Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 111 of 111
  1. #101
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    Sigfried,

    Just for the sake of accuracy, please provide the experiments and consistencies of Carbon Dating. A link to an actual experiment would be nice, rather than simply a news article. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, provide some of these failings that carbon dating "had" and the discoveries telling us 'why precisely it does.'
    Its a long read but...
    http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

    One of its sources
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../345405a0.html

    Uranium–thorium ages obtained by mass spectrometry from corals raised off the island of Barbados confirm the high precision of this technique over at least the past 30,000 years. Comparison of the U–Th ages with 14C ages obtained on the Holocene samples shows that the U–Th ages are accurate, because they accord with the dendrochronological calibration. Before 9,000 yr BP the 14C ages are systematically younger than the U–Th ages, with a maximum difference of 3,500 yr at 20,000 yrBP . The U–Th technique thus provides a way of calibrating the radiocarbon timescale beyond the range of dendrochronological calibration.

    Essentially they do experiments by taking the known age of various things via other means and correlating it to the results of the dating techniques. This helps verify the science. The measurement itself, radioactive decay, is somewhat foolproof. Its a measurement that has proven incredibly consistent. what is tricky is getting consistent samples of it as many things can alter how much material is in a given substance, when it was picked up and how. That is where the correlation and experimentation comes in.

  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    Well, I guess if you assume it is random, then it cannot be guided by God, though it doesn't discredit his creating it. However, if you assume that God guided evolution, evolution is not random. Interesting how our assumptions influence our conclusions to such great extents. *Sarcasm*
    Yes, you did point that our in post #72. You supplied one link to support this claim. (Officially, according to ODN policy, I shouldn't have to open any link. You should have copied the portion that you wished me to read in your post, but your new so I won't hold it against you.) This link referenced an article about a book. This article was one paragraph long and presented no arguments, but rather simply a summary. Thus the link did not back up your claims at all. Thus you have made a claim and have failed to provide proof. (This also is not allowed by ODN policy.) So, you have made a claim, but, seeing as you have not provided any evidence, I have chosen to discount it. If you would like me to reconsider this assertion, please provide proof.
    I do consider myself to be a Christian. All the theories that I presented are believed by Christians, thus I am confused as to why you have referenced this point.
    I'm sorry, but I did not know you were making this claim in this thread. Thank you for informing me. I will now expect a proof for this as well.

    The error in this is in points 3 and 4. You make several assumptions here:
    1) A perfect being must create perfect creations.
    2) Our understanding of the concept of "perfect" is perfect.
    3) Our observations of the universe are sufficient to determine whether the universe is perfect or not.

    Please provide proof for each of these assumptions.

    I'm sorry, but I am unconvinced by this. First of all, if God is an omni-omni being, he could hide his very existence from the universe, or create the universe so that no being had the ability to comprehend any evidence for his existence. This objection alone discredits this proof, but I must continue.

    You say that there is no objective evidence for the existence of God. You offer no backing for this claim. Secondly, you do not give criteria for what form this objective evidence would look like. Thirdly, in order to make a claim that is an absolute negative, you must prove that in every case possible, no exception to this absolute negative can exist. To make such a claim means that you either are using purely logic not derived from observation, or you claim that you have universal observation skills, in which case you are making the claim that you are omni-observant.

    I believe I have given you enough to think about and to defend, so I will end with your proofs here.
    I'm sorry that you have had such a bad experience. Please don't bring it to debate. I have not used this argument, so to use it is superfluous.
    SavedByGrace,

    First - I am not required to dis-prove Gods existence...I was merely answering you questions from post #77. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - I never claimed that NO god exists - just that the Judeo-Christian God defined in the Protestant Bible can be tested for by science and can be falsified.

    I tried to verify that you are Christian because I am using the Christian God in my arguments. Just trying to validate an assumption

    As to logical proofs - did you actually read what I wrote? I said I believe that they are useless in a debate. You kept referring to formal logic - so I provided 2 examples. Nothing more - you demonstrated by point perfectly about evading (not in a bad way) the conclusion by relaxing the premise or changing definitions

    If you believe that objective evidence exists- YOU need to provide it - I cannot produce something I cannot find. And again - did you actually read what I wrote? I did not include ALL possible gods in my post - I clearly stated that I was referring to the Judeo-Christian God as defined by the Bible.

    Here are 2 types of evidence I would expect from the God defined by the Bible:

    1. Statistical evidence that Christian intercessory prayer actually works.
    2. Empirical evidence of a 'miracle' occurring that violates one or more laws of nature.

    And what bad experience are you referring to? And where did I say you used that argument? I stated no such thing...

    Your reply had more than a tinge of incoherence to them - making it difficult to decipher your arguments. And actually, you have left me confused as to your points (except - I believe in God) and have demonstrated nothing I need to defend.
    *zip*

  3. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker
    First - I am not required to dis-prove Gods existence
    No, you don't have to prove (proving a negative is the same thing as to 'dis-prove') anything. However, if you make a claim, you must then prove your claim. You made this claim:
    My point is that if you falsify the existence of the god in the first place - falsifying any idea about what he/she created is ludicrous.
    This argument hinges on the claim that God does not exist. Thus to use this argument in effective debate you must a) prove the hinge point of your argument, in this case the non-existence of God, or b) admit that 'if' God does not exist, then... but not use it as a conclusive argument, but rather a possible scenario.

    For instance, if I were to say, "If there were no fish in the lake, I could catch no fish." This means that, in order to prove I cannot catch fish, I must first prove that there are no fish in the lake (if I choose to use this argument). Or I could simply use it as an argument, but not a conclusive argument, since the premise is unproven and thus the conclusion is unproven.

    So, if you choose to use the above argument, you must prove your premise.
    I was merely answering you questions from post #77
    Actually, you didn't. I will quote the questions that I raised:
    Quote Originally Posted by Post #72
    Were you or were you not saying that it is untestable?
    You said very specifically that it was unverifiable and unobservable, both of which are necessities for science to be a useful tool. Do you agree with this or not?
    Is the statement "God created..." testable by science?
    Those were my questions and you answered none of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker
    The burden of proof lies with the claimant - I never claimed that NO god exists - just that the Judeo-Christian God defined in the Protestant Bible can be tested for by science and can be falsified.
    In fact, no. I questioned a very specific point that started our discussion. Let me quote you from post #64:
    Quote Originally Posted by #64
    The evidential claim 'God did it' is both unobservable and unverifiable by experiment - excluding it as valid evidence in a scientific context.
    That is what you claimed, and it is that which I questioned, and that is why I specifically asked particular questions in Post #77, because that was the particular point I was addressing. However, since we have been debating, you have made another claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by #99
    My point is that if you falsify the existence of the god in the first place - falsifying any idea about what he/she created is ludicrous.
    You made the claim that "If you falsify the existence of god..." This means that you are claiming that the existence of God has been falsified, which is the point I brought up earlier in this post. You have made a claim. Back it up.

    And, as for what you say you claimed (which is the first thing I quoted from post #64), I have asked specific questions to which you have not responded. You said that the Christian God can be tested by science. Thus I asked my questions in Post #77. Please respond to these questions. If you wish to retract your other claim, by all means, do so. But if you are going to stick by your claim as to the non-existence of God, then back it up.
    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker
    I tried to verify that you are Christian because I am using the Christian God in my arguments. Just trying to validate an assumption.
    And what influence does this have over the discussion? I could be an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu and ask the same questions about your claims in regard to the Christian God. My personal beliefs have no play in this debate since I am asking you to defend your claims, not making my own.
    As to logical proofs - did you actually read what I wrote? I said I believe that they are useless in a debate.
    Yes I read what you wrote. Let me quote you:
    Quote Originally Posted by #99
    As to logical proofs - here are 2 short logical proofs for the non-existence of God - there are many, many others. And I actually think these types of formal logical statements are a waste of time - but here we go:
    You said, "I... think these types of... statements are a waste of time - but here we go..." You presented them for some reason other than pointing out how useless they were. Why did you present these if not to back up your claim in the previous sentence?
    Quote Originally Posted by #99
    My point is that if you falsify the existence of the god in the first place - falsifying any idea about what he/she created is ludicrous. A non-existent being cannot 'create' anything.
    That is why I assumed you posted the proofs: to back up your claim. Why else did you post the proofs?
    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker
    If you believe that objective evidence exists- YOU need to provide it
    I have made no claim that such evidence exists. You have made the claim that he is observable and thus falsifiable, have you not? You must back up this claim.
    Here are 2 types of evidence I would expect from the God defined by the Bible:

    1. Statistical evidence that Christian intercessory prayer actually works.
    2. Empirical evidence of a 'miracle' occurring that violates one or more laws of nature.
    We are not discussing the existence of God. We are addressing your two claims which you have made. I am not even claiming that God exists. I am simply questioning your claims.
    And what bad experience are you referring to? And where did I say you used that argument? I stated no such thing...
    Look what I quoted. You stated what "most Christians say." What most Christians say is completely beside the point of you backing up your claims. Thus I made a point of pointing out that bringing this experience of your to the table is pointless.
    Your reply had more than a tinge of incoherence to them - making it difficult to decipher your arguments. And actually, you have left me confused as to your points (except - I believe in God) and have demonstrated nothing I need to defend.
    I'm not making points. I'm asking you to defend yours. If you like, I can start over again and re-quote the original statement I had a problem with and you can defend it. If you wish to do that, please don't respond to the above, and simply indicate you wish to start from the beginning again. I would be more than happy to simply start over.

    ---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Quote Originally Posted by ODN Rules
    Quoting External Sources
    You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."
    Please post that which you wish me to read, seeing as it is a lengthy article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    One of its sources
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../345405a0.html
    Uranium–thorium ages obtained by mass spectrometry from corals raised off the island of Barbados confirm the high precision of this technique over at least the past 30,000 years. Comparison of the U–Th ages with 14C ages obtained on the Holocene samples shows that the U–Th ages are accurate, because they accord with the dendrochronological calibration. Before 9,000 yr BP the 14C ages are systematically younger than the U–Th ages, with a maximum difference of 3,500 yr at 20,000 yrBP . The U–Th technique thus provides a way of calibrating the radiocarbon timescale beyond the range of dendrochronological calibration.
    Thank you for quoting the specific text. However, this proves nothing to me. You made the claim:
    Quote Originally Posted by #78
    Carbon dating has been shown to be consistent over and over, as has the speed of light, as has most of the other principles it is based on. Indeed whenever carbon dating fails, we always have discovered why precisely it does.
    Now, it could be that I'm simply an idiot and don't grasp what your link is saying, but I don't see how it demonstrates your point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Essentially they do experiments by taking the known age of various things via other means and correlating it to the results of the dating techniques.
    But the known age of anything would be less than a couple thousand years. Thus by taking correlating carbon tests of these substances, we know that they are accurate for a couple thousand years back. This gives us no indication of the accuracy of dating things older than a couple thousand years.
    The measurement itself, radioactive decay, is somewhat foolproof. Its a measurement that has proven incredibly consistent.
    Consistent over the last thousand years, perhaps. There is not way to test its consistency beyond that.
    what is tricky is getting consistent samples of it as many things can alter how much material is in a given substance, when it was picked up and how. That is where the correlation and experimentation comes in.
    In other words, even for the tests in regard to present known values, it is still difficult to get accurate readings.

    Thank you for providing links, but I'm sorry to say that they did not offer me any knew information, or confirmation. Perhaps its because I'm so dense, but I doubt it.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  4. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    SavedByGrace - my apologies fro being away - very busy now with work and football. I would like to continue - but it will a a day or two before I have the time.

    Thanks,

    Brad
    *zip*

  5. #105
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    Please post that which you wish me to read, seeing as it is a lengthy article.
    It is far too technical to and makes not conclusionary statements. It details the mathematics and science behind radioactive decay dating techniques. Scientists have a "bad" habit of not leaving good quotes in their study articles to avoid making generalizations.

    I know the rules but there are limitations to my abilities, if you find it unconvincing that is fine.

    Now, it could be that I'm simply an idiot and don't grasp what your link is saying, but I don't see how it demonstrates your point.
    Like I said, there weren't any solid quotes like "Carbon dating is 100% accurate!" Its all explaining how it works and why it works which is a complicated business.

    The quote notes that a particular technique was verified by using the shells of exceedingly long lived creatures to verify its accuracy.

    But the known age of anything would be less than a couple thousand years. Thus by taking correlating carbon tests of these substances, we know that they are accurate for a couple thousand years back. This gives us no indication of the accuracy of dating things older than a couple thousand years.
    The article explains the science. The thing they are measuring, radioactive decay, has been shown mathematicaly to be tied to the speed of light, which according to astronomical observations does not vary over millions of years. It is in fact the most accurate measure of time we have. If it works for 100 years it will work for 100 million years according to the science and mathematics.

    In other words, even for the tests in regard to present known values, it is still difficult to get accurate readings.
    Difficult but not impossible or inaccurate.

    Thank you for providing links, but I'm sorry to say that they did not offer me any knew information, or confirmation. Perhaps its because I'm so dense, but I doubt it.
    Its not that, its just difficult to find a kind of clear declaration and have it be from a scientific study and not an article. Science studies are not written with clear quotable summations of their findings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
    lets try Wikipedia as its written to consolidate information

    The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 2–5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]

    This speaks to carbon dating
    The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon–14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon–14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.
    The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating has not been established. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.[9]
    So the thing of it is, depending on how old you think something is, you need to choose the proper isotope to test with. You also need to take into account what you think the background level and source of this material is. By taking multiple samples and doing various tests you can work to eliminate these variables and accurately (within a margin of error) hone in on the age of something.

    The reason we know it works is we can do it with items of which we know the age due to another circumstance (rings in a tree or shell or the ice cores in the antarctic) and then use the tests to see if they match up. Just like you can check a ruler against a known distance before using it to measure something else.

  6. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post


    The article explains the science. The thing they are measuring, radioactive decay, has been shown mathematicaly to be tied to the speed of light, which according to astronomical observations does not vary over millions of years. It is in fact the most accurate measure of time we have. If it works for 100 years it will work for 100 million years according to the science and mathematics.

    But do you know with 100% certainty that the speed of light has always been constant?

    There are some scientists who propose otherwise.

    Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  7. #107
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    I have seen the claim that one needs 'faith' to believe in evolution on a couple of different threads here. I couldn't disagree more and would like to find out why theists believe this.

    My premise is that it requires NO faith to believe in evolution.

    Faith:

    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.

    source

    I cannot find any logical reason where belief in evolution requires any of the above definitions of faith (with the possible exception of #6 - and I contend that # 6 would require one to have faith in 'everything').

    The theory of evolution has multiple lines of evidence from many different scientific disciplines. To accept evolution requires critical examination of the evidence free of bias (as much as possible) - not faith.

    Clarification. Clive and eliotitus made excellent points about the OP and I will try to clarify a bit here.

    When I refer to faith I mean it in the sense implied by definition #2 above. Belief despite the lack of material evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

    I define material evidence as:

    1. The repeatable and verifiable results of an experiment
    2. A repeatable and consistent observation of nature
    3. A logically consistent hypotheses that accounts for all the data, makes testable predictions and provides a method of falsification.

    Thanks!


    People have attempted to equate the axioms made in science (falsifiability, logical coherency, empiricism, et cetera) to the axioms made in Christianity (theism, trinitarianism, Biblical ethics, etc), and that in the same sense, they're "faith."


    Truthfully, I find the notion to be ridiculous. No one uses the words "faith" for a belief that medicine will work or that when they jump up in the air, they won't fly off to Mars because gravity is just a "theory" which requires "faith." It's absurd.

  8. #108
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    I think I disagree with the entirity of this thread. One major problem is evolution assumes that after the big bang, stars and planets evolved then life came to be, and that life also had a mate, this life form contnued to add information to its DNA and then comes the theory of biological evolution. This biological evolution assumes the massive leaps from lower life forms to higgher life forms. Yes I believe there is quite a bit of faith involved in all stages of the theory.

    I accept the theory of evolution as it stands today whereas a change in allele frequencies over time and a gradual change in species, only from a loss of information, not from a gain. I understand through study that mutations are never positive and always bad. Adaptation is helpful.

    Couldn't a Christian merely say they don't need faith either, since they have the Bible and the manuscript evidence of this which ensures the validity of their faith and god?

  9. #109
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    I think I disagree with the entirity of this thread. One major problem is evolution assumes that after the big bang, stars and planets evolved then life came to be, and that life also had a mate, this life form contnued to add information to its DNA and then comes the theory of biological evolution. This biological evolution assumes the massive leaps from lower life forms to higgher life forms. Yes I believe there is quite a bit of faith involved in all stages of the theory.
    It does not assume any massive leaps from lower forms to higher forms. It relies on gradual change; change that isn't assumed but observed in populations of organisms; both living and historical.

    I accept the theory of evolution as it stands today whereas a change in allele frequencies over time and a gradual change in species, only from a loss of information, not from a gain. I understand through study that mutations are never positive and always bad. Adaptation is helpful.
    No you don't. You don't accept it because you don't seem to understand it. You're misrepresenting it. And you're contradicting yourself.

    First, if you accept change "within species" then you necessarily accept change "between species". If you accept gradual change then you also have to accept that given more time there is more change. A 1 milimeter change (in length, for this example) in 100 years is gradual change indeed. Give it 1 million years and the change would be from 1 milmeter to 1 KILOMETER! Of course we don't have that in the real world but this is just an example of how gradual change can lead to drastic change over time.

    If you don't accept that mutations can be positive then you don't even accept evolution "within a species". You're just contradicting yourself. Many experiments have been conducted over the last century (on bacteria as well as on populations of fish) to show that mutations can be very positive indeed. You say that you've learned from study that they can't. May I ask you to quote these studies?

    Your claim that mutation can't add information is equally flawed. Down Syndrome is the obvious example.


    Couldn't a Christian merely say they don't need faith either, since they have the Bible and the manuscript evidence of this which ensures the validity of their faith and god?
    Of course a Christian can say that. Many do. Muslims also say similar things. As the Ancient Greeks no doubt did too about their own beliefs. The Bible is not the only written account that contains a self-serving claim of having a divine message. Not by far.

    But the Christian who makes this claim also faces another problem; he still relies on faith, and very much of it. He puts his faith in the belief that the Bible is divine work and that it's true. That's a very significant leap of faith.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  10. #110
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    It does not assume any massive leaps from lower forms to higher forms. It relies on gradual change; change that isn't assumed but observed in populations of organisms; both living and historical.
    evolution of stars from type 1 to type 3 and into planets is a pretty massive leap and certainly a bold claim, which is why the theory is relegated to strictly biological evolution and takes all this for granted that it happpened because of course it must have since we exist, how else could it have happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    No you don't. You don't accept it because you don't seem to understand it. You're misrepresenting it. And you're contradicting yourself.

    First, if you accept change "within species" then you necessarily accept change "between species". If you accept gradual change then you also have to accept that given more time there is more change. A 1 milimeter change (in length, for this example) in 100 years is gradual change indeed. Give it 1 million years and the change would be from 1 milmeter to 1 KILOMETER! Of course we don't have that in the real world but this is just an example of how gradual change can lead to drastic change over time.

    If you don't accept that mutations can be positive then you don't even accept evolution "within a species". You're just contradicting yourself. Many experiments have been conducted over the last century (on bacteria as well as on populations of fish) to show that mutations can be very positive indeed. You say that you've learned from study that they can't. May I ask you to quote these studies?
    oops my mistake, I wasn't intending on misrepresenting your doctrine. Care to clarify it for me a bit more so it won't happen again. Maybe start with an example of something that added information instead of a loss of it. Also I believe I'm not quite clear on your use of distance as an example for evolution creating new species families and orders. The ocean makes waves and those waves hit the shoreline, but it doesn't really go beyond the shore. a darwins fince may alter their beak a abit bit its still a finch, a fruit fly may grow four wings but then it lacks the muscles to operate those wings. Very serious problems. Perhaps you can help me out a bit?

    Your claim that mutation can't add information is equally flawed. Down Syndrome is the obvious example.
    yes very funny joke. But a joke still nonetheless.


    Of course a Christian can say that. Many do. Muslims also say similar things. As the Ancient Greeks no doubt did too about their own beliefs. The Bible is not the only written account that contains a self-serving claim of having a divine message. Not by far.

    But the Christian who makes this claim also faces another problem; he still relies on faith, and very much of it. He puts his faith in the belief that the Bible is divine work and that it's true. That's a very significant leap of faith.
    Difference is you can and do say the very same thing only concerning your worldview or doctrine of faith. Unfortunately you will also have a hard time proving the validity of your view to an unbeliever.

  11. #111
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    evolution of stars from type 1 to type 3 and into planets is a pretty massive leap and certainly a bold claim, which is why the theory is relegated to strictly biological evolution and takes all this for granted that it happpened because of course it must have since we exist, how else could it have happened.
    What do you mean "the theory" is relegated to strictly biological evolution? This thread is about Darwinian evolution. It's about natural selection. It's not about stars and planets and it never was. Darwin never concerned himself with stars and planets. Sure, some have tried to EXTRAPOLATE (the opposite of relegation in this case) natural selection further. But that's a different story. Your first post in this thread was also concerned with biological evolution. Please don't confuse matters.

    oops my mistake, I wasn't intending on misrepresenting your doctrine. Care to clarify it for me a bit more so it won't happen again. Maybe start with an example of something that added information instead of a loss of it.
    Down Syndrome involves an extra 21st chromosome or pair of. The chromosome contains approximately 300-400 genes.

    Also I believe I'm not quite clear on your use of distance as an example for evolution creating new species families and orders. The ocean makes waves and those waves hit the shoreline, but it doesn't really go beyond the shore. a darwins fince may alter their beak a abit bit its still a finch, a fruit fly may grow four wings but then it lacks the muscles to operate those wings. Very serious problems. Perhaps you can help me out a bit?
    My example of distance was to demonstrate to you that if you accept small gradual changes, you will have to also accept HUGE changes, given enough time.

    If you isolate a population of finches from all other finches then beak length will not be the only trait that will change. There will be gradual changes of many different parts of the organism. My understanding was that you understood this concept and that it didn't present you with any problems.

    A perfect example of speciation (in today's world) are ring species. A ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed. (wiki). At this point, they are no longer considered the same species.

    Contemporary examples of ring species are found in some seagulls, warmblers and salamanders (Ibid).

    You have asked a good question about muscles and wings. This causes you a problem because you don't sufficiently understand the genetic processes involved. Your DNA is NOT a blueprint. It does NOT have a gene to represent every single cell of your body separately. Rather, it's more like a recipe; it provides instructions on how your body is to be built. This is why your body is largely symmetrical, for example. This is also why sometimes a person is born with an extra finger. That arises from a mutation (albeit not necessarily a very recent one). But it's not as though a new finger has evolved bit by bit. Think about it in terms of computer program. There is a procedure (a sub-routine) on how to build a finger. That subroutine is invoked whenever there is a call for it in some other sub-routine of the program. If you were to call this subroutine in the part of the program that tells us how to grow the knee, you'd end up with a whole finger on the knee. Extra wings can mutate in very much the same way, complete with muscles and nerves; just like the extra finger.

    But that's not the only way they can arise. They can also arise by the organism comandeering another part of the body, one that has previously performed a different function.

    I would recommend some Dawkins. But not one of the "offensive" anti-theist books. He writes very good books on evolution. I'd recommend Climbing Mount Improbable or The Ancestor's Tale.

    It's important that you understand what you're arguing against before you make such bold claims


    yes very funny joke. But a joke still nonetheless.
    It's not. You asked a question and it was answered. Down Syndrome involves additional information; an entire chromosome of it.


    Difference is you can and do say the very same thing only concerning your worldview or doctrine of faith. Unfortunately you will also have a hard time proving the validity of your view to an unbeliever.
    Only if the "unbeliever" is insisting on closing his eyes and blocking his ears and refusing to accept tonnes and tonnes of evidence. We have the fossil record, corroborated by DNA studies, corroborated by phenotype studies, corroborated by bacterial studies and fish studies (contemporary experiments in evolution), corroborated by pure logic.

    The basic principle of natural selection is nothing short of obvious. All you need to accept is heredity and the fact that a less adapted organism is less likely to survive and leave offspring (natural selection). The rest is history

    A very good parallel is artificial selection. Over just a few hundred years, humans have (by selective breeding) managed to start off with a single ancestorial species of cabbage (Brassica oleracea) and evolved it into as varied varieties as: broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, brussels, romanescu and all the other things that are still in fact called cabbage. This was done artificially, true. It was human choice that resulted in this. But whether it's the human or nature (natural selection; better adapted means leaving more offspring!) is of little consequence. There will arguably be a difference in terms of timeframes involved.

    Sure, I place faith in logic, repeatable and verifiable experimentation and observation. But without accepting logic and observation you can't even claim that the Bible exists, let alone claim that it is the word of a deity simply because it claims to be.

    On top of this, you have thousands of competing claims about thousands of competing religious beliefs about thousands of competing deities; and not a single bit of reliable evidence for any of them. How you manage to choose one over another is beyond me. But I guess that's faith.
    Last edited by Allocutus; October 17th, 2009 at 04:22 AM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 09:06 AM
  2. Pope St. Victor
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 24th, 2006, 02:38 PM
  3. Galendir is Wrong!
    By PerVirtuous in forum General Debate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 18th, 2006, 04:02 AM
  4. Criteria to get into Heaven.
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: October 13th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •