[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[lordkalvan]

Again, the only thing you have presented are similarities between man and a dead-end ape species - both having the same Designer. Is that all you have?

Without wishing to be unkind, it seems to be more than you do.....

 

[Ambrose]

Barbarian observes:
No designer worthy of the name would do this.

I am interested in science but I do not have a solid biological background or in geology. So my expertise in the area are none. But i would like to point out like you have probably heard a million times before that things didnt start this way. Fall of man, And post flood etc. Would have brought some big changes. But i have heard that you may not even believe in the flood so the fall of man should be enough to lower us below perfection. Besides if you believe this part of the genesis account they originally were living forever. Then the tree of knowledge of good and evil (aka. Knowledge of sin.) brought about death. And all that ushers in and causes it. And everything that opens the path for it before it happens.

 

[zeke]

Without wishing to be unkind, it seems to be more than you do.....

Do you have evidence from science that the similarities between man and a dead-end ape species proves universal common ancestry via naturalism or do you believe that myth via faith?

 

[lordkalvan]

Do you have evidence from science that the similarities between man and a dead-end ape species proves universal common ancestry via naturalism or do you believe that myth via faith?

It's not a myth, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, and the relatedness of primates is established beyond all reasonable doubt by multiple lines of independent evidence. I note that you have been unable to counter any of Barbarian's arguments with anything other than outright denial and personal incredulity, so my point stands.

 

[Sparkey]

But as you have seen, it goes far beyond that.

So your evidence for evolution goes beyond the proof that can be offered in a paternity suit against you? How?

 

[Sparkey]

It's not a myth, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, and the relatedness of primates is established beyond all reasonable doubt by multiple lines of independent evidence. I note that you have been unable to counter any of Barbarian's arguments with anything other than outright denial and personal incredulity, so my point stands.

Your statements are contradictory. Nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt without proof.

You may be interested to note that your "reasonable doubt" standard has a history. Quick look at wiki (for your amusement, lk):

The use of "reasonable doubt" as a standard requirement in the Western justice system originated in medieval England. In English common law prior to the "reasonable doubt" standard, passing judgment in criminal trials had severe religious repercussions for jurors. According to Christian law prior to the 1780s: "the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come."

It was also believed "In every case of doubt, where one’s salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way.... A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge."

It was in reaction to these "religious fears" that "reasonable doubt" was introduced in the late 17th century to English common law, thereby allowing jurors to more easily convict. Therefore the original use of the "reasonable doubt" standard was opposite to its modern use of limiting a juror's ability to convict.

If hyperbolic exageration is to be employed, you may want to signal your intent by using the phrase, "beyond even a shadow of doubt," (an impossible standard of proof) and I'll understand that you're winking even as you say it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Your statements are contradictory. Nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt without proof.

You may be interested to note that your "reasonable doubt" standard has a history. Quick look at wiki (for your amusement, lk):

If hyperbolic exageration is to be employed, you may want to signal your intent by using the phrase, "beyond even a shadow of doubt," (an impossible standard of proof) and I'll understand that you're winking even as you say it.

I take your points. My understanding, however, is that the word 'proof' has a particular import in a scientific context (i.e. 100% certainty), a certainty that cannot be guaranteed. So evolutionary theory has a great deal of evidence supporting it, such that mot scientists regarded it as established beyond reasonable doubt, but this reasonable doubt does not encompass 100% certainty and subsequent research and findings may overturn that established beyond reasonable doubt. I hope this clarifies my position.

 

[Sparkey]

I take your points. My understanding, however, is that the word 'proof' has a particular import in a scientific context (i.e. 100% certainty), a certainty that cannot be guaranteed. So evolutionary theory has a great deal of evidence supporting it, such that mot scientists regarded it as established beyond reasonable doubt, but this reasonable doubt does not encompass 100% certainty and subsequent research and findings may overturn that established beyond reasonable doubt. I hope this clarifies my position.

Sure, it clarifies, and for the most part you are very clear about your position. I do however, question your ability to speak for "most scientists". Have you designed a survey for instance? Do the scientists that you reference believe that there is a preponderance of evidence in support of evolution or do "most" (as you say) believe that the very difficult standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" is established? If the latter, can such a thing be possible without "proof"?

Do "most scientists" accept evolutionary theory in the same manner as they do The Law of Conservation of Energy, for instance? I believe that the law can indeed be given rigorous proof through mathematics, for instance.

Barbarian has been ignoring my jibes and position that similarity does not constitute the same proof as can be offered in a modern paternity suit (where indeed descendancy is proven via DNA beyond any reasonable doubt) and he states the evidence for evolution goes beyond that.

My position is that there are different standards of proof and that incorrectly asserting one for another does nothing to establish credibility.

 

[zeke]

It's not a myth, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, and the relatedness of primates is established beyond all reasonable doubt by multiple lines of independent evidence. I note that you have been unable to counter any of Barbarian's arguments with anything other than outright denial and personal incredulity, so my point stands.

Then you admit you have no evidence from science that the similarities between man and a dead-end ape species proves universal common ancestry via naturalism and you believe that myth via faith?

The onus is yours and Barbarian's to prove man-chimp common ancestry. Thus far you have both failed. You're dancing - do you have the required proof or not?

 

[Sparkey]

Then you admit you have no evidence from science that the similarities between man and a dead-end ape species proves universal common ancestry via naturalism and you believe that myth via faith?

The onus is yours and Barbarian's to prove man-chimp common ancestry. Thus far you have both failed. You're dancing - do you have the required proof or not?

You're asking for an impossible standard of proof. The idea that one side must show proof beyond any reasonable doubt also applies to Christians and their positions. Can we show that God created in such a manner that His existence is beyond all reasonable doubt? For the Christian, the Word of God constitutes such proof, but that fails to impress as "beyond reasonable doubt" to the unbeliever.

I believe God created things in exactly this manner, so that neither side can show beyond all reasonable doubt that they are right.

 

[zeke]

...proof is for mathematics and alcohol...

Can we 'prove' inductively that the earth orbits the sun once a year?

 

[Sparkey]

In response to a prompted essay in one of my classes this weekend I wrote a paper about Ruth Hubbard's statement in her essay on Darwinian Evolution where she stated, "[e]very theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy that orders experience into the framework it provides" (Gender of Science, 154). You don't need to know the quote to comment on the concept and my thought is that she had the right of it.

 

[zeke]

Can we show that God created in such a manner that His existence is beyond all reasonable doubt?

God by definition exists outside of nature, dead-end ape species existed within nature - big difference my friend. Do you believe that dead-end ape species and man have a common ancestor?

 

[lordkalvan]

Sure, it clarifies, and for the most part you are very clear about your position. I do however, question your ability to speak for "most scientists". Have you designed a survey for instance? Do the scientists that you reference believe that there is a preponderance of evidence in support of evolution or do "most" (as you say) believe that the very difficult standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" is established? If the latter, can such a thing be possible without "proof"?

Religious Tolerance quotes a figure of 99.85% of US earth and life scientists as accepting evolutionary theory as valid (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm). The Wiki article quotes similarly overwhelming figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution).

Do "most scientists" accept evolutionary theory in the same manner as they do The Law of Conservation of Energy, for instance? I believe that the law can indeed be given rigorous proof through mathematics, for instance.

As you point out, scientific theories are qualitatively different from scientific laws. Laws have limited applicability to situations similar to those already observed, and can be found to be wrong when different situations apply. So no, laws cannot be proven as applicable in all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

Barbarian has been ignoring my jibes and position that similarity does not constitute the same proof as can be offered in a modern paternity suit (where indeed descendancy is proven via DNA beyond any reasonable doubt) and he states the evidence for evolution goes beyond that.

I will leave Barbarian to speak for himself, but insofar as the procedures for establishing DNA relatedness amongst individuals of the same species are the same as those for establishing relatedness amongst different species, I think it falls to you to explain why the conclusion is erroneous.

My position is that there are different standards of proof and that incorrectly asserting one for another does nothing to establish credibility.

And I don't take issue with your qualification, but I still maintain the view that science does not deal in 100% certainty, but does consider that evidence can be provided that is overwhelmingly persuasive. How this overwhelming persuasiveness can be best described - I chose beyond reasonable doubt - is another matter.

 

[lordkalvan]

Can we 'prove' inductively that the earth orbits the sun once a year?

Not according to Strangelove: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=31070.

 

[Sparkey]

lk: Are you saying that a belief that something is valid constitutes proof beyond all reasonable doubt? C'mon! Showing validity or even showing a preponderance of evidence is entirely different than showing proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

Can you not see contradiction in your assertion especially when you state, "So no, [not even] laws cannot be proven as applicable in all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt." I think I understand you to say that "proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed for scientists to be convinced", but to then say that you have evidence for evolution that shows its truth beyond all reasonable doubt (to all reasonable people) in the same breath is what I challenge.

Let's talk about the "reason" behind your assertion, because if all it amounts to is an assertion that no reasonable person can believe in God, you've got a long row to hoe.

________________________________

zeke:
Your allegation that since science can mathematically prove heliocentric cosmology, they therefor can can prove all things mathematically does not necessarily follow.

 

[zeke]

l

zeke:
Your allegation that since science can mathematically prove heliocentric cosmology, they therefor can can prove all things mathematically does not necessarily follow.

Can science "mathematically prove heliocentric cosmology"?

 

[lordkalvan]

lk: Are you saying that a belief that something is valid constitutes proof beyond all reasonable doubt? C'mon! Showing validity or even showing a preponderance of evidence is entirely different than showing proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

We seem to be descending into a semantic quagmire. I would suggest that in this context valid can be reasonably (heh-heh) considered as encompassing the idea of beyond reasonable doubt, in the sense of valid as convincing.

Can you not see contradiction in your assertion especially when you state, "So no, [not even] laws cannot be proven as applicable in all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt." I think I understand you to say that "proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed for scientists to be convinced", but to then say that you have evidence for evolution that shows its truth beyond all reasonable doubt (to all reasonable people) in the same breath is what I challenge.

We are aware of our difference of opinion here. I will not quibble that you reasonably (heh-heh again) differ with my opinion as to the impact of the weight of evidence that supports evolutionary theory, but I will equally stick to my guns that it is a reasonable comment.

Let's talk about the "reason" behind your assertion, because if all it amounts to is an assertion that no reasonable person can believe in God, you've got a long row to hoe.

I don't think this follows and, if it appears so from what I have written, that was not my intention. Kenneth Miller believes in God and has written on and argued extensively on behalf of the soundness of evolutionary theory; he is, I believe, an eminently reasonable person.

 

[Sparkey]

We seem to be descending into a semantic quagmire. I would suggest that in this context valid can be reasonably (heh-heh) considered as encompassing the idea of beyond reasonable doubt, in the sense of valid as convincing.

We are aware of our difference of opinion here. I will not quibble that you reasonably (heh-heh again) differ with my opinion as to the impact of the weight of evidence that supports evolutionary theory, but I will equally stick to my guns that it is a reasonable comment.

I don't think this follows and, if it appears so from what I have written, that was not my intention. Kenneth Miller believes in God and has written on and argued extensively on behalf of the soundness of evolutionary theory; he is, I believe, an eminently reasonable person.

Seems "sticking to your guns" even when incorrect is appropriate for your viewpoint. Thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No designer worthy of the name would do this.

I am interested in science but I do not have a solid biological background or in geology. So my expertise in the area are none. But i would like to point out like you have probably heard a million times before that things didnt start this way. Fall of man, And post flood etc.

To use that as an out would required that God twist man into a cobbled-up mess of tetrapod remains, slightly modified to let him walk on two legs. Without scientific or scriptural support, that crashes.

Would have brought some big changes. But i have heard that you may not even believe in the flood

The Flood may be believed as the Good Samaritan may be believed. Whether or not there one or both of these really existed is unimportant.

Besides if you believe this part of the genesis account they originally were living forever. Then the tree of knowledge of good and evil (aka. Knowledge of sin.) brought about death.

This is not true for physical death, since God alludes to the fact that Adam was mortal in the Garden. Since the Bible does not say that God altered Adam and Eve anatomically, we can safely regard that as unsupportable.