Evolution What It Really Is

[treeoflife]

(adren@line;47901)
Yeah, but we know the universe exists, so there is no faith.
Oh, there is faith. You see evolution and conclude it's been happening on its own for millions upon millions of years... that it has its own beginning, some how, faithfully, and mystically, against science, in and of itself.I see evolution and conclude God did it. I use the Bible as my explaination of these events.My beginning is God, your beginning is... "Not God." Both possess mystical powers that go beyond scientific explaination, and both require faith.

 

[Lunar]

(medicalmatt;48197)
I've debated it extensively in the past, but it's mostly not worth my while. I'm sure you understand.
That's fine. Evolution is a bit of a did horse nowadays, I find.

(treeoflife;48213)
My beginning is God, your beginning is... "Not God." Both possess mystical powers that go beyond scientific explaination, and both require faith.
treeoflife:There is a difference between adopting an arbitrary explanation, and admitting that we simply can't yet find an explanation. I don't think that the latter requires faith.Here is an example. Hopefully the comparison is obvious. Suppose that you wake up, get ready to go to work, and then can't find your shoes. You look all around your house, but for some reason you just can't find them. At this point, you want an explanation as to where your shoes went. One strategy would be to posit an invisible God of Shoe Stealing who stole your shoes and then vanished. Another strategy would be to say "I would sure like to know why I can't find my shoes, but I just can't figure it out." The second is probably the strategy that most people will take. We want an explanation as to where our shoes are, but it's disingenuous to grasp at the first one we can think of. We would look silly even if we never find our shoes, and even sillier if we did find our shoes.I think we can see a similar problem with the cosmological argument. The probability of what we observe, assuming the God hypothesis, is 100%. But the probability of the God hypothesis given what we observe is not 100%. It is somewhere around the same probability as the God of Shoe Stealing. What this shows is that a hypothesis' consistency with our observations is not the same as the hypothesis' validity. The God of Shoe Stealing is perfectly consistent with our inability to find our shoes, and, in a sense, explains our inability to find them very well. But it still isn't a likely hypothesis.For this reason (among others), I have always found it unacceptable to invoke God as a cosmological explainer.

 

[treeoflife]

(Lunar;48227)
That's fine. Evolution is a bit of a did horse nowadays, I find. treeoflife:There is a difference between adopting an arbitrary explanation, and admitting that we simply can't yet find an explanation. I don't think that the latter requires faith.Here is an example. Hopefully the comparison is obvious. Suppose that you wake up, get ready to go to work, and then can't find your shoes. You look all around your house, but for some reason you just can't find them. At this point, you want an explanation as to where your shoes went. One strategy would be to posit an invisible God of Shoe Stealing who stole your shoes and then vanished. Another strategy would be to say "I would sure like to know why I can't find my shoes, but I just can't figure it out." The second is probably the strategy that most people will take. We want an explanation as to where our shoes are, but it's disingenuous to grasp at the first one we can think of. We would look silly even if we never find our shoes, and even sillier if we did find our shoes.I think we can see a similar problem with the cosmological argument. The probability of what we observe, assuming the God hypothesis, is 100%. But the probability of the God hypothesis given what we observe is not 100%. It is somewhere around the same probability as the God of Shoe Stealing. What this shows is that a hypothesis' consistency with our observations is not the same as the hypothesis' validity. The God of Shoe Stealing is perfectly consistent with our inability to find our shoes, and, in a sense, explains our inability to find them very well. But it still isn't a likely hypothesis.For this reason (among others), I have always found it unacceptable to invoke God as a cosmological explainer.
Your story is unrelated. It doesn't apply and doesn't follow.However, this story does.Suppose you go, "I wonder how these shoes were created." Now, we are on the same page.The Evoution/Creation debate is not a debate about, "Where did my shoes go?" It's, "Where did my shoes come from."The Evolutionist decides, by looking in his closet that there are many kinds of boots, shoes, flip flops in there. The Evolutions then erronously elaborates on this fact and lines his shoes up in a progression of shoe evolution, showing that clearly his shoes must be somewhere in the evolution of shoe-time, thereby leaving him with the shoes in quesiton.I go to the shoe maker and talk to Him about it. I also consult the information that comes with the shoes and find out where they are made. Now the Evolutionist looks silly for wasting all that time on a silly theory when the shoemaker's information was on the box the whole time, and could just be contacted if he wanted details about the process.My advice to you is to look on the box, and go talk to the shoe maker if you must know. It is the most logical and fruitful choice.

 

[Lunar]

(treeoflife;48232)
Your story is unrelated. It doesn't apply and doesn't follow.However, this story does.Suppose you go, "I wonder how these shoes were created." Now, we are on the same page.
treeoflife:I'm afraid you missed the point. It's not unrelated - it is a point about explanatory hypotheses in general. The point is that, regardless of what it is we seek to explain, the hypothesis' consistency with evidence is not the same as the hypothesis' validity. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about where something went, or where it came from. This is a scientific principle that applies universally, whether we're talking about where our shoes went or where our universe came from or whatever else.The most convenient and form-fitting explanation is not always the most valid explanation, because the most convenient and form-fitting explanation is likely to be a deus ex machina. In the case of cosmology, it's literally a deus ex machina.Saying to "talk to the shoe maker" isn't a valid solution, because the presence of an analogous shoemaker in the God case is exactly what's in question.

 

[treeoflife]

(Lunar;48234)
treeoflife:I'm afraid you missed the point. It's not unrelated. The point is that, regardless of what it is we seek to explain, the hypothesis' consistency with evidence is not the same as the hypothesis' validity. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about where something went, or where it came from. This is a scientific principle that applies universally, whether we're talking about shoes or universes or whatever else.The most convenient and form-fitting explanation is not always the most valid explanation, because the most convenient and form-fitting explanation is likely to be a deus ex machina. In the case of cosmology, it's literally a deus ex machina.
The original storry is totally unrelated. You created a story that has nothing to do with the argument (shoes disappearing), and then implanted our theories (Evolution and Creation) in them where you saw fit. The theories don't talk about an item disappearing, they talk about items coming into existance. In either case, here we are.Nobody on this site, not I or anyone else I know of, would attribute their shoes disappearing to God. This will surprise you, apparently, but we are rational logical people who simply believe God at His Word and accept how he says He did it.The Evolutionist does, in fact, have faith in what he or she believes. I believe in the beginning God, and the Evolutionist believes in the beginning, "Not God." Both require unobservable, mystical acts, that go outside of observable, law driven science in order to arrive at his or her conclusion. The methods by which God created us simply go outside of what is or ever will be provable... as is the methods by which the Evolutionist must beleive in for their beginnings to have been.My faith is better than your faith, and that's that.

He is Maker and Owner of all things, including you and me.

 

[Lunar]

(treeoflife;48236)
The original storry is totally unrelated. You created a story that has nothing to do with the argument (shoes disappearing), and then implanted our theories (Evolution and Creation) in them where you saw fit. The theories don't talk about an item disappearing, they talk about items coming into existance. In either case, here we are.
I don't know how to put this any clearer. It is an analogy, treeoflife. I'm sure you have seen them before. An analogy does not require that things be identical in structure. When we assess the validity of a scientific hypothesis, regardless of what it is about, we do it based on certain principles. And for the same reason that you don't use the God of Shoe Stealing to explain your shoes disappearing, one ought not to invoke God as a cosmological explainer.The point that I am making is a general point about how we assess scientific hypotheses. It does not matter whether they are about shoes disappearing or about evolution or creation. Hypothesizing encompasses both of those things. Do you have a separate scientific method for every type of problem?Here, I will do a simpler analogy if that helps you understand. Suppose we are trying to figure out what makes babies, and where babies comes from. (This, I assume, is directly analogous enough to the creation of the universe). At first, we don't have a lot of information. So we posit that they come from a stork. After all, as children, we don't see the actual process of birthing; we just walk into the room and see a newborn baby. The stork hypothesis is perfectly compatible with our observations. Why not accept it?The thing is that it's fallacious to assume the stork hypothesis - and not just because we would know better if we observed the process of birthing. Of course, it would be immediately obvious that the stork hypothesis was wrong if we observed the birthing process (just as it would be immediately obvious that the God hypothesis was wrong if we could somehow observe a naturalistic origin of the universe). But the stork hypothesis is wrong even when we can't directly observe the process because, while P(E/H) is 100%, P(H/E) is miniscule. We could posit that babies are delivered by flying monkeys, or raccoons, or that hospital rooms have the ability to produce them out of thin air when no one is looking: all of these hypotheses have a large P(E/H) but a low P(H/E).(treeoflife)
Nobody on this site, not I or anyone else I know of, would attribute their shoes disappearing to God.
I know: that's my whole point.(treeoflife)
The Evolutionist does, in fact, have faith in what he or she believes. I believe in the beginning God, and the Evolutionist believes in the beginning, "Not God."
Evolution has nothing to do with belief in God or the origin of the universe. This is a strawman.(treeoflife)
Both require unobservable, mystical acts, that go outside of observable, law driven science in order to arrive at his or her conclusion.
What is unobservable or mystical about evolution? And please, don't mention the origin of the universe or abiogenesis, as it has been stated countless times that these are theories separate from evolution.(treeoflife)
My faith is better than your faith, and that's that.

Please, after a little bit of thought I'm you can figure out why you probably ought not to say things like this if you have any desire for a productive argument. It's flamebait.

 

[treeoflife]

Well, I've said my peace. Your analogy was flamebait.I'll say this final bit though. Christians have no problem with evolution. But, let me define some terms. When I say that, I do mean Christians as generally those people who believe in Christ and also study and look at the subject. The word "evolution", as I'm sure you know, simply means "change over time."When I say "Evolutionist" I do in fact mean the person who attributes evolution to the origin of all things, and traces it back to the very "beginning" where it originates in itself. That is no strawman. The Evolutionist does in fact do that. The Evolutionist and the Christian both believe in evolution... the process of change over time. The difference is in their origin.I believe in the beginning God, and the Evolutionist does not. The evolution (change over time) that occurs has been happening ever since He created mankind and EVERYTHING else fully formed, in the exact state that He intended, just as His Word states. I like to refer to it as adaption to avoid confusion. I'm not surprised when I see change over time. Our God is quite smart, and planned on the need for change and adaption when He spoke life into existance. He made DNA, and nothing about it snuck up on Him.He created us fully formed, and evolution has been happening ever since the day He did it. Going by Biblical geneology and dates, that was less than 7,000 years ago, I do believe.

 

[Lunar]

(treeoflife;48264)
Well, I've said my peace. Your analogy was flamebait.
I'm sorry if you find it offensive, but you've yet to show what's wrong with it.(treeoflife)
The word "evolution", as I'm sure you know, simply means "change over time."
Though the scientific term "biological evolution" is, as I'm sure you're aware, a fair bit more complicated than that.(treeoflife)
When I say "Evolutionist" I do in fact mean the person who attributes evolution to the origin of all things, and traces it back to the very "beginning" where it originates in itself. That is no strawman. The Evolutionist does in fact do that.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say that it's absolutely false. Maybe there is someone, somewhere who uses biological evolution to explain the origin of the universe, but he's certainly an odd fellow. Biological evolution deals with the change over time in organisms. It has nothing to do with what happens prior to when organisms exist, and I don't know where you're getting the notion that there's some popular movement trying to apply it outside its scope. The origin of the universe is a problem of quantum physics and philosophy, not evolution. (treeoflife)
I believe in the beginning God, and the Evolutionist does not. The evolution (change over time) that occurs has been happening ever since He created mankind and EVERYTHING else fully formed, in the exact state that He intended, just as His Word states. I like to refer to it as adaption to avoid confusion. I'm not surprised when I see change over time. Our God is quite smart, and planned on the need for change and adaption when He spoke life into existance. He made DNA, and nothing about it snuck up on Him.
I don't particularly appreciate how you are trying to criticize a theoretical class of persons instead of the actual argument I'm making. That is the very definition of a straw man. This argument isn't really concerned with what you have to say about the hypothetical Evolutionist, especially considering that the way you described him in the last paragraph I'm fairly confident that he doesn't exist.Likewise, you should try not to speak for all Christians. Some of them believe in both micro and macroevolution, and some of them believe in neither.(treeoflife)
He created us fully formed, and evolution has been happening ever since the day He did it. Going by Biblical geneology and dates, that was less than 7,000 years ago, I do believe.
This is highly, highly improbable based on the data we've obtained from radiometric age dating.

 

[adren@line]

(treeoflife;48213)
Oh, there is faith. You see evolution and conclude it's been happening on its own for millions upon millions of years... that it has its own beginning, some how, faithfully, and mystically, against science, in and of itself.I see evolution and conclude God did it. I use the Bible as my explaination of these events.My beginning is God, your beginning is... "Not God." Both possess mystical powers that go beyond scientific explaination, and both require faith.
If one goes beyond science then they go into the realm of philosophy and come up with rational theories that coincide with understood reality.The Christian God is not rational, and the very idea of such contradicts science, and hence that is why it is a 100% faith-based belief. Stating that God created the universe only leads one to ask "who created God?". No reasonable answer exists."God" and "not-God" are not the same thing. I could easily state that the universe was created by a sentient invisible pair of underpants, and according to your logic that would be the same as stating it wasn't.

 

[Wakka]

Assumption is the lowest, most degrading, form of knowledge (I wouldn't even call it knowledge). All evolution is, is assumption.

 

[Lunar]

(Wakka;48328)
Assumption is the lowest, most degrading, form of knowledge (I wouldn't even call it knowledge). All evolution is, is assumption.
Wakka:Why do you think this? Evolutionary theory is not only consistent with discoveries in biology and genetics and the fossil record, it has also been observed in nature and in the laboratory - both adaptation and speciation. It's not just an assumption, it's backed up by fact.

 

[adren@line]

(Wakka;48328)
Assumption is the lowest, most degrading, form of knowledge (I wouldn't even call it knowledge). All evolution is, is assumption.
Are we to assume that you have actually read anything about evolution that originates from the the scientific community?

 

[Wakka]

(adren@line;48338)
Are we to assume that you have actually read anything about evolution that originates from the the scientific community?
Oh yes, everything the scientific community has to offer. /sarcasmI've ventured far enough to realize that evolution is primarily based on assumptions. People only assume that man's predecessors were primates. They then look for anything that might support their hypothesis. Anything regardless if it is actually true or not.I know for a fact that there is a God through personal encounters. I know that there is a divine being out there that created us. And that we were simply not product of pure dumb chance. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I do not have enough faith to believe in evolution.I know it's your personal choice that for believing in what you do. But I'm here to tell you that there is a better path. That God exists, and He has things planned for you. There is more to life than breading and surviving. It is up to you to take whatever faith in God you have and walk in it. Pretty soon your faith will increase, and the evidence of God will pile up. At this moment, I no longer think to myself if there really is a God.Will you take that challenge?

 

[Lunar]

(Wakka;48339)
I've ventured far enough to realize that evolution is primarily based on assumptions. People only assume that man's predecessors were primates. They then look for anything that might support their hypothesis. Anything regardless if it is actually true or not.
This is false. What would motivate someone to want to believe that we descended from primates? The fact is, we didn't just descend from primates; we are primates, and this is believed not out of pure desire, but because it is substantiated by evidence.The claim that humans have a common ancestry with an ape-like ancestor are based primarily on the genetic similarity between apes (human DNA sequences are only 1.2% divergent from those of chimpanzees) and the substantial evidence in the fossil record. These suggest that human evolution branched off from ape evolution 4-6 million years ago.(Wakka)
I know for a fact that there is a God through personal encounters.
Out of curiosity, what is your response to people of other faiths who say the same thing; that they have had a personal experience with Allah or Krishna or others?(Wakka)
And that we were simply not product of pure dumb chance.
Evolution is a highly nonrandom process. The mutations are the only thing random about it; natural selection is not blind.Also, I've never understood the use of "dumb chance" as pejorative in these discussions. Divine purpose may sound nice and romantic, but that doesn't make it true.(Wakka)
There is more to life than breading and surviving.
I'm well aware of this. I find fulfillment and beauty in many things, like art and music and philosophy. I have friends and family that I love, a wonderful boyfriend, and I'm pursuing a career in humanitarian service. I didn't need Christianity to find any of this.(Wakka)
Will you take that challenge?
I've already tried, twice. The second time was with as fully open arms as I can conceive. I considered myself a Christian, of my own volition, but it couldn't hold up under the strain of reason, philosophy, analysis and scientific evidence. Sorry.

 

[treeoflife]

If you, the Evolutionist, are here to see if we beleive things change over time, then look no more... we do. This may come as a surprise, but every Christian on this forum (I'm pretty sure) believes that things change over time. We are not oblvious to reason as some would like to believe. You will call this change over time evolution. So, if you want to debate about whether things change over time, there is no debate. I unashamidly submit to the glory of God in His creation, and that He created us to adapt and for life to press on through adversity. He is a wonderful, powerful, and very smart creator. He is the only Creator.What we will disagree on, no doubt, is that man came from monkey, and that monkey came from something else... and if you can't connect the dots to realize that you are eventually arriving at some premordial soup, or some rocks... and eventually many unexplainable phenomena where we came into existance... then you don't know your theory well enough. We will disagree on the origin. The Evolutionist would like to trace everything back, to a common origin, and bypass God's Word altogether. Is that not the ultimate goal? To find out how, and from what we evolved from? To debate with Christians why they are otherwise wrong about their God?If you don't trace the process of evolution (change over time) back to God, the you must trace it back to something else, aka, "Not God."An Evolutionist who does this would like everyone to to see change over time and make the radical leap, seeing that things are similar (the way God intended), are constructed from similar DNA (God knows what works and can certainly use what works, over and over), and that things adapt over time (the way God intended), that we should SWALLOW a theory that we evolved from monkeys, and thereon monkeys evolved from smaller, and smaller parts... over a LONG TIME (your unscene and unknowable God which must exist for your theory to be true). Understand this... we believe in evolution (change over time); or at least most of all of us do. We, however, don't believe that we have been changing over millions of years. You can spend your life wasting time trying to figure out what we "evolved" from, but we will consult God's written Word of the event in the Bible. This may be confusing for you, because you think the answer is elsewhere, but you are wrong. The answer is in His Word, period.It may also be frustrating to learn that you are practicing a relgious belief that BELIEVES in what it is you think you know. No doubt this notion rocks your world because you have allowed your minds to become diluted and decieved, just as it states in Romans 1. You will fight, no doubt, the notion that you express faith in your god of time, and of self, because many like to think they are above belief, and that it is impossible to concede ones mind to a belief... all the while, that is exactly what you are doing.Fact: God created the earth.Fact: God made man fully formed, and we did not evolve from monkeys.Fact: God will judge the world in righteousness, and those who practice unrighteousness... and fight against His Word.Fact: You will contest these facts but nevertheless, they will remain facts.

 

[medicalmatt]

[email protected] you forget about my post...?

 

[Lunar]

(treeoflife;48360)
If you, the Evolutionist
I've already asked you to stop characterizing me by an archetype. The "Evolutionist" that you've described doesn't even remotely resemble the views I hold.(treeoflife)
and if you can't connect the dots to realize that you are eventually arriving at some premordial soup, or some rocks... and eventually many unexplainable phenomena where we came into existance... then you don't know your theory well enough.
I've already said this before. Evolution is a theory separate from abiogenesis. The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible, regardless of where life came from in the first place. Science may not know exactly how life first arose, but that does not contradict evolution anymore than our not knowing where the universe came from contradicts all of science. Do you see?(treeoflife)
We will disagree on the origin. The Evolutionist would like to trace everything back, to a common origin, and bypass God's Word altogether. Is that not the ultimate goal? To find out how, and from what we evolved from? To debate with Christians why they are otherwise wrong about their God?
Are you actually implying that the entire agenda of evolutionary biologists is to debate Christians on internet forums?(treeoflife)
The answer is in His Word, period.
You can keep stating this over and over again, but that's all you've done - state it. You haven't substantiated it.(treeoflife)
It may also be frustrating to learn that you are practicing a relgious belief that BELIEVES in what it is you think you know.
Religious belief requires belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in the supernatural.(treeoflife)
Fact: God created the earth.Fact: God made man fully formed, and we did not evolve from monkeys.Fact: God will judge the world in righteousness, and those who practice unrighteousness... and fight against His Word.Fact: You will contest these facts but nevertheless, they will remain facts.
Oh, for heaven's sakes. Now you're just trolling. treeoflife, if you are actually interested in having a discussion, you are going to have to do more arguing and less asserting. I can sit here and "assert as fact" all my beliefs and they obviously wouldn't convince you. Why do you think it's any different with you?

 

[treeoflife]

(Lunar;48395)
I've already asked you to stop characterizing me by an archetype.
Don't be so conceded. I wasn't only talking about you. I stand by what I said.

 

[Lunar]

(treeoflife;48397)
Don't be so conceded. I wasn't only talking about you. I stand by what I said.
Whether you were talking about just me (which your use of the word "you" and singular form certainly made it look like) or others, the fact remains that you've characterized me in precisely the way I just asked you not to.

 

[treeoflife]

(Lunar;48400)
Whether you were talking about just me (which your use of the word "you" and singular form certainly made it look like) or others, the fact remains that you've characterized me in precisely the way I just asked you not to.
Well, you can decide in your heart if my description characterized you or not. That's between you and God... as is everything. Whether you were accused or not, falsly or rightly is before Him as well. Everything is in the open before Him. As for me, my conscience is clear.