Part 3 "Can you prove Evolution?"

[swirling_vortex]

Actually, more people were killed and butchered in the name of religion than by people who believed in the ideas of Darwin.

That's debatable. If you're talking about Darwin himself, then obviously that's true since Darwin hasn't existed for hundreds of years. However, regimes that seek to outlaw religion often become as brutal as the extremists that kill in the name of their religion. The Soviet Union and China are two that come to mind.

Even if religion was somehow wiped out, we'd still find something to fight about.

 

[sevin]

I have read non-Christian books on the subject of evolution, and I find their views to be philosophically inconsistent with God's word ...

Yeah, I gotta agree with that. But of course you have to approach these things with an open mind, which I realize is hard to do. Read the bible without assuming it is true, and read some non-christian books on evolution and philosophy without assuming they are true.

But I know you've already made up your mind, Theocrat. To everyone else, I recommend both of these books: Mere Christianity and The God Delusion.

Evolution cannot answer the tough questions about rights, liberty, and morality which have been asked by philosophers and scientists since the beginning of history.

I know. These issues are the realm of philosophy and have nothing to do with whether evolution is true.

And going back to the OP, even if technically evolution is theory (technically, gravity is a theory), at least there is a ton of scientific evidence to support it.

I have yet to hear a rational and cogent explanation from evolutionists, without them being arbitrary, subjective, and contradictory.

Haha. I have yet to hear a rational and cogent explanation from creationists without them being arbitrary, subjective, and contradictory.

But whatever...I admit nothing is certain. Damnit, why am I posting in this thread again? ugh

 

[Theocrat]

Reading Beyond the Lines

Yeah, I gotta agree with that. But of course you have to approach these things with an open mind, which I realize is hard to do. Read the bible without assuming it is true, and read some non-christian books on evolution and philosophy without assuming they are true.

But I know you've already made up your mind, Theocrat. To everyone else, I recommend both of these books: Mere Christianity and The God Delusion.



I know. These issues are the realm of philosophy and have nothing to do with whether evolution is true.

And going back to the OP, even if technically evolution is theory (technically, gravity is a theory), at least there is a ton of scientific evidence to support it.



Haha. I have yet to hear a rational and cogent explanation from creationists without them being arbitrary, subjective, and contradictory.

But whatever...I admit nothing is certain. Damnit, why am I posting in this thread again? ugh

[Emphasis mine]

Rather than reading books with the assumption that it is not true, I try to read books with the question, "What has to be the case in order for this to be true?" That is how I deal with the evolution hypothesis, and hence, my critique of it using transcendental proofs for whether it is true or not.

You've asked me to read the Bible while assuming it's not true, but can you read the Bible assuming that it is true, especially about nature? Can you totally give up your evolutionary assumptions and accept what the Bible says about what God has created? Can any evolutionist?

 

[sevin]

Rather than reading books with the assumption that it is not true, I try to read books with the question, "What has to be the case in order for this to be true?" That is how I deal with the evolution hypothesis, and hence, my critique of it using transcendental proofs for whether it is true or not.

I'm not sure I understand this approach. What would be your answer to that question when reading a book by Darwin?

You've asked me to read the Bible while assuming it's not true, but can you read the Bible assuming that it is true, especially about nature? Can you totally give up your evolutionary assumptions and accept what the Bible says about what God has created? Can any evolutionist?

Right. Well, I'm not assuming that evolution is true (though I tend to sympathize with evolutionists more than christians). I try not to assume anything. I couldn't read the bible assuming it's true, as I can't even read Origin of Species assuming it is true.

I like the idea of being as objective as possible and coming to as rational a conclusion as I can without letting personal bias getting in the way. I know this is impossible, but just like any philosopher/politician/etc., I just do my best.

 

[Oceania]

Too many things to quote from you theocrat hah. Alright well first off I DID answer your question on the origin of morals. I guess my point was that morals do not exist. just like love, and hate, morals are an abstract human concept. Please state any concerns with my explanation clearly and I will try to answer them.
As far as evolution being a hypothesis that is just wrong. Evolution is widely accepted scientific theory. A scientific theory is vastly different from a hypothesis. Hypothesis are untested assumptions. On the other hand a theory is what is born after many rigorous tests and the original hypothesis have been proved positive. If anything I suppose creationism could be called a hypothesis, one with very little to no evidence to support it, but still a hypothesis none the less. As someone else said gravity is a "theory" now we will never be able to prove that gravity is 100% there and true. It is possible that when i throw an apple in the air it will continue to go up. But because of all the evidence compiled that supports the existence of gravity it has become known as scientific fact. Same with evolution.
I realize that you will never accept that evolution occurs because it conflicts with the words of the bible. I am not saying to reject the bible's teachings because there are great lessons to be learned within it. But, do not treat all the bible's metaphors as fact.

 

[sevin]

As far as evolution being a hypothesis that is just wrong. Evolution is widely accepted scientific theory. A scientific theory is vastly different from a hypothesis. Hypothesis are untested assumptions. On the other hand a theory is what is born after many rigorous tests and the original hypothesis have been proved positive. If anything I suppose creationism could be called a hypothesis, one with very little to no evidence to support it, but still a hypothesis none the less. As someone else said gravity is a "theory" now we will never be able to prove that gravity is 100% there and true. It is possible that when i throw an apple in the air it will continue to go up. But because of all the evidence compiled that supports the existence of gravity it has become known as scientific fact. Same with evolution.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Flash]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29537188/

Scientists sucessfully regrow teeth & long tail in a chicken embryo from it's ancestors (dinosaurs). What do I win?

 

[Oceania]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29537188/

Scientists sucessfully regrow teeth & long tail in a chicken embryo from it's ancestors (dinosaurs). What do I win?

you win some teeth, a long tail, and a chicken embryo. lol

 

[tpreitzel]

The universe does not care about order, it does not care about patterns or straight lines or nice equations. What gives the universe order? We do! We are the ones who recognize patterns and call them "nice". Order does not exist without man. It's sort of like beauty. Is the universe beautiful? What would the universe say? The universe has no idea what the hell beauty is, beauty is a human thing, as is patterns and order.

You're getting warmer and one of the few posts in this thread with real insight ... Human consciousness forms the basis of our perceived order and science rests on the shaky foundation of human consciousness. It sure feels real. it sure smells awful. It sure looks nice. It sure tastes sweet. Just like an ant, the human can't see beyond the capacity of his conscious state... which can be deadly.

 

[Oceania]

reading over what i said before it did not answer all your questions i hope this does:

That presents another problem, though. If morality is subjective, being only relative to a given society (as you've postulated), then morality loses its necessity of being obligatory upon all people in a general sense. In one society, it might morally okay to murder Jews. In another society, it would just as moral to rape women. Neither society could judge the other as immoral, given the moral standards chosen by both societies. However, that is not in any way how morality is assumed nor utilized in our world today. We rightly condemn such acts as slavery, socialism, and genocide in other countries as if those acts are objectively immoral. This whole forum is based on the fact that certain acts are immoral, no matter what society they occur in. That is why we all value such things as free markets, non-interventionism, and protection of private property as moral conditions which are true and objective for any individual and free society. No one here argues, "Well, those international bankers have a moral right to impose fake money on all financial institutions and economic systems around the world because, according to them, it's moral to do so." We condemn such acts as being intrinsically immoral. However, you want to suggest that by morality being subjective, that means any society can do what they want based on their own conception of morals. That is just intellectually dishonest.

Lets take the origin of the immorality of murder. You kill a member of your tribe, you have one less tribe member. One less person fishing, hunting, cooking. If you want to have a functioning group it is best not to kill one another. Now people who are brainwashed, or mentally damaged in some way can loose these basic morals. They may not find an act like killing immoral, but society as a whole recognizes it is such. That person is killing one of the tribe! he must be punished for it! It is all about creating a functioning society. And yes we most likely are only physical matter. I do not claim to know exactly how the human brain functions or what makes it tick, but no one does. Kind of getting off on a tangent here with this so i will stop lol

I ask you from where does society itself get the moral obligation to impose a system of morality upon other people? You're appealing to majority when you make such an assertion. If a society decided that it is morally okay to kill babies in the womb, does that mean killing babies in the womb is itself moral?

I suppose you are talking about abortion. As you very will know abortion is based on your own personal beliefs. There is no such thing as a universal morality. As I said before, there were basic necessary morals established early in humanity. If i think abortion is moral, then for me, it is moral. To you it may seem immoral but that does not change how i view it. We are all individuals, we all have our own thoughts and beliefs, there are no set divine rules to life.

Evolution cannot cogently answer the question of why rights exist nor can it account for liberty, equality, and morality in all the ways which we as humans take for granted in our human experience. Evolution, by its eradication of any immaterial or spiritual entities to explain the universe, totally dismisses concepts such as rights, liberty, equality, and morality in its system for gathering knowledge about the universe. You've alluded to humanity developing a sense of morals to work together in society, but that undermines evolution altogether. Molecules in motion do not work together to form morals. Period. Yet, that is what we're left with if evolution is true. Humans are just molecules in motion, subject to chemistry and physics. There is no morality in that.

why would molecules in motion not be able to develop a sense of morals to work together? Our brain is an astoundingly complex device, but is still just matter. And yes our brain is subject to chemistry and physics. All human emotions and desires are controlled by the regulation and distribution of chemicals and hormones to our brain.

 

[Oceania]

You're getting warmer and one of the few posts in this thread with real insight ... Human consciousness forms the basis of our perceived order and science rests on the shaky foundation of human consciousness. It sure feels real. it sure smells awful. It sure looks nice. It sure tastes sweet. Just like an ant, the human can't see beyond the capacity of his conscious state... which can be deadly.

I agree completely, life, in its essence, is all an illusion of sorts. We can only try to make the most sense out of this illusion using our fallible and limited brains.

 

[tpreitzel]

I agree completely, life, in its essence, is all an illusion of sorts. We can only try to make the most sense out of this illusion using our fallible and limited brains.

Fine as long as a species' perception isn't substituted for scientific dogma... whatever that means. Your willingness to accept this "reality" as an illusion is a start. Personally, I've witnessed and physically held and shaken objects that weren't there one minute, were there the next minute only to disappear a few moments later for good. * The ephemeral objects were as real as the "real" deal. No, I wasn't drugged or drunk as I prefer a clear mind.

* The strange part about this particular case was how closely these objects mirrored the "real" deal. Actually, they were real as far as my conscious state could perceive... therein lies the danger.

 

[Oceania]

I believe there is much more than what we see in front of us, but it is not proven. Thus, any assumptions should be treated as assumptions and not scientific fact. I am fully aware there is a possibility there is a unicorn smoking a cigar sitting in front of me, I am also fully aware that a god may be watching me right now. This does not make either of those things true, just a possibility. I myself do not know what is beyond what we see and I am comfortable saying that.

 

[Optatron]

I am putting out a chalengedl to any one that can show me that Evolution is true!

I dare you.

From http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=194110

Do you know how science & discussion works?

There is no discussion until your terms are defined, goals are set.

Or else as soon as I give you an answer, you'll say "that still doesn't prove it"

Science is based on asking one important question "what would convince you you are wrong" unless it's address, no inquiry can be meaningful.

So, please be specific, what is evolution, what do you want proven, what would serve as proof, and what would falsify it?

 

[Optatron]

Actually, more people were killed and butchered in the name of religion than by people who believed in the ideas of Darwin.

And what macro-evolution doesn't evolution explain?

Don't get into pissing contests on comparing who killed more, that's worse than calling names, all you'll end up doing is blaming Hitler's work on each other.

Whether something is scientifically true has nothing to do with what people have done in the name of it.

And yeah, what macroevolution doesn't evolution explain?

 

[TGGRV]

That's debatable. If you're talking about Darwin himself, then obviously that's true since Darwin hasn't existed for hundreds of years. However, regimes that seek to outlaw religion often become as brutal as the extremists that kill in the name of their religion. The Soviet Union and China are two that come to mind.

Even if religion was somehow wiped out, we'd still find something to fight about.

I was born in a former Soviet Union influenced state and people didn't really die because they seek to outlaw religion. This is quite hilarious. People were killed for lots of things, but this ain't one of it. And I believe that considering I have relatives that are buried in unmarked graves somewhere in my country and relatives who went to prison for being anti-government, while being interested in political history makes me know a bit about it, if not first hand, at least from the people who lived it. Yes, the state did demolish a bunch of churches, but not many people died because of it.

Macro-evolution does not explain the origin of living things adequately. At best, it inherently teaches that non-living matter produced living organisms. That is what it logically digresses into, and many evolutionists work hard to hide that fact. That's why they will say, "Evolution doesn't seek to deal with origins" because they know where the issue of origins leads to for their hypothesis.

Watch the videos I posted. It does explain that. And I'd like to know how the Bible explains those things described there.

 

[josh1anderson]

If we are planning to explain how the Bible takes about the beginning, then there has to be some ground understanding, first that Macro-evolution is part of the the whole Evolutionary thing, that every thing came from a spec that exploded a billion years ago. Second that the Bible shows how that God made everything, from the littlest to the human. Third when talking about Darwin, that man was so far out there, and the only thing that he talked about or in a way proved, was that things mutate, they change to fit there environment. Also he said that if there is any thing smaller than a cell, then every thing i have shown is wrong.

It is really funny how that the men and women try to disprove God, by showing that this plant evolved, into this fish, six billion years ago. The only real reason that people are trying to show that God was not needed for everything to be made was, so that they don't have to be accountable to what they do or say. If God made everything, then it's His, and if it's his, then he can make the rules he wants, and God owns everything and everyone, and he was set rules in place, then we have to follow them, and if we break his rules then there is punishment. That is the true reason behind the trying to disprove God. If there is no God and we came from a spic, then he don't have to obey anyone, we can do what we want.

 

[TGGRV]

Josh, how does the Bible explain those things in the videos I posted.

 

[josh1anderson]

I have not seen your movie... so will u post it.