-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
T
Nope. But in all honesty neither can evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged the enormous burden of proof needed to support evolution across species:
"As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?...He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will RIGHTLY reject my whole theory."
Good question. Why aren't we tripping over pre-humans everywhere go? We hear in the news every few months or so about someone stumbling upon some new dinosaur skeleton found here or there. But if dinosaurs lived millions of years PRIOR to man why do we not find any credible remains of pre-humans?
One of the few people in the evolution camp willing to call a spade a spade was Stephen Jay Gould, a biology professor and regular contributor to Natural History. He didn't particularly ingratiate himself with his fellow evolutionist with this statement, but at least he told it like it is:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
So according to Darwin himself, we may "rightly" reject his theory of evolution across species based solely on the lack of physical evidence.
But evolutionists would not be deterred with a lack of physical evidence; they instead began fighting the fight in the field of genetics. But unfortunately they are now in the same position that they were in when they were fighting the battle in the archeological realm. They now find themselves making inferences as to how genetic mutations were "probably" responsible for evolution across species. But how could you possibly use the scientific method to PROVE your inferences are correct? That's the problem, you can't.
Does that prove evolution didn't happen? Of course not. Perhaps science will one day find a way to prove it all out. But it would be very difficult when your premises rely on randomness and time. But of course if you believe in God, it's all a moot point. Whether God used evolution to create us or he simply "spoke" us into existence, here we are.
"As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?...He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will RIGHTLY reject my whole theory."
Good question. Why aren't we tripping over pre-humans everywhere go? We hear in the news every few months or so about someone stumbling upon some new dinosaur skeleton found here or there. But if dinosaurs lived millions of years PRIOR to man why do we not find any credible remains of pre-humans?
One of the few people in the evolution camp willing to call a spade a spade was Stephen Jay Gould, a biology professor and regular contributor to Natural History. He didn't particularly ingratiate himself with his fellow evolutionist with this statement, but at least he told it like it is:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
So according to Darwin himself, we may "rightly" reject his theory of evolution across species based solely on the lack of physical evidence.
But evolutionists would not be deterred with a lack of physical evidence; they instead began fighting the fight in the field of genetics. But unfortunately they are now in the same position that they were in when they were fighting the battle in the archeological realm. They now find themselves making inferences as to how genetic mutations were "probably" responsible for evolution across species. But how could you possibly use the scientific method to PROVE your inferences are correct? That's the problem, you can't.
Does that prove evolution didn't happen? Of course not. Perhaps science will one day find a way to prove it all out. But it would be very difficult when your premises rely on randomness and time. But of course if you believe in God, it's all a moot point. Whether God used evolution to create us or he simply "spoke" us into existence, here we are.
E
Quote:
Originally Posted by EconGrad
Science was created by Christians in the Middle Ages.
Again, is it possible to have some proof of this? I think most scientists will claim that science first began with what was first known as natural philosophy during the Greco-Roman period. A commonly referred beginning took place on the Greek island of Ionia during the 6th centuary BC. There are books by Penrose and Schrödinger I can refer you to.
Originally Posted by EconGrad
Science was created by Christians in the Middle Ages.
Again, is it possible to have some proof of this? I think most scientists will claim that science first began with what was first known as natural philosophy during the Greco-Roman period. A commonly referred beginning took place on the Greek island of Ionia during the 6th centuary BC. There are books by Penrose and Schrödinger I can refer you to.
Beyond that science really wasn't created solely by Christians but more as a loose collaboration between Europeans and Muslims between 900-1300 AD.
Roger Bacon is a key figure. Alhazen would certainly be an early important Muslim figure in the development of science.
In being too emphatic we run into problems. I could argue psychology had ancient origins. Honestly I believe clinical psychology was also a Medieval development.
P
What annoys me about the views of creationists and IDs is that a lot of their arguments are plucked from science texts, neglecting to include the following counter arguments. In particular mommygrace's four points against evolution and Truth4All's quote from Darwin above. Both of which were points Darwin highlighted in On the Origin of Species, afterwhich he countered with an in-depth argument which you can read here. Let's not forget that the book was written 150 years ago, and like all science, has been refined since. At that time relatively little work had been done on fossil records. There is a recent article in New Scientist on the evidence of transitional forms.
Sure, a lot of evolution (and science) is based on inference and probability. For non-scientists though, let me clarify that the way science uses inference and probability is significantly different to say the odds for a football game. Generally, (in science) to establish a relationship you would need to have relevant data from a far larger sampling set. In disciplines where it is possible to repeat the experiment, we can repeat it indefinitely until there is counter evidence. For example, Newton's law of gravity consistently held until we started looking at things on a galactic scale, all our observations of gravity currently work perfectly with Einstein's general relativity. In other disciplines where we can not continuously repeat experiments, or if there is a small portion of counter examples, we measure whether something is valid with a measure of statistical significance - i.e. whether a drug treatment works or how long the brakes on your car will last. If you don't have a big enough sample size then you can't draw any conclusions.
Evolution is based on statistical significance. So far, in the respected scientific community (I include publications such as Nature, Scientific American, etc), the overwhelming evidence seems to agree with evolution.
I'm not sure I agree with lifetime's suggestion that empirical data cannot (dis)prove evolution and ID, it can theoretically do so. Evolution and ID stand in the same territory, neither of which are against creation or god. Evolution and ID are merely the pathways life has taken since (possibly) creation. I'm not sure empiricism has implicit boundaries either. One day, it could be possibly to measure and observe what we currently understand as the 'spiritual' realm. Currently research is being undertaken to observere Buddhist states of 'spirituality'.
A challenge yes. I assume by randomness you mean the probabilities inherent within quantum mechanics? The same difficulty we've overcome when using lasers, transistors and MRI? The same challenge we're close to utilising within quantum computation? Cesium clocks (most accurate developed), uses quantum mechanics too. Our understanding of special relativity (incorporating time) is used a great deal, for example for GPS.
Sure, a lot of evolution (and science) is based on inference and probability. For non-scientists though, let me clarify that the way science uses inference and probability is significantly different to say the odds for a football game. Generally, (in science) to establish a relationship you would need to have relevant data from a far larger sampling set. In disciplines where it is possible to repeat the experiment, we can repeat it indefinitely until there is counter evidence. For example, Newton's law of gravity consistently held until we started looking at things on a galactic scale, all our observations of gravity currently work perfectly with Einstein's general relativity. In other disciplines where we can not continuously repeat experiments, or if there is a small portion of counter examples, we measure whether something is valid with a measure of statistical significance - i.e. whether a drug treatment works or how long the brakes on your car will last. If you don't have a big enough sample size then you can't draw any conclusions.
Evolution is based on statistical significance. So far, in the respected scientific community (I include publications such as Nature, Scientific American, etc), the overwhelming evidence seems to agree with evolution.
I'm not sure I agree with lifetime's suggestion that empirical data cannot (dis)prove evolution and ID, it can theoretically do so. Evolution and ID stand in the same territory, neither of which are against creation or god. Evolution and ID are merely the pathways life has taken since (possibly) creation. I'm not sure empiricism has implicit boundaries either. One day, it could be possibly to measure and observe what we currently understand as the 'spiritual' realm. Currently research is being undertaken to observere Buddhist states of 'spirituality'.
A challenge yes. I assume by randomness you mean the probabilities inherent within quantum mechanics? The same difficulty we've overcome when using lasers, transistors and MRI? The same challenge we're close to utilising within quantum computation? Cesium clocks (most accurate developed), uses quantum mechanics too. Our understanding of special relativity (incorporating time) is used a great deal, for example for GPS.
D
Yeah, Truth4All it's almost like you are joking or don't want to be taken seriously when you put quotes from Stephen Gould and Darwin as evidence against evolution, when they were really just doing what any good scientist does, and giving the alternative viewpoint all the merit that it's worth, then refuting it.
And I know you claimed that ID and evolution were equally valid theories since neither can be tested and reproduced in a lab, but you're just as wrong here too. Intelligent Design not only has not been tested, not produced any falsifiable hypotheses, and not been reached through examination of evidence (it was presupposed); it is unable to be tested, and creates no new knowledge or understanding because it has nothing important to say. It doesn't help that it is supported by people who are trying to discredit evolution... In true science, the truth of ID (if it were possible to do anything scientific with the theory) would be found and then assimilated with current knowledge, AKA evolution; it would not replace or discredit evolution.
Remember that every single piece of "evidence" and everything claimed to be "science" in ID is really just misinterpretations of evolution and then subsequent attempts to disprove it. Not one single effort has ever succeeded (to the trained eye, that is). Also, not one single piece of evidence, not one scientific peer-reviewed journal, not one compelling observation which can spawn tests exists within the ID theory. It's all anti-evolution BS or philosophical musings about how the complexity of the natural world indicates an intelligent designer. This leads me to believe not only that ID is stupid because it was a presupposed conclusion which is strangely proposed as an alternative to evolution; it also leads me to believe that its proponents are really not taking science seriously... it's almost like they just want their idea of how the world works to be the one accepted by science, rather than let the science lead them.......
And I know you claimed that ID and evolution were equally valid theories since neither can be tested and reproduced in a lab, but you're just as wrong here too. Intelligent Design not only has not been tested, not produced any falsifiable hypotheses, and not been reached through examination of evidence (it was presupposed); it is unable to be tested, and creates no new knowledge or understanding because it has nothing important to say. It doesn't help that it is supported by people who are trying to discredit evolution... In true science, the truth of ID (if it were possible to do anything scientific with the theory) would be found and then assimilated with current knowledge, AKA evolution; it would not replace or discredit evolution.
Remember that every single piece of "evidence" and everything claimed to be "science" in ID is really just misinterpretations of evolution and then subsequent attempts to disprove it. Not one single effort has ever succeeded (to the trained eye, that is). Also, not one single piece of evidence, not one scientific peer-reviewed journal, not one compelling observation which can spawn tests exists within the ID theory. It's all anti-evolution BS or philosophical musings about how the complexity of the natural world indicates an intelligent designer. This leads me to believe not only that ID is stupid because it was a presupposed conclusion which is strangely proposed as an alternative to evolution; it also leads me to believe that its proponents are really not taking science seriously... it's almost like they just want their idea of how the world works to be the one accepted by science, rather than let the science lead them.......
T
I claimed no such thing. In fact when you asked if there is any scientific evidence to support ID I said "nope". Are you not actually reading my posts?
The only other point I was trying to convey was that evolution is not a fate acompli - that it cannot be proven at this time and may be very difficult (if not impossible) to do so, as podrug acknowledged.
podrug said:
How do you think Darwin's counter arguments are relevant to his initial statement ("He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory")? Do you think he only meant it if his arguments proved correct? Of course not.That's ridiculous. So what purpose would it serve to post them? Do you think I'm trying to prevent you from seeing arguments that haven't panned out? Come on guys.
The only other point I was trying to convey was that evolution is not a fate acompli - that it cannot be proven at this time and may be very difficult (if not impossible) to do so, as podrug acknowledged.
podrug said:
How do you think Darwin's counter arguments are relevant to his initial statement ("He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory")? Do you think he only meant it if his arguments proved correct? Of course not.That's ridiculous. So what purpose would it serve to post them? Do you think I'm trying to prevent you from seeing arguments that haven't panned out? Come on guys.
S
For the record, he [Galileo] was not put to death. He was sentenced to what was essentially house arrest for the remaining 8 years of his life. He was put on trial for suggesting that if the solar system is heliocentric, and the Bible says it is not though science says it is, then maybe the Bible was eroneous on other things as well, like the nature of God himself or maybe even the Incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ. This was a big problem, especially considering how not only is it wrong to say the entire Bible is incorrect, but that saying such things in the public forum tended to cause mass rioting which resulted in death and destruction. People weren't so keen on agreeing to disagree as we are today (in the USA at least).
This was a growing stage for Christianity. People were understanding the world through scientific study and were finding that what they could verify scientifically conflicted with certain ideas about the world that were found in certain books of the Bible. It was understandably met with much resistence at first until theologians thought "Well, if that's not the point of that passage...and we know research has proven otherwise...then what is the point of that passage? It can't be meaningless or it wouldn't have been part of the Bible."
This is my stance on the creation story of Genesis - of which there are two accounts to begin with. In one account, the Earth is created in 6 days in a specific order of things, with man being created last and given dominion over everything. The Bible says God rested on the 7th. Why? Was God tired? Who is this all-powerful God that creation exhausts him? In the second account of Genesis, man is the focus and he is given dominion over most things, the great exception being that particular tree in the Garder: don't eat from it, bub. I have to reconcile two different stories that say the same thing with each other, and then I have to reconcile this with what we can verify scientifically. If I am of weak faith, I am inclined to think that either the Bible is wrong or that Science and Reason are wrong. This could lead me to discard one or the other right off...unless I think about it differently.
Is the point of Genesis how God created, or is the point of Genesis why God created? Science offers it's reasons of how creation came to be, but it is not in the realm of science to say why creation even has to exist ( or that it even has to exist). When I read Genesis, I understand that God is the ultimate reason, cause, and source of all that is. It doesn't matter to me how he did it: the point is that he did do it in whatever way he saw fit, and scientifc evidence suggests that it is not outside of God's ability to allow something such evolution to occur. Evolution is an event within our human construct of time, and God is a being outside of time, so while we may percieve evolution as a long drawn out process that takes billions of years, to God, it happens at no point in time because he is not in time as we are.
The truth of the Bible is that it teaches absolutely no error regarding the information we need for our salvation. Pure historical fact (like who was ruling what podunk province of Rome at any given time), pure scientific fact, these are not the things we are to be concerned with when reading the Bible. The message is that our Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, to restore within man that which man lost through sin. This salvific truth is not influenced by the age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurse, or the whether or not Incino Man might just be hiding in a block of ice under someone's future swimming pool.
This was a growing stage for Christianity. People were understanding the world through scientific study and were finding that what they could verify scientifically conflicted with certain ideas about the world that were found in certain books of the Bible. It was understandably met with much resistence at first until theologians thought "Well, if that's not the point of that passage...and we know research has proven otherwise...then what is the point of that passage? It can't be meaningless or it wouldn't have been part of the Bible."
This is my stance on the creation story of Genesis - of which there are two accounts to begin with. In one account, the Earth is created in 6 days in a specific order of things, with man being created last and given dominion over everything. The Bible says God rested on the 7th. Why? Was God tired? Who is this all-powerful God that creation exhausts him? In the second account of Genesis, man is the focus and he is given dominion over most things, the great exception being that particular tree in the Garder: don't eat from it, bub. I have to reconcile two different stories that say the same thing with each other, and then I have to reconcile this with what we can verify scientifically. If I am of weak faith, I am inclined to think that either the Bible is wrong or that Science and Reason are wrong. This could lead me to discard one or the other right off...unless I think about it differently.
Is the point of Genesis how God created, or is the point of Genesis why God created? Science offers it's reasons of how creation came to be, but it is not in the realm of science to say why creation even has to exist ( or that it even has to exist). When I read Genesis, I understand that God is the ultimate reason, cause, and source of all that is. It doesn't matter to me how he did it: the point is that he did do it in whatever way he saw fit, and scientifc evidence suggests that it is not outside of God's ability to allow something such evolution to occur. Evolution is an event within our human construct of time, and God is a being outside of time, so while we may percieve evolution as a long drawn out process that takes billions of years, to God, it happens at no point in time because he is not in time as we are.
The truth of the Bible is that it teaches absolutely no error regarding the information we need for our salvation. Pure historical fact (like who was ruling what podunk province of Rome at any given time), pure scientific fact, these are not the things we are to be concerned with when reading the Bible. The message is that our Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, to restore within man that which man lost through sin. This salvific truth is not influenced by the age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurse, or the whether or not Incino Man might just be hiding in a block of ice under someone's future swimming pool.
Last edited:
D
Hey sorry about that last post. I wanted to delete it, but I couldn't, so I just edited it to say dddddddddddddddd. Anyways...
Suaso, you are correct on all counts. The Bible is metaphorical, not literal, however, its metaphor reflects the truth and a little 'splainin' from the people with intellect will make those more primitive folk understand its message cuz they can't understand so good!
The Bible is wrong in the sense that what it says never happened... this has been scientifically proven, many times. In that sense, yes, it is wrong. But your mistake is in viewing it as a historical account in the first place.
Suaso, you are correct on all counts. The Bible is metaphorical, not literal, however, its metaphor reflects the truth and a little 'splainin' from the people with intellect will make those more primitive folk understand its message cuz they can't understand so good!
The Bible is wrong in the sense that what it says never happened... this has been scientifically proven, many times. In that sense, yes, it is wrong. But your mistake is in viewing it as a historical account in the first place.
- Status