“It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.”–Galileo Galilei
5 Likes
But Christianity is about faith, not proof.
And science can only prove the tangible and the demonstrable. There is actually very little of Evolutionary theory that can actually be proved. Most of TOE is extrapolated conjecture. Likewise, it would be impossible to prove the account of Genesis 1, although I would suggest that parts of it could be disproved.
Richard
Faith is about believing what we do not see. It is not about denying what we do see. That is lying.
6 Likes
And how much actual evidence of Evolution (for instance) have you physically seen (excluding TV, books, media etc)
The process of Evolution maybe demonstrable, but have you witnessed it for yourself?
Can we go back however many years to Creation and witness the event for ourselves? In an age of TV where anything is possible or plausible, you cannot blame people for being skeptical. There are some who still think the Appolo landings were faked, a la Capricorn 1.
Richard
Nuclear fission is demonstrable but I have never witnessed it. Still believe in it though.
1 Like
So was Galileo wrong for concluding that the Earth moved about the Sun? Is that not proved?
Could you give us an example of extrapolated conjecture as it applies to common ancestry between humans and other apes?
With the advent of the internet, the genetic evidence is available to everyone. Here is a bit of evidence that I have physically seen, as discussed in another thread:
We can also see fossils:
1 Like
Well, a lot of people have witnessed being sick with omicron.
1 Like
Commonality is as much symptomatic of design and function as it is hereditary. It is only conjecture (and convenience) that insists we are descended from apes. There is no actual proof. No one saw it happen.
Richard
Not only is the first sentence incorrect, you seem to be implying that the second sentence logically leads to the first (i.e., no one saw it therefore there is no proof). That is also wrong. Eyewitness accounts are not a requirement to meet the burden of proof.
3 Likes
A nested hierarchy is not symptomatic of design and function, but it is symptomatic of common ancestry and evolution. We observe a nested hierarchy.
What do you mean by that? What would you consider evidence and not conjecture?
A forensic scientist walks into a crime scene where there is a murder victim with a knife sticking out of their chest. The scientist is able to recover DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire prints, and a whole host of other forensic evidence. All if it matches a suspect. Are you saying that this is just conjecture because the forensic scientist did not witness the murder itself?
4 Likes
At most we can say that science is not about proof but about what is reasonable to believe.
So it is not proven (not in the mathematical sense). And if you want to be unreasonable about it, ignoring all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then you can.
… and I can insist that the universe was created this morning with all our memories and evidence of a yesterday as it is. It may not serve any real purpose but I can be stubborn if I want to!
Yes and no. In common vernacular, “proven” means “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. When we say that someone was proven guilty in a court of law we don’t mean proven in an absolute sense.
4 Likes
Given that this took a long time and happened over the past, why would we expect anyone to see it happen?
1 Like
Academic integrity is a very big deal. Why should Christians be allowed unethical practice which is considered unacceptable in the world? Do the principles of honesty not apply equally to science as much as commerce? Is fudging the data any less scandalous than fudging the numbers? The standards should be higher, not lower.
4 Likes
No, you compare DNA strands You cannot prove any other connection. You cannot prove that a deformation or change made one from the other. Nested Hierarchy is an invention to fit the theory.
If you were to design creatures you would use the same basic building blocks. The only variations would be the ones that define the different species.
Talk about blinkered. You won’t even consider any possibility other than the one you promote.
Richard
Is Omicron substantially different from other strains of covid? Is it some sort of “Higher” being? Evolution can easily breed sub-species. It has yet to be proved that it can transverse beyond that.
Richard
And sometimes it’s about stuff that’s unreasonable to believe.
The tree of life, is symptomatic of common ancestry in somewhat the same way a nose is symptomatic of a family tree. Nested hierarchy is scarcely an invention to fit the theory. The idea naturally suggests itself.
It is a matter of degree, sure. But there is no stop point that says thus far but no further. Most are convinced that the weight of phylogenic and fossil evidence demonstrates that this process extended through the radiation of vertebrates, quadrupeds, mammals, primates, and eventually us.
In the scientific community, maybe. I am sorry but it is still conjecture and majority conclusion. Pure anatomy and mechanics defy the amount of change needed to change from one species to another let alone beyond that. Darwin only saw diversification, he did not see evidence beyond that. Even the jump from ape to human cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It has been said that Evolution is a religion and to a greater or lesser extent, godless Evolution needs as much faith as Christianity. (Which is why I support theistic Evolution)
Richard
That is not the point. The point is that we can only guess, or deduce from what we see now. And to claim any sort of certainty is fantasy at best. YECs have decided to accept the Scriptural viewpoint regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Pure Evolutionists have decided that they can force the Evolutionary process to create all life forms without Theistic interference or guidance (or directive structure). The answer is almost certainly somewhere in between.
Richard