Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by KellyJay
I honestly believe it to be true, but it is faith. Now in reality if true, it will
be more trustworthy than all the results of science have given us. The rules
are different between the two, science is an ever shifting pool of knowledge
we gather more data, then change our minds based upon what we learned.
While a creation is a non-changing story, it is either true or not.
Kelly

I believe Faith to be a fickle master. I do not believe the Truth can be ascertained through Faith. I have said elsewhere that I sometimes envy people with great faith, because it gives them confidence and the knowledge that 'someone' is looking after them! But I would be reluctant to ascribe Truth to it.
Does that make sense?!

Originally posted by Pianoman1
I believe Faith to be a fickle master. I do not believe the Truth can be ascertained through Faith. I have said elsewhere that I sometimes envy people with great faith, because it gives them confidence and the knowledge that 'someone' is looking after them! But I would be reluctant to ascribe Truth to it.
Does that make sense?!

Truth doesn't depend upon what I think or feel.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Now in reality if true, it will be more trustworthy than all the results of science have given us.

You're not making a lot of sense. If something is true then it is at best trivial that it is trustworthy. To call something trustworthy suggests that its truth is in fact not certain.
A scientific finding, if true, is no more or less trustworthy than anything else that is true.

While a creation is a non-changing story, it is either true or not.
The real difference is that the findings of science are far more likely to be true - because they are tested by experiment. In fact, you are quite happy to trust your life to these findings every day, and to use the benefits of these findings when you use your computer to write these posts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You're not making a lot of sense. If something is true then it is at best trivial that it is trustworthy. To call something trustworthy suggests that its truth is in fact not certain.
A scientific finding, if true, is no more or less trustworthy than anything else that is true.

[b]While a creation is a non-changing story, it is either true or not. ...[text shortened]... day, and to use the benefits of these findings when you use your computer to write these posts.[/b]

It is the general rule that the findings of science have proven more likely to be false than true due to the fact that new findings have superseded the old findings as the current truth. So what we believe to be the truth of science today may be superseded by stiil newer findings. The complexity of the cell is one example. In Darwins time the cell was thought to be just a simple blob of jelly-like substance.

The truth of God does not change. It is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by KellyJay
Truth doesn't depend upon what I think or feel.
Kelly

You've got it! Truth is objective. Faith, however, is not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the general rule that the findings of science have proven more likely to be false than true due to the fact that new findings have superseded the old findings as the current truth.

This is a common misunderstanding of science and one that I suspect Kelly shares with you. Science does not get superceded over time, it gets more accurate over time. Whereas your God myth simply remains just as false as it always was.
Science is testable and is tested. Your God myth is untestable and no better than any random claim.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
You've got it! Truth is objective. Faith, however, is not.

Yea, I know...I can put faith in someone's word and be disappointed
because they break their word, I can put faith in a contract that the party
I went into a contract with would hold up their end of the deal while I act
out on good faith keeping my end of the deal. Truth is simply the truth, I
can find it in science, or I can find it in faith it isn't something that is in any
way beholden on how I looked at things, it is what it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is a common misunderstanding of science and one that I suspect Kelly shares with you. Science does not get superceded over time, it gets more accurate over time. Whereas your God myth simply remains just as false as it always was.
Science is testable and is tested. Your God myth is untestable and no better than any random claim.

Here is one thing God said that has been tested over and over for thousands of years and has always proven to be true:


Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. ...

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

(Genesis 1:11, 24-25 NKJV)

All these things that God made naturally reproduce according to its kind. Apple trees always yield the same kind of fruit, whose seed is in itself. There has never been an apple tree that has yielded oranges. Cattle have never reproduced elephants.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apple trees always yield the same kind of fruit, whose seed is in itself.

There are many kinds of fruit that we call apples - over 7,500 of them. The domesticated apple even has a different species name than the wild apple it originated from.
And there are even seedless apples.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is one thing God said that has been tested over and over for thousands of years and has always proven to be true:

Did God also say 'the sky is blue'? That too could be tested for thousands of years. It wouldn't make anything else the speaker said more trustworthy.
Science on the other hand can tell you why the sky is blue and why oranges do not grow from apple seeds and what exceptions there are to what you say God claimed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The complexity of the cell is one example. In Darwins time the cell was thought to be just a simple blob of jelly-like substance.

This is not true at all. I know the timing is off by at least a few hundred years. By Darwin's time, much more was known about cells than that.

C'mon, someone with more knowledge about this than I come help me out here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is not true at all. I know the timing is off by at least a few hundred years. By Darwin's time, much more was known about cells than that.

C'mon, someone with more knowledge about this than I come help me out here.

I could be wrong, more here spend time thinking about
"Origin of the Species"
than I do, but I think it was only ~150 years ago. I don't think he sited
much on the cell, but someone who believes in it may have a reference.
Kelly

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is not true at all. I know the timing is off by at least a few hundred years. By Darwin's time, much more was known about cells than that.

C'mon, someone with more knowledge about this than I come help me out here.

As I said, science gets more accurate over time. RJs real mistake is in thinking that if scientists don't know the details of something then they conclude there are no details. Scientists never thought that "the cell was thought to be just a simple blob of jelly-like substance", they simply did not know the details and would not have claimed to. Once they found out the details, it didn't render what they knew previously wrong, it just gave them more details.
The reason nobody bothered replying to him was not that it requires more knowledge than you about the exact history of discovery of such things, but rather that RJ is simply not worth replying to most of the time.
I replied to him above because some of the things he said are common misconceptions about science that many people hold and I thought it was worth correcting.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, science gets more accurate over time. RJs real mistake is in thinking that if scientists don't know the details of something then they conclude there are no details. Scientists never thought that "the cell was thought to be just a simple blob of jelly-like substance", they simply did not know the details and would not have claimed to. Once they ...[text shortened]... common misconceptions about science that many people hold and I thought it was worth correcting.

Many scientist in Darwin's day thought life was spontaneously generated from non-living matter. However, at about the same time as Darwin's book was published, Louis Pasteur proved that wrong and that life came only from other life, which is called the law of biogenesis. The opposite is called abiogenesis, which most evilution scientist still believe in. How stupid can they get?

http://creationscience4kids.com/2012/04/23/abiogenesis-aka-spontaneous-generation/

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Many scientist in Darwin's day thought life was spontaneously generated from non-living matter. However, at about the same time as Darwin's book was published, Louis Pasteur proved that wrong and that life came only from other life, which is called the law of biogenesis. The opposite is called abiogenesis, which most evilution scientist still believe in. ...[text shortened]... ://creationscience4kids.com/2012/04/23/abiogenesis-aka-spontaneous-generation/

The Instructor

Nice website, teaching children that child murder is OK as long as something really big and powerful does it.