Update, late evening, 2014-01-29:
This post went pretty insane on Google Plus today.
As of this writing, 26 people have reshared it, and there are 132 likes of, and 368 comments on, my direct post, with hundreds more on the reshares. The numbers are still growing, especially now that the post is trending.
I haven’t read all the responses, but I’ve occasionally dipped my toe in. I’ve (obviously) been called a Satanist and told I’m going to Hell. I’ve had someone suggest that he and his buddies strip me of my tech and send me out to live with the nomadic herders of Mongolia and see how an “intellectual” fares without his computer. I’ve read serious claims that Noah’s ark was a true historical event and that, before it, humans had engineered flying machines; that people could not have built the pyramids; that humans are not animals; that dinosaurs are in the Bible; that the existence of the Sanskrit language proves the existence of God; that Newton didn’t believe in Darwinian evolution so no one else should; that all atheists secretly believe in God but try to evangelize because they know their lives have no purpose (and Jesus doesn’t want them anyway); and … something about OSHA and environmental impact studies? I’m not going to try to figure that one out.
In response to an atheist complaining about the problem of not even having the original versions of the texts, comes my second-favorite line: “The original manuscripts (autographs) are indeed lost, no doubt providentially and with good reason. Had they survived, they would almost certainly have attracted idolatrous interest and been the focus of superstition.”
But my absolute favorite: “How many of have actually been to a pyramid? better yet How many of you have actually traveled outside the U.S. ??? Talking about science does not make anyone a Scientist, and arguing with ‘facts’ you find on google just makes it worse. This post would have a valid point if it had came from a Doctor, Mathematician, Geologist, Engineer and well you all get the point.” (To this my response would have been “I’ve visited the pyramids and been inside one; I’ve traveled to about 20 different countries and am outside the U.S. as we speak; I’m an engineer with a degree in mathematics; and you are still a moron.”)
Update, early morning, 2014-01-30:
Google Plus closed comments automatically after my post reached 500 comments. By pure serendipity, these are the first two and the last two comments on the thread. In online debates, it seems, everything comes full-circle:
Here are the original comments at Google Plus:
[gview file=”https://eclecticquill.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Joshua-McGee-GooglePlus-Comments.pdf”]
A warm welcome to the people from the Google Plus post! Google automatically stopped discussion after 500 comments, so, if you like, you are welcome to continue here.
Did room run out on g+? I know it’s comment section got extremely large and have heard at some point Google shuts it down.
Can anyone point me to a site or documentary(On YouTube) for more scientific information about evolution? Ou.can never learn enough I say. Because whatever I may know there’s always more to learn.
+Rob Carr: Yes, G+ automatically closes discussion after 500 comments.
Sorry I commented before I read that comment about it’s limits.
No worries, +Rob Carr. :-)
It’s pretty annoying that G+ limits conversations to 500 comments, on the other hand I don’t think the creationists could have improved their position at all. The last one admitted that he had no proof for creationism, but called all the evidence for evolution *assumptions* . I honestly don’t know how to respond to someone like that to bring them to their senses.
I think another discussion should be opened on G+. Part II.
“The last one admitted that he had no proof for creationism, but called all the evidence for evolution *assumptions* ”
This is just ridiculous. Any person with a decent knowledge of english would have understand the statement to mean that scientists make assumptions based on the fossil/DNA or whatever else evidence.
hmmm…” scientists make assumptions based on the fossil/DNA or whatever else evidence”
Scientists don’t make just assumptions, they propose answers (hypothesis, then theory) to well posed questions, then look into the evidence, to see if the evidence supports their theory’s predictions. If they do, then they go further and propose more hypothesis to upcoming questions. This is the scientific method. It NEVER EVER states that scientist know “THE” answer. Scientists always find “an” answer which could be “the” answer to the specific question or not. However, if a proposed theory is consistently making verifiable predictions that match the evidence scientists acquire, it just becomes more and more reliable. Nevertheless, if some day some evidence is found to point that (for instance) Natural Selection cannot work in a situation which was supposed to work in (i.e. if the evidence contradicts the predictions of the theory) then we simply “drop” the theory! No matter how “cool” it might look like! We already dropped Newtonian Mechanics! (kinda, we now consider it a “special case” of relativity for very low speeds compared to the speed of light) However, for the Natural Selection, the evidence is growing in favor of it by the day. You should probably look into the “scientific method” and get familiar with how science works before making assumptions of your own about scientist.
“Any person with a decent knowledge of english would have understand the statement to mean that scientists make assumptions based on the fossil/DNA or whatever else evidence.”
Assumptions based on evidence. Like the assumption that causes precede effects? Your statements are all nonsense @sa ka
At least now you understand it’s an assumption. Many atheists get carried away and start believing it as a fact.
@Sa Ka: please take a few minutes and read this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
We might save ourselves some time arguing over basic concepts then.
Typical arrogant comments from atheist purporting that creationists don’t know about science.
The argument is not about science. The argument is that no observation has ever been made of one kind of animal evolving to another. Until then you can cite all the DNA evidence, fossils, observations of “speciation” and whatever else you want but at the end of the day it’s just theoretical and assumptions.
Unfortunately you just proved my point :( There are thousands of examples (even lab examples) of bacterial/worm/insect evolution. If by Animal you are only considering four legged mammals you can hug, then it would almost be impossible to show the evolution to you because it happens slower that a typical human’s life. And since you insist on “seeing and touching” the evidence (i.e. witnessing the change), then it might all look to you like guesswork and speculation! If you don’t consider DNA and fossils as “evidence” and are only looking for “living and morphing” animals as a proof of evolution, then you seriously need to read about the scientific method and what is considered “evidence” in science. It is not arrogance, it is just that you are asking for something that you just made up! What you mean by “evidence” is a concept apparently only you know! I have no idea what an evidence is in your mind but I am sure it is not what scientists call “evidence”.
Example 1: It is just like telling your friend “all those oranges you gave me were so crunchy! I hate crunchy oranges! You are a lousy farmer!” and your friends keeps telling you that “those were apples!!! you have not tasted the oranges yet!” and then you say “well, I know what an orange is you arrogant farmer and I hate your oranges! and I am going to tell everyone not to buy them from you”… It feels exactly like that! Science IS about basic assumption, evidence, theories, analysis, verification, measurement, etc! And DNA, fossils and tissue samples and blood samples and Hubble telescope pictures are ALL evidence!
Example 2: Here is a thought experiment for you: Suppose you walk into a room. There is (only) a dead body, a table and a little vial containing an odorless and transparent liquid on it. The vial is half full. Also the vial is labeled “juice”. The question is: would you drink the contents of the vial?
According to you, you will. Since the only “evidence” of the nature of the content is the label. You have no idea how the dead guy got there and since YOU did not “witness” his death and what caused it, you can simply dismiss the possibility of the liquid in the bottle to be poison and cause of his demise.
Now, if your answer was “yes” then there is a great misunderstanding on your part about what is considered “evidence” by scientists and I dare say in general (like police evidence and like of it).
If your answer is “No” then you intuitively agree with the definition of “evidence” as meant by a scientist (and generally humans), but suppress that intuition and understanding just to continue a pointless argument!
You still don’t understand. I clearly said before this is not about science.
You say “There are thousands of examples (even lab examples) of bacterial/worm/insect evolution”. Show me one example of bacteria or worm or insect evolving into another kind of living organism other than the respective bacteria worm or insect. Don’t show me examples of speciation and say that’s evolution. We can observe speciation, creationists have no issues with it. What creationists want to see is examples of evolution where one kind of living organism evolves to a different one. Please don’t say we haven’t got time to observe this since evolution of this kind is slow. This still doesn’t change the fact that it’s still an assumption and theoretical.
Think hard about this. Just because speciation occurs does not mean one kind of organism evolves to another. This is purely theoretical, an assumption based from the observations of speciation.
On top of that it still can’t be proven that that the origin of life started from simple self replicating molecules. You’re probably one of the many atheists who have been mislead to think that life can be created from scratch. It can’t. It has not been done to this day. I don’t care how close the scientists are or the fact they’ve created synthetic DNA which has worked. That is not creating life from scratch. In order to create life from scratch they need to use 100% synthetic molecules.
If life cannot be created from scratch then this basically invalidates the origin of species as defined by evolution.
Think about the above objectively.It’s not about creationists versus atheists or science versus religion. This is about determining the truth no matter how odd it is or contrary to ones religion or beliefs.
Just in case, “the origin” is a different story than the “evolution.” No one knows for sure (even with a good degree of certainty) “how” life started here on Earth. That is very very very hard to study because almost all the evidence of that era is already gone under the crust of Earth and not reachable anymore. We cannot explain the origin (yet), but evolution explains the rest very good!
As for testing the evolution, if you want to get a new species and turning one insect into a completely different one, you probably have to wait very long (wait) PLUS you have to simulate the environment much more thoroughly! As is happens, we already have data for such experiment! THE EARTH. Why do that when you have the required evidence in the fossil record and DNA?! There is a huge body of evidence, the result of 3 billions or so years of life on Earth, and The theory of Evolution can explain the relations and the “evolution” of those species quite well, so, why should we test it in lab?!? The theory makes good predictions within the sample pool we have, and also makes good predictions for the questions we pose about the future. That is WHY we have that theory! To explain the RECORDs and PREDICT outcomes! If it does all these well, I don’t see why you might want to “witness” the results!? Look at the fossil records, THOSE are the evidence on which this theory is based upon. Later DNA analysis confirmed most of it (changed some other parts) and it is still making good progress.
By the way, of course it takes time! And OF COURSE IT IS A THEORY! BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND BECAUSE IT IS FALSIFIABLE! Those are all properties of a “theory”. But a theory is different from “speculation”. A theory is formed to explain the evidence. It is checked against the evidence and if it is found incomplete or wrong, then it goes out of the window! “Speculation” on the other hand is just guesswork with no mechanism for verification and testing its validity! Theory of Evolution is a Theory, but on top of that it is almost the most successful one because it can explain and be verified against new evidence (i.e. new fossils or DNA analysis and so on). We might not have a lab test for it and we might not be around (a single human) to witness a complete birth of a new species, but why would that matter?! the body of evidence is the what WE HAVE now. All theories in science are like that! What bothers me is that the creationists insist on this particular theory to be wrong using “different” approaches, that what they claim about say Einstein’s Relativity! It was impossible to test in a lab at its time, but the evidence that came later (through observation of cosmos or atomic clock tests) all supported it. Yet it is still a THEORY because it is possible that someday some evidence is found that it fails to explain.
Science is not about absolute knowledge and %100 certainty! That is why I referred you to the wikipedia page. Also Richard Feynman’s lectures are very instructive.
You still don’t seem to be understanding what I’m saying.
We have the theory of gravity. Is it possible that one day science will prove that gravity doesn’t exist?
This is not a question about disproving some aspects of the theory of evolution. Some parts such as speciation are a fact, we can observe them, there is no issues about that.
However the theory that all living organisms originated from some simple self replicating molecules billions of years ago is unsupported nonsense. Just accept that.
I put it to you that it is impossible for life to appear instantly through natural processes. It’s also impossible for life to be engineered from scratch by humans. Both these hypotheses are provable today scientifically. I don’t want to hear any nonsense that we are close or we will be able to in million years or so.
If you haven’t already don so you’ll probably be googling to find reports of scientists creating life in the lab. Many atheists have done the same but failed. They never read the reports properly and come back with ifs and buts. If you have any desire to know the truth you will look deeper and find out why.
“We have the theory of gravity. Is it possible that one day science will prove that gravity doesn’t exist?”
Of course it is possible (for the theory of gravity). We might someday find a unified theory and no longer call this force “gravity” and call it a derivative of something else.
We might realize what we call “mass” is not actually mass and is just something else related to other fundamental forces in nature.
We might even, at some point, review the term “force” and come to a better explanation of this “attraction/repulsion” behavior.
Actually we have already done that (partially) in General Relativity: force of gravity is bound directly to the curvature of space not the mass of objects (mass causes the curvature). So there you go! We already have a different theory which does not treat good old gravity the way we are used to treating it (just a force in an “f = m.a” sense, however, f = ma would also become more general).
Even worse, the notion of “time” has been regarded as the ever moving and independent of space for centuries. Now we know that is probably not true. The passage of time changes with the relative speed of the observers (Special Relativity). We know treat space and time as interdependent parameters, not independent anymore. Tell that to Newton and he would probably kick you out of his office call all of it nonsense!
And again and again, that is the whole point of science. Theories are falsifiable! You can question anything in science and bring out evidence. If the evidence contradicts a theory and you can repeat the experiment and show it is not compatible, then we just toss the theory out. This is not science’s weakness, but its strength. We always examine our theories against evidence and verify them and then make better ones.
Sorry you misunderstood my point. I meant to say that gravity would always be true in the sense that if you dropped something on the earth’s surface it would fall down. It’s an observed phenomena that cannot be denied. The theory can change but the observation can’t. If one day gravity did weaken/didn’t exists or it didn’t work in a certain location or with a certain object then it’s still a fact that previous observations were correct however new laws calculations may need to be made if that change persisted.
I find it odd that if something cannot be proven atheists will reject it but when it comes to the origin of life or the origin of species or the big bang they will happily accept it. It’s mind boggling that they accept DNA, fossils as evidence when these things in no way prove the origin of life or the origin of species. It’s simply an assumption that it must have happened via evolution because the DNA/fossils are common or similar. If they could just look at life today and see that there many species which simply cannot reproduce fertile offspring never mind going to the higher “kind” level.
Having come from a pro “scientific” stance and having been through an atheist phase, I can see where they are coming from. However it just takes better reading of the science to realise what fools atheists/evolutionists are being made of.