|
|
|
|
|
| | Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design Page 1 of 54 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41) | | I generally try not to get into this subject, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Why are so many religious believers threatened by evolution? Why can you not have your religion while accepting science? If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:08:28 PM | To get a really comprehensive answer, check out www.answersingenesis.org
The shorter answer is that evolution undercuts the belief that God created a perfect and peaceful world before human disobedience made it into the imperfect environment we see today.
Also, evolution is often equated with atheism amongst the religious, especially in the US; evolution squeezes God's alleged work more and more out of the equation. It's mainly the US and highly Islamic areas that have the most problems with evolution. I find that ironic... | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:20:22 PM | Hoyo, I won't enter the debate of evolution versus creationism but I do have a question for you. Could you please explain to me how unlife became alive?
That is more inportant than rather or not things can evlove. Nothing can evolve with out first existing. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:06:04 PM | You are correct not to enter the debate because the origin of life is not in the purview of evolution; that is a separate area of study called abiogenesis.
No one knows exactly how life originated. Saying that "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer to scientists-- it is neither scientific nor factual-- it's just a made up explanation that curtails intellectual curiosity and provides comfort to those who must have some kind of answer.
Life and nonlife are not as black and white as they may seem, either. Viruses and prions don't really fit neatly into either of those categories, for example.
That is more inportant than rather or not things can evlove.
Not really more important but perhaps more fundamental. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:17:10 PM | Oh this thread reminds of my debate in city data forum. There is only 1 beginning right? so you either choose that you evolved or is created. I chose to believe that I was created. Plus honestly, no matter how much they explain how we evolved from a cell and so on. It will always be fishy to me. The most annoying defense of the atheists on city data forum boards is incessantly saying you are just scientifically illiterate so I hold on to the myth of creation. Which I honestly find so cheap shot.
There are MANY scientists that believe in God. And still the relentless atheists always find a way to bash that fact. So if your conviction is not strong enough those people can really sway you into their belief or unbelief. lol. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:25:56 PM | Common creationist arguments:
There is only 1 beginning right? so you either choose that you evolved or is created.
False dichotomy. Either/or. It could be neither. No one knows for sure. The best way to discover the truth is to go with the evidence. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in evolution's favour.
Plus honestly, no matter how much they explain how we evolved from a cell and so on. It will always be fishy to me.
Argument from incredulity. You don't understand it so it must be wrong. Which of course, is fallacious.
There are MANY scientists that believe in God.
Argument from authority. Yes, there are scientists who believe in god(s) (not all are Judeo-Christian, for instance.) That doesn't mean that god(s) exist. It just means that some scientists believe in god(s). | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:32:31 PM |
Argument from authority. Yes, there are scientists who believe in god(s) (not all are Judeo-Christian, for instance.) That doesn't mean that god(s) exist. It just means that some scientists believe in god(s).
More importantly it also means that recognition of scientific fact does not negate belief in God. There isn't a scientist anywhere that doesn't recognize the reality of evolution - and no, I'm not counting those few nutbars with degrees. Evolution is established fact. Belief is a personal choice. But any cult or sect that asks you to pretend the earth doesn't revolve around the sun isn't worthy of following. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:42:11 PM | I guess that's the other thing I find strange about the "debate". From what I usually witness, it's the naturalists who are humble (they claim to not know all the answers), and the creationists who seem to act as if they have all the answers. I've always found that ironic.
Do I know how life began? No, and most likely, no one ever will. Educated hypothesis based on verified evidence is the best we can do.
To be a creationist, you have to look at factual findings, hard evidence, and say, "Nope." That's why I try to avoid the arguments, it's like if I say grass is bright pink, even while looking at a field, how can you possibly persuade me? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/3/2011 2:58:49 AM |
I generally try not to get into this subject, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Why are so many religious believers threatened by evolution? Threatened? How? There are BILLIONS of religious believers. At most, only 150 million Americans don't believe in evolution, and even then, most of them don't seem to be saying they are THREATENED by it, rather just don't believe it.
Seriously: If you gathered together 6,500 people, of which 15 claimed that Marmite is dangerous, and the rest have no problem with it, would you claim that the MAJORITY of those people believe that Marmite is dangerous? Is that what you honestly believe?
Why can you not have your religion while accepting science? You can, and that's what most religious believers in the WORLD, DO.
On the other hand, I can understand WHY some people might worry about problems like this. The media tends to increase controversy. Media is a business, and businesses today are focussed on making as much money as possible. Media businesses make money by getting people to watch/listen/read to them, i.e. to pay attention to them. So their main aim is to get you paying as much attention as possible to what they say. If you see a threat, your biological response is to pay more attention to that threat. That response increases with the size of the threat. So currently, media businesses get more attention, and consequently make more money, which is their current ultimate aim, by reporting as many threats as possible, and making those threats seem as large as possible. As a result, it is the aim of the media to make you see huge threats everywhere, even if they are such a small issue, that they really aren't a threat at all. So, when you see a situation as a threat, and the ACTUAL numbers show that it isn't, and the story is often reported in various ways via the media as a big threat, you know that you are suffering from media bias.
If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened. That's an interesting statement. I cannot really verify or refute it, because you haven't listed ALL the things to which you refer. You could just as equally say "If you accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened.That's an interesting statement." and I would find that just as equally unfeasible to verify or refute. It doesn't help.
Do I know how life began? No, and most likely, no one ever will. Educated hypothesis based on verified evidence is the best we can do. Best you can do. Science has given us the tools to do a lot better than that.
I guess that's the other thing I find strange about the "debate". From what I usually witness, it's the naturalists who are humble (they claim to not know all the answers), and the creationists who seem to act as if they have all the answers. I've always found that ironic. I find it ironic as well:
Humble people, who claim they know little, would only claim facts, not hypotheses, not even educated hypotheses. You claim that all they have is educated hypotheses. Ergo, according to you, humble people would NOT claim anything.
Equally, if you look at a creationist, and ask them HOW G-d did it, we would expect they would say "I don't know". Surely that is the response of someone who is openly admitting that they don't have all the answers.
To be a creationist, you have to look at factual findings, hard evidence, and say, "Nope." That's why I try to avoid the arguments, it's like if I say grass is bright pink, even while looking at a field, how can you possibly persuade me? GM and cross-breeding. You can grow pink grass in a field. So it's entirely possible. That's never been a problem.
Take a look at this:
The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
In other words, take nobody's word for it, no scientists, no philosophers, no-one. Test it for yourself. Don't rely on experiments done by others, that are published in journals. Act as no-one else said it. Don't demand that everyone else has to accept it, because 'loads of people accept it'. Be the lone scientist who does against everyone else. That is the only way to be sure. Trust no-one when it comes to science.
If you take that on board, is what you are saying so sensible?
Maybe there is a better way, 'nullius in verba', trust no-one. Don't let others teach you. Most of the time, that's just repeating what someone else said, and not even contributing anything that makes it more viable. Come up with your own theory, and show me how you proved that. Then at least I can read about things that make sense, and don't rely on the fallacy of relying on authority, not even authority of the scientific community. | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/3/2011 7:21:57 AM | This argument has been done to death. The entire problem is that science imposes limitations on what qualifies as a scientific theory and one of the requirements for a scientific theory is that the premises must provide for the means of making testable predictions that would falsify the premises if some prediction of theory was in conflict with observed data. All creationist ``throries'' including ID fail to do that. In particular, the key premise in all of those ``theories'' is the premise of a creator, but none of those theories makes any attempt to make any testable prediction that would prove their premise of a creator false if that prediction was falsified. That stops all of those ``theories'' from meeting the requirements imposed on scientific theories, so whatever those theories are, they aren't scientific theories and not suitable for science classes or even being taken seriously as science.
Although evolution rises far above that standard, this issue is not about whether evolution is correct and something like ID is wrong. It's about the fact that if evolution is wrong, it's possible to find evidence that it is wrong and that by design, ID can always be made to fit any data ever found, no matter what it is (after the fact) and it is therefore totally useless from a scientific perspective. Creationist theories strive to not make testable predictions in order to be a ``me too theory'' every time a discovery adds more support to the theory of evolution. Any theory that does nothing but strive to just like a theory that makes all of the testable predictions is in fact the theory of evolution with only an assumption that has no meaning and could be eliminated without changing anything.
The only conflict here is that certain fundamentalist religions have some pressing need to indoctrinate people with their own personal religious views and are attempting to do that by dressing their religious beliefs up in scientific jargon to create an illusion of science for people who aren't really clear on what a scientific theory is. Most relgions are a little more sane and don't have a problem reconciling their religious beliefs with science, except in certain parts of the US and some backward theocracies living in the stone age.
| |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:30:19 AM |
Threatened? How? There are BILLIONS of religious believers. At most, only 150 million Americans don't believe in evolution, and even then, most of them don't seem to be saying they are THREATENED by it, rather just don't believe it.
That's all well and good, but I'm simply talking from past experiences with people I've dealt with.
You can, and that's what most religious believers in the WORLD, DO.
I know people who believe the world is 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. So that's a group that is blatantly denying science.
I cannot really verify or refute it, because you haven't listed ALL the things to which you refer
One example is Russian silver foxes. Over about 36 generations of selective breeding resulted in the foxes looking and behaving like dogs. Or the Italian wall lizards planted on an island near Croatia. They went from insect eaters to plant eaters, with a totally different skull structure. Even though that change is, by definition, evolution, a creationist has to deny those changes took place.
Best you can do. Science has given us the tools to do a lot better than that.
Not really sure what you mean by that. That science should have discovered all the answers by now?
Humble people, who claim they know little, would only claim facts, not hypotheses, not even educated hypotheses. You claim that all they have is educated hypotheses. Ergo, according to you, humble people would NOT claim anything.
Not sure where I said all that science has is educated hypotheses. I know I mentioned it educated hypotheses. A part of science is assuming you're 99% correct at best. Science always leaves room for error, and assumes they don't have 100% of the information. To me, that is a humble attitude.
GM and cross-breeding. You can grow pink grass in a field. So it's entirely possible. That's never been a problem.
You missed my point on this one. Bringing it back to those Italian wall lizards, even though we witness the change in skull structure over the span of about 30 years, someone who denies evolution would have to deny that the skulls changed, despite it being right in front of them
In other words, take nobody's word for it, no scientists, no philosophers, no-one. Test it for yourself. Don't rely on experiments done by others, that are published in journals. Act as no-one else said it. Don't demand that everyone else has to accept it, because 'loads of people accept it'. Be the lone scientist who does against everyone else. That is the only way to be sure. Trust no-one when it comes to science.
I agree. But, as I only have one life to live, I can't be a geologist, paleontologist, zoologist, anthropologist, chemist, biologist and historian. All I can do is my own research, gather as much information as i can from as many sources as possible, and make up my own mind on the works of others. | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/3/2011 9:48:58 PM | "If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened."
If you do accept evolution then a lot of Christian theology falls apart. If evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin. Furthermore the story of Adam and Eve just becomes fiction. That immediately raises the questions: What else in the Bible is fiction? Is there anything that's not fiction? If we stick to science then suddenly there's a whole lot of problems. Abraham never existed. So how could there be a covenant between him and God? Moses never existed, nor was there a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt who then conquered Canaan. The First Temple never existed. The united monarchy under David and Solomon never existed. Solomon probably never existed and David was just a lowly chieftain in a backwater village. All the revelations of God in the OT are untrustworthy. The prophets got their prophecies wrong so anything they had to say about God can be dismissed. All that stuff about the Messiah, why should anyone believe it. Certainly it has no basis in science and Jesus didn't even fulfill the prophecies. In fact there's not a scrap of evidence that Jesus ever existed and the stories about him are completely unbelievable. The Bible tells us that Jesus was descended from Adam but science tells us that Adam never existed. So science and history tells us that Jesus never existed. But without the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christians faith is meaningless, according to St. Paul.
If you apply science consistently then you can't be a Christian. Even if you reject everything I wrote above as inconsequential there's still a major problem. What scientific evidence is there that Jesus is your savior? Science demands the rejection of a hypothesis if it either can't be tested or there's no evidence in favor of it. Occam's Razor eliminates the first possibility and the null hypothesis test eliminates the second. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/3/2011 9:57:13 PM | You don't have to reject Christianity to accept evolution.
Even the most fundamentalist, literalist pastor out there will tell you that the Book of Job is not be read as a literally true story. God and Satan weren't sitting around shooting the shit and made a bet on some poor schlemiel. Accepting scientific evidence just means that the Book of Genesis has to read the same way - as a religious truth, not a literal one. That's how it was viewed for almost the entirety of the history of both Judaism and Christianity anyway. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 1:52:36 PM | | All I can say, is that creation/intelligent design is just a biblical myth. And calling it intelligent design is ludicrous. After all if it was intelligent, why have there been so many extinctions? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 6:05:10 PM | "I generally try not to get into this subject, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Why are so many religious believers threatened by evolution? Why can you not have your religion while accepting science? If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened."
I accept both, and they both have a place, but I have found some who support evolution are Athiest and use it as a means of denying religion and gods existence, so is it not the other way round, Prehaps if they could cool it a bit on being antagonistic and using it in such a way against religion, they would not feel so threatened.
  | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 6:32:15 PM | Hoyo, The first question that comes to mind is why ask? If you seek to know many resources lay at your fingertips. Have you honestly and openly looked at both sides of the debate? The Cambrian fossil record shows a sudden appearance of life not small gradual steps as present by Darwin. (an obvious difficulty for evolutionist)
On the Origin of the Species published 1859, Darwin seemed to be able to explain the appearance of design as the product of a purely undirected process. Fast forward 150 years to modern day advances in science; do they still support his theory? I dare argue no more than bloodletting for fever, scrape your knee rub a little mercury on it or giving opium to a teething baby would still be used as valid practices in medicine today.
If your intent is to find truth, where ever it may lead, the first question you must ask yourself is why follow a theory that modern day advances in almost every scientific sect fails to support. If you dare fasten your seat belt, rooted deep in political and economic agendas’ lies an answer.
Start with Michael Behe Darwin’s Black Box, and no its NOT Christian book, yet steeped in logic and reason, something you will have to get use to on this ride to truth. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 7:40:02 PM | Halftimedad (There isn't a scientist anywhere that doesn't recognize the reality of evolution - and no, I'm not counting those few nutbars with degrees. Evolution is established fact.)
OUCH! And I am the one you will call closed minded, may have your sources please. I will show you mine if you show me yours....
Galileo encountered much of same resistance in presenting truth to Kepler's established theory as modern day ID scientist do today. In fact When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Perhaps you should rethink your stance.
Organized religions, government nor ignorance should limit our minds. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 7:49:23 PM |
Fast forward 150 years to modern day advances in science; do they still support his theory? I dare argue no more than bloodletting for fever, scrape your knee rub a little mercury on it or giving opium to a teething baby would still be used as valid practices in medicine today.
You seem to be misinformed. The discovery of the DNA molecule and DNA sequencing has been overwhelming support for evolution. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 8:33:56 PM | "If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened."
If you do accept evolution then a lot of Christian theology falls apart. If evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin. Furthermore the story of Adam and Eve just becomes fiction. That immediately raises the questions: What else in the Bible is fiction? Is there anything that's not fiction? If we stick to science then suddenly there's a whole lot of problems. Abraham never existed. So how could there be a covenant between him and God? Moses never existed, nor was there a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt who then conquered Canaan. The First Temple never existed. The united monarchy under David and Solomon never existed. Solomon probably never existed and David was just a lowly chieftain in a backwater village. All the revelations of God in the OT are untrustworthy. The prophets got their prophecies wrong so anything they had to say about God can be dismissed. All that stuff about the Messiah, why should anyone believe it. Certainly it has no basis in science and Jesus didn't even fulfill the prophecies. In fact there's not a scrap of evidence that Jesus ever existed and the stories about him are completely unbelievable. The Bible tells us that Jesus was descended from Adam but science tells us that Adam never existed. So science and history tells us that Jesus never existed. But without the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christians faith is meaningless, according to St. Paul.
If you apply science consistently then you can't be a Christian. Even if you reject everything I wrote above as inconsequential there's still a major problem. What scientific evidence is there that Jesus is your savior? Science demands the rejection of a hypothesis if it either can't be tested or there's no evidence in favor of it. Occam's Razor eliminates the first possibility and the null hypothesis test eliminates the second.
CountIbli, I like you! Your response is well steeped in the fundamental question. If you don’t believe in the deity, death and resurrection of Christ as a truth then why be a Christian at all! Can the bible be reliable? Historically sound able to stand up to logical thinking?
Post hock reasoning will lead to logical fallacies every time though I am afraid.
You do not have to believe in Christianity to discount evolution. Evolution does not stand up to the limitations Darwin himself placed on his theory. Darwin expressed the need to find a supportive fossil record and acknowledged the fact without it his theory did not have the scientific evidence needed to be true. Micro evolution does not support macro evolution. Of course the survival of the fittest exists. In what way does that prove the evolution from one genome to another? No more than the endosymbiotic theory explains the formation of multicellular organisms, Leaps of faith are needed for both viewpoints. Question is which is more logical in light of the fact we know today, not 150 years ago.
If I can disprove evolution to you the rub still remains. Fact …we exist, on what dimension remains to be uncovered as the world of microbiology/ quantum physics explodes with the string theory and such, how did we get here? If evolution is off the table what a wonderful day to think outside the box.
Have no fear, I will do my best to answer any question but need to start with taking evolution off the table. Any takers who would like to bring an argument for its soundness will need to do so with logic, evidence and honesty. I have studied this, have you?
Do I know everything, n o p e, far from it. Without hearing what others believe and why, how can I be firm in my beliefs? How can the heart rejoice in what the mind can not defend? Together we reason. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 8:48:39 PM | | Thank you for your response abelian. I need more than a statement to defend myself. We all have opinions I need the facts. Why do you believe DNA/RNA support evolution? The complexity alone points to intelligence. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/4/2011 9:15:01 PM | First we need to be on the same page, evolutionist hold naturalistic world view. This is to say one believes either matter or energy (or both) is the things from which everything else comes. They are self existent and do not need to be shaped or created by a mind. Natural interactions between simple material entities governed by natural laws eventually produce chemical elements form elementary particles, then complex molecules from simple chemicals elements, then simple life from complex molecules, then more complex life from simpler life, and finally conscious living beings such as ourselves. In this view matter comes first and a conscious mind arrives on scene much later and only then as a by-product of material processes and undirected evolutionary change.
Is the definition correct? | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 8/5/2011 6:19:28 AM | Ok HalftimeDad, If evolution does not shed insight on the origin-of-life problem as believed by many, May I know your theory? I can not defend what is not clearly defined.
My statement did not assume the knowelege of origin, please re read. It simply states matter and engery exist, uncreated unexplained. Natural forces exist undirected. The two produced life as we now know it.
| |
|
|
|
|
Page
1
of
54 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
|
|
Home
login 
