Creation, Evolution, and faith

Darwin based his theory on the following observations. Please tell me which ones you think lack evidential support:Organisms compete for scarce resources.Organisms produce more offspring than can survive to maturity to reproduce.Some offspring will be better suited to compete for the scarce resources than others.Those better suited to compete will be more likely to produce more offspring of their own than the others.The subsequent generation will be more likely to have more characteristics of those better suited to compete than of those less well suited.This cycle will repeat from each generation to the next.Where do you and Charles Darwin part ways, Flyer?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No. That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. As others have mentioned, the ToE describes how life changes after its inception; it says nothing about how life began, and even less about the origin of matter. Think of it this way. There is a science of ballistics that talks about how objects behave in flight. If a physicist is studying how a bullet travels through the air, he needs to know its speed, its trajectory, its shape, wind speed, etc., but he doesn't need to know what factory produced the bullet. It's the same with the ToE. It describes how life changes without even considering how it began. It began sometime, and has changed.I think a big part of the reason why creationists refuse to accept this dichotomy, and insist on lumping it all together is because creationists perceive it all to be a challenge to the bible, so they need to undermine it all. It's all of a piece to creationism. But to science, they're very different questions, answered by very different fields of inquiry. So, while you may continue to try to conflate the two, scientists will continue to point out that they are not the same thing. First, a note on terminology. Nothing is proven in science. Nothing. All of science is tentative, subject to revision in the light of new evidence or a new interpretation of old evidence. Proof is for math and logic, not science.To address your question about what evidence is there about the origin of matter, I don't know. It's not a field I studied much and what little study I did do was a long time ago. Perhaps another here can answer that question, but it's really properly a subject for another thread.I can tell you this much as the topic relates to your general theme of faith. The origin of the universe is a subject that is being pursued by scientists. And I am quite confident that any answers, theories or hypothesis put forward will be based on available evidence together with conclusions that can be confidently made from that evidence.Creationists love to accuse scientists of basing their findings on faith, or skewing their conclusions based on their own presuppositions, but I've yet to see a single creationist actually support those claims with evidence. In fact, any scientist who actually did that would be extraordinarily unsuccessful in the field and rather quickly exposed by other scientists. You see, scientists are much like real people. They want to succeed in life. And there is no better way to succeed in the field of science than overthrowing a generally accepted paradigm. Einstein is famous, not just because of the Theory of Relativity, but specifically because the ToR supplanted one of the most spectacularly successful theories in all of science, Newtonian mechanics.If there truly was another theory that fit the evidence better than the ToE, or even as good as it, the developer of that theory would win the Nobel Prize.Scientists spend incredible amounts of time trying to disprove the theories of other scientists. This is necessary, because a scientific theory cannot be proven to be true. The most that we can say about any theory is that it hasn't been disproven and has survived all attacks against it. Obviously, the more vigorously and completely it is attacked, the stronger it becomes, and the stronger the inference that it accurately describes reality.You talk about scientists taking things on faith. To the extent that this is true, it is simply that scientists can't start from scratch in everything they wish to investigate. So, they rely on the accuracy what previous generations have established. But even this does not equate to taking the prior findings on faith. Instead, it means having faith in the ability of the scientific method to produce findings that can be relied upon; faith that prior hypotheses have been repeatedly tested and independently examined by other scientists in the field and found to be of value.But even this faith is not absolute. Even well-established theories are being challenged and tested with new evidence and new theories. Darwin's theory, for all its success, has been modified over the years by new ideas that subsequent scientists had. And it will continue to be challenged and tested by future generations. That's just what science does.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The impression I get from you is that you are truly interested in learning about evolution. Yet your OP reads like a classic creationist screed. Pardon me if I presume too much, but I've met many truly intelligent and inquisitive people with a seriously misguided understanding of what evolution and science are really all about because the information they have all came from creationist or creationist friendly sources. If this is case for you, I urge you to continue asking questions as you have been. This site is an excellent resource for truly curious people.You may occasionally come across people who seem rather short with these kinds of questions. We've all been here long enough to have seen dozens of creationists come through asking questions that they think will bring evolution crashing to the ground. They're not here to discuss, they don't listen to anyone else and they think they already know it all. Sometimes these people are hard to distinguish from those actually searching for answers. But if you really want accurate answers to the questions you may have, you will find most people here are quite eager to help.Good luck in your search.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I fear my response might trigger another tangent about the difference between faith and evidence based conclusions, but so be it.The presuppositions of science are not something that someone just arbitrarily set down and now the rest of science simply blindly follows along. The presuppositions of science evolved over hundreds of years. What's more, they have provided a proven method for arriving at accurate and useful conclusions about the world. Science has made tremendous strides in just the last 100 years in terms of our understanding of the world and our ability to control our environments. Thus, my point is that the presuppositions that underlay science are not accepted on faith, but on a solid base of evidence establishing that they work. They are not infallible, of course, but they are remarkably useful.The only real sense in which anyone can argue with any force that they are based on faith is the idea that they will continue to work in the future. Of that belief, of course, there can be no proof. And if all you wanted to say was that our belief that the scientific method will continue to be useful in learning about the world is based on faith that the future will be like the past, I must agree. On the other hand, what other rational conclusion about the past can one come to?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, this philosopher of science views it exactly that way. I'm confused. You seemed to agree that the evidence we have of the efficacy of the scientific method provides pragmatic evidence for its worth, yet you insist on describing our use of it as based on faith. Could you explain this inconsistency?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I don't want to get into the details of any particular radiometric dating method; there are others here much more well-versed in them than I am. However, I do want to make two general points about your suggestion that they could have been different in the past.In the thread Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, RAZD makes the point that multiple independent methods of dating come up with the same results. In other words, they corroborate one another. Thus, scientists do not merely assume that things were the same in the past, there is substantial evidence that they were.If conditions were different in the past such that processes operated differently, any changes you want to hypothesize would have had to be such that multiple different methods of analysis would yield the same result. Thus, for your assumption to hold water, you would have to assume that many different laws of physics and chemistry changed in some sort of synchronized manner. This, of course, in the face of the fact that there is no actual evidence that any of them changed.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm not sure why you insist on equating "faith" with the kind of conclusions that scientists come to, unless it's to either elevate the beliefs of religion or denigrate the conclusions of science, but you're attempting a not particularly elegant redefinition.The definitions from Webster that you quoted in Message 88 all contain an element of reliance on authority that you keep parsing out when you quote them. This is a crucial difference, although not the only difference, between religious and scientific beliefs. In most religions, truth is found in an authoritative writing. It's true because the bible/koran/bagavad gita/golden tablets says so. Nothing in science is true just because someone said so.The reason you see no inconsistency is because you are equating the conclusions of science with the conclusions of religion. Yes, both are based on some kind of evidence, but the nature of the evidence that they two rely on is altogether different.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Just curious, do you put me in the ranks of the "blind faith" proponents, as you describe them?I think I provided a fairly clear description of the nature of "evidence" that religion relies on: Let me expand on that a bit. Science relies on objective evidence that any other person can look at and verify. There is no need to trust what anyone else says about the evidence. You don't need faith in those collecting the evidence. If I don't believe what someone says about their evidence, I can look at it for myself, as can anyone else. As long as I can trust what my senses show me, I can see the evidence myself.What's more, scientific hypotheses are subject to the acid test: do they work? Science produces results, science does things. What science has accomplished is further objective evidence in support of science.Religion relies on authority. It depends on believing someone else's word. I can't verify anything in the bible by looking at objective evidence. I can't share someone else's feeling of peace upon being filled with the spirit of the lord. Accepting religion requires faith in what others say. Is it based on "evidence?" Yes, in a sense. But it's not based on objective, verifiable evidence. It is based on evidence that must be taken on faith.Science never says, "Believe because I say so." But at bottom, that's all that religion has. That's the difference between faith and evidence.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'd be very interested in hearing what evidence you think exists for religion that isn't subjective.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Because there are parts of the bible, the Noachian Flood for example, that are contradicted by massive amounts of physical evidence showing that it could not have happened without suspension of known physical processes.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And you are ignoring the most compelling reason not the believe the Bible, that several here have mentioned; the mountains of evidence that contradict it.Question: if dubious confirmation of part of it is enough for you to render it all reliable, why isn't concrete refutation of part of it enough to render it all unreliable? Double standard?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And you are ignoring those who point out that it involves only subjective evidence and appeals to authority. So far as I've been able to tell, that's the argument that people are making here, not that there is no evidence.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And you continue to insist that science isn't based on solid evidence.Please, give examples of "holes" that scientists fill with "faith." The closest thing to holes that I can see are unanswered questions that scientists are looking for answers to, answers supported by evidence. If you see that as well, please tell me why that equates to faith for you.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Not only is it not scientific proof, it's not even objective evidence. It's exactly what we've been saying it is all along, an appeal to authority.It also doesn't begin to approach the mountains of objective evidence that there is for the theory of evolution. It's this difference in the type of evidence that evolution and creationism rely on that makes one scientific and one faith reliant.Will you ever address this? If not, what's the point in your being here? This is a debate forum, not an ignore-the-opposition forum.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It will be by a contemporary author, but not a contemporaneous account. And, if you were to do that without citing contemporaneous sources, I suspect it wouldn't be given much serious consideration.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat