Reply to recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP, evolution is not the study of all life coming from a single-called organism.  If you are truly interested in this, and not just trolling, start here:

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Chromosome_2_in_humans[/url].

Then read some of the reference articles linked at the end (the one about speciation w/in drosophila is a good one).  These can explain it much better than anyone on DCUM, and in truth, it's a very complex theory that not everyone understands/can grasp.  If you are waiting for someone to come along and agree with you that you can't reproduce the lineage/all the steps that went into getting to a dog, well, let me be that person.  But I think you are being somewhat disingenuous (or perhaps just one of those people who has trouble grasping complex theories-it does seem that way from your replies attempting to reduce evolution down to 1 single repeatable experiment) to conclude that just because we can't actually observe species changing over millions of years makes it false.

If I were to ask where the hard proof is that God created every single specie on earth, what would be your answer?  Or if I asked why he's not creating a new Earth every generation or so for us to observe him repeating his past deed...how can you explain/prove that?[/quote]
Thank you. I admit I'm not a biological scientist, and I doubt many on here are. So the point is that lots of different organisms occurred spontaneously, and from those different species evolved independently? I think either way, my point hasn't been addressed. I'm not saying, nor have I said, that not being able to reproduce it makes it false. I'm saying I don't see how it is "science" if you can't test it in the way you test other sciences. I'm not saying you have hard proof that God created everything either, and whether I believe that or not, we haven't addressed how evolution is "science." It's theory, in the same way the Big Bang is a theory. There are a lot of "somehow" involved, none of which you can test. My questions have nothing to do with science vs. religion. You can prove if I throw a ball in the air, it will come down, and you can explain scientifically why. You can't prove that 13 billion years ago an infinitesimal point of light that contained all the matter in the universe and exploded into what we have today, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. And you can't prove that all life on earth today came from however many life forms that spontaneously arose from the beginnings of the planet, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. Indeed, there ARE repeatable, provable, testable experiments that you can't get matter from nothing and that life won't spontaneously erupt and that when a species reproduces it gets more of that species. So I'm just don't know why so many people call evolution and the Big Bang "science." (Sorry to introduce the Big Bang; I'm not trying muddy the waters or expand this into a religious thing. They just seem very alike to me as theories). [/quote]

It seems like you're looking at everything in isolation. The thing about science is that everything is related. Biology involves chemistry and physics, so any hypothesis proposed in biology must not only be consistent with the rest of the general understanding of biology, it must be consistent with chemistry and physics, as well. The "bigger" your hypothesis (i.e., the more it challenges the current understanding), the more things it has to explain.

When we use the Theory of Evolution to make predictions, those predictions must be consistent with our understandings of biology, chemistry, physics, geology and other disciplines, as well.

Going to your example of the Big Bang, you're right, no one was there to watch it happen, so we can't say with absolute certainty exactly what happened at that instant. But you have to look at things beyond that. There are two major possibilities (1) the static Universe (it's always been here and isn't changing) and (2) the expanding Universe. We've confirmed through observation that the Universe is expanding uniformly in all directions as far as we can tell. So, any hypothesis about the origin of the Universe has to account for those observations. If the Universe was static at some point, what could've caused it to suddenly start expanding? We have nothing that could explain such a major change in the nature of the Universe. On the other hand, if we rewind the tape from the current expansion, that implies that it all started from a point and has been moving outwards from that.

So, what we can do is say, "Ok, if there WERE a Big Bang, what evidence might we see now that it happened?" One of the predictions coming out of that questions was a concept called the 3-degree background.  Basically, if the whole Universe start as a point explosion of energy, then we should be able to "see" heat remaining from that explosion even though the Universe has been cooling down for billions of years, and it should be the same in every direction we look because the whole Universe expanded from that single explosion. The 3-degree background was observed in 1964.

The Big Bang explanation is consistent with all of the evidence that we've observed so far, and is consistent with other scientific disciplines. We still don't know what triggered it (although there are hypotheses), and we don't know if it was a unique event or if there are other universes out there in a meta-space (there are actually experiments going to attempt to detect them).

Going back to the Theory of Evolution, it's the best, most successful model we have to explain how things happened. No scientist will claim that a theory represents a proof in the mathematical sense. It's the best explanation we have that fits all of the evidence we've collected so far. If new evidence is found that contradicts the explanation provided by the theory, then the theory must be revised to account for the new evidence.

The Theory of Evolution is consistent with the fossil record, the geological record, our understandings of DNA and genetics, chemistry and physics. If it were completely wrong, much of the science we use on an everyday basis would have to be wrong in some major way. As I noted in my post about predictions, there have been many predictions where people have said either "If we don't find [x], that will be a problem for the theory," or "If we find [y], that would be a major problem for the theory." The Theory of Evolution has withstood all of those potential falsification factors.  
   [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics