it isn't harmful to others around me and as long as it doens't keep me from seeking the truth, regardless of what it may actually be, why is it harmful? (yes, we do have those who use it in harmful ways, usually those who say it's word-for-word, from the mouth of God and then mistranslate it or misinterpret it to fit their own agenda). Perhaps instead of completely dismissing religion, it would be constructive to incorporate it into our mindset in a way that allows us to be respectful of those beliefs even if we don't agree with them or hold them ourselves. Will there be a point in time when those who are absolutists from any standpoint would be able to allow the beliefs of all the others out there? Will there be a time when the Buddhist, the Christian, the Muslim, the Athiest, the Diest, (the list goes on and on of course) can come together as one, respect the beliefs of one another, yet still seek the absolute truth, even if it would ultimately disprove their own set of beliefs? That's ultimately where science comes in. Science isn't a belief system, it isn't a "thing", it's a process, a way of looking at information, finding a measurable quality to it, breaking it down to its essence and using it to answer questions. This is NOT a formal definition, it is not meant to be an absolute anything, only a simplified explanation (before anybody jumps up and throws a fit about it). More of a philosophical view of what it is than the "scientific explanation" of what it is (notice those quotation marks? they're there for a reason).
Until we are able to come together as a whole, how can we really move forward?

Originally posted by iterationzero



You seem to be conflating atheism, and gnostic atheism at that, with acceptance of evolution. I'm an agnostic atheist and what you would term an evolutionist -- I am open to the possibility that there is a God. Or maybe even Gods. I've just never been presented with any particularly compelling evidence that there's a deity out there, so I don't believe in one. I accepted evolution long before I was an atheist and that acceptance of evolution had nothing to do with my eventual turn to atheism.

.

I can accept that, I did lump athiests together with evolutionists, and that shouldn't be done, especially since my opinion (not proof, not absolute belief beyond a shadow of a doubt) is that they can go hand-in-hand.
I was looking at the extremists of each group and, in my experience, the extremists on the evolutionist side have also been athiests but that isn't at all the case for those who support evolution in general, nor the case for those who have a belief in God or Gods or any other form of "creator" that may (or may not) exist.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

From what I've seen, MANY of them need to be treated like children. The terminology wasn't screwed up, just used in a way they didn't like and I don't really care if they like it or not.

Yes it was screwed up. You apparently don't even know the difference between a theory and a law.

You are acting like a spoiled 2 year old who isn't getting his way. You need to moderate your tone. You've been belligerent and holier-than-thou since you started posting. Even my children know better than to speak like that in a debate, for heaven's sakes. They know that screaming over people doesn't win arguments and that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

For the love of God, doesn't anyone know what quotation marks are used for??? Oh well, not my problem if they are so narrow minded and anal retentive that they have to attack vernacular that they don't favor instead of being constructive.

Scientists are very precise in their vernacular for a reason.

I would hazard to guess that my degrees trump theirs as does my ability and understanding from what I've read. It's somewhat akin to you having a discussion with a 4 year old about the method they use to tie their shoes and them getting upset if you say the bunny goes down the hole instead of under the tree then a whole group of 4 year olds getting upset about where the bunny went.

Oo, so an appeal to authority now? What are your degrees in?

If you're too good for us, then why don't you take your multiple PhD's and just leave? Go wherever elitist jerks go and debate there so you can be among others of your obvious and proven superior intellectual capabilities and emotional maturity.

As far as editing, I'm well aware of it and if you bothered reading the "reason" on them, perhaps it would sink into your head why it was done

...probably not, but, oh well. Hop along now.

edit on 15-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

LOL Can't you come up with a better argument than that?

People who feel the need to scream at the top of their lungs in a fit of rage when contradicted usually don't have the first clue what they're talking about. I don't care how many degrees you claim to have--you've apparently spent too much time in the Ivory Tower and have no social skills whatsoever.

Originally posted by Barcs
^It is mostly facts, but there are hypotheses that are still being tested.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Good point Barc. Here is a specific you should try to explain. In our DNA scientists have discovered a chain of DNA that doens't match with anything else they have ever seen before. In other words we are the only ones here on earth that got this strand. It's called HAR1. They are also saying there is no way we could have evolved into having this as no one else here has it. Any clues?

You're going to have to give me a source on this one. I know you don't like backing up what you claim, but please link me to the scientific experiments that show this and that say there is no way we could have evolved since nobody has it???

Hi Barcs,

I reckon I can give you a better source than Ancient Aliens.

www.nature.com...

It turns on at week 7 of embryonic development and switches off at week 19, which means it's probably involved in the development of the cerebral cortex. It's RNA-based instead of DNA-based.

It's not "uniquely human", either. It exists in all animals but after the human/chimp split it mutated rapidly for whatever reason.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Great, so we agree -- scientific theories never become scientific laws because they've accumulated a particular degree of evidence. You were wrong to make that statement and you've since reversed ... oops, sorry ... corrected yourself. Glad we could get past that. I'm looking forward to your more substantive posts in this thread!

No darlin, theories are used in the formulation of laws. I don't care if you like it, I don't care if you you want to cover your backside, that's the way it is whether you like it or not.

It's the other way around, sorry. Laws are used in the formulation of theories--for example, the Theory of Relativity was derived from Newton's laws of gravity. Theories are much more complex and dynamic than laws--they explain an entire group of phenomena while a law governs a single action under specific conditions.

Put simply, a law explains what will happen under certain conditions. A theory explains how and why it works.

Now, some laws can double as theories (like the law of gravity again), but for the most part, laws are expanded into theories.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

And a wink of God's eye is said to be equivalent of 10 thousands years. Therefore God's week seems to be right around 14 billion Earth years long. Accordingly we are just seconds passed midnight on a very early Monday morning on God-time.

I always through that out to literal creationists. They balk at it. Then I say, "You do believe what is said in the Bible correct? If so use the brain God gave you and do the math. Atheists on the other hand say I'm merely rationalizing religious texts, and I say to that, "Yep do because I'm a rational man."

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

(and there is more)..

Yuupp. very "rational'?

I see you have issues with the tactic of not wanting your descendants to have to go to war again with the descendents of a recently defeated enemy a generalization later in history repeating itself.

Why leave a dynamic in place where you have to wage war generation after generation? This happens when leaving a defeated enemy intact enough to where the enemy can rebuild its strength back up allowing them to be in a position to repeat the same war again at a later date.

So I believe you are making an emotional moral argument based upon your individual values, and not one that is rational.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

And a wink of God's eye is said to be equivalent of 10 thousands years. Therefore God's week seems to be right around 14 billion Earth years long. Accordingly we are just seconds passed midnight on a very early Monday morning on God-time.

I always through that out to literal creationists. They balk at it. Then I say, "You do believe what is said in the Bible correct? If so use the brain God gave you and do the math. Atheists on the other hand say I'm merely rationalizing religious texts, and I say to that, "Yep do because I'm a rational man."

Exactly!
You da Man!

And don't get me started on the possibility that taking a side of Adam to form Eve has something to do with genetic engineering as in the double helix. Note: The text in Genesis never mentions ribs. That was a later interpretation of the text just like an apple being the temptation fruit.

"Planet of the Apes" the original movie really tripped my mind as a kid. It's one source of influence that inspired me to get into all this in the first place. It's rationalizing the Bible, but you have to have an open mind, and I approach it by trying to disprove the Bible. An impossible task as I mentioned today on another thread in comparing the subject of belief to the subject of science, but the more I try to, the more I become a believer, more and more of the metaphors are making sense to me. Some people I know who I share these ideas with I think I might be losing my mind. I love watching their facial expression when I yack this stuff to them, and their questions such as, "How are things generally going in your life these days?" "Would you like a drink?" Supposedly I am throwing every logical tool known to mankind right out the window in their opinions.

I want to make clear though, I am not a proportionate of the ancient alien school of belief. I do however realize the possibility of the existence of higher dimensional entities that could be much more complex than three dimensions such as our bodies, and that "the soul" could be a simple metaphor employed for a more complex part, or parts, of us that are not visible, or detectable rather, to our current technologies existing in higher dimensional planes.

reply to post by Confusion42

Species of what?

Did you understand what I was saying?

Plants breath in Carbon Dioxide, and exhale Oxygen as a by-product.

Animals / Humans breath in Oxygen, and produce Carbon dioxide as a by product.

You seem not to be able to explain why it is that plants' by-product is oxygen, and humans / animals by-product is Carbon Dioxide.

This means animal life and plant life is LINKED.

Both rely on each other.

Well of course we are, but I'm failing to see what this has to do with evolution.

reply to post by Confusion42

God of the gaps?

See, this is the difference between science, and religion (and / or in your case, outright fantasy belief).

Science actually tests things and uses the results to develope answers to questions such as these.

Religion (and / or whatever you use) just say "we could have been created this way."

Your argument is not even an argument; It is the most extreme type of ignorance.

If, thoughout human history, human's never sought to answer questions, and instead said "we could have been created this way," we would still be living in caves...


How can you say "it's no coincidence, we could have been created this way."? as an answer?

It's the same as saying, "A Car just works, it's no coincidence, the blue invisible smurfs created the car!"

What are you talking about, there is clear documentation in the bible that intervention is real.

NO, my question DOES NOT DEAL WITH DNA!

Why did you even reply? You literally are trying to replace my question with your own, and than answer your own question.

I AM ASKING about Plants, and how plants use Carbon Dioxide and produce oxygen as a by-product, while human's / animals use oxygen and product carbon dioxide as a by-product.

I am talking about Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide.

This is what I am talking about.

You are not even trying to answer. Instead, you are TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Ofcourse everybody here thinks your nuts; You think answering other's questions includes re-writing their questions and answering your own question instead.

Pathetic!

Well no , I was just trying to say we aren't the only things that breath air.

Your also making assumptions that there is an evolutionary connection between us because we breath air. It's a mistake I'm finding frequently on the evolution side.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Barcs
^It is mostly facts, but there are hypotheses that are still being tested.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Good point Barc. Here is a specific you should try to explain. In our DNA scientists have discovered a chain of DNA that doens't match with anything else they have ever seen before. In other words we are the only ones here on earth that got this strand. It's called HAR1. They are also saying there is no way we could have evolved into having this as no one else here has it. Any clues?

You're going to have to give me a source on this one. I know you don't like backing up what you claim, but please link me to the scientific experiments that show this and that say there is no way we could have evolved since nobody has it???

Hi Barcs,

I reckon I can give you a better source than Ancient Aliens.

www.nature.com...

It turns on at week 7 of embryonic development and switches off at week 19, which means it's probably involved in the development of the cerebral cortex. It's RNA-based instead of DNA-based.

It's not "uniquely human", either. It exists in all animals but after the human/chimp split it mutated rapidly for whatever reason.

Thanks Bunny That's pretty interesting actually. So the only part Tooth was actually right about was that this was discovered. Finally somebody has given evidence of a part of the human that has rapidly evolved. I've been looking for that for the longest time. So by rapidly, how rapidly are we talking, the 7 or so million years since we split from Chimps, or is this a more recent change effecting just the homo genus? I couldn't find that info in any of abstracts I was reading.

reply to post by Barcs


Better source than Ancient Alien HAHAHA. That's probably an easy task.

Gamma rays may have influenced evolution on Earth.

these events may have influenced the course of evolution

www.andrewkaram.com... A PDF of a paper written by P. Andrew Karam titled
"GAMMA AND NEUTRINO RADIATION DOSE FROM GAMMA RAY BURSTS AND NEARBY SUPERNOVAE"

P. Andrew Karam is a little more credible than someone from the the school of "I think it is so it's fact" like this nut case Giorgio A. Tsoukalos www.badmovies.org...

I mean

ct.fra.bz...

reply to post by HappyBunny


I found the alert function. If you must continue in your juvenile rants, you can do so with the moderators as I will not tolerate it, nor should anyone else.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
And don't get me started on the possibility that taking a side of Adam to form Eve has something to do with genetic engineering as in the double helix. Note: The text in Genesis never mentions ribs. That was a later interpretation of the text just like an apple being the temptation fruit.

"Planet of the Apes" the original movie really tripped my mind as a kid. It's one source of influence that inspired me to get into all this in the first place. It's rationalizing the Bible, but you have to have an open mind, and I approach it by trying to disprove the Bible. An impossible task as I mentioned today on another thread in comparing the subject of belief to the subject of science, but the more I try to, the more I become a believer, more and more of the metaphors are making sense to me. Some people I know who I share these ideas with I think I might be losing my mind. I love watching their facial expression when I yack this stuff to them,

and their questions such as, "How are things generally going in your life these days?" "Would you like a drink?"

Supposedly I am throwing every logical tool known to mankind right out the window in their opinions.

I want to make clear though, I am not a proportionate of the ancient alien school of belief. I do however realize the possibility of the existence of higher dimensional entities that could be much more complex than three dimensions such as our bodies, and that "the soul" could be a simple metaphor employed for a more complex part, or parts, of us that are not visible, or detectable rather, to our current technologies existing in higher dimensional planes.

It's kinda funny that the ones on the extreme end of their idea of what logic is are just as bad as the ones on the extreme end of the bible being word for word. Neither group has an open mind or are willing to look at all possibilities or the opinions of others. They just insist they are absolutely 100% correct and the other side doesn't know anything at all

Glad there are some of us who are willing to accept "possibilities" and not have to insist that our way is the right way and the rest of the world is completely wrong at all times on all topics.

Glad I met ya, you're a good guy

reply to post by PurpleChiten


My philosophy is if you don't go out of your way to disprove what you already believe as new knowledge is gained or vet would be beliefs that come your way, your mind will become deaf and blind overtime.

I do try to keep an open mind..... within reason of course so my mind does not end up on the floor, and if that makes a good guy, I will accept that title from you with much humble grace.

Sincerely, your new friend, Bob.

For those still having difficulty with comprehension:

www.differencebetween.net...

Scientific theories are the prerequisite before arriving scientific laws.
Scientific theories are still to be proven whereas scientific laws are already proven.
Both scientific laws and theories were based on observations.

www.madsci.org...

Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law.

Hope this helps

-- Dr. Michael E. Maguire
Department of Pharmacology
School of Medicine
Case Western Reserve University

hmmmmm, how bout that? A Doctor of Pharmacology at a University School of Medicine

There are more, but I'm really getting tired of doing your homework for you and can't get it through a lot of heads that they shouldn't depend on wikipedia as absolute fact about every aspect of their lives.
Take it or leave it, but get over yourself.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

My philosophy is if you don't go out of your way to disprove what you already believe as new knowledge is gained or vet would be beliefs that come your way, your mind will become deaf and blind overtime.

I do try to keep an open mind..... within reason of course so my mind does not end up on the floor, and if that makes a good guy, I will accept that title from you with much humble grace.

Sincerely, your new friend, Bob.

You are an honorable and intelligent man Bob, and a great new friend!

reply to post by PurpleChiten

And? A Ph.D. can't be wrong? Guess this guy must be lying...

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.

-- Ronald H. Matson, Ph.D., Interim Dean & Professor of Biology, Kennesaw State University, here

Want to keep trotting out links? I'm pretty sure I can find at least one that says you're wrong for every one that says you're right.