You do not have permission to access that part of the site.
What are the empirical data to which evolutionary religions submit?
Discussion Actions
Thank God For Evolution, Facts Are God’s Native Tongue: “Evolutionary religion’s alternative to reliance on ancient scriptures is empirical data. In a way, the data are our scriptures— and to these we submit”.
71 Responses
-
-
Radek, Thank you for your ideas. Ad himinem 1. Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
I consider that the evidence is overwhelming that each species has only its own kind as common ancestors.
I consider that the evidence is overwhelming that there is no alternative theory to explain the observable facts.
If you know of any species that has given rise to another species, please provide for us the empirical data.
-
“If you know of any species that has given rise to another species, please provide for us the empirical data.”
This is called Speciation. There’s lots of good data on the internet about this. I would recommend you Google “Observed Instances of Speciation”
-
Loren, Thank you for your ideas. I was very hopeful of finding new information when I Googled “Observed Instances of Speciation”. There is nothing new there. Hybridzation and changes in chromosome numbers does give the impression that scientists have done a lot of research within their areas of interest. They are calling it speciation and that is OK with me.
Jerry A Coyne was cited for his work on Drysophilus. His book “Why Evolution is True” is part of what I have quoted before. The book is very interesting and updates everthing I learned in high school and at the university.
Remember, after 40,000 generations of E. Coli, the scientists are still working with E. Coli… not a new organism.
The evidence is overwhelming that each species has only its own kind as common ancestors.
-
Well, I think we’ve exhausted this discussion pretty well. It may be time to give it a rest.
If we are to continue, let’s do so under a new discussion that I just created: “Spiritual Implications of Evolution Being True or Not”
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
it’s not empirical, but very insightful. some nifty charts and stuff too.
-
I have found proof that science is against evolution.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm
In his book, “Why Evolution is True”, Jerry A Coyne tells us on page 24 that “Several radio-isotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree”.
Why would a scientist tell us something that is not true?
Evolutionists say that the moon is 4.43 billion years old. Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using different methods. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall into the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years. However, 106 do not show the “correct” age.
Their findings were presented at the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference and the complete proceedings were published in the January 30, 1970, issue of Science… not some crackpot creationist magazine. That was forty years ago and “real scientists” have no excuse for not knowing the truth.
Why don’t more scientists know about the scientific failings of the theory of evolution? Why is it that most people who have a problem with the theory of evolution seem to be Christians? What about the Islamic nations? http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9e.htm .
Maybe we should ask evolutionists why they believe evolution is true. Is it just because they do not believe in religion?
-
Charles,
Let’s clarify some things.
1. Theory of evolution is about the development of life on Earth. Dating the moon has nothing to do with it. If you prove that the Moon was created on the day established by bishop Ussher, this won’t change what we know about evolution of life on earth much at all – if anything.
2. Scientists don’t talk about “truth” they talk about fact and evidence. So Coyne is supposedly talking about what he is convinced of on the basis of evidence available to him.
3. You did not find proof that science is against evolution. The sientific consensus agrees on evolution being an observable fact, just like gravity. Scientists do not have to believe it – they can observe it.
4. It appears that for you to accept evolution, you would have to have 100% absolute proof. 99.99999% is not good enough for you. Fair enough. However, I would expect you to demand the same kind of proof for ID or creationism – and there is nothing nowhere near this figure. Your favouring creationism over evolution seems a tad hypocritical then, or at least grossly biased.
5. Most people who have a problem with evolution are NOT Christians. A vast majority of Christians do accept evolution. Those who have a problem with evolution seem to be mostly religious fundamentalists, especially fundamentalist American Christians. Outside the US the creation-evolution controversy is largely a non-issue.
6. Creationists love taking potshots at evolution. Every time they make a claim, sicentists prove them wrong. Still, we should appreciate this approach, as it leads us to accumulating better knowledge. You are quoting an article based on dating done 4 decades ago! Even if the dating discrepancy was correct (and you have provided no sources, just a quote from a dubious website), our dating methods have been improved and calibrated significantly in the last 40 years, plus we learned how the results may be influenced by inadvertent contamination etc., so the argument from the website you quote will not stand.
7. My quick internet research provided results very different from your claims about dating moon rocks:
“The rocks collected from the Moon are measured by ”../wiki/Radiometric_dating" title=“Radiometric dating”>radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands." – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
Also:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html - a Christian scientist’s evaluation of dating methods (includes information about the age of the moon)
-
Radek, I apologize to you and others who have been reading our ideas expressed here. I have been terribly naive.
Science cannot explain creationism. Science cannot explain Bible stories such as Noah’s flood, etc. The Bible is not a science book, so for those who are looking for answers in Genesis or whatever, I can assure you that no matter how much you study the Bible, you will not find enough information.
Evolution has been a topic on my agenda ever since I was in high school. As part of my education for a B.S. in Chemistry, I took elective courses such as anthropology. My professor and the text we were using explained it all… and it all made sense.
Even though I had some questions about the lack of empirical data, I assumed that it was just a matter of time and dedication from honest and sincere scientists; sooner or later the details would fall into place… maybe not 100%, but close enough.
When I learned of TGFE, I was thrilled. I could hardly wait to see how Michael Dowd would put all of the pieces together so that we could stop all of this nonsense debating about who is right. Surely reasonable people can have a religious belief system and support those beliefs with facts from science.
I was disappointed that TGFE is not a science book. However, neither is the Bible. The only thing that troubled me was the statement: "Facts Are God’s Native Tongue: “Evolutionary religion’s alternative to reliance on ancient scriptures is empirical data. In a way, the data are our scriptures— and to these we submit”.
OK, maybe the Internet is a good source for empirical data. You can see by my posts starting in May 2009 that I have been searching.
All I found was theories about how evolution must be true because creationism and ID are wrong. There were also theories about how creationism must be true because evolution is wrong.
I admit to being naive. I assumed that everyone was honest and sincere, but just needed to relax and listen to the information provided by the other side. Surely we can all work together to find honest answers to honest questions.
Then a friend of mine recommended Jerry A Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”. The “old earth” vs. “young earth” theory could be resolved scientifically… or so I thought.
How naive of me to assume that all scientists are honest and sincere. Please read http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i7b.htm with an open mind.
Then, please read http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i8f.htm .
Again, I apologize for being so naive. However, I am very interested in your thoughts AFTER you have read these two pages with an open mind.
-
Charles – you professor was clearly wrong. In any discipline, the more you know, the more you realise how much you still DON’T know. It would be naive to claim for any texbook it can “explain it all”. All knowledge is tentative, therefore no definitive knowledge can be contained in any text.
I am surprised that you were disappointed that TGFE was not a science book. Does it ever promise to be? There are more than enough scientific books around. But if you really want first hand experience in anything, then like I suggested before, you must become a scholarly researcher, not just a googler.
I have read the articles you linked with an open mind, and… I noticed the typical “straw man” argument. The author clearly cannot handle Coyne’s arguments, so he invents something he can deal with instead. The article takes offence at Coyne for not including the origin of life, and then it goes to great pains in arguing that something akin to abiogenesis is impossible. So Coyne must be wrong! Hold on a minute… But Coyne never talks about the origin of life! In fact, as his book title suggests, the book is about evolution. The theory of evolution does not deal with origin of life AT ALL, nor is abiogenesis part of the theory. Hope can you see it now, even if you did not before.
Creationists can be honest and they can be just propagandists. I suggest you stick to the former. Please read something else with an open mind: http://www.grisda.org/faq/. I had linked this creationist page before, but somehow you must have missed it. Now, after reading, tell me, what do you think about the creationist arguments versus science?
-
Radek, Thank you for the link. Creationist sites “know” that evolution is false because creation is true. Evolutionist sites “know” that creation is false because evolution is true.
I was naive to assume that you or anyone else would read the links that I provided and then understand that EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. It is still an unproven theory.
There is nothing wrong with an unproven theory. Loren Bergeson pointed out that science has a way of re-examining facts and over a long period of time the scientists can get closer and closer to “the truth”.
Creationists who rely only on the Bible will NEVER find out “the truth”. Paintings of Adam and Eve always show them with belly buttons. Creationists have NO WAY to find out if that is true or not.
When creationists quote scientific articles, they are searching for clues to discredit evolution. When evolutionists quote scientific articles, they are searching for clues to discredit creation.
Jerry A Coyne says that birds have dinosaurs as common ancestors. Please read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
This article is NOT from creationists. It is from evolutionists who disagree with previous “facts” about evolution.
-
Radek, that 7th day advent sight is pretty cool. it shows the level of cooperation needed to keep pulling these two fields (religion & science) closer together. and further proof that the YECs are very much a minority in their own community.
Charles, the science daily article is FANTASTIC! that is wonderful news that science is sorting out more of it’s own issues. that’s what they’re in the business of doing, self correcting. i’m not sure how that changes the greater picture of evo, but is certainly a key detail that will add to the knowledge of the whole process someday. it definitely does not disprove evolution in anyway, but rather expands our theories about how it actually works and where the changes took place.
-
Charles,
Evolution is both a fact and theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I am guessing you are having issues with the theory part, not the fact part? If so, then not a single theory in natural sciences is “proven”, as there is no such thing as “proof” in biology, there is only evidence. In any discussion between creationists and evolutionists the former have all the faith and the latter all the evidence.
The link you provided (thanks for that) shows that science has no dogma and is always open to reinterpretation once new evidence is gathered. Sadly, the same cannot be said about creationists.
Now you see that if you want to find 100% certainly, science will never be able to offer it. On the other hand, religious fundamentalism can – as can be attested by suicide bombers, for instance.
-
What is Speciation?“
Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A Coyne gives a good summary of evolutionary thinking from the time of Charles Darwin to the present. One of his first quotes is from Jacques Monod who said, “A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it.
Unfortunately, there are those who feel threatened by the Theory of Evolution. Maybe they fear that someday the study of evolution will destroy their children’s religion. However, that is only speculation on my part and my purpose here is to try to focus only on facts. My hope is that more and more people can understand those facts.
Evolutionists say that the Theory of Evolution is no longer a theory. They say that all of the empirical data proves evolution to be a fact. Evolutionists say that there is a consensus among scientists. They say that maybe some of their peers may argue about some of the details of evolution, but that very few doubt the BIG PICTURE of evolution. Some evolutionists opine that God created evolution.
Those opposed to the Theory of Evolution are divided. Some would argue that the Bible proves that evolution is not true. Some would call themselves creationists. Some would call themselves NOT creationists but believers in Intelligent Design or ID.
Then there is me. All I am seeking is an understanding of how our planet changed from a lifeless earth to its present condition with probably 100 million species.
Evolutionists say that life began as one species. After a period of time, a mutation occurred and there were two species. Later there were four… then eight, etc. One can express this concept by assuming a start date of 3.5 billion years ago. If we assume a present total of 100 million species today and if we assume that each speciation occurred every “x” number of years, we can calculate the expected time between speciations. It is a fact that some species evolve more quickly than others. Present day ants or cockroaches look about the same as their ancestors. E. Coli bacteria or drosophila fruit flies have a speciation time much less that that of ants or cockroaches.
For illustration purposes only, let’s assume a constant speciation time. Let’s assume that no species went extinct. We can use a geometric progression to calculate the speciation time for one organism to evolve into 100 million species. 2 raised to the power of 1 equals 2. That means after the first speciation, there were 2 species. 2 raised to the power of 10 equals 1024. That means that after the tenth speciation, there were more than a thousand species. 2 raised to the power of 25 equals 33,554,432 species.
After 26.6 speciations, we predict that there would be more than the required 100 million species on earth. Starting 3.5 billion years ago and dividing by 26.6, we can understand that the average speciation occurs about every 131,578,950 years or let’s say about every 130 million years. This is for illustration purposes only. It illustrates two facts: 1. We never see one species evolve into another because we do not live long enough to observe it. 2. There has always been sufficient time for speciation to occur by random mutations.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that 26.6 speciations would be necessary for one species to evolve into 100 million species.
However, it is not necessary to assume that life began on earth 3.5 billion years ago. In fact, we could assume that life began 10 thousand years ago. Starting with 10,000 and diving by 26.6, we can understand that the average speciation occurs about every 376 years. It illustrates the same two facts: 1. We never see one species evolve into another because we do not live long enough to observe it. 2. There has always been sufficient time for speciation to occur by random mutations.
This is my first “fact analysis” for your consideration. We do not need to have an “old earth” for evolution to occur. Even with a “young earth”, it does not prove that creation is true nor does it prove that evolution is not true.
I will post my second “fact analysis” as soon as I have finished it.
-
Charles,
Do you mean you will continue quoting from Jacques Monod? Or have you started writing your thoughts without indicating where Monod’s words end? I’m only asking because I am confused…
-
Radek, No more quotes from Jacques Monod. Every one seems to understand “evolution”. However, it is illogical to conclude that evolution is true because religion is false.
My task here is to present in as few words as possible only the facts for which we are supposed to give thanks… as in TGFE.
Let us assume that evolution can be explained as the collection of Fact 1, Fact 2, Fact 3, etc. Let us assume that during this year each and every fact can be shown to be false. Would you conclude that religion is true?
-
Pareidolia is the tendency to interpret a vague stimulus as something known to the viewer, such as interpreting marks on Mars as canals or seeing shapes in clouds.
From the late 1970s through the early 1980s, Japanese researcher Chonosuke Okamura self-published a famous series of reports titled “Original Report of the Okamura Fossil Laboratory” in which he described tiny inclusions in polished limestone from the Silurian period (425 million years ago) as being preserved fossil remains of tiny humans, gorillas, dogs, dragons, dinosaurs, and other organisms, all of them only millimeters long, leading him to claim “There have been no changes in the bodies of mankind since the Silurian period… except for a growth in stature from 3.5 mm to 1,700 mm.” Okamura’s research earned him an Ig Nobel Prize in Biodiversity in 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#1996 .
Apophenia is the perception of connectedness among seemingly unrelated phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” – Sherlock Holmes.
-
Charles, i’m also confused…where is this going?
-
Charles, I think Josh is wondering the same thing I am. What do you consider to be the improbable truth (the “whatever remains”)?
-
I am not sure what Sherlock Holmes meant. As I continue my research trying to find some empirical data, I continue to find that creationists and evolutionists can see their own point of view in the same data.
Because creation is impossible, evolution (no matter how improbable) must be the truth.
Did you read about the Japanese researcher? Some of the “evidence” reported by Jerry A Coyne is similar pareidolia.
Charles,
Using ad hominem arguments is not a good way of discussing things.
IRC is hardly areputable institution, so I am immediately wary of any arguments they may use. IRC is known for employing frauds and criminals, so it is a prime example of Lying for Jesus. As a result, you will find that other creationists argue with them more than mainstream scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/institute_for_creation_research.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
Below are som links which you should also consider regarding the question you started with, namely empirical evidence for evolution and age of the earth. They are overwhelming:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1527
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1520
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/summary.html
Naturally, different arguments will seem more convincing to different people. However, I consider that 1. evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and 2. there is no alternative theory to explain the observable facts.