Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

ebrown_p wrote:

Exactly,

The problem is that the people who do apply the rules of science when presenting their scientific research wholeheartedly accept evolution as proven.

"Accepting evolution" is no the same as "proving" it. Many well-meaning and philanthropic individuals (some who call themselves "scientists") do indeed provide beneficial information to society - I have done so myself as a "scientist"!

This is not the point, though. Doing good, or going-with-the-flow, or caving in to peer pressure is not acceptable grounds for claiming that Evolution has been proven.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

"Accepting evolution" is no the same as "proving" it.

Hi Bib,

Please define for us, your use of the word, "proving" in the comment above.

0 Replies

Scientists (that is the people who have the education and are doing the work) almost universally have been convinced by the evidence (i.e. "accept") evolution as proven. Not only that, those in the life sciences are basing their work on evolution and are making great progress.

Religious people (many of who "like" science) are saying that evolution hasn't been proven. Not only that, they attack the logic used by scientists.

Who has more credibility on questions of science-- Religious people, or scientists?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Who has more credibility on questions of science-- Religious people, or scientists?

I have worked with and made aquaintances with numerous "scientists" who were, and are, "religious people." They are all credible. Although, I have worked with some folks whose workmanship was truly incredible!

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
"Accepting evolution" is no the same as "proving" it.

Hi Bib,

Please define for us, your use of the word, "proving" in the comment above.

Oh dear, not another discussion on "What is Proof?" ... "Who decides what is proof?" etcetera, etc.

"Accepting" something can be a form of blind faith, or a reaction to external influence (such as peer pressure), but it doesn't constitute proof positive that something is a fact - especially a demonstratable fact. It only shows that the individual is willing to go-with-the-flow, even if evidence contradicts this mainstream, or "accepting" principle.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
"Accepting evolution" is no the same as "proving" it.

Hi Bib,

Please define for us, your use of the word, "proving" in the comment above.

Oh dear, not another discussion on "What is Proof?" ... "Who decides what is proof?" etcetera, etc.

No Bib, we don't need a debate, we only need to know what your definition of "proof" is in the context you used it above.

0 Replies

How about a working acquaintance with the foundation facts and evidence.

Did you prove every strain modulus for every project in engineering? or did you accept the specs from the manufacturer?

0 Replies

Quote:

You as much as anyone, should know that , the very Argument that dethroned Kelvins assumption of dissipation of primordial heat, gave us a radioactive clock method to calculate the very age of the earth. Ironic isnt it? Didnt you say that you were a student of geochronology? Didnt this thought occur to you?

any comment? or will you remain silent on the ones you dont wish to discuss?

0 Replies

Bib, as you pointed out, I can read those quotations in their original contexts if I wanted to. What do YOU have to say about evolution?

0 Replies

You ask "who decides what is truth?"

Well that is obvious. Scientific truth is decided by scientists on the basis of scientific evidence.

Scientists decided the Earth was round. Scientists decided that the Earth rotated around the Sun. Scientists decided that matter was based on the atomic model (with electrons around a nucleus). Scientists also decided that modern species evolved from earlier species.

Each of these scientific facts was desparately opposed by religious people long after they were proven by scientists.

But science has been proven effective. In spite of religious objections, we now have satellites orbiting the Earth. We now split the atom, send robots to another planet. We now decode genomes and develop new medicines based on are modern understanding of genetics.

Your attack on scientists is perfectly understandable based on the history. Religion has often attacked science, but science continues to march on.

At least you are not burning anyone at the stake any more.

0 Replies

We're not 100 percent sure 'they're' not burning anyone at the stake.

0 Replies

scientists , generally, have really great senses of humor.

Name a BAptist comedian, go ahead.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Name a BAptist comedian, go ahead.

There's a whole clan of 'em livin' here. Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Name a BAptist comedian, go ahead.

There's a whole clan of 'em livin' here.

And here's one that's not so funny. It's for real. It even has a real $250,000 prize if you can prove evolution (based on their definition... always gotta watch out for the small print ya know Wink

)

0 Replies

wow, dinosaur adventure park. i wonder whether there is aan opttion for flipping coins so thatt the jury isnt stacked with shills?

Ill take my money in small denominations. I dont like to buy lunch all the time and if I carry big bills Ill be forever tapped tto pick up the check

0 Replies

ebrown_p

Spot on man.They owe us every mortal thing.Why do they continue the futile search for a moment not dependent on science?
I think its probable that it is simply that they are not scientists and can't abide being out of the loop.
Hence they rag us from the bleachers with woosy notions.

spendius.

0 Replies

Anybody applying for that $250,000 evolution prize?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Anybody applying for that $250,000 evolution prize?

I could really use the $250k, but the following rules apply:

Quote:

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

As far as I know, Item #1 is not addressed by science at all, much less general evolution, or biological evolution. Item #1 is a deduction based on the assumption of Naturalism, which is a philosophy, which is not "provable". As usual, the core problem these people have is with the assumption of Naturalism, and therefor, the foundation of science, not with Evolution itself.

In essence, they have challenged scientists to prove a strawman theory which they have invented. And they have claimed victory (Hovind wrote, "My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.") over "evolution" because nobody has chosen to waste their time even addressing their strawman. Pitiful.

0 Replies

There are three problems with this challenge.

The first is the term "empirical proof". Scientists say there is plenty of empirical proof for evolution, religious people say there isn't. Who is going to be the judge?

The second is the phrase "without God". Science can prove that evolution happened. The question as to whether this happened with or without the help of a diety is not a scientific question.

The third is very poor wording.

The use of the phrase "learned to reproduce themselves" is stupid.
Did the Sun learn to shine? Did the moon learn to orbit the earth.
Did I learn to grow little hair out of my ears?

Points #2 and #5 on the list are well proven. Points #1 and #3 don't mean anything and point #4 is just silly.

So I get 2 out of 5. Can I have $100,000?

0 Replies

Even I as a novice understood that number 1 could not be answered by anybody. They have set a condition by which even a $10 billion dollar reward would not make any sense. The sad part of all this is the fact that most people of religion follows this kind of thinking that has no basis in logic. Pitiful is right! If man created god, who created man?

0 Replies

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know