If your a christian answer this

[askeptic]

@cmosdes

I mentioned the fact I’m atheist lest people think I’m arguing against evolution. I’m not. I’m arguing against the notion that evolutionary theory will persist forever. For now, at least, we have a theory (which is about as close to a fact as you can get in scientific terms) that explains things pretty damn well. But that doesn’t mean something better won’t come along as new facts arise.

You can call atheism faith, if you so choose. But then what you profess is just another faith in an of itself. You just have FAITH that whatever higher power exists, should it even exist, is not interested in interacting with you.

That last sentence seems to be the semantic equivalent of “If that was this then this would be that”

I do not CHOOSE to call athiasm FAITH it is so by definition. To believe that God does not exist is to have FAITH in the nonexistence of God.

While you may be right that I to as a skeptik have FAITH, you are mistaken as to that in which I have FAITH. I have FAITH in one thing, that is that I THINK I am not capable of understanding existence. I am OK with that. I accept that there are things which I might not be capable of understanding. I accept that there may be a cosmic watch maker, but I also accept that there are no watch makers. I fail to see how you can equate that to a belief in a higher power (Though I am a friend of Bill W.)

[cmosdes]

By JS Princeton
Incorrect. It IS an observed fact. See Gould’s article here.

You and I differ on what is and is not an observed fact. From the article you quoted (bolding mine):

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect.

This seems to claim pretty clearly what I said. Human evolution is not an observed fact. It is deduced.

I’m going to say this for the last time. There are no absolutes in science. None. We make models to predict future events and observations. Those models are refined, time and again, as new observations come to light and exceptions are found. Sometimes, what we think we see isn’t really what is there. The Earth looks flat. The Sun and the stars appear to revolve around the Earth. Planets appear to be just more stars. In these and other cases we realize that we were deceived and we come to a new understanding with new theories. Sometimes the old theories need to be refined, as in the case of magnetism and gravity.

I’m not saying evolution will ever go away. The case for it seems just a tad too strong for that. But I am saying it isn’t unassailable. Nothing in science is. Nothing ever is.

[cmosdes]

Side issue I didn’t want to run too much of a tangent on:

Refridgerators do not transfer heat from a colder body to a hotter one. They remove heat from object you place within them. When you put something in a fridge does it get hotter or colder?

[SentientMeat]

Just to clarify, cmosdes, is this an observed fact?[ul]Proto-humans died out and were replaced by humans many thousands of years ago.[/ul]I would suggest that answering “no” is as absurd as doing the same to the question “Is the sphericity of the Earth an observed fact?”

[JS_Princeton]

@cmosdes

Refridgerators do not transfer heat from a colder body to a hotter one. They remove heat from object you place within them. When you put something in a fridge does it get hotter or colder?

When you place an object in a refrigerator that is hotter than the refrigerator’s ambient temperature, the refrigerator’s ambient temperature remains the same over the long run. This is accomplished by the refrigerator removing heat from a colder body (the interior of the refrigerator) to a hotter body (outside of the refrigerator). That is how a refrigerator works.

This seems to claim pretty clearly what I said. Human evolution is not an observed fact. It is deduced.

Depends on whether you think the adverb “directly” necessarily should be tacked on in tandem to the adjective “observed” in order for the subject to be an observed fact. I submit the answer is “absolutely not”. Observation is not dependent on direct observation. To say otherwise is spurious indeed which is exactly the point of Gould’s article. Evolution is a fact because it is observed. Even though it is impossible to observe large-scale evolution directly it is STILL observed. Period.

[JS_Princeton]

But I am saying it isn’t unassailable. Nothing in science is. Nothing ever is.

This is either a non-sequitor or incorrect. To say nothing in science is unassailable is either akin to the existentialist conceit (which is to say nothing period is unassailable) or is saying that there are things that we observe that may be found out to actually not have been observed in the first place. The only way you can believe that statement is if you think that the universe may have an arbitrary quality to it akin to the quality of “grue”.

[cmosdes]

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
Just to clarify, cmosdes, is this an observed fact?[ul][li]Proto-humans died out and were replaced by humans many thousands of years ago.[/ul]I would suggest that answering “no” is as absurd as doing the same to the question “Is the sphericity of the Earth an observed fact?”[/li][/QUOTE]

By JS Princeton
Depends on whether you think the adverb “directly” necessarily should be tacked on in tandem to the adjective “observed” in order for the subject to be an observed fact. I submit the answer is “absolutely not”. Observation is not dependent on direct observation. To say otherwise is spurious indeed which is exactly the point of Gould’s article. Evolution is a fact because it is observed. Even though it is impossible to observe large-scale evolution directly it is STILL observed. Period.

I understand the point both of you are trying to make. As JS Princeton has pointed out, I did indeed attach “directly” with the term “observed fact”. I was using the “witness” definition for “observed”.

[t-keela]

JS Princeton “And by the way, Hawking has little to nothing to do with the developments of dark matter theory in astronomy.”

…nuff said.

[JS_Princeton]

@t-keela

…nuff said.

Could you provide a clarification of this? Thanks.

[Skywatcher]

Please forgive me for dragging this back to page 1, I tend to avoid GD.

@Skammer

Well, evolution is a biological process, so no, I don’t beleive He used evolution to “create the universe.” I do beleive that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of life we see on earth.

I believe God created the universe out of nothing, but not fully formed in its present state in six earth days. I think he created the universe slowly, over billions of years, using ‘natural’ processes (which, of course, he created in the first place).

So my short answer to your question: neither.

A kindred spirit! Tell me, do you also believe The Bible is essentially the world’s oldest newspaper?

[IWLN]

Well since Jeff brought it back and not me :). Where did the concept that God created the universe out of nothing come from? I can’t find it in the Bible? I think I’ve asked this before, but don’t recall getting an answer.

[Siege]

I think it comes from mis-remembering this (Genesis 1:1-3):

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

etc., etc. etc.

Now, even though I was mis-remembering The New English Bible version rather than the King James Version cited above, if you’d asked me what the Bible said God created the universe from 10 minutes ago, I’d have said “nothing.” On re-reading the beginning of Genesis, I’m not sure that holds up, especially since The New English Bible version starts off like this:

In the beginning of creation, when God mad heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind which swept over the surface of the water."

A footnote says that the first phrase could be read either the way I posted it or “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” Either way, the only way void or emptiness is explicitly mentioned is in describing what the earth was like. I’m pretty sure I made a mental slip and went from “the earth was without form and void” to “the earth was created from the void”. It seems an easy enough mistake to make to me.

CJ

[IWLN]

@Siege

I think it comes from mis-remembering this (Genesis 1:1-3):

Thanks CJ. I just kept wondering if there was a different Bible or something in it later on. There’s been so many debates about the First Law of Thermodynamics that I’ve never thought were necessary. Why would anyone who believes in creation needs to believe that God hand carved and animated each and every creature personally, rather than looking around at what exists and our natural laws and seeing that as the method he used for creation?

[elfkin477]

@JS Princeton

Would you care, elfkin, to elaborate on in which parts of Darwinism you don’t fully believe? Are you an objector to current evolutionary theory or the details that Darwin himself worked out?

I knew there was something in this thread that I’d forgotten to reply to…

I believe in most of evolutionary theory. Modern elephants and rinos are obviously decendant of Wooly mamonths and rinos. Modern horses are decendant of little three-toed horses. Modern cats are decendant of Sabertoothed cats like Smilodon. Some types of deer decended from Megaloceros. Modern Man is probably decended from Neanderthal.

However, I don’t believe that all life evolved from primordial ooze, and I don’t think that we came from “monkeys.” Prehistoric monkeys evolved into modern monkeys and prehistoric man evolved into modern man; I know that just sounds like a semantics issue, but it isn’t really. The biggest issue I have with the “we evolved from apes” theory is that there are still monkeys today. Usually, at least from what I’ve read so far, evolution is a dead end for the pre-evolved species. You don’t see Dinofelis or Megatherium because they died off as their genes evolved into something else. Maybe we evolved from gracile australopithecines or something similar, but I don’t think they’re any more closely related to primative monkeys than we are to modern ones.

[tomndebb]

Prehistoric monkeys evolved into modern monkeys and prehistoric man evolved into modern man; I know that just sounds like a semantics issue, but it isn’t really. The biggest issue I have with the “we evolved from apes” theory is that there are still monkeys today.

Clarification: Nothing in Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian Evolution places humans as descendants of monkeys. Monkeys are primates that diverged in at least two separate lines long before the humans descended from apes.

To your specific point:
Humans did not descend from modern apes. Humans and modern apes descended (ultimately) from a larger primate that we would generally recognize as an ape, but which died out before any current species of large primate came into being.

[vanilla]

I can just hear people saying “Where is the skeleton then of this primate?”
Why no links?"