Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

quote:

---

They just feel like it should not be taught as law in our schools,

---

Should the Atomic Theory of MAtter, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System be taught as true in schools?

quote:

---

and they should also include teaching about God in our schools.

---

We do teach about god in school.It's called "World Religions" or "Comparative Religions" social studies classes.What Creationists propose is including religious dogma in science class where it doesn't belong.

quote:

---

But that is not true. Jesus taught us exactly how to recieve the Holy Spirit, and have eternal life. It is an experiment that anyone can do, but it requires all of your heart. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, you may feel differently about what you just said.

---

Show me evidence that heaven as you imagine it exists, and that anyone actually has gotten "eternal life".Show me an experiment I can do that does not rely on my individual experience inside my own head, or your individual experience inside your own head.IOW, show me objective, material, examineable-by-anyone evidence, not subjective, individual feelings.

No, it doesn't. He is human and I do not know what drives him, if I claimed I did, then I am a fool.
Scientists are supposed to be non-biased, but I have seen this as not the case.The quote from talk origins only proves what I'm saying. Since most scientists don't even believe in God, why would they look to explain him, or creation? Your dam right I can't, as I can't explain why certain people believe in religion.Now if you asked me to explain the scientific method, as scientists should use it, I could, its obvious. Maybe in the begining this was true, but I think this is not the case anymore. When a geologist uncovers a bone structure, what do you think the first thing he/she would say to themselves?
How does this fit into the evolutionary timescale, I bet.
Only after something wouldn't fit would there be a question to as why, and then look for a way for it to fit in. I am happy that you feel this way, but I have read too many web-sites, and met to many people who don't fell that way.
If you put TOE in reverse all the way back to the simplest form of life, it is so easy to say that it randomly happened, as most people do. That would be the ultimate conclusion for most people. Espicially those that don't believe in God.
I realize that random life formation is not part of ToE, but it is part of "the big picture" for most. I don't have time to do that. Anyone that is smart enough to write a paper should know that not to include that in wrtiing. That doesn't mean that is not the way they think.
This is more like what someone would write in a paper:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.htmlBut these same people would try to prove or speculate how it all started with what? You guessed it another theory.
One theory leads to another, don't you think?
You must because you are comparing theories all the time.I mean if they could figure out how life started, and since life evolves, it would help explain how things evolve. ToE would be the continuation of the theory of life, and the 2 go hand in hand.What do you believe? You belive in the ToE, and that Life was magically started by some God?If you think that the ToE and the ToL don't go hand in hand, then you are in denial.

In case you haven't noticed, the topic discusses evolution as a religion, not "what scientists think of evolution"

And so far you have not shown Evolution or the TOE to have any of the characteristics of a religion.So, what religious characteristics does the TOE have?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But I never claimed that the ToE wasn't a good theory.
I just said I won't put my faith in it. I understand your point, but it still wouldn't be good science to accept a theory because of another theory. Those theories tend to explain something simple and unchanging, even though the actual theory may be complex.
I can't say the same for ToE. So I wouldn't compare them. I accept the germ theory and atom theory, but realize they could be wrong. Also again, just because it may or may not be true that germs cause desease, and atoms exist, that its true we evolved.
How can you call yourself a scientist if you think that way.
I understand if you believe in the ToE based on evidence directly supporting the ToE, but not because you think that germs cause desease, and atoms exist.
So it is really a mute point to bring up the germ theory and the atom theory, they have nothing to do with ToE.
The only thing they have in common is that its science. That doesn't make one thing true or untrue.Do you agree?I do not accept the ToE because of the gaps and not my religious convictions, but others non-religious convictions.
However, I remain open minded. I do not think that if the ToE was proven or the gaps were filled that it means there is no God.I guess like jar said that it disproves only a literal translation of Genesis, but Genesis was a dream translated, and not an actual account of what happened.

Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.Yes God favors the meek, but not the dumb. If it is easier to find God because you are dumb, doesn't mean that God favors you, for many dumb people do things that God doesn't approve of.
Its this simplisity that I admire, if you had the ability to turn it on and off, it could work to your advantage when you need it. One day you might get smart enough to realize that.
Ever hear the expression, the more you learn the less you know?
Think there is any truth to that? Its a very common expression that many smart people will learn as they get on in life. Not only find God, but not deal with many complex things in life, and be more carefree. I wasn't specifically talking about God. Smart people tend to over analize things, and make bad decisions based on there over complex analis.Tell me you don't play things out in your head like a chess match sometimes? The more moves you can figure on, the complex you are, and the deeper in do-do you are.Sometimes, this works to your advantage, but sometimes it works against you. Knowing when to humble yourself is a good thing. Um, as you can see, no I didn't.

The theory? No.
It should be taught though. I do not agree with that. Can you prove that is what they want?

If we were doing an experiment on dreams or how I feel when I take a certain medicine, you would have to go by what I told you, thats ok, but not when it comes to religion.The truth is there for you to discover for yourself. It is not limited by the boundries of a "Science experiment"The experience that I get from the Holy Spirit is in my feelings and in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
You have to seek those gifts for yourself.
You probably have experienced them already, but deny them.

*blink* (insert your favorite rhain expression here)I believe I did already.
I summarized about 100 posts ago, don't make me go back, please!

quote:

---

Thats natural selection, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean an ant will become a human j/k

---

You left off the most important part of the issue. This is the second time I have asked you:What is the mechanism by which many of these small changes are prevented from accumulating, over time, into large changes?

quote:

---

Please prove that one.

---

Sure thing:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html

quote:

---

I don't know, I have seen so many different arrangements of the fossil record.
The correct arrangement would show things happening on a time line by date without the actual lines connecting species. That would be truth.

---

What?First you can't explain how the fossil record appears as it does, but then you say that you know the "truth"?What kind of irrational crap is that?

quote:

---

Doesn't matter what I think. It would be incorrect to show that as proven. We have no proof as of yet to those lines between gaps.

---

We do have many fossil examples of many sea animals where the changes are so gradual that nobody can easily draw a line between all the transitional species in the series, yet the difference between the older species and the more modern species is very obvious.We also have the phenomena of ring species, which are geographically adjacent species which can interbreed but the species at the "end points" cannot.Read more here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

quote:

---

I don't have to account for anything,

---

Uh, if you claim that a well-supported scientific theory is wrong, you better believe you have to support it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

quote:

---

I am not claiming anything beyond the truth,

---

...which is what?What is the truth about the amazing congruence between morphological trees of life and genetic trees of life?What do they show?

quote:

---

And if that theory is not proven, then I won't believe in it.

---

NO THEORY IS EVER PROVEN IN SCIENCE.What is the matter with you? Why do you keep repeating that?

quote:

---

Most of what I have seen was in the science books that we learned in school with.

---

Sorry, that's not good enough.Please provide something I can look at myself.

quote:

---

With creationalists on the seen [sic] now, many scientists have made sure that the mistakes aren't printed anymore, because they know the riddicule they will get for posting a map of the fossil record like that these days.

---

A map like what?Show me.

quote:

---

But here are some links showing what I'm talking about:

​

All those pages show lines connecting the gaps.

---

All of those lines show known lineages based upon morphology and stratigraphy.Pick a link and please explain exactly how the lineage is incorrect based upon evidence.

quote:

---

I see no need for an apology.

---

You have made a very serious accusation of fraud on the part of scientists which, unless you can show some evidence to support it, is an incredibly insulting, dishonest, craven thing to do.Support your accusation of fraud or retract it and apologize immediately.

quote:

---

This page shows the difference between a darwin evolutionary time scale and the actual time scale.

---

There are so many distortions, lies, misconceptions, and misrepresentations at that site it is pitiful.They have gotten the basics of the ToE wrong, so why should I trust anything else it says?Here's a doozy:

quote:

---

Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life,

---

This is false.

quote:

---

Cars do not reproduce themselves with DNA, do they, so comparing them to organisms which do is not useful.

---

quote:

---

Cars have a blueprint from which the factory makes them, as do our bodys, our blue print is in our RNA and DNA.

---

But cars do not reproduce, so comparing them with organisms which do is not useful.

quote:

---

Ok, I'm trying to keep up with you here, thanks for taking the time to explain things to me.

---

You are welcome.I hope you take from this that it is not a good idea to reject a scientific theory when you don't know anything about the evidence that supports it.

quote:

---

But, wouldn't it be obvious why the two are so similiar since our genetic code determines how we are constructed?

---

Well, yeah, but remember that the genetic tree of life was constructed much later than the morphological tree of life.The morphological tree of life is based upon common descent with modification, which is another way of saying "evolution."The genetic tree of life was a really major chunk of confirming evidence that evolution happened. If the genetic similarity of species did not in large part match the morphological lines drawn by morphological similarities, it would have been a big falsification to the ToE.

quote:

---

To me it only proves that DNA complexity is in tune with morphological complexity. I would expect that if I was created or I evolved.

---

Why would God create us with broken genes, such as the disabled gene that prevents us from producing Vitamin C inside our own bodies, which only appear in closely related primate species, such as Chimpanzees?

quote:

---

Oh, I don't know, say any species during the cambrian period that we could have evolved from.

---

I still don't really know what you are saking.Why are you asking me what I think the first complex life was?

quote:

---

No, its not science. But I do believe God should be taught in the schools, to at least give kids the knowledge of him, so that they can choose for themselves. To not teach it is like saying he doesn't exist period.

---

No, to not teach it is to not address it at all.Why don't we teach in all US public schools that Krishna, Vishnu, and Lakshmi are real so they can choose for themselves if they want to believe in them.Also, the Goddess, Allah, the Great Spirit, Zeus, Thor, Oden, and Isis need to be included as well.Do you really want the government mandating religious instruction?Are you aware that our Constitution prohibits this?

quote:

---

What I'm saying is seeing how most people don't get it, we have to be careful what we teach them. Most people would just take it as golden.

---

And this is why creationism is so rampant among people with a poor understanding of science. If they think that the sun orbits the earth, how do you expect them to critically examine any scientific theory. This is why popular polls showing that numerous Americans accept creationism is such a poor argument. It is more a reflection of their gullibility than their ability to examine scientific theories.

quote:

---

But that is not true. Jesus taught us exactly how to recieve the Holy Spirit, and have eternal life. It is an experiment that anyone can do, but it requires all of your heart. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, you may feel differently about what you just said.

---

Tried it for the first 22 years of my life. It didn't work. There are many on this site that will tell you the same story. Therefore, it is not objective evidence and it is not repeatable by an objective observer. Hence, it can not be investigated by science. Hence, scientific theories do not include references to the supernatural. Also, have you spent enough time meditating to reach enlightenment through Buddhism? If not, then you might feel differently about what YOU just wrote.At the same time, I am not here to ridicule your faith. Quite the opposite, actually. I hope that your faith stays intact and I also hope to help you understand how science functions and how it is not an attack on your faith. I want science and religion (ie supernatural) to be completely separate as they have been for the last 200 years (or most of that 200 years at least).

quote:

---

Just because its a lot more difficult than spinning something around in a centerfuge, and looking at under a spectrograph, doesn't make it invalid.

---

What does make it invalid as a scientific endeavour is that it is not repeatable by a skeptical observer. Skepticism is the hallmark of science, and to accept what you are putting forth I have to drop all skepticism. This sounds like the opposite of science.

quote:

---

Irregardless of relilgious convictions would elemenate the experimant completely.

---

Exactly. This is why it isn't science. All of science is done in the absence of religious convictions. Including religious convictions would add bias.

piVeRraT Exactly what do you mean by the phrase you'll understand when it happens that leads you to believe it is something other than you finally convincing yourself through a process of self induced brain-washing? I mean, after all 18 years of your life accepting as true starting with god then christ and then the holy spirit is an experience that you seem to feel cannot be otherwise.However,after 18 years of adhering to a set pattern of belief which includes active contemplation and discussion of the holy spirit,{I assume} it is not a stretch to consider with a critical mind that you may have decieved yourself into a conviction of something that perhaps has no basis in reality. So my question is how do you determine that such is not the case?

Phatboy What is the effect that you consider to be real and how does it manifest itself to you? How does spiritual reality differ from material reality that you can explain without deviating into personal opinion?By the way welcome back big guy! Stick around a little more if you are able.

Well, it's taken awhile but I read through everyone of your posts in this thread and I cannot find a single place where you stated how the TOE is like a religion.You keep saying some people treat it as though it is, which has nothing to do with the TOE, and that it could be used to replace GOD, which has nothing to do with the TOE, and other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the question, but I could not find any place where you show the TOE has any of the characteristics of a religion.If you have done so and I am mistaken (it happens), just relist the characteristics or the link to the message and we can head back towards the topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion