How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

quote:

---

If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so then your ToE would be faith based not on fact.

---

This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America. Yet I know that my family moved from Ohio to Kansas and then to Oregon. This history is confirmed by birth records, death records, and marriage records with the correct names at dates consistent with what we know about the trip.By your reasoning, though, since we do not know the origin of my family, the journey of my family from Ohio to Oregon is faith not fact.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

Chiroptera writes:
This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America.

​

But they did exist.

---

Not according to creationists. According to creationists, since I wasn't there to witness the journey, and since there are still unanswered puzzles, then it is a reasonable assumption that I was specially created at my birth.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hi, and welcome to EvC, Q. Yeah, creationists certainly have an odd, post-modern view of the world. They believe that we can know nothing about the past, that all possible pasts are possible, that we can believe whatever we want about the past, we only have to "interpret" the evidence appropriately.Actually, I don't believe this. I believe that there was a definite history, whether or not we know the actual details that occurred. I also believe that the past leaves evidence that can be studied in the present, and that we can use this evidence to rule out particular scenarios of past history, and we can even use this evidence to come to some definite conclusions about the past.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

But this isn't what you are saying in regards to evolution, Q. You're saying that it's possible that the world is flat and that all the scientists today are wrong despite all the evidence that says otherwise. That is a more accurate analogy to what you are saying in regards to evolution.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

You didn't answer WK's question, Q. He asked: You listed a bunch of names, but have given no particulars about any scientific research that supports either recent origins or ID.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Well, the "not over 65%" seems to be wrong.According to Wikipedia: So the question from the OP still stands:If the evidence is so ambiguous, or so open for reinterpretation, why do the vast majority of scientists (especially in the biological sciences, where they work first-hand with the so-called "ambiguous" evidence) support the theory of evolution?

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

That's pretty good, Tal. You should put that in your signature.-Anyway, there are three problems with your statement:(1) It's not true.(2) It's not the topic of the thread.(3) And even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with whether evolution is the correct description of the history of life on earth, which can only be determined by the physical evidence in geology and biology, not the ideologies of particular movements in history.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger