Questions to Evolutionists

[Leifmk]

I have never really understood why religion could not have simply adopted evolution with the explanation "God causes the changes" or something along those lines but maybe a little more subtle.

A very large numberof mainstream Christian churches (including the Roman Catholic Church) already have. So have a bunch of non-Christian religious groups. Pretty much everyone who's both well-informed and honest, actually.

 

[civ2]

The funniest thing about Atheists - they are so fanatic in their "belief of not believing" that it's obviously just another "religion" with one exception - man made into "god" (meaning "I and my brain are the main") - which is a very stupid thing.
I'm sooooo tired of such nonsense...
Guys!
The biggest reason for "being an Atheist" is nothing more than an obvious IGNORANCE concerning God.
And I mean the knowledge reachable by anyone with sharp brain...
God is not "sitting in the sky" (recall Russian comsmonauts "not finding God there" - which is obvious since God is not physical).
God is not "a moody person" - since He's not human.
And so on and so forth.
Whenever you apply HUMAN parameters to God you always have "proof" of that being nonsense.
But you forget that it was YOU who "attached" those ideas to God - not He Himself.
God's "description" is never adequate - that's why when you rely on a it as a proof you go nowhere.
One more thing - "believe" isn't ALWAYS "without proof" - in most cases people start believing (more) after they see the results in their lives - which is undeniable.
Of course you can say those were results of "random nature" but it's too often to be random.

And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???

 

[The Last Conformist]

Our scientific theories are descriptive of the way the universe appears to work. Laws, as I am using the term, are the underlying principles that dictate how the universe operates. That's why I use the term Law. If science is right in believing these exist, and are worth trying to discover, then they would be there and immutable, whether we are around to observe and describe them or not.

That's a bad usage of the term, since it conflicts with how it is generally used in science.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If anyone here could produce evidence for God or Darwin, there would be no more threads on the subject!

Creationists are programmatically unconvinced by evidence.

 

[Leifmk]

The funniest thing about Atheists - they are so fanatic in their "belief of not believing" that it's obviously just another "religion"

No.

And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???

Incorrect.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

...And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???

When looked at from the level of DNA mapping there are no missing links, just a clear progression up the evolutionary tree.

Chimpanzees share 98.4% to 99.4% of our DNA (link). How much proof do you need?

And while we are asking for proof, I'm still waiting for proof of any god, not to mention proof of <name of your religion>'s god.

 

[Turner]

The funniest thing about Atheists - they are so fanatic in their "belief of not believing" that it's obviously just another "religion"

No.

And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???

Incorrect.

Excellent debating technique!

How about showing some support one way or the other?

@Pug - When you realize that creation is a metaphor (which is something I've stated here in the past), Christianity and Evolution do not contradict each other. It's only when you take a literal interpretation of the creation 'myth' (for want of a better term) that Christianity and Evolution start to butt heads.

 

[AlanH]

That's a bad usage of the term, since it conflicts with how it is generally used in science.

So what is your term to identify the underlying fundamental patterns, that science seeks to discover, that dictate the way the universe behaves?

 

[Leifmk]

Excellent debating technique!

Yeah, well. This is no high school debate class. People who post nonsense are not entitled to be taken seriously.

 

[Turner]

Neither are people who don't back up their position.

:shrug: YMMV.

 

[civ2]

Sahkuhnder
A cucumber consists of some 90%+++ water - does that prove it being a water plant? (Or being "born" from water? )
DNA is nothing more than a "structure description" - it doesn't state how the current structure appeared.
The biggest mistake of "science-lovers" is to state science is absolute truth.
Science is merely TRYING to explain what and how happens in the world - it shouldn't try to answer why (no info on that from the pure science - only theories).
And creation is not a metaphor.
There can't be any direct material proof of immaterial things.
And even more concerning God.
(I do hate when people speak of "proof of any god". "Any god" is not the goal I'm trying to explain. Btw science itself is one of such "any gods". And with lots of believers.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

So what is your term to identify the underlying fundamental patterns, that science seeks to discover, that dictate the way the universe behaves?

Many scientists would despute that that's what science tries to do.

Anyway, I don't have specific term for that. Can't recall the last time I felt a need for one.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

DNA is nothing more than a "structure description" - it doesn't state how the current structure appeared.

Science shows how mutations cause the structure to change. As the changes can be tracked and followed, we can clearly see how the current structure developed, and what previous form it developed from. Educated people worldwide accept this.

The biggest mistake of "science-lovers" is to state science is absolute truth.

Yes, I am proudly a science lover, as the alternative is ignorance.

Who told you science is absolute truth? If you knew what science was you would know it is only our continuing efforts to explain the world we live in based on actual data and evidence subjected to the scientific method.

Science is merely TRYING to explain what and how happens in the world - it shouldn't try to answer why (no info on that from the pure science - only theories).

Science does try to explain what happens in the world. Why shouldn't it try to answer why? Gravity is just a theory too. That doesn't mean that it is incorrect or that it isn't real.

And creation is not a metaphor.
There can't be any direct material proof of immaterial things.
And even more concerning God.
(I do hate when people speak of "proof of any god". "Any god" is not the goal I'm trying to explain. Btw science itself is one of such "any gods". And with lots of believers.)

Hate it all you want, dealing with your hatred is your issue to face, not mine. You should learn to get used to it though because decade by decade as science explains our world, including things like evolution, religion becomes less and less important in the average person's life.

Someday you will be very lonely all by yourself, filled with your hatred, in your empty church. Do yourself a favor and lighten up a bit. You may just live longer and be happier.

Until I see convincing scientific evidence of the existence of god(s) I will remain agnostic and admit there is insufficient data to make an reasonable decision on the issue. You are free to make your choice and I am free to make mine.


EDIT - corrected typo.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I do disagree with the claim that miracles are incompatible with science. That is because I don't define miracles as suspensions or violations of natural laws but divine intervention in human affairs, working within the limits of natural laws. Of course if God intervened in an incident it will not be repeatable by humans.

 

[civ2]

Eran of Arcadia
"The greatest miracles happen every day and in immeasurable amounts. It's just that we don't see them because they're "clothed" in nature."
Such miracles include the very existance of our world.

Sahkuhnder
I hate (really dislike at least) those who don't see difference between God and gods.
I won't comment this.
About "absolute truth" - would they think otherwise they would see the obvious nonsense (incongruency) in most "scientific" theories.
And gravity doesn't fit there because you CAN experiment on it - whilst you CAN'T experiment on either evolution or cosmic age-measurement.
The problem with evolution is not about small changes that can be made in labs - it's about how a worm can become a bird.
And since such "experiments" are out of human's possibilities - don't take them as "absolute truth" or it will be nothing less than obvious FANATISM.
Science IS a new-age "religion" - not much different from ancient beliefs that idols can help in human's life.
As far as you forget about God - you sit in a DEEP well without any escape.
Everything else is up to you to consider.

 

[civ2]

in your empty church

(See under my nick for explaination!)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sahkuhnder
I hate (really dislike at least) those who don't see difference between God and gods.

You have my full blessing and permission to hate me as much as you like. I won't even be offended. Hopefully someday you can see past that, but until then it's fine with me. I have a right to my opinion and unless you have convincing evidence I don't see any reason to change my mind.

About "absolute truth" - would they think otherwise they would see the obvious nonsense (incongruency) in most "scientific" theories.
And gravity doesn't fit there because you CAN experiment on it - whilst you CAN'T experiment on either evolution or cosmic age-measurement.
The problem with evolution is not about small changes that can be made in labs - it's about how a worm can become a bird.

You can run scientific experiments with both gravity and evolution. Where did you get such badly incorrect information about science? Here is a thread on a new species emerging from evolution, in a lab.

We can look into the past by looking at the rates things change, where they are now, and subtract to go backwards. It's not difficult at all.

And feel free to keep your god preaching to yourself as it is just wasted on me. Bring me evidence, not words.

(See under my nick for explaination!)

After seeing you post that may lol's would you be offended if I asked how old you are?

I don't read whatever language your sig is. This forum is in English.

Church attendance has been decreasing for a few hundred years now, and is decreasing even more rapidly in the last few decades. There are empty churches today, one of my favorite clubs in NYC used to be a huge church and is now a place where people have fun and enjoy themselves instead.

Religion plays a smaller and smaller part in the lives of an average citizen. Science plays a larger and larger part.

Post all the lol's you want, that won't change those facts.

 

[mdwh]

Our scientific theories are descriptive of the way the universe appears to work. Laws, as I am using the term, are the underlying principles that dictate how the universe operates. That's why I use the term Law. If science is right in believing these exist, and are worth trying to discover, then they would be there and immutable, whether we are around to observe and describe them or not.

I disagree - a law does not dictate to the Universe. A law is an observation on how the universe behaves. Theories on the other hand are models explaining how and why the universe behaves in this way.

 

[mdwh]

The funniest thing about Atheists - they are so fanatic in their "belief of not believing" that it's obviously just another "religion" with one exception - man made into "god" (meaning "I and my brain are the main") - which is a very stupid thing.
I'm sooooo tired of such nonsense...
Guys!

No they are not.

The biggest reason for "being an Atheist" is nothing more than an obvious IGNORANCE concerning God.
And I mean the knowledge reachable by anyone with sharp brain...
God is not "sitting in the sky" (recall Russian comsmonauts "not finding God there" - which is obvious since God is not physical).
God is not "a moody person" - since He's not human.
And so on and so forth.
Whenever you apply HUMAN parameters to God you always have "proof" of that being nonsense.
But you forget that it was YOU who "attached" those ideas to God - not He Himself.
God's "description" is never adequate - that's why when you rely on a it as a proof you go nowhere.
One more thing - "believe" isn't ALWAYS "without proof" - in most cases people start believing (more) after they see the results in their lives - which is undeniable.
Of course you can say those were results of "random nature" but it's too often to be random.

So, assuming you have a sharp brain, show us this "knowledge" of God.

And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???

There will always be a "missing link" unless you dig up every single fossil. If you have fossils A and C, and find missing link B, you now have two missing links, between A and B, and B and C...

 

[civ2]

After seeing you post that may lol's would you be offended if I asked how old you are?

I don't read whatever language your sig is. This forum is in English.

Church attendance has been decreasing for a few hundred years now, and is decreasing even more rapidly in the last few decades. There are empty churches today, one of my favorite clubs in NYC used to be a huge church and is now a place where people have fun and enjoy themselves instead.

Religion plays a smaller and smaller part in the lives of an average citizen. Science plays a larger and larger part.

Post all the lol's you want, that won't change those facts.

1. I'm 22.
2. I wrote "under my nick" - which is NOT my sig but rather my "title" (or whatever) - it can be changed from the account.
Sig is indeed not in English whilst my "title" states clearly who I am in normal English.
(I just love those smilies. )
3. Maybe word hate is too strong - but I do find such people rather ignorant.
4. One thing is species (btw they are also defined subjectively sometimes) and another is appearance of serious changes - not in color or size but such as wings or legs or lungs etc.
There were some threads about these and others parts but all this suggests "intelligent evolution" - like birds KNOWING that wings are good for flight or similar.
Would YOU consider wings useful for flight if you never saw any flying beings?
Now about lungs:
Air is the very essence of life.
It CAN'T take generations to provide a useful feature to breathe - if a fish gets off water - it dies!
And after getting "lungs" - what would make them go out of water?
If you're a fish - then water is the only thing you know and stick to.
The "evolutional appearance" of lungs implys that either fishes were "smart" enough to decide going out of water - or they got their lungs during ONE SINGLE generation - which is absolutely impossible.