Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[The Barbarian]

One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.   "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...

"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."

"I believe in God."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."  (Barbarian gets another Guinness)

Hope that clears things up.

[Texas Conservative]

One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.   "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...

"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."

"I believe in God."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."  (Barbarian gets another Guinness)

Hope that clears things up.

Wrong.

If one does not understand the methodology, or the science behind it, then they take it upon faith.  Aka "they believe in science."

Period.

[AVZ]

One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.

If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.
All of us on this board accept that God exists, because of the evidence.
And all who do not believe in God, reject the evidence.

It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.

The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.

[Alan]

If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.
All of us on this board accept that God exists, because of the evidence.
And all who do not believe in God, reject the evidence.

It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.

The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.

Slight difference; the belief in God is based upon the scriptures. Not a thing has changed with that in 2000 years nor can we expect any other evidence to be turned up until of course, it's too late. Science OTOH continuously reveals new evidence that confirms prior beliefs and will undoubtedly continue on that path of progression until man is no longer capable.

A man can study the scriptures and base his opinion based on the pages within, his spirituality may have been heightened, intelligent deduction may have been applied, or quite possibly those pages defined the very thing that the man had always loosely believed, but whatever the reason that man chose to believe was due to a heightened faith. Science OTOH will eventually confirm it's many theories in some form or another,  regardless of whether we believe them today as plausible or not.


The thing that we need to differentiate between is "scientists believe...." and "belief", scientists do not journal their works based in whims.

[AVZ]

Science OTOH continuously reveals new evidence that confirms prior beliefs and will undoubtedly continue on that path of progression until man is no longer capable.

Science also runs into evidence continuously that refutes prior beliefs.

Science OTOH will eventually confirm it's many theories in some form or another,  regardless of whether we believe them today as plausible or not.

That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.
They may as well all be refuted some day, or they may even never be resolved.


Its a good thing we have scripture that hasn't been refuted in over 2000 years.
Its far more reliable than science.

[Alan]

Science also runs into evidence continuously that refutes prior beliefs.

Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?

That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.

Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2",  the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.

Its a good thing we have scripture that hasn't been refuted in over 2000 years.

It is most certainly refuted by many, since it cannot be proven it must be taken by faith for those that believe, unlike science that is on a sure and steady path of progression, the modern world we live in is proof positive of that.

[4WD]

To "believe" something or someone does not mean the same as to "believe in" something or someone. That is true in both English and Greek. In English there is a nuanced distinction between the words belief and faith; but not in the Greek.

The verb to "believe in" something or someone is to "have faith" in something or someone.   That is the definition both in English and in Greek.  And in the Greek there are not two different words for believe and have faith.  The same is true for the noun "belief" and "faith"; both are translations from the same Greek word.

There is far too much that is thrown around with the words believe and faith where the actual distinction in meaning is obscured or nuanced inappropriately. And that is most definitely happening here in this discussion.

Alan, you said, [quote suthor=Alan]...the belief in God is based upon the scriptures...[/quote].  Paul tells us that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20).   That concerns God, the creator. God declares that creation itself, the very fact of our physical existence of the universe and every thing in it is evidence of the existence of God. Most of the religions of the world carry the existence of " a god".  But that tells us almost nothing about God. It is most of what we know as God, the ruler and the redeemer, that we learn from the Scriptures. 

There is so much that needs to be understood about all of this, otherwise in discussions such as this one about evolution and whether or not it is true too often people simply talk past one another.

The simple truth is that a "belief in" science and a "belief in" God are not at all mutually exclusive. They are for the most part completely unrelated.  Most of the problems that arise such as the problems being exhibited here in the discussion about evolution arise because of completely inappropriate mixing and adulteration of the evidence for either or both.

[4WD]

That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.

All you have shown here is that you know so little about science, scientists or scientific theories that you should recuse yourself from any discussion involving them.  Scientific theories are confirmed all the time.  The scientific theory of electromagnetism is confirmed every time you turn on the light. In fact a scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has been confirmed.  That is the definition.

[Alan]

Alan, you said, .  Paul tells us that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20).   That concerns God, the creator. God declares that creation itself, the very fact of our physical existence of the universe and every thing in it is evidence of the existence of God. Most of the religions of the world carry the existence of " a god".  But that tells us almost nothing about God. It is most of what we know as God, the ruler and the redeemer, that we learn from the Scriptures. 

Since our education system never mentions a word regarding creation, nor has it for years, the idea of a God is a remote possibility for many people today. Even myself, growing up 4 -5 decades ago never knew a thing about God nor was I ever taught it at home, school, or by peers.

[4WD]

Since our education system never mentions a word regarding creation, nor has it for years, the idea of a God is a remote possibility for many people today. Even myself, growing up 4 -5 decades ago never knew a thing about God nor was I ever taught it at home, school, or by peers.

I am not sure what your point is.  As we look at civilizations throughout history, it is clear that virtually every one of them expressed some notion about God as creator of the universe.  It seems to be almost an inherent belief in mankind.  Anything specific about the one true God, must come from God Himself.  We have that in the form of Scripture and Scripture alone.

There also seems to be an inherent sense of "right" and "wrong" also even though the specifics of what is right and what is wrong may vary widely.  Here again the truth of what is truly right and wrong comes almost entirely from Scripture, from God Himself.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.   "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...

"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."

"I believe in God."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."  (Barbarian gets another Guinness)

Hope that clears things up.

Wrong.

Nope.  That's how it is.   The argument is based on conflating those different meanings of "believe.'

If one does not understand the methodology, or the science behind it, then they take it upon faith.

So if I don't understand how my shower keeps a constant temperature of water, even if the toilet is flushed, I'm taking it on faith?   No, I don't think so.  I merely know that my plumber knows some things about it that I don't.

Aka "they believe in science."

Ah, the first meaning I cited.   Quite different from the third meaning.

[The Barbarian]

There also seems to be an inherent sense of "right" and "wrong" also even though the specifics of what is right and what is wrong may vary widely.  Here again the truth of what is truly right and wrong comes almost entirely from Scripture, from God Himself.

That's the only absolute source.   But as St. Paul says, the Gentiles have natural law to guide them.

Romans 2:14-16 When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do instinctively things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, to which their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.


It seems there is no excuse; in every one of us, the knowledge of good and evil exists and we are accountable even if we never heard of Jesus or His teachings, for those things that are written in our hearts.   

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:   
One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.

If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.

God says otherwise.   We are, after all, justified by faith as well as by works, according to Him.

It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.

Aquinas might very well agree with you; the Thomist tradition says that one can logically demonstrate the fact of God.   But that's not the same thing as evidence.   St. Tom is speaking of deduction from first principles, and science is inductive, where we infer the principles from the evidence.   Both ways work, but they work in a fundamentally different way.

The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.

You're confusing facts like evolution, with the theory that explains it.   Since we directly observe macroevolution, that's a fact.   Common descent is a theory.   It's a theory because it's been validated by confirmed predictions to the point that it's foolish to argue against it.

Would you like to see some of that?

[AVZ]

Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?

Sure. The earth is flat vs the earth is round, the earth is the center of our solar system vs the sun is the center of our solar system

Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2",  the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.

Again, as I said, you believe the evidence. In this case you believe that the Mars Rover took correct readings, and that those readings were correctly transmitted and interpreted.
I know it is unlikely incorrect readings were taken and interpreted, but you simply cannot exclude the possibility.
Hence you believe that the Mars Rover functions correctly, the data was correctly transferred, and readings were correctly interpreted.

It is most certainly refuted by many, since it cannot be proven it must be taken by faith for those that believe, unlike science that is on a sure and steady path of progression, the modern world we live in is proof positive of that.

And here is where confusion sets in.
People like you or Barbarian arbitrarily assign and expect interpretations for the terms proof, evidence, faith or believe. And you do so inconsistently.

Give you an example:
It is scientific fact that a virgin birth is impossible, yet you believe there was, and you find it perfectly rational to do so.
Barbarian would call the notion to believe in a virgin birth "foolish to argue".
Now both of you can have this belief because you do not expect scientific evidence for something you consider beyond science.

But when it comes to other notions, such as a 6 day creation, you take another position.
In this case scientific evidence overrules any objection, and you find any objection irrational.
To speak with Barbarians words: "it's foolish to argue against it"

So both of you just arbitrarily draw different labels and paste them on topics the way you deem fit, and in accordance with your own beliefs.

So the problem is that you expect scientific evidence.
However, the truth of an event is not determined by evidence. Something can be completely true, and therefore intelligible to believe, without the need for evidence to exist.
Also, what is evidence for you may be irrational to another.

Take Paul for example.
On the way to Damascus he got all the evidence he needed that Jesus was alive.
But that evidence is indisputable evidence for Paul and those who believe Paul. Others may reject it.

Some people read the Bible, and find it compelling enough that it becomes indisputable evidence.
Other read it and reject the same book by lack of evidence.

I believe in a literal 6 day creation, and I reject common descent.
Why? Because the Bible says so, and I find the evidence of scripture far more compelling that scientific evidence that claims otherwise.
By belief is vested on evidence as much as any scientist vesting his beliefs on scientific evidence.

Belief is belief, evidence is evidence.
There is no difference.

[4WD]

Barbarian observes:
One does not "believe in" science.   One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence.  That is all.   "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...

Barbarian observes incorrectly.  "Believing in" something is the same as "having faith in" something.  They have two main connotations. The first  is usually called assent (sometimes, belief). Assent is an act of the mind, a judgment of the intellect that a particular idea or statement is true; some we know to be true by personal experience or by logical reasoning; some that we accept (assent) are those that enter our consciousness via the testimony of other people. This applies to all ideas accepted on the authority of someone else's testimony, whether religious or secular.

The second connotation or aspect of "believing in" is trust. Whereas assent is a judgment of the mind regarding the truth of a statement, trust is a decision of the will to act upon the truth assented to. It is a personal surrender to the implications and consequences of this truth. Such trust is most often directed toward persons. To trust a person is to surrender ourselves or something in our power to that person, as when we place our health and life in the hands of a doctor, or our children into the care of a baby-sitter, or our country into the hands of a particular presidential candidate.  But in much the same way we direct our trust in non-persons as well.

We, including you Barbarian, not only believe the science, but we also put our trust in it every moment of our lives.  When one steps into a plane to fly from one place to another, while he may not understand at all the science of the dynamics of compressible fluids, he believes it and trusts that it will hold true throughout the entire flight.  The evidence that you speak of provides for the assent, the mental acceptance of the truth.  When one dives into the ocean, lake or pool in the back yard one both believes the science of Archimedes' principle, whether he actually understands it or not, and trusts that it applies to the human body in water.

So yes, Barbarian, you first accept the evidence [the mental assent] and then you place your trust in science.  That is believing in science.

[The Barbarian]

Sure. The earth is flat vs the earth is round,

You think scientists said the Earth is flat?   When do you think they said that?

Alan writes:
Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2",  the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.

Again, as I said, you believe the evidence.

Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."

Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.

It is scientific fact that a virgin birth is impossible,

Actually, it's not.   It's called "parthenogenesis."    Extremely unlikely for humans.   However, miracles are not ruled out by science.   Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.

Barbarian would call the notion to believe in a virgin birth "foolish to argue".

Nope.   See above.  You're the victim of those guys who got you mixed up about the different meanings of "belief."  So you just arbitrarily draw different labels and paste them on topics the way you deem fit, and in accordance with your own beliefs.

This is the basis of Jesus' discussion with Thomas after the Resurrection.   He clearly showed the difference between faith and conclusions based on evidence.   Faith wasn't good enough for Thomas, and he had to be shown.

I believe in a literal 6 day creation, and I reject common descent.
Why?

Because you've chosen to believe men rather than God.   The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent.   It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.

If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?

[The Barbarian]

So yes, Barbarian, you first accept the evidence [the mental assent] and then you place your trust in science.  That is believing in science.

The first definition?   Conclusion, based on evidence?   True.   But that is not assent based on faith.    Two different things.

[4WD]

So the problem is that you expect scientific evidence.
However, the truth of an event is not determined by evidence. Something can be completely true, and therefore intelligible to believe, without the need for evidence to exist.

The truth of an event is determined completely and only by evidence.  Without evidence there is no way to even know the event occurred. The evidence need not be by ones own personal observation, but there must be evidence of the event presented by someone or some thing.

[4WD]

The first definition?   Conclusion, based on evidence?   True.   But that is not assent based on faith.    Two different things.

You are confused about the word faith.  The English word "faith" is the same as "belief in".  To have faith in someone or some thing is to believe in that someone or some thing.  Believing in, i.e., to have faith, consists of both assent and trust. Assent is not based upon faith.  Assent is based upon evidence.  Faith is assent plus trust. That was/is what the whole book of James is really about.  He said, paraphrasing, "you believe God exists, good for you; even demons believe that". But that is not enough.  You must also trust and that trust is shown by your actions;  "believing without actions is not faith [is not believing in].

[AVZ]

You think scientists said the Earth is flat?   When do you think they said that?

Uhm...that was not the question. The question was:"Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?"
The earth being flat vs the earth being round perfectly fits the bill

Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."
Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.

That of course is not true.
Jesus Himself said it was not true: "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
Faith can very well be vested on or supported by visible evidence.

Actually, it's not.   It's called "parthenogenesis."    Extremely unlikely for humans.   However, miracles are not ruled out by science.   Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.

Again you are being inconsistent and pick and choose your explanations arbitrarily.

Let say for a second that indeed there is a scientific explanation for the Virgin Birth, and lets assume such an embryo would be viable.
In that case you would have a perfectly rational scientific explanation.
Yet you decide, for unknown reasons, to reject that scientific explanation and choose to believe the supernatural explanation.

On the other hand we have common descent.
In this case you could as well believe the supernatural explanation, and believe what the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth.
Yet here, again for an unknown reason, you decide to reject the supernatural explanation and arbitrarily go for the scientific explanation.

In both cases the scientific explanation represent a belief that is vested on abysmal odds that such a natural event would have taken place, could have taken place and produce something viable.
Suprisingly however, you declare one set of believes "foolish to argue" and the other "rational".

The fact is that you choose one thing to be true by your own understanding, and reject the other for the same reason.

The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent.   It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.

The Bible clearly denies common descent: "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"
On top of that it also lists, by day, how the diversity of living things came to be: "And God said let there be...:"

It is not the Bible that is in any shape or form unclear. You can read this to an adult or a child, the creation story is fully intelligible and everybody knows exactly what it means.

Again, the fact is that you choose one thing to be true by your own understanding, and reject the other for the same reason.

If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?

I dont understand your question. My faith is not vested on two different things.
My faith is vested on one thing: The Bible
There is always room to learn new things, and its good fun to learn about evolution and common descent.
Unfortunately these notions contradict scripture, and can therefore not be true.

[Amo]

Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Superseded theories

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[1] Thus, it is a mark of good science if a discipline has a growing list of superseded theories, and conversely, a lack of superseded theories can indicate problems in following the use of the scientific method.

The link provided above lists many theories proved wrong.

[The Barbarian]

You are confused about the word faith.  The English word "faith" is the same as "belief in".[/quote]

Faith is one of the meanings of "believe in."

To have faith in someone or some thing is to believe in that someone or some thing.

I believe in the first amendment.    Do I therefore have faith, or do I believe in it, because the evidence shows that successful societies have individual rights?

Believing in, i.e., to have faith, consists of both assent and trust. Assent is not based upon faith.

Can be.   It merely says "agreement", although it often is used as "agreement with consideration."    I am not aware of it meaning "agreement only with evidence."

That was/is what the whole book of James is really about.  He said, paraphrasing, "you believe God exists, good for you; even demons believe that". But that is not enough.  You must also trust and that trust is shown by your actions;  "believing without actions is not faith [is not believing in].

Hadn't thought about that.   James is saying that faith without works is dead.   So assent would be trust in the sense of acting on faith?

[The Barbarian]

Uhm...that was not the question. The question was:"Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?"
The earth being flat vs the earth being round perfectly fits the bill

Don't see how.  The earliest people even to approach being scientists were aware that the Earth is round.

Barbarian, regarding conflation of different meanings of "believe:"
Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."
Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.

That of course is not true.
Jesus Himself said it was not true:

Nope.  In fact he said exactly that:

John 20:27Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. [28] Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. [29] Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

(claim that science says virgin births are impossible)

Actually, it's not.   It's called "parthenogenesis."    Extremely unlikely for humans.   However, miracles are not ruled out by science.   Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.

Again you are being inconsistent and pick and choose your explanations arbitrarily.

I'm just showing you the facts.   First, parthenogenesis is not unknown.    Second, science does not rule out miracles.   So it couldn't deny the Immaculate Conception, since it was a miracle.

Let say for a second that indeed there is a scientific explanation for the Virgin Birth, and lets assume such an embryo would be viable.

Moot point, since it's a miracle, which science does not deny.

On the other hand we have common descent.

Here, the Bible says nothing at all about it, and the evidence, as even honest YE creationists admit, is very strong.    So we accept the fact of evolution being directly observed, and not that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming.  And that's that.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent.   It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.

The Bible clearly denies common descent:

Nope.  The modern revision of YE creationists denies it, but that's not the Bible.

Barbarian, on conflating different meanings of "believe":
If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?

I dont understand your question. My faith is not vested on two different things.
My faith is vested on one thing: The Bible

And in man's revision of Genesis.  That's two things.

[4WD]

So assent would be trust in the sense of acting on faith?

Assent and trust are not the same.  I can believe, assent to the fact, that you are a trained biologist.  That doesn't mean I trust what you say about biology.  I think perhaps Amo is an example of that.

Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.

The Bible provides the evidence.  That is, after all, the purpose of the Bible.  You describe evidence for evolution, but I suspect that you have not actually seen all or any of that yourself but rather rely upon what you have read and heard from sources you trust to be accurate. Evidence doesn't necessarily require personal observation.  God has provided the Bible with all that is necessary for us to believe what it says.  That is the evidence.  The fact that we have not personally seen the events presented in the Bible doesn't mean that there is no evidence.

[Texas Conservative]

]

(claim that science says virgin births are impossible)

Actually, it's not.   It's called "parthenogenesis."    Extremely unlikely for humans.   However, miracles are not ruled out by science.   Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.

I'm just showing you the facts.   First, parthenogenesis is not unknown.    Second, science does not rule out miracles.   So it couldn't deny the Immaculate Conception, since it was a miracle.

Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.   Now you can go back to believing in science.

[Alan]

Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.   

Not if God utilized the insemination process to start the miracle. 

[4WD]

Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.

A supernatural act of God is not scientifically impossible.  The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the scope of science.

[The Barbarian]

Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.

Highly unlikely.   So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know.   But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans.   But not impossible.  Science is very careful about using the word "impossible."   Guess why.

Since science does not rule out the miraculous, no scientific theory be able to deny such things are possible.

Now you can go back to believing in science.

As you see, one does not "believe in" science  (the second meaning).    One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions.   And yes, I've observed evolution.   Anyone who's willing to spend a few months paying attention can do that.

[AVZ]

Highly unlikely.   So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know.   But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans.   But not impossible.  Science is very careful about using the word "impossible."   Guess why.

Parthenogenesis in humans is only theoretical and is based on extra abysmal odds.
However, the embryo it produces is not viable for life as the process requires part of the gene information provided by the mother, and part of the gene information provided by the father.
Some parts are available with the mother, but are dormant, and some parts are only available with the father.

Parthenogenesis has never been observed in humans, or for all that matters in mammals.

But since we are now discussing the term "impossible", I do have a question for you.
Is it impossible that God created the world in 6 x 24 hour days in exactly the way the Bible describes?

[The Barbarian]

Parthenogenesis in humans is only theoretical and is based on extra abysmal odds.

Yep.   But then so is the existence of the order in a well-shuffled deck of cards.   Abysmally unlikely things happen every day.

However, the embryo it produces is not viable for life as the process requires part of the gene information provided by the mother, and part of the gene information provided by the father.

Only on the Y chromosome, although a lot of defects due to harmful recessives might occur.

Parthenogenesis has never been observed in humans, or for all that matters in mammals.

Whiptail lizards, for example, reproduce that way.   One species of blind snakes does so, and Komodo dragons can occasionally do so.  No mammals that I can think of.

But since we are now discussing the term "impossible", I do have a question for you.

Sure. 

Is it impossible that God created the world in 6 x 24 hour days in exactly the way the Bible describes?

That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account.   It is possible for Him to do such a thing, but if you believe that the Bible is God's word, then a literal 6-day creation is inconsistent with scripture.

And of course, there are lots of things that it's possible for God to do, that He has never done.

[Texas Conservative]

Highly unlikely.   So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know.   But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans.   But not impossible.  Science is very careful about using the word "impossible."   Guess why.

Since science does not rule out the miraculous, no scientific theory be able to deny such things are possible.

As you see, one does not "believe in" science  (the second meaning).    One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions.   And yes, I've observed evolution.   Anyone who's willing to spend a few months paying attention can do that.

Not unlikely, impossible.  If a human woman were to be able to become pregnant via parthenogenesis, the resulting baby would be female.

[Michael2012]

One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions. And yes, I've observed evolution.

So science rest upon the human eyes, ears, nose, and the rest of the human faculties. And we can't deny that the human is not infallible. Scriptures say, if you do believe the scriptures, that man, the human, is with a sinful nature, and with a carnal mind. With this truth about the human, one would not fail to realize what science then is about and made of.

Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him. Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions. Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth. The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth. So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions. Our faith is in the infallible God. In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows. Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions? I would say that doing so is foolishness.

Also, nothing about it concerns the spiritual realities, unless they would come up with a theory of the evolution of the spirit, perhaps.   

You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man. And even still, that only is your fallible observation and conclusion. Your observation and conclusion, if it were right, does not change the truth. But if it were wrong, it puts forth a lie as though it is the truth. And that is most certainly an evil no Christian would want to happen.

[The Barbarian]

So science rest upon the human eyes, ears, nose, and the rest of the human faculties.

Yep.

And we can't deny that the human is not infallible.

If we were infallible, everyone would agree about God. 

Scriptures say, if you do believe the scriptures, that man, the human, is with a sinful nature, and with a carnal mind. With this truth about the human, one would not fail to realize what science then is about and made of.

It's just the best method humans have for understanding the physical universe.

Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.

Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.

Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.

And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt.   Not bad, um?

Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.

For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.   

The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.

It's like when you wake up and get out of bed.   You expect your feet to hit the floor.   You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen.   Science is like that.

So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.

Never have faith in science.   Look at the evidence and conclude from there.   

Our faith is in the infallible God.

Good.   Faith is for God, and evidence is for science.  Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them.

In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.

But fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.

Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?

Good question.

I would say that doing so is foolishness.

Reason can help you, but of course, you are still fallible.

You may say and claim you observed evolution,

Yep. 

but certainly not the evolution of man.

Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have.   Man continues to evolve, of course.   Remember what "evolution" is in biology.

[The Barbarian]

Not unlikely, impossible.  If a human woman were to be able to become pregnant via parthenogenesis, the resulting baby would be female.

Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman.   Then it could be.

[AVZ]

That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account.   It is possible for Him to do such a thing, but if you believe that the Bible is God's word, then a literal 6-day creation is inconsistent with scripture.

And of course, there are lots of things that it's possible for God to do, that He has never done.

The above is a logical contradiction.

Statement a) It is possible for Him to do such a thing
Statement b) That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account.

If it is possible for God to create the world in 6 days, then it is not only possible that the Bible creation story is a literal account...it would be logically coherent that the Bible creation story is a literal account.

Whether I believe or not believe the Bible is Gods word has nothing to do with how consistent scripture is.