FACEOFF: Science VS Evolution

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
Here's an article about being 98% chimp on a secular site that doesnt believe in evolution. its to large to paste.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm

read it open mindedly don't be so close minded like those religion zealots.

Wow. That's quite a piece of work. I can't tell whether its deliberately deceptive or just a display of breathtaking ignorance. I lean towards the former because of the contempt they show for their readers in assuming they won't understand the text of the scientific paper, and proceeding to apply their own false interpretation to it. They also conveniently leave out the fact that recent whole-genome analyses have corroborated the 98% similarity. Looks like the scientists' methods of analyzing the data were a bit better than this fellow's. Big shock there.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Quasar1011


"I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was one like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance."

If someone walked up to you on the street and told you this, youd think he was insane, but since it was read to you from an old book when you were a child, you'll believe it till the day you die

 

[Gothmog]

evolution, religion, both require faith

They both require faith if you want to believe that they are true in an absolute sense.

However, the ToE is a useful scientific theory even if it ends up being superceded by a more complete explanation. It explains all data currently available and allows us to make testable hypotheses on which to base experiments (i.e. we see a feature in the lineage of genes – where there was one feature now there are two identical features, thus there must be a mechanism that can account for that feature – such as gene duplication).

there is a difference between establishing a theory about why the sky is blue (something that is on-going) versus something like macro-evolution (which is not directly observable and arguably not on-going

There isn’t as much difference as it may first appear. The argument made by the ToE is that the mechanisms of modification within a genome are indeed on-going and observable. Now the timescale for what you refer to as macro-evolution is not one open to direct observation by humans, but that is not an impediment to studying the mechanisms by which it must operate, which take place on a much shorter timescale. While we can never observe the individual events (as they took place in the past), neither can we observe the specific path that each ray of light took from the sun to the earth. We observe the effects – blue sky, extant life. Posit a mechanism – scattering of light, descent with modification. And perform experiments to help decide if the mechanism is a possible explanation. Scattering of light is wavelength dependent, gene duplication is an observable phenomina. Thus science rolls on.

 

[Kryten]

It seems that we have 4 different classes of posters in any thread on this topic: -
a) There are the deeply religious people (“Creation is right, and nothing can ever change that!” they shout as they wave the Bible about)
b) There are the mildly religious people (“I don’t think that evolution is completely right or correct. There are too many flaws”)
c) There are the open minded evolutionists (“I don’t think that evolution is completely right or correct, but it does seem to fit the facts”)
d) And there are the deep atheists (“Evolution is right, and Creation is just a myth!” they shout as they wave Darwin about)
The category ‘a’ & ‘d’ type people have already made up their minds, and no new fact or evidence is ever going to make them change their opinion.
(Oh, and for the record, I class myself as a category ‘c’ type person)

Are We Knowledgeable Enough To Discuss This Issue?
--------------------------------------------
What a strange question! What I mean is, we wouldn’t think to argue over the latest techniques in modern neurosurgery or the latest discoveries in quantum mechanics would we, because (and let us be honest about this) we wouldn’t have a clue of what we are talking about! These are complex fields, which require a lifetime of intensive study to understand fully.

Well, palaeontology is ALSO a complex field, which requires a lifetime of intensive study to understand fully.
Yet here we are, people with no more than a basic layman’s understanding of the subject, trying to discuss the finer points that have eluded the experts for the past century and a half!
(If this seems a bit harsh, then may I enquire who you would go to if you wanted medical advice? Would it be a fully qualified and trained doctor, or the bloke who runs the corner shop? )

Still, no one has ever said that you need to fully understand a subject before you can form an opinion.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Well, palaeontology is ALSO a complex field, which requires a lifetime of intensive study to understand fully.
Yet here we are, people with no more than a basic layman’s understanding of the subject, trying to discuss the finer points that have eluded the experts for the past century and a half!
(If this seems a bit harsh, then may I enquire who you would go to if you wanted medical advice? Would it be a fully qualified and trained doctor, or the bloke who runs the corner shop? )

People are more afraid to ask for truth from a cadre of scientists than an equally tight-knit, equally self-protective, and equally agenda-minded clergy

I remember FL2 posted a thread where he posited that all the scientists were in on a conspiracy to hide the truth... kind of ironic from a churchgoer!

I class myself as a type C.

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
If someone walked up to you on the street and told you this, youd think he was insane, but since it was read to you from an old book when you were a child, you'll believe it till the day you die

My parents were not religious. I don't think I read that passage until I was 18 years old. You make it sound as if Christians are not capable of independent thought.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Quasar1011
My parents were not religious. I don't think I read that passage until I was 18 years old. You make it sound as if Christians are not capable of independent thought.

Not exactly. DP claimed that you religious people only believed what you did out of tradition. However, I think the people who made it sound like religionists (including Christians, and in the case of this forum, expecially Christians) are incapable of independant thought are the ones who repeatedly recite passages from their holy texts without any reasoning or original input. Don't try to pretend you are not guilty of that.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I think Dumb Pothead's point was that if you believed what you read, the question of whether you were a child or not is moot. Not that I agree.

Christians are certainly capable of independent thought. Just look at the many brands of Christianity we have.

 

[Wyrmshadow]

This isnt a case of "I'll believe it when I see it" but "I'll see it when I beleive it"

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by puglover
...Frankly, both beliefs are faith-based. Neither has actual evidence to back up their claims. We were never there when these things happened.

Evolution can be backed up by studying germs. if you have 1 million germs, then you take penicilan, and you wipe out 99% of those germs, you have 1000 germs left. but those 1000 are immune to penicilan and their kids are also immune to it. the penicilan is a change in the enviroment. if the enviroment changes to much, the species will slowly become a new species. in 2 million years, we won't be homo sapiens. research the Glapigos Island Finches for more info.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Quasar1011
My parents were not religious. I don't think I read that passage until I was 18 years old. You make it sound as if Christians are not capable of independent thought.

As nihilistic said:
The people who endlessly quote from the bible without really adding any argument of their own,
these types always strike me as being somewhat limited in their volcabulary.

 

[greenmtnsun]

Curt,

I seem to feel like nothing will satisfy you except the thoughts of our own personal beings. Perhaps this is also coming from other people in the forum, I've been having trouble keeping track of all the personalities that are new to me here. Anyway, my point is that this post may apply to more than your own views.

I don't know about you, but I feel as though I am not the smartest man on the planet. The more and more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

I think its a sign of pride when we think that we are the only ones that can think of solutions or answers to our questions. (I'm not speaking of you, but in general) We aren't able to solve everything, sometimes we rely on others wisdom. I'm so THANKFUL that I have people to read and glean new understandings from. This is not to brag, but I've read 40 books this year. If I was only interested in what I could come up with on my own, I'd have missed a ton of men and women who were able to invest large amounts of time in a concentrated part of a field of study. I can't study and know all things, I just can't, so I love to see what others were able to find out, and look into things that way as well.

So I guess what I am saying is that it isn't a limited vocabulary when someone points to a wise argument that has stood the test of time and scholarship. The bible has had more scholarship done on it than any other book in the world. Don't you think there are at LEAST some great gleanings to get from it somewhere? (to say yes doesn't require you to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior) Why would so many people think so?

Anyway, just some thoughts. I wish you well.

In Chirst,

Keith

 

[Xen]

well I just sort of jumped in here- but the bible scholar ship thing is false- the illiad and the Odysey, the great Homerian epics, have had far more scholarship done on them- just being one of the main pillers for western culture and all... and predateing "new text" of the western monotheistic faith be a few thousand years...

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't know about you, but I feel as though I am not the smartest man on the planet. The more and more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

The first step towards more knowledge. Commendable

OTOH, just throwing your hands in the air and falling back on an imagined deity is not really constructive, is it?

All knowledge is human knowledge Knowledge MIGHT be able to come from sources other than human investigation, MAYBE - but it would still have to be interpreted by a human mind.

We can't escape our own limitations. Sure, that means there are some things we'll never know. Does that bother you? I think there's more pride in the Christian when he imagines he has all the important answers - through the middleman, God. At least, more pride than the man that admits that if something is going to be found out, it's him that's going to have be doing the finding. Who else?

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by WWWeasel

Some basic rules:
Avoid logical arguments.

Any thread that asks us to avoid one of the main pillars of reason from the start should be avoided at all costs, imho. Besides, what was wrong with the earlier creation vs evolution threads that prompted this one to be started anyway ?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Apparently, moving the debate onto more "favorable" grounds.

We've just spent 5 pages debating whether or not evolution is scientific, haven't we?

Yet if I started a thread asking if religion is sane...

 

[greenmtnsun]

"I think there's more pride in the Christian when he imagines he has all the important answers - through the middleman, God."

I don' think Christians believe they have all the answers. I think we believe God does. I think we believe God gives us HIS answers, but if I come to you with an "answer", it isn't from "me" per se. The Lord is the one who provides everything in life that sustains us.

Also, IMO, Christians should not hide from the fact that there are some answers we do not know. My philosophy is that it is ok to say "I don't know." However its if it something that is "known", I'll do my best to research it to find the answer the Lord already provided, whether that's through scholarship, commentary, archeology, etc...

At least, more pride than the man that admits that if something is going to be found out, it's him that's going to have be doing the finding. Who else?

Actually, you kinda defined what many Christians believe is pride. Thinking that self is the end all, be all and the only one who can do things right.

What do the phrases "interdependence" and "allowing others to help you" mean to you?

 

[Bootstoots]

Only curious, how do you know that there is a God in the first place and that the Bible is literally true? (assuming that you believe it literally)

 

[luiz]

Evolution of Species is a proven fact.
It's a fact that we evolved from monkeys.
However, Evolution does not explain a lot of things. For exemple, we still don't know how a some proteins became a living beign. There's a huge difference between some proteins and a bacterya. That's my problem with radical evolutionists, they think they can explian everythig, while the truth is they don't know 90% of what thare is to know in biology.

 

[WildWeazel]

Originally posted by jack merchant


Any thread that asks us to avoid one of the main pillars of reason from the start should be avoided at all costs, imho. Besides, what was wrong with the earlier creation vs evolution threads that prompted this one to be started anyway ?

i cant believe I didn't see how stupid that sounded...
What I meant was not to say things like, "I can't see God or study Him so therefore religion cant be scientific, which leaves me to choose evolution..." etc.

I meant for this thread to be a place to posts scientific facts, instead of a philosophical debate which it is becoming already. I havent posted for a few days because Ive been so busy with school, but now I'm back and will now try to continue the topic as it was intended.