|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
If God were to appear in the sky and announce to the world that the Bible is in fact literally true, and the world and all life was created in 6 days, I would think that even the most outspoken evolutionists would have to stand up, red-faced, and say Ok, I was wrong. So which way is Hell? Oh yeah, down I guess.
Suppose things went the other way, however. What if irrefutable evidence was found that supported evolution? Say a mine was dug somewhere and they accidentally found a timeline of complete fossils, showing an unbroken sequential progression of creatures gradually changing from an original species ‘A’ to a distinct new species ‘B’. This is just a possible example, it doesn’t even really matter what the actual evidence may be. We just need to imagine it as proof beyond doubt of evolution. It would be a "smoking gun" that would lay to rest all the usual creationist arguments against ToE--which even the most reasonable and intelligent ID proponent could not deny. In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it? Would die-hard ID’ers and creationists (or even just ordinary religious people who take the Bible’s word for it) argue that God actually created that irrefutable evidence so that the ‘unfaithful’ would be led away from God by this manufactured evidence and only the truly faithful would see through it. What does everyone think? This message has been edited by Thor, 05-19-2005 10:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSylas Inactive Member |
Prompting this with some trepidation and curiosity. I think it is probably a Faith and Belief topic; let's keep it friendly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Evolution has long since been proven beyond reasonable doubt; it apparently makes little difference to the nay-sayers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Thor, evolution will never be proven correct. Evolution is a scientific theory. It can be proven wrong but it can never be proven correct. That isn't how science works.
Please do a little research on this subject. A good place to start might be PBS's Evolultion FAQ. Spend about 20 minutes there and you'll understand why your idea is absurd (I don't mean to be insulting, only accurate). EDITED to correct link. This message has been edited by berberry, 05-26-2005 07:45 AM Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It can be proven wrong but it can never be proven correct. That isn't how science works. This doesn't make much sense to me, unless you are just saying that inductive evidence is never absolutely 100% certain. But surely we can say that some "theories" are more certain than others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
robinrohan writes me:
quote: Sort of; I'm saying that no scientific theory can be proved absolutely. The FAQ I linked to puts it this way:
In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. quote: Yes, but the distinction between overwhelming evidence and absolute proof can be important in science. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
But surely we can say that some "theories" are more certain than others. This doesn't seem to get emphasized enough. I agree that there are large differences in the degree of certainty involved. For example, we can make a good guess that general relativity is not correct since problems arise on the scale that quantum mechanics comes into play. (It may be QM that is flawed of course). However, GR is more "correct" than Newtonian mechanics. And, for the scales where we use it GR tests out as being extremely correct. That is, it is useful. By contrast the theory of evolution has no well founded hint that it is wrong. It seems to stand up very well against many different tests. It has proven, in addition, to be very useful in many circumstances. On the other hand, there are ways in which it is not "useful". Because what actually unfolds in the very messy, complex real world is enormously contingent the theory can not usually be used to predict [i]exactly[i] what will occur. GR can predict with enormous precision what will occur to, for example, the GPS satillites. With this in mind we still find Newtonian mechanics "useful". But we know that it is "wrong". What we consider to be 'correct', 'proven' and 'certain' may depend very much on the specific context of the discussion. Another example is string theory. It is very, very uncertain. No one would argue that it is equivalent to atomic theory. Today we treat atomic 'theory' not as a very certain but tentative theory but rather as a "fact". Note I said "treat". We understand the possibility of finding new information that may overturn the idea but we act as if it is an unshakable fact. My point (lost in words) is that there is, for practical purposes, a continuum from hypothosis to fact. The lines between them are not as sharp and clear as we generally believe when speaking day to day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it? Would die-hard ID’ers and creationists (or even just ordinary religious people who take the Bible’s word for it) argue that God actually created that irrefutable evidence so that the ‘unfaithful’ would be led away from God by this manufactured evidence and only the truly faithful would see through it. Pretty much. I actually know someone (a recently born-again Christian) who seriously claims that fossils were put there by the Devil. Edited to change "their" to "there" - D'Oh! This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 05-26-2005 02:48 PM Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
In a heated discussion with the "Lam" we determined that evolution really doesn't prove if God exists or not. I don't think evolution should be used to disprove God's existance.
The bible says the earth was created in 6 days, but also notes that a day can be like a thousand years to God. So just how did God create everything? Were we created to evolve? Was everything else created to evolve? I think that whole concept is relativly un-important when you campare what Jesus tries to teach us about Loving others, and loving God. It is by those means that you will prove God's existance to yourself, not by proving evolution. This is where I am at on this subject, and thanks to this forum, it has cleared up these things for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Actually, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt many times. In fact, I witnessed it myself.
The theory of evolution, however, can never be proven. Scientific theories, by definition, can never be proven. If you want to play with this concept, you have to change the definition. Your question is the same as asking what happens if we find a prime number that can be divided by a smaller prime number? If it is a number that can be divided by a smaller prime number, then by definition it is not a prime number.
I don't know why riverrat would mention Lam here. He's just a dumb kid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
LOL!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
The thing is evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for creationists to be calloused of this fact would be a grave mistake. The theory of evolution is what is mostly on debate, and unfortunately, I think it is impossible for it to be proven.
Well i guess this debate website will be here a long time...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The thing is evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for creationists to be calloused of this fact would be a grave mistake. The theory of evolution is what is mostly on debate, and unfortunately, I think it is impossible for it to be proven. I don't understand this. Perhaps this is sarcasm of a sort? If TOE is "beyond a reasonable doubt," doesn't that mean it is sufficiently proven?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
please look into the different of evolution and the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I should really start putting copyright signs all over my posts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024