Evolution Vs God

[Rob Osborn]

Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

To answer your question no I don't believe in evolution. I have outside confirmation to the reality of evolution. It is something I can observe, measure, and make accurate predictions about.

I don't beat my spouse, she is my Queen and I treet her as such. I never laid a finger on any women. (where did that come from anyway??)

 

How are we supposed to get anywhere if we can't even play on a level field? You say you don't believe in evolution but that then you explain that you actually do believe in evolution. Please stop being contradictive.

 

I am thus going to assume from all you have said that you do believe in evolution. As such it is a belief that you have- part of your overall belief system of those things you hold to be true.

[Freedom]

 

 

I am thus going to assume from all you have said that you do believe in evolution. As such it is a belief that you have- part of your overall belief system of those things you hold to be true.

Based on your definition of belief, no he does not believe in evolution. Your definition of belief requires faith, or an absence of evidence.

[ERayR]

I can see how that might make it difficult to fill my request. 

 

Is there anybody else that can connect the dots from macro-evolution to the fall for me?

 

bump

[Rob Osborn]

I answered this question. According to your definition of belief, I do not belief in evolution any more than I believe in tectonic plates. It is a theory based on evidence, it is not a religion. Your definition of belief involves faith so I say that evolution is not a belief, it is a theory based on evidence. No faith is required because the evidence is undeniable. I am still waiting for a response to my post #82.

Semantics first- A belief is "a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true" (World English Dictionary)

 

Why drag or couple "belief" with "religion"?  Beliefs are (as I posted above) things which you hold to be true regardless of what others may decide or believe. I truly believe that we sent astronauts to the Moon. That is part of my beliefs.

[ERayR]

Use property English? good grief. Macro evolution has been observed. A theory is not a belief. Get a dictionary.

 

Ask and you shall receive: Please note number 4 - belief: number 2 - speculation: Number 6a - conjecture.

 

Definition of THEORY

1

: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2

: abstract thought : speculation

3

: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4

a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

 

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6

a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

 

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

 

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

[Rob Osborn]

Based on your definition of belief, no he does not believe in evolution. Your definition of belief requires faith, or an absence of evidence.

The definition of belief is something accepted as true regardless of faith to any degree in the principle involved.

[ERayR]

Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

To answer your question no I don't believe in evolution. I have outside confirmation to the reality of evolution. It is something I can observe, measure, and make accurate predictions about.

 

Do you believe in the fall and atonement?  If you do please answer my post where I ask someone to connect the dots between macro-evolution and the fall.

[Rob Osborn]

 

Ask and you shall receive: Please note number 4 - belief: number 2 - speculation: Number 6a - conjecture.

 

Definition of THEORY

1

: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2

: abstract thought : speculation

3

: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4

a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

 

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6

a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

 

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

 

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

 

Thanks for that. So, if i am getting this correct- a "theory" is a "belief". So, putting two and two together, the "theory of evolution through common decent" is a "belief".

[ERayR]

Thanks for that. So, if i am getting this correct- a "theory" is a "belief". So, putting two and two together, the "theory of evolution through common decent" is a "belief".

 

Or

: abstract thought : speculation

 

or

: an unproved assumption : conjecture

 

But generally IMNSHO it all boils down to a belief.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thanks for that. So, if i am getting this correct- a "theory" is a "belief". So, putting two and two together, the "theory of evolution through common decent" is a "belief".

I know I'm just beating my head against a wall here, but just because you use theory that way does not change the scientific concept of the word. When doctors talk about germ theory they aren't talking about someone's speculation or belief that germs cause disease. They are talking about an established set of ideas that have been verified over and over in numerous different settings and accross many different fields. O course maybe you don't think germs cause disease or vaccines prevent them either. If these were your beliefs it still wouldn't negate the fact that germs do in fact cause disease as explained by germ theory.

[Calm]

I know I'm just beating my head against a wall here....

Next time put a pillow up first and it will hurt less.

 

  I think it is important that if one is talking science, one uses the definitions of the language of science...it would be silly to use common vernacular to define a scientific term just as it would be to give the Russian definition of an English word even if they sounded the same way.  For example, this word has two very different meanings depending on whether you are speaking Russian or English:  brat.

 

So instead I think it wise to go to the proper dictionary...not a general all purpose one if the conversation is not a general all purpose conversation, but a Russian one if you are speaking Russian, English for English and science for science....and this below is pretty much what I got every time I opened a science textbook in high school:

 

 

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

 

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

 

 

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observedphenomenon.

 

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Edited August 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I know I'm just beating my head against a wall here, but just because you use theory that way does not change the scientific concept of the word. When doctors talk about germ theory they aren't talking about someone's speculation or belief that germs cause disease. They are talking about an established set of ideas that have been verified over and over in numerous different settings and accross many different fields. O course maybe you don't think germs cause disease or vaccines prevent them either. If these were your beliefs it still wouldn't negate the fact that germs do in fact cause disease as explained by germ theory.

 

 

No need to get snarky it is, after all, from Miriam-Webster dictionary.  I was always taught it was a theory until it is proven then it becomes a law. (i.e. Law of Gravity)

[ERayR]

Next time put a pillow up first and it will hurt less.

 

  I think it is important that if one is talking science, one uses the definitions of the language of science...it would be silly to use common vernacular to define a scientific term just as it would be to give the Russian definition of an English word even if they sounded the same way.  For example, this word has two very different meanings depending on whether you are speaking Russian or English:  brat.

 

So instead I think it wise to go to the proper dictionary...not a general all purpose one if the conversation is not a general all purpose conversation, but a Russian one if you are speaking Russian, English for English and science for science....and this below is pretty much what I got every time I opened a science textbook in high school:

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

I don't think the scientific meaning is that different.  From your quote - "As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation,".  That explanation is based on the belief or speculation of those positing the explanation.  Just because it is used as an explanation does not elevate its status.

[rameumptom]

The history of Creationism is very interesting.  When Darwin's Theory of Evolution came out, only the 7th Day Adventists insisted in a 6000 year old earth with 6-24 hour periods of creation.  In the early 20th Century, Adventist and geologist George McCreedy Price wrote a book on the Flood showing with his bad science that the earth is only 6000 years old.  The book became very popular among many Christian sects.  William Jennings Bryan used Price's "evidence" in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Joseph Fielding Smith embraced Price's book, even after James Talmage showed many of the errors in the book.

 

So, what we get from many LDS today is their insistence on a young earth because JFS liked the writings of a 7th Day Adventist, who was trying to promote an idea they held since Darwin's day, but no other Christians had.  I have no idea why so many Mormons want to reject evolution and embrace Creationism, simply because Joseph Fielding Smith liked someone's poor science.

 

There is big evidence today that evolution did occur.  Scientists are now tweaking DNA in chickens and in switching one gene on, can turn feathers into dinosaur scales, etc! 

 

There is strong evidence that evolution did and does occur.  I can easily see God using evolution in the long creation process to train his spirit children how to design and build life forms.  Some forms work, while many others do not.

[Rob Osborn]

I know I'm just beating my head against a wall here, but just because you use theory that way does not change the scientific concept of the word. When doctors talk about germ theory they aren't talking about someone's speculation or belief that germs cause disease. They are talking about an established set of ideas that have been verified over and over in numerous different settings and accross many different fields. O course maybe you don't think germs cause disease or vaccines prevent them either. If these were your beliefs it still wouldn't negate the fact that germs do in fact cause disease as explained by germ theory.

This is an ongoing problem in the scientific world. At times they use words out of context and with trickery to try to make people believe that what they are saying are "the facts" which are equateable in analogy to "2+2=4". That is a major problem when getting into debates that even go as far as the supreme court. The scientific theory of Darwinian evolution from common decent is, in all respects of the correct usage, a set of "beliefs". There is no difference in this statement than my set of beliefs in a worldwide flood of which I have quite a bit of evidence to go off of. Just as evolutionists use the same  geologic column for their evidence, I too use that same geologic column as my evidence. I do not stand alone in this theory/ belief in a worldwide flood in recent times. Many scientists and geologists also believe in this same theory. Just because this theory isn't readily accepted in the general scientific community does not negate the fact that it is a theory. The problem arises with a war of words which are often misused or used out of context. I find it thus rather interesting that you guys can call macro-evolution a "fact" and yet if I try to imply this same word with the theory of the flood- stating the flood as a fact, that your side laughs, calls it absurd and ends up calling it instead a "belief" in the context of "religion".

 

Am I wrong?

[rameumptom]

 

calmoriah, on 31 Aug 2013 - 3:18 PM, said:

Next time put a pillow up first and it will hurt less.

 

  I think it is important that if one is talking science, one uses the definitions of the language of science...it would be silly to use common vernacular to define a scientific term just as it would be to give the Russian definition of an English word even if they sounded the same way.  For example, this word has two very different meanings depending on whether you are speaking Russian or English:  brat.

 

 

 

I agree.  I recall once on my mission in Bolivia, we had a new sister missionary, who was very pretty, come into a ward.  The bishop asked her to bear her testimony.  She got up, poijnted at the bishop and said, "I am very embarasada, and it is all his fault!"  Well, the Spanish word for embarassed is "avergonzado.  The Spanish word for pregnant is embarasada.  She basically said she was pregnant and it was the bishop's fault.

 

Serious miscommunications occur when words are not used properly and in the correct context.  In speaking, pauses and tone make a big difference, as does proper use of punctuation:

 

Let's eat Grandpa!

Let's eat, Grandpa!

 

Commas save lives....

[ERayR]

The history of Creationism is very interesting.  When Darwin's Theory of Evolution came out, only the 7th Day Adventists insisted in a 6000 year old earth with 6-24 hour periods of creation.  In the early 20th Century, Adventist and geologist George McCreedy Price wrote a book on the Flood showing with his bad science that the earth is only 6000 years old.  The book became very popular among many Christian sects.  William Jennings Bryan used Price's "evidence" in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Joseph Fielding Smith embraced Price's book, even after James Talmage showed many of the errors in the book.

 

So, what we get from many LDS today is their insistence on a young earth because JFS liked the writings of a 7th Day Adventist, who was trying to promote an idea they held since Darwin's day, but no other Christians had.  I have no idea why so many Mormons want to reject evolution and embrace Creationism, simply because Joseph Fielding Smith liked someone's poor science.

 

There is big evidence today that evolution did occur.  Scientists are now tweaking DNA in chickens and in switching one gene on, can turn feathers into dinosaur scales, etc! 

 

There is strong evidence that evolution did and does occur.  I can easily see God using evolution in the long creation process to train his spirit children how to design and build life forms.  Some forms work, while many others do not.

 

You assume all creationists are young earth advocates.  This is a problem when one disagrees with the conclusions of macro-evolutionists they are immediatly dismissed and derided.  Not all creationists are young earth advocates.

[rameumptom]

This is an ongoing problem in the scientific world. At times they use words out of context and with trickery to try to make people believe that what they are saying are "the facts" which are equateable in analogy to "2+2=4". That is a major problem when getting into debates that even go as far as the supreme court. The scientific theory of Darwinian evolution from common decent is, in all respects of the correct usage, a set of "beliefs"....

Am I wrong?

 

 

Yes, you are wrong.  You are using assumptions that are not verifiable.  You are assuming that Genesis is a scientific and historical document.  There is no evidence that it ever was designed that way, as ancient peoples did not understand science, nor did they understand history as we do today.

 

Believing in a Creation of short duration and mankind's existence over just a short period of time with nothing before it, is nothing but reading into the scripture what you want to believe.  We have Creation stories in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses, and Abraham.  Each is different.  We have a different series of events.  Which is the historical one we should believe?  They all cannot be 100% right, as they are all different.  So to pick one and assume it is the right one, is a major assumption on your part.  Why not pick the Creation in the Book of Abraham, which suggests long periods of time, as the Gods waited until they were obeyed?

 

The Church's official stance is it has no official stance.  For every Joseph Fielding Smith, who believed the bad science of George McCreedy Price, there are other apostles who accepted the possibilitiy of evolution and an ancient earth (Talmage, Widtsoe, Roberts).  Pres Eyring's father was a world renowned chemist, and accepted evolution as real.

 

Meanwhile, there is actual evidence for evolution. We've found creatures, such as archaeopteryx, which are an in-between Missing Link.  We can test DNA and see that CroMagnon man shares DNA with us.  Testing methods, which include Carbon 14, Radiation, Strata, tree rings, etc., all show an earth that is very ancient. The oldest composite trees alive are 80,000 years old!

 

Oh, and scientists are not trying to use "trickery" to deceive anyone.  Those are assumptions and accusations that you simply cannot prove, at least not on a wide scale basis.  Is there some bad science out there? Yes.  But evolution is not one of those bad science areas.  There are thousands of evidences for it. That is the difference between my belief in evolution and your disbelief in it - I have evidence on my side.  After all, Paul taught that real faith is based upon evidence (Hebrews 11:1).  It is up to you to actually discredit those evidences with real evidence, and not emotional attacks that are based on nothing but your own belief.  I think it is like Alma who had evidence that there is a God, while Korihor only had his belief without evidence.  You are insisting on proof, when all any of us have is evidence, and then rejecting the evidence offered.

[rameumptom]

You assume all creationists are young earth advocates.  This is a problem when one disagrees with the conclusions of macro-evolutionists they are immediatly dismissed and derided.  Not all creationists are young earth advocates.

 

I understand there are some who believe in an older earth, for example the Intelligent Design hypothesis.  I have no problem with someone believing in it, as long as they realize it is only a hypothesis, since it cannot be tested (how do we test that God actually was involved in designing or controllling creation?). 

 

Price's methods not only pushed for a young earth, but also against evolution.  His "evidence" was wrong and deceptive, yet many embraced it, rather than accept the evidence found in the theory of evolution.

[ERayR]

I understand there are some who believe in an older earth, for example the Intelligent Design hypothesis.  I have no problem with someone believing in it, as long as they realize it is only a hypothesis, since it cannot be tested (how do we test that God actually was involved in designing or controllling creation?). 

 

Price's methods not only pushed for a young earth, but also against evolution.  His "evidence" was wrong and deceptive, yet many embraced it, rather than accept the evidence found in the theory of evolution.

 

In case you missed it I have posted that micro-evolution is a fact and is a useful tool in animal husbandry for improving animal productivity.  Despite the efforts in this field macro-evolution has not occurred.  Despite the overwhelming evidence for micro-evolution it still can not be translated into macro-evolution.  It is still conjecture.  You should understand that macro-evolution is "only a hypothesis".

Edited August 31, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No need to get snarky it is, after all, from Miriam-Webster dictionary. I was always taught it was a theory until it is proven then it becomes a law. (i.e. Law of Gravity)

This is not correct. Laws tend to be more specific and can typically be expressed in equation form. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it won't be further refined. The Newtonian law of gravity was refined by general relativity. Darwin's theory of natural selection has been refined by concepts such as genetic drift and gene flow.

[Freedom]

Do you believe in the fall and atonement?  If you do please answer my post where I ask someone to connect the dots between macro-evolution and the fall.

There are no dots to connect because they are not related. It is like trying to connect the dots between the theory of relativity and the doctrine of baptism.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, you are wrong.  You are using assumptions that are not verifiable.  You are assuming that Genesis is a scientific and historical document.  There is no evidence that it ever was designed that way, as ancient peoples did not understand science, nor did they understand history as we do today.

 

Believing in a Creation of short duration and mankind's existence over just a short period of time with nothing before it, is nothing but reading into the scripture what you want to believe.  We have Creation stories in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Moses, and Abraham.  Each is different.  We have a different series of events.  Which is the historical one we should believe?  They all cannot be 100% right, as they are all different.  So to pick one and assume it is the right one, is a major assumption on your part.  Why not pick the Creation in the Book of Abraham, which suggests long periods of time, as the Gods waited until they were obeyed?

 

The Church's official stance is it has no official stance.  For every Joseph Fielding Smith, who believed the bad science of George McCreedy Price, there are other apostles who accepted the possibilitiy of evolution and an ancient earth (Talmage, Widtsoe, Roberts).  Pres Eyring's father was a world renowned chemist, and accepted evolution as real.

 

Meanwhile, there is actual evidence for evolution. We've found creatures, such as archaeopteryx, which are an in-between Missing Link.  We can test DNA and see that CroMagnon man shares DNA with us.  Testing methods, which include Carbon 14, Radiation, Strata, tree rings, etc., all show an earth that is very ancient. The oldest composite trees alive are 80,000 years old!

 

Oh, and scientists are not trying to use "trickery" to deceive anyone.  Those are assumptions and accusations that you simply cannot prove, at least not on a wide scale basis.  Is there some bad science out there? Yes.  But evolution is not one of those bad science areas.  There are thousands of evidences for it. That is the difference between my belief in evolution and your disbelief in it - I have evidence on my side.  After all, Paul taught that real faith is based upon evidence (Hebrews 11:1).  It is up to you to actually discredit those evidences with real evidence, and not emotional attacks that are based on nothing but your own belief.  I think it is like Alma who had evidence that there is a God, while Korihor only had his belief without evidence.  You are insisting on proof, when all any of us have is evidence, and then rejecting the evidence offered.

I find Darwins theory of evolution as bad science because it lacks the proof of evidence actually seen. I can totally accept small varriations within kinds of animals such as the size and shape of beetles, finches beaks, etc. What I see as a complete lack of proof is the theory of going from those seen evidences to the idea that those small changes were the cause of all life branching out from one first life-form on earth. That theory lacks solid evidence.

[Calm]

I don't think the scientific meaning is that different.  From your quote - "As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation,".  That explanation is based on the belief or speculation of those positing the explanation.  Just because it is used as an explanation does not elevate its status.

It is not that its status is elevated, rather its status is much more limited....it applies to a much smaller set of circumstances than the general nonscientific definition of theory does (though there may be other specialities that limit what it applies to as well.

 

When doing science, the more precise the tools the better the science...and that includes the tool of language.

Edited August 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Freedom]

No need to get snarky it is, after all, from Miriam-Webster dictionary.  I was always taught it was a theory until it is proven then it becomes a law. (i.e. Law of Gravity)

 

As has been stated, there is a difference between the generic definition of the term 'theory' and the term 'scientific theory'. A scientific theory is an explanation of the data. If you reject the theory, this would suggest that you have an alternative theory which explains the data better. If you are going to rely on the bible, you have the explain through the bible what the fossil record means, and why there such a diversity of species, and why we can observe macro evolution on bacteria. Let me save you some time: the scriptures are silent on this matter.