This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Organized Religion, the Bible and the Will of God
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
When did he even do that? All I've seen him do here is defend the theory of evolution.You must've missed it. I'm speaking out against this kind of patronizing stuff:If you want me to admit that YEC could techinically be possible and everything that suggests otherwise is a colossal hoax played by a higher being who has the power to speed up the rate of decay of particles and moves beams of light around the universe, then sure, it's technically possible, just like it's technically possible that the Earth is flat.Speaking of which MyTie, is there anything besides your faith that makes you skeptical of evolution? And if so, what?
I never really considered it. I find the subject pretty boring. Religion aside, I do have a bit of a problem with the millions upon millions of species, which all went through different mutations, and the strongest lived, but there aren't any "failed" fossiles found, with various mutations that don't really work. Further, the complexity of a single celled organism is pretty profound. It's hard to arrive there by "millions of years of mutations", without massive massive massive amounts of fossils, covering everything, holding billions and billions of various mutations. We should be buried in that %^&* to have gotten to where we are today.
But, anyway, I honestly don't want to discuss evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with this thread's topic, and it's super boring.
Post by
Skreeran
As I mentioned above, this is not blind belief in the infallibility of science and scientists, but years of study on my part from the perspective of a Young Earth Creationist.
This is why we should all reject science. It's like that time that Nazi scientist spliced children together till they died. You're theories are kind of like that. It isn't meant as an insult, it's just years of me looking at the perils of science. Consider the atom bomb, or even conventional bombs for that matter. Death advanced by science.
My point is, you can't take the very worst cross section of ignorant people from a movement, and use that as your reference for the entire movement, and then feign like it isn't meant to insult.I feel confused here.
Young Earth Creationism, in scientific terms, is about on par with Flat Eartherism. This isn't me attacking a straw man or picking out the worst of a certain group. I'm merely comparing one type of science denial with another. The fact that we evolved from simpler creatures is just as well understood and accepted as the spherical shape of the Earth.
I'm not pitting science against religion. You can be religious and scientific, but you can't expect to be taken seriously as a biologist if you don't understand evolution. Religion is fully compatible with our modern understanding of how the world came to be. Young Earth Creationism is not. It is just as defunct and obsolete as Flat Earthism. That is why I make that comparison, because it is apt.
Post by
Gone
The fact that we evolved from simpler creatures is just as well understood and accepted as the spherical shape of the Earth.
Technically it's not. The spherical Earth is something we can actually observe enough that it can be states as a fact. While we have been able to recreate evolution in test tubes, many of the nuances of it are still beyond us. Mutation into complex organs, the common ancestor, etc.
Post by
Ksero
Faith - complete confidence or trust in a person or thing That is definition of faith I was using.
You cant tell me that is a good thing on either side, if a scientist believes what his theory is true, even when all of his evidence refutes it, how is that going to cause progress.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
science denial
There is no denial of one for the other. There is no "vs".
AAAARRRRGGGG
.
Look, dude. They can co exist. There is no one here saying stuff like "evolution is false". There are just people explaining how the Bible is false because of evolution, and then people explaining how evolution doesn't prove that the Bible is false, and then the first people explaining again that they are just defending evolution.That is why I make that comparison, because it is apt.
Circle. That's the direction we are going. Have a good night.
Post by
Gone
Technically it's not. The spherical Earth is something we can actually observe enough that it can be states as a fact. While we have been able to recreate evolution in test tubes, many of the nuances of it are still beyond us. Mutation into complex organs, the common ancestor, etc.
No. That's observable in animals too.
Not really. And certainly not to the degree and certainty that we observe the shape of the planet.
EDIT: I would also like to point out for maybe the millionth time on these forums,
science is just a process.
Denying current scientific findings is not the same as denying science itself.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
The fact that we evolved from simpler creatures is just as well understood and accepted as the spherical shape of the Earth.
Technically it's not. The spherical Earth is something we can actually observe enough that it can be states as a fact. While we have been able to recreate evolution in test tubes, many of the nuances of it are still beyond us. Mutation into complex organs, the common ancestor, etc.
We've observed
the evolution of wolves into Chihuahuas, the evolution of wild cabbages,
wild cabbage
into cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower, and modern cabbage. We've observed the resistance to drugs than mosquitos and bacteria have evolved, as well at E. Coli's evolution to metabolize citric acid, and we've seen
Italian Wall Lizards
evolved broader heads, stronger bite force, and a different digestive tract in order to consume plants instead of insects.
If you mean that we don't truly understand how everything in evolution works yet, you'd be correct, but make no mistake, there has definitely been direct observation of evolution.
Look, dude. They can co exist. There is no one here saying stuff like "evolution is false". There are just people explaining how the Bible is false because of evolution, and then people explaining how evolution doesn't prove that the Bible is false, and then the first people explaining again that they are just defending evolution.I've said again and again, I don't think evolution proves the Bible false. I'm staying out of that. It's not me putting science against religion. Young Earth Creationism
IS
in denial of well-documented scientific findings. Young Earth Creationism also does not encompass all religion.
I'm perfectly comfortable letting religions attack questions like "Where do we go when we die?" or "Why are we here?" or "What is love?" Go ahead. When you bring the ball into my court and start telling me that evolution isn't true, you can bet I'm going to defend it, just as you would defend religion if I went in and started shouting that God had never been proven.
I'm fine with coexisting with religion. I'm not attacking. I'm only defending when attacked.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
We've observed the evolution of wolves into Chihuahuas, the evolution of wild cabbages, wild cabbage into cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower, and modern cabbage. We've observed the resistance to drugs than mosquitos and bacteria have evolved, as well at E. Coli's evolution to metabolize citric acid, and we've seen Italian Wall Lizards evolved broader heads, stronger bite force, and a different digestive tract in order to consume plants instead of insects.
If you mean that we don't truly understand how everything in evolution works yet, you'd be correct, but make no mistake, there has definitely been direct observation of evolution.
Evolution is a much more complicated idea than the question of whether the Earth was round or flat though. The shape of the Earth is a very easy question to answer. Once Magellan sailed around the planet, the question was put to bed irrefutably.
And for the record, nobody ever assumed the Earth was flat. People used to assume it was like a mountain, or an upturned bowl, but never just a flat surface.
We have been able to observe the process of evolution at its most basic level, but there is a lot that we still don't know, and have been unable to observe. A lot is still based on speculation as well.
I'm always one to defend evolution, but denial of evolution isn't the same as flat Earthers. Especially since there are still holes in the theory.
For the Lizard example the TLDR is they began switching from an insect based diet to a plant based one along with the associated changes to the digestive organs to actually allow them to process plant matter. Observable, natural, evolution of an animals organs in less than 40 years.
I'm aware, but that's still not the same same degree as the evolution from gills to lungs, or from microorganisms to complex life forms.
Look my only beef here was with the comparison to the round/flat Earth. Evolution is more complicated than that, and the theory itself is still a work in progress in the sense that it's still being honed.
Post by
Skreeran
Evolution is a much more complicated idea than the question of whether the Earth was round or flat though. The shape of the Earth is a very easy question to answer. Once Magellan sailed around the planet, the question was put to bed irrefutably.I'll give you that one. But the question of "Is the theory of evolution true?" has been put to bed just as soundly as the question of the shape of the Earth.
And for the record, nobody ever assumed the Earth was flat. People used to assume it was like a mountain, or an upturned bowl, but never just a flat surface.The
Flat Earth Society
begs to disagree.
We have been able to observe the process of evolution at its most basic level, but there is a lot that we still don't know, and have been unable to observe. A lot is still based on speculation as well.
I'm always one to defend evolution, but denial of evolution isn't the same as flat Earthers. Especially since there are still holes in the theory.I still disagree. Could I perhaps ask you to read up on the topic? I'm really trying hard not to sound condescending, but I feel like if you read any of the books I'd linked a page back, we might be having a different discussion right now.
Post by
Gone
I still disagree. Could I perhaps ask you to read up on the topic? I'm really trying hard not to sound condescending, but I feel like if you read any of the books I'd linked a page back, we might be having a different discussion right now.
Dude I've read up on the subject, in fact I just finished a class that covered the subject. I feel like I'm just communicating my point. When I say that evolution isn't observable to the same degree as a round Earth, I'm not saying that this somehow makes it less viable, just that it's a more complicated concept, and by design, more difficult to observe every aspect of.
Post by
MyTie
When you bring the ball into my court and start telling me that evolution isn't true
No one is doing this.
Post by
Skreeran
I still disagree. Could I perhaps ask you to read up on the topic? I'm really trying hard not to sound condescending, but I feel like if you read any of the books I'd linked a page back, we might be having a different discussion right now.
Dude I've read up on the subject, in fact I just finished a class that covered the subject. I feel like I'm just communicating my point. When I say that evolution isn't observable to the same degree as a round Earth, I'm not saying that this somehow makes it less viable, just that it's a more complicated concept, and by design, more difficult to observe every aspect of.Perhaps you're right. I apologize too if I've come off as rude or elitist too. I'm tired and sad and sick, and it's getting to my head.
Post by
Gone
I still disagree. Could I perhaps ask you to read up on the topic? I'm really trying hard not to sound condescending, but I feel like if you read any of the books I'd linked a page back, we might be having a different discussion right now.
Dude I've read up on the subject, in fact I just finished a class that covered the subject. I feel like I'm just communicating my point. When I say that evolution isn't observable to the same degree as a round Earth, I'm not saying that this somehow makes it less viable, just that it's a more complicated concept, and by design, more difficult to observe every aspect of.Perhaps you're right. I apologize too if I've come off as rude or elitist too. I'm tired and sad and sick, and it's getting to my head.
Nah it's fine, sorry your not feeling well. Hope things pick up for you.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I still disagree. Could I perhaps ask you to read up on the topic? I'm really trying hard not to sound condescending, but I feel like if you read any of the books I'd linked a page back, we might be having a different discussion right now.
Dude I've read up on the subject, in fact I just finished a class that covered the subject. I feel like I'm just communicating my point. When I say that evolution isn't observable to the same degree as a round Earth, I'm not saying that this somehow makes it less viable, just that it's a more complicated concept, and by design, more difficult to observe every aspect of.Perhaps you're right. I apologize too if I've come off as rude or elitist too. I'm tired and sad and sick, and it's getting to my head.
It did feel that way, but that's alright.
Please elaborate on what in particular you find disappointing.
That you don't really want to participate in the broader discussion. I do feel it means that you miss out on some of the broader context (e.g. the fact that if anybody is 'questioning' the theory of evolution, it's not as a direct challenge, but rather, the fact that it's not inherently provable much as anything biblical isn't), and means that you're not contributing as much as I know you're capable of doing.
As for other replies to me, I'd like to note the following:
1. I don't consider man-driven selective breeding as evidence of evolution. Evolution as a theory is centered around the concept of natural selection and adaptation for the purposes of survival. Selective breeding, by definition, is intelligent design (if we dare call mankind 'intelligent').
2. Evolution as a theory as we're discussing it (in the sense of natural selection and adaptation) should be kept very separate from the mechanical process of genetic mutations resulting in new species. It's one thing to observe a change in genetic patterns. It's a completely different thing to claim understanding for how / why those mutations occur when they don't occur in a predictable, replicable manner.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
The trouble is that people focus on this "theory of evolution" when it is actually a collective name given to a massive amount of tested and proven ideas each of which adds to the notion that complex life has developed, due to mutation and natural selection, from primitive ancestors. The broad theory has been added to and developed since Darwin's
The Origin of species
was published (and other work from largely forgotten people like Wallace).
Science works by building an idea and then trying to knock it down. Questioning, querying and sceptically challenging assumptions and biases is the entire basis of good science. The notion that evolution is only challenged by religion and is taken on faith by science is just silly. Religion presents a very poor (non-existent in scientific terms though rather more of a challenge politically in the States I'm led to understand) challenge to the scientific work on evolution while good scientists working on the subject are constantly trying to pick holes in it. Any one of them to do so successfully will almost certainly get a Nobel prize ^_^ (definitely if they can develop a more robust theory).
The work of science requires no faith. This is a notion that is brought up regularly that I would like to disabuse people of if possible.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.