Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'Well, that's because the primary premise of evolution requires that one must “believe” before this theory can make any sense, that one must look at it from a scientific perspective to understand the explanations.'
Hmm...anyone else bothered by the fact that this mutant quote almost makes sense when applied to evolution as well.
Not me! I do believe in evolution (which to my belief doesn't contradict the idea of God...just the Christian idea of God) and I fully realize that it takes a lot of faith for me to do so.
I *assume* those fossils I see pictures of in books or on the internet really exist somewhere and are not plaster casts. I *assume* that scientists were correct in the theory behind radiocarbon dating (and it is a theory...because it assumes if things disintegrate at a certain rate over a few decades or a few millennia, that rate doesn't suddenly increase after that point or something). It *feels* right and logical to me when I think about it and I don't *feel* a hidden agenda from many scientists when they speak of evolution. (Others, though, I do feel a hidden agenda from and it's no great secret that there are in fact greedy, fame-hungry scientists out there as well, which is why science is brilliant for continuing to question.)
So, no. That quote, with evolution put in place of, I guess, Christianity? Or was it God? (I don't remember the quote) doesn't give me pause at all when applied to evolution. However...that may be at least partially because, unlike the Bible, science does not claim to be perfect, nor does it ever claim to have the last word, and individual mistakes--in science--don't have to negate the entire umbrella of scientific study.
The book did answer some questions and did convince me that the current scientific theory of evolution is either invalid or incomplete .
Oh, it's definitely incomplete! And few archaeologists would argue otherwise. If scientists thought the theory and the specifics were complete, nobody would still be out there digging, because no additional discoveries would yield any type of information.
But science is humble enough to admit it doesn't have all the answers in its palm, and that nothing could ever change current theories or beliefs in the scientific world.
Of course one must "believe" in science, though I don't believe that the term "belief" is appropriate. Science is more than belief because, by definition, it provides proof and confirmation once the theory is proven. Macroevolution is still a theory, yet to be proven.
That is why I said "almost makes sense" -- it was more as a taunt to those people who were hounding on the idea that Christianity requires an a priori understanding of Christianity before it makes sense. My point is simply that to see that as circular is to fail to understand the idea. Science requires the similar bank of a priori knowledge (like understanding the scientific process) before it starts to make any sense too. Perhaps the religious a priori knowledge is simply more accessable to some than others (just as it is certainly true for basic science).
You also point out that macroevolution is "still a theory" as if you expect someday that it will stop being a theory. No one can prove anything in a definitive way so everything that asserts a non-contrary idea is actually a theory, by definition. One can only disprove things definitively. Facts, therefore, are only theories that have no other likely explanation that fit the observable world, and the observable world provide overwhelmingly abundant examples all in favor of one, and only one, explanation. Macroevolution fits that kind of situation, thus this theory is also fact.
If you want to accept "the explanations that debunk the evolution theory" that is your prerogative, but it is a definitive sign -- and I mean this respectfully and not to ridicule you -- that you probably have little mastery of the scientific basis that makes macroevolutionary theory fact.
I have a suggestion for books to read: A Case For Christ, and A Case for Faith both by Lee Stroble. Lee was an atheist when he wrote A Case for Christ. He was also a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I have not read A Case For Faith myself, but have been told that it is an amazing book. I have read A Case For Christ. This man spent years on a quest to prove Christianity false. Out of all of the research, interviews, time, travel and reading he had done, he came to one conclusion... the same one that anyone who was genuinely searching would come to... http://ruthshaven.com/christian/seekandfind.html
You can search e-bay and usually find these books cheap! It is my prayer that you will find the One that you are searching for.
I have a suggestion for books to read: A Case For Christ, and A Case for Faith both by Lee Stroble. Lee was an atheist when he wrote A Case for Christ. He was also a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I have not read A Case For Faith myself, but have been told that it is an amazing book. I have read A Case For Christ. This man spent years on a quest to prove Christianity false. Out of all of the research, interviews, time, travel and reading he had done, he came to one conclusion... the same one that anyone who was genuinely searching would come to... http://ruthshaven.com/christian/seekandfind.html
You can search e-bay and usually find these books cheap! It is my prayer that you will find the One that you are searching for.
I have read "A Case for Christ", but it's been many years ago so I can't really recall the essence of the book. Maybe I should re-read it at some point because I still have it in my library. At the time I read it I was a bit more hostile towards Christianity, after having recently been ambushed by the elders of my parent's church. So, it's entirely possible that my mind was a bit more closed at that time. Thanks for the suggestions.
That is why I said "almost makes sense" -- it was more as a taunt to those people who were hounding on the idea that Christianity requires an a priori understanding of Christianity before it makes sense. My point is simply that to see that as circular is to fail to understand the idea. Science requires the similar bank of a priori knowledge (like understanding the scientific process) before it starts to make any sense too. Perhaps the religious a priori knowledge is simply more accessable to some than others (just as it is certainly true for basic science).
You also point out that macroevolution is "still a theory" as if you expect someday that it will stop being a theory. No one can prove anything in a definitive way so everything that asserts a non-contrary idea is actually a theory, by definition. One can only disprove things definitively. Facts, therefore, are only theories that have no other likely explanation that fit the observable world, and the observable world provide overwhelmingly abundant examples all in favor of one, and only one, explanation. Macroevolution fits that kind of situation, thus this theory is also fact.
If you want to accept "the explanations that debunk the evolution theory" that is your prerogative, but it is a definitive sign -- and I mean this respectfully and not to ridicule you -- that you probably have little mastery of the scientific basis that makes macroevolutionary theory fact.
I don't know your creditials, nor you mine. So to get into a discussion about who is more knowledgable about macroevolution seems a bit silly. However, we do know that to present a theory as fact, one must provide objective evidence to support such a linguistic conversion. A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, is typically based on objective fact but in itsself unprovable. The problem with macroevolution is that no examples exist of transitioning species. Even Darwin admitted this weakness. Though none of this proves that the Christian god is responsible for our existence, I believe that more evidence needs to be provided to substantiate the theory of evolution, specifically macroevolution, as a fact.
I was raised a baptist, but now I'm not. But most of them never want to give up their hell fire, especially the hardshell Baptist. Originally, this wasn't a Judeo/Christian belief. the word hell translated from the Hebrew scriptures is sheol, meaning the 'pit or the grave.' What sentence did God bestow on Adam for his sin? To quote Genesis 3: 19, In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return. Even at that Yehweh was merciful, no one was condemed to a burning hell fire. Adam and eve were simply humans made from the ground and to that ground they would return.
I have a suggestion for books to read: A Case For Christ, and A Case for Faith both by Lee Stroble. Lee was an atheist when he wrote A Case for Christ. He was also a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I have not read A Case For Faith myself, but have been told that it is an amazing book. I have read A Case For Christ. This man spent years on a quest to prove Christianity false. Out of all of the research, interviews, time, travel and reading he had done, he came to one conclusion... the same one that anyone who was genuinely searching would come to... http://ruthshaven.com/christian/seekandfind.html
You can search e-bay and usually find these books cheap! It is my prayer that you will find the One that you are searching for.
Thanks, but I read it. Lee Strobel is WAY overhyped by the Christians. While it is a very good read (I like Stroebbel's writing style a lot) it contains very little mastery or understanding in the case of evolution. His argument that opposes evolution only shows how little he understood about the theory, despite all the fine scientists he interviewed. Thanks for your prayers, I do appreciate your efforts.
However, we do know that to present a theory as fact, one must provide objective evidence to support such a linguistic conversion. A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, is typically based on objective fact but in itsself unprovable. The problem with macroevolution is that no examples exist of transitioning species. Even Darwin admitted this weakness. Though none of this proves that the Christian god is responsible for our existence, I believe that more evidence needs to be provided to substantiate the theory of evolution, specifically macroevolution, as a fact.
I said what I said because anyone who takes the time to read the available objective material (no credential needed) would never come to the conclusion you did. It is simply not a controverisal conclusion in any way. You say "The problem with macroevolution is that no examples exist of transitioning species." This is a red flag to me, and probably anyone who has studied evolution extensively, that your own information regarding macroevolution is heavily dependent upon Creationist propaganda. They are the only people using this phrase and falsely presenting this idea as the only way evolution can be proven. Nearly every fossil ever found can be considered a transitional fossil, so to say there are "no examples of transitional fossils" is not only incorrect, such a statement comes across largely as a non-sequitur.
Most problematic, however, to this statment, is that an argument that simply points to a lack of information cannot stand as a counterpoint to any fact. As Carl Sagan once said, "The absence of proof is not the proof of abscence." You have to have a positive, contradictory example in hand, to shoot down a fact. To say "there is a lack of transitional fossils" could never be a reason to discount a fact. We don't have any "electrons" in hand, but that doesn't mean they aren't accepted as a fact, right?
I don't know your creditials, nor you mine. So to get into a discussion about who is more knowledgable about macroevolution seems a bit silly. However, we do know that to present a theory as fact, one must provide objective evidence to support such a linguistic conversion. A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, is typically based on objective fact but in itsself unprovable. The problem with macroevolution is that no examples exist of transitioning species. Even Darwin admitted this weakness. Though none of this proves that the Christian god is responsible for our existence, I believe that more evidence needs to be provided to substantiate the theory of evolution, specifically macroevolution, as a fact.
Scientifically, there is no "macroevolution" and "microevolution." There is only evolution. Creationists want to insist that there is some magical barrier to speciation, but none can be shown.
Evolution is simply the gradual change in a population of organisms over time. Many small changes over long periods of time result in very different organisms. Claiming that "macroevolution" cannot occur is equivalent to claiming that one can walk across town but cannot walk across the state. No barrier exists as to how far one can walk, and no barrier exists as to how much change can occur in a population of organisms.
Evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact. Both are observed. How we describe the fact of evolution, as we describe the fact of gravity, is with theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
