The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

[WhiteWings]

Science without proof is no science.

What is considered proof?

Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.

There was a conclusion at one time the earth was flat,  now that we know that is not correct,  does that make the conclusion of a flat earth (at the time it was thought to be correct) a"lie",  does what we know now prevent the flat earth theory from being valid science (at the time)?

No it wasn't a lie. Assuming the conclusion wasn't influence by for example church.
I said it something similar earlier in this thread. Darwin himself wasn't very sure about his theory. He dedicated a chapter to that doubt. His theory was wrong. (Perhaps) based on to little evidence to call it science. But it was no hoax. The hoax started later. Not by Darwin himself but others. Heckler is a good example of that. He claimed to have researched embryos of several species in various stages of growth. He doctered his drawings in such a way it looked that the early stages of a several animals including humans looked very similar.
That's a hoax. Or the moth that changed color. Hoax. Lucy. Hoax. Piltdown man. Hoax. No missing link is found to backup the theory of Darwin.
It started aout as honest mistake by Darwin and slowly it evolved into a real hoax.

To get back at your flat earth science.
Yes during that time it was valid and prestigious science. Good to be thaught is schools.

In the 4th century it was proposed that the earth was spherical.  How can it be valid science to propose such a thing?   They could not observe the earth from space and offer proof,  the could not directly prove anything.

Ships that dissapear under the horizon is one way of concluding the earth isn't flat.

Another aspect of science that gets ignored is that the flat earth theory was indeed a "scientific fact"  its "truth" is irrevalent to it being one.

Agreed. Wrong science still is science if the conclusion is reached with the best/honest intentions. I don't expect that scientists are without error.
But it would be different if today it was taught the earth is flat and the sun rotates around earth in a perfect circular orbit because God wouldn't make inperfect elliptic orbits. (church influence)

So when people complain that evolutionary theory is taught as fact, it is indeed a scientific fact,  whether it is "true" or not has no bearing on it being one. 

The aim of science always has to be 'true'
Often it turns out to be wrong. It happend in the past. It happens now. It happens in the future. That's a pitty. But as I said we can't expect Godly perfection from scientists.
So Darwins evolution is fine to be taught as science as long as the theory is considered valid.
But when by various means the credibility of the theory gets weaker and weak it no longer is science.
Fact -> Theory -> Guesswork -> debunked.
IMO when the 'Guesswork' phase is reached it should no longer be thaught in schools.

They just happen to leave off the scientific word in order to twist things.

Give me one post where I twisted things....

[Paul Hazelwood]

I do not know if you personally are twisting anything WW.   

I am saying that teaching evolutionary theory, whatever it entails is valid scientific fact.  Scientific facts are what makes theorys.

To say you can't teach it as "fact" and have to say it is a theory is a misrepresentation.  If your not doing that,  then my statement don't apply to you.

What I am saying is that just declaring something is debunked according to how you analyze things does not mean it is not valid science to teach in schools.

Explain what is guess work that does not hold up to the scientific method apart what people already know that have been hoaxes?    Just because there are zealots that are insecure and come up with that stuff is also not a valid reasonable method of saying the whole idea is a hoax either.

Alternative possibilites by analyzing the data differently is part of the falsification process.  A process that allows a conclusion to be made is valid science whether anyone thinks it is right or disagrees.   

That does not make something a hoax or a lie.  It is actually the scientific method that was able to determine something to be wrong or discovery of deceptive practices.  That is a reflection upon individuals not that anything was ever a lie or wrong to teach in a school.

[WhiteWings]

One last try to explain my point. But I fear we didn't evolve to agreement  :laughing7:

I do not know if you personally are twisting anything WW.

Let me be brief and state: "For me science increases the believability of the Bible"
So when I say Darwian evolution is crap that's not because I fear it debunks the Bible.

I am saying that teaching evolutionary theory, whatever it entails is valid scientific fact.

Here we have to agree to disagree.
Darwinian evolution theory (the topic of this thread) has not a single scientific fact to back it up.
Note: that I always write "Darwinian evolution" and not just "evolution"....

Scientific facts are what makes theorys.

Agreed.

To say you can't teach it as "fact" and have to say it is a theory is a misrepresentation.  If your not doing that,  then my statement don't apply to you.

Theories can be good science too. And for me there is no problem to put them in a school book.

What I am saying is that just declaring something is debunked according to how you analyze things does not mean it is not valid science to teach in schools.

Let me say I didn't debunk it. Scientist in relavant field did it.

Explain what is guess work that does not hold up to the scientific method apart what people already know that have been hoaxes?

A scientific theory is a bit more than assuming the moon is made of cheese. There needs to be some proof and solid reasoning to have it accepted as a theory (that later may be proved fully right or wrong)

Just because there are zealots that are insecure and come up with that stuff is also not a valid reasonable method of saying the whole idea is a hoax either.

So every scientist that publishes something that isn't inline with Darwin is a zealot?

Alternative possibilites by analyzing the data differently is part of the falsification process.  A process that allows a conclusion to be made is valid science whether anyone thinks it is right or disagrees.

The aim of that analyzing is either proving or disproving something and use that conclusion.

That does not make something a hoax or a lie.  It is actually the scientific method that was able to determine something to be wrong or discovery of deceptive practices.

A theory in good faith is no hoax. But when the evidence against that theory stacks up it becomes disproved. That happens. Pitty. Move on.
But it becomes a hoax if disproved theories are still promoted as a fact. Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.

[Molly]

Darwinian evolution theory (the topic of this thread) has not a single scientific fact to back it up.

:cloud9:

[Paul Hazelwood]

How is even one of the basic premises of darwinian evolution not backed up by a single scientific fact.


Here is just one.

That biological types or species do not have a fixed, static existence but exist in permanent states of change and flux;

Explain.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.

That has no bearing on the scientific validity of the whole of anything anymore than Ted Haggards failure means we might as well toss the idea of God out.

[WhiteWings]

How is even one of the basic premises of darwinian evolution not backed up by a single scientific fact.


Here is just one.

That biological types or species do not have a fixed, static existence but exist in permanent states of change and flux;

Explain.

Within certain parameters things change. As an example we have different races.
Certain animals adapted to their surroundings. They changed a bit to eat what's most found in the place where they live. Dogs and wolves are related. That's called micro evolution.
Darwinism is about macro evolution. So it's not just a bird that gets longer legs but the bird evolves into a cat. The changing from bird to cat takes many steps. Why are the hybrids never found? Say a cat with feathers. Or a bird with 4 legs? Animals mate with the perfect partner. A mutant usualy doesn't get very lucky. Breeding outside the species just doesn't work. A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

[Paul Hazelwood]

A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way.  That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.

Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men.    Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring,  but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

[WhiteWings]

Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.

That has no bearing on the scientific validity of the whole of anything anymore than Ted Haggards failure means we might as well toss the idea of God out.

But that kind of things are used to prove Darwinism. Because no missing links where found 'scientists' just contructed themself.
Piltdown man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Piltdown_Man/
50 page .pdf: http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nweur_2006_1_1.pdf

Nebraska man:
(from a single tooth)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/nebraska.html
http://www.rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html

Lucy:
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html
Not a hoax. But proved not to be a missing link.

[WhiteWings]

A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way.  That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.

Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men.    Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring,  but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.

You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?

[Molly]

A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way.  That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.

Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men.    Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring,  but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.

You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?

Disinformation?  :laughing7:

[Paul Hazelwood]

But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.

Don't use such blatently false information as some factor.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?

Why do I need to believe anything that I see as scientifically valid?

The flat earth theory is scientifically valid based on the time frame in which it was accepted.   Do you see my point?

The false assertion and straw man here is that a scientifically valid statement has to be believed as "truth".  It doesn't.   

[Paul Hazelwood]

A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way.  That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.

Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men.    Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring,  but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.

You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?

Disinformation?  :laughing7:

I forgot sarcasm and  ass usations mean truth to you.

[WhiteWings]

So you are saying whatever science claims doesn't make you 'believe' because there are many examples in the past, flat earth being one, that where claimed to be correct but lateron they where claimed to be false.
And things that are now claimed to be false can later eb claimed true.

I hope that's what you mean.... otherwise I'm afraid my brain isn't evolved enough to understand you.
Possibly because I evolved from a hamster and you from a owl. :laughing7:

[Molly]

A cow and a horse will never get offspring.

That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way.  That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.

Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men.    Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring,  but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.

You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.

Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?

That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?

Disinformation?  :laughing7:

I forgot sarcasm and  ass usations mean truth to you.

Again, it's the truth, as ww has pointed out.

Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation.

And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.

[Paul Hazelwood]

And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.

I don't care what you "feel" about it.   You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue.    Go ahead,  keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact.   It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.


 

[Paul Hazelwood]

So you are saying whatever science claims doesn't make you 'believe' because there are many examples in the past, flat earth being one, that where claimed to be correct but lateron they where claimed to be false.

Yep

[Molly]

And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.

I don't care what you "feel" about it.   You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue.    Go ahead,  keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact.   It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.


 

well, let me ask you directly.  Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation?  That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory.  And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous?  If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?

[Paul Hazelwood]

And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.

I don't care what you "feel" about it.   You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue.    Go ahead,  keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact.   It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.


 

well, let me ask you directly.  Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation?  That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory.  And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous?  If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?

Can it be possible for you to take a reasonable look at my answer, or am I wasting my time only for you to declare you don't give a crap what I say and say I just verify being brainwashed?


Your call.

[Molly]

The missing link: Piltdown man--skull of a human, jawbone of an ape--a deliberate 50 year hoax.





In 1856 the first Neanderthal fossil discovery was made and the hunt was on to find fossil remains of human ancestors. In the next half century finds were made in continental Europe and in Asia but not in Britain. Finally, in 1912, the sun rose on British paleontology -- fossil remains of an ancient pleistocene hominid were found in the Piltdown quarries in Sussex. In the period 1912 to 1915 the Piltdown quarries yielded two skulls, a canine tooth, and a mandible of Eoanthropus, a tool carved from an elephant tusk, and fossil teeth from a number of pleistocene animals.


There is a certain vagueness about some of the critical events. Dawson contacted Woodward about the first two skull fragments which were supposedly found by workman "some years prior". Exactly when is unknown. Similarly, the discovery of Piltdown II is shrouded in mystery. Supposedly Dawson and an anonymous friend make the discovery 1915; however the friend and the location of the find are unknown.

The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.

It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.



Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html#history



From the chronology and the later reconstruction of events it is fairly clear that there never were any significant fossils at the Piltdown quarry. It was salted from time to time with fossils to be found. Once the hoax was exposed, Sir Kenneth Oakley went on to apply more advanced tests to find where the bones had come from and how old they were. His main findings were:

Piltdown I skull: Medieval, human, ~620 years old.
Piltdown II skull: Same source as Piltdown I skull.
Piltdown I jawbone: Orangutan jaw, ~500 years old, probably from Sarawak.
Elephant molar: Genuine fossil, probably from Tunisia.
Hippopotamus tooth: Genuine fossil, probably from Malta or Sicily.
Canine tooth: Pleistocene chimpanzee fossil.

Not only were the bones gathered from a variety of sources, they were given a thorough going treatment to make them appear to be genuinely ancient.


The Piltdown hoax does not seem to fit any of these categories well. This was not an ordinary hoax; it was a systematic campaign over the years to establish the existence of Piltdown man. The early skull fragments were created in advance and salted with the foreknowledge that more extensive finds would be planted later. The hoaxer had to have good reason to believe that the salted fossils would be found.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown/pfolks.gif

[Molly]

And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.

I don't care what you "feel" about it.   You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue.    Go ahead,  keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact.   It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.


 

well, let me ask you directly.  Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation?  That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory.  And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous?  If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?

Can it be possible for you to take a reasonable look at my answer, or am I wasting my time only for you to declare you don't give a crap what I say and say I just verify being brainwashed?


Your call.

Yes, of course I'll look at your answer.  I apologize if I implied you are brainwashed.  I mean to say the whole world is brainwashed--that is, they are being taught lies as if they were fact.

[Paul Hazelwood]

well, let me ask you directly.  Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation?  That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory.  And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous?  If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?

Hi molly,

First whether intentionally or unintentionally you asked me to acknowledge something that is not necessarily true by the nature you claim that it "IS" true.   That something is "phoney theory"  you are welcome to that belief and I cannot tell you to not believe it.

What I ask you is for our discussion to give the benefit of the doubt to the "Theory" being scientifically valid.   That validity is NOT, I repeat NOT my personal statement saying I "BELIEVE" that it is true.   I do not have to accept a scientific statement as true just because it is valid in a scientific nature.

With that said I will address the issue that you raise and I ask that you be held accountable to your own reasoning.  If you cannot accept that, then I will allow that to stand on it's own for the conclusion it gives evidence for.


I have no problems at all acknowledging hoaxes. They exist.   What you appear to be suggesting or outright demanding is those hoaxes prove that darwinian evolution is phoney.  The is a patently incorrect way to determine that is it phoney.


Scientists are the ones that eventually come to that conclusion that evidence such as the "pilt down man" was a hoax, the same scientists that use  evidence that is not phoney to conclude darwinian evolution is scientifically plausible.

For instance, not all evolutionary scientists accepted that the piltdown man was valid in the first place.  Are you aware of that fact?

So your post with all the hoaxes only means that science is actually doing what it is intended to do "DESPITE" what corruption and preconception that does exist.  So the assertions that the typical creationist make about mainstream science are not what they appear to be.


Now,  lets see what we have next.


Are you familiar with paluxy footprints,  Calaveras skull, Moab Man, Malachite Man to name a "FEW"?   If I am to accept your reasoning, then will you acknowledge that creationism has been promoted by disinformation?  That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory?

[Molly]

Hi Paul,

I am having some trouble in seeing what you are asking of me.  So I will do my best to answer what you asked--if I understood it correctly.  If not, I didn't understand the question.

I am not saying that the hoaxes prove the error of Darwinian evolution.  It's error stands for itself in that in 150 years there has been no scientific evidence supporting it as a valid theory.  In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.

The hoaxes are a different matter altogether--because you see something is keeping this faulty theory standing with no legs--it is, and has always been, very well marketed to the public.  And, that is where its power lies, not in any domain of science.

From my point of view, and you are welcome to take issue with this but it won't change my mind, this theory now presented as fact to schoolchildren, is serving the purposes of those who would rather rule a world of monkeys than of men.  So why not tell them they are monkeys from the time they are babes?  There is always a good chance that many will believe it.

And, more than that, teach them a philosophy of life which they claim is based on fact.  It's survival of the fittest--so kill or be killed--only the fit survive--and if the unfit happen to make it by, get rid of them the way Hitler did with the disabled and elderly, employing the theories of Darwin's cousin who applied this philosophy to people.

In fact, most don't know that many were forced to be sterilized in this country at this same time and based on these same theories.  Not to mention all the horrible 'scientific' experiments done on people in camps and later in hospitals.  The dark underbelly of this self styled 'scientific' theory and those related to it is a horror show that many are unaware of to this day.

Because if people are just monkeys---there's apparently no end to what you can do to them.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Oh, you understand, I may disagree with you, but I know your not stupid.  Have a great night.

[Molly]

As far as creationism is concerned, I have never given it much thought, since as ww says, you are never going to prove the existence of God, or a particular God, using the scientific method.

Although, I think you could put together a really interesting course for young people based on Intelligent Design, but, this would more be a discussion of systems and the orderly processes and designs of the universe we live in that point to an intelligent creator rather than a course in any particular science.