You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Theory of Evolution - Part 1
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
avatar382 said:Heh, I was about to say the same!
Bob, are science textbooks and articles in scientific journals "credible"?
In the vast majority of scientific areas they are, but in the field of Origins, the study of what happened in the past, there is far less credibility, in fact, as I have shown, there are numerous insurmountable contradictions.
The reason? Simple. One cannot observe or set up experiments to directly test what happened in the past. One can only infer what happened based on one's assumptions and today's evidence. If one assumes that the creation of the universe and life had to occur "naturally" then all inferences would of course lead to the conclusion that they happened "naturally, whether in fact they did or not.
This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.
Last edited:
bob b said:In the vast majority of scientific areas they are, but in the field of Origins, the study of what happened in the past, there is far less credibility, in fact, as I have shown, there are numerous insurmountable contradictions.
The reason? Simple. One cannot observe or set up experiments to test what happened in the past. One can only infer what happened based on one's assumptions and today's evidence. If one assumes that the creation of the universe and life had to occur "naturally" then all inferences would of course lead to the conclusion that they happened "naturally, whether in fact they did or not.
This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.
1.) Were you serious when you said you would consider material on a university site to be credible? You realize that university professors generally publish in scientific journals - so I don't understand why one would be credible and the other not...
2.) The "numerous contradictions" you allude to have been in the area of abiogenesis/origin of life/origin of the universe, wholly outside the scope of the TOE. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: the TOE is about diversity of life, not the origin of life.
3.) All science is naturalistic by necessity. Naturalism is the reason science has progressed and we enjoy technology today. Do you deny this?
4.) I personally have no interest in "proving" there is no God. As an agnostic, I believe such knowledge is probably unattainable by humans. My interest is in correcting misinformation about the theory of evolution. As I have pointed out, there are theists that accept the TOE, and the TOE is compatible with theism.
For scientists, the question of the supernatural (God, etc) is wholly outside of the scope of science. Science, being naturalistic, makes no statement for or against the existance of God or the supernatural. It is only literalists who claim so when science renders their literalistic beliefs obsolete.
bob b said:This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.
Total and absolute rubbish.
avatar382 said:1.) Were you serious when you said you would consider material on a university site to be credible? You realize that university professors generally publish in scientific journals - so I don't understand why one would be credible and the other not...
The evidence presented on a university website is in the vast majority of cases very credible even if conclusions about the implications of such evidence is not always equally so.
2.) The "numerous contradictions" you allude to have been in the area of abiogenesis/origin of life/origin of the universe, wholly outside the scope of the TOE. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: the TOE is about diversity of life, not the origin of life.
Wrong. The key contradictions are in the ToE. Check the WEASEL thread.
3.) All science is naturalistic by necessity. Naturalism is the reason science has progressed and we enjoy technology today. Do you deny this?
Of course not. Why do you think I call myself a "science lover"?
4.) I personally have no interest in "proving" there is no God. As an agnostic, I believe such knowledge is probably unattainable by humans. My interest is in correcting misinformation about the theory of evolution. As I have pointed out, there are theists that accept the TOE, and the TOE is compatible with theism.
It may be "compatible" with theism ("The Force"), but it is definitely not compatible with Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
For scientists, the question of the supernatural (God, etc) is wholly outside of the scope of science. Science, being naturalistic, makes no statement for or against the existance of God or the supernatural.
Oh, but they do by implication. By claiming that some things are a "fact" which are not a fact they lure people into believing that their speculations have proven that the Bible is false, and therefore cause many Christians to lose confidence in the accuracy of scripture. If evolutionists made no statements for or against God or the supernatural then why do they insist on examining scripture in order to discredit it?
It is only literalists who claim so when science renders their literalistic beliefs obsolete.
See? You do the same thing don't you?
At this point in the game the only leg you have left to stand on is radiometric dating, and that one is beginning to show signs of wavering in the wind.
Why do you think that long ages would be evidence for evolution? Are you one of those who believe that "given enough time anything can happen?"