Evolution Poll

[Lancaster]

wow you're quick at writing this, I can't keep up...

 

That in a nutshell is a very interesting point. Scientists are constantly changing their minds about what is 'fact' the bible however stays the same over the 4 thousand years it's been with us (well the forst bit at least). And you are saying the scientists have it right today? they will stick with evolution until someone comes up with a new idea and then it will be 'yes a few years ago primitive minds believed in evolution, but now we know that...'

 

To compare the God of the bible with the Greeks who didn't understand is valueless when trying to show that the bible and the science in it (like in Genesis chapters 1 - 11) is wrong. If it's wrong then someone would have proved it by now, there have been a lot of arm waving and shouting but nothing has managed to stick.

 

However I think we're going to go round in circles, by the time I've posted this you'll have answered my last post. I will bow out of this unless there is a specific point you want me to adress. And if you are really open minded then you will look at some of the articles on the answersingenesis website, there are so many that I'm sure you'll find one that talks about something you can relate to, whichever area of science is your interest.

 

If we're going to keep this up, I'll wait for your reply, then type mine, then you type yours and so on, sound good?

 

Let me try to understand this. . .You think the fact that the Bible has kept the same answers for 4,000 years a strong point? I did a double take at that. Science is constantly updating itself and perfecting the facts that it has proven.

 

I think of evolution like the heliocentric theory. It took a while for it to be accepted, but now it is fact. Look at the situation. A few radical scientists (Darwin) came up with a new idea (evolution) which was based on updated scientific fact (vs. Ptolemy and religious ideas) and was in direct contradiction to the religious community (creationism). The situation is uncannily similar, and I think the results will be the same.

 

You refer to the "science" of the Bible. Can I have an example of a Biblical idea (Old Testament, or as you put it: "the first bit") grounded in scientific fact? As far as nothing being able to stick, can you explain to me why so much of the religious community now regards Genesis as a metaphor, parable, or nice story?

 

You need to recognize that, like the scientific community, the religious community is divided. What you are defending is called fundamentalist Christianity (I'm sure you are familiar with the term). You are interpreting the Bible literally, something that only fundamentalists do.

 

And please don't back out of this argument until you have nothing left to say, or until you have been converted to an evolutionist.

[Edella]

There is a very comprehensive website; Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics where there are numerous creationist scientists who publish peer reviewed papers and teach in universities across the world.

Apparently, as far as this group is concerned, when reality contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, it is reality that is wrong. Answers in Genesis is the antithesis of science. From Aig's "Statement of Faith" :

-The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

 

IMO, these two statements alone disqualify the Answers in Genesis website from being a reliable source to reference in any honest scientific debate.

[Lancaster]

I know, it's funny how two people can see the same thing and come to completely different views. I'm right? You're right? it all comes down to what is important.

 

What is important to me is my faith, call it a crutch by all means, I know why I believe what I believe and for more than 5 years I've studied both the bible and science so I can more fully understand what is going on in the world and how I can guide my family through.

 

We disagree, that's fine I'm not imposing my beliefs on you, I am proposing other views, that you don't believe they are scientific is not my problem.

 

Like I said to Lancaster, if there is a specific point, I'll comment more, otherwise, I have other stuff to do.

 

What should be important to everyone is the truth. Faith should never be an excuse for believing in something that is not correct. I would like to see you respond, because from what I have seen, none of your arguments have any merit. Please continue so I can understand your viewpoint.

 

If your faith is that important, you should defend it. Maybe if you have a hard time defending yourself you should consider that you might be wrong. At least for your own sake, and for your family's.

[Buffy]

Down boys!

 

This is a poll thread. If you're gonna go arguing Creationism, do so in an appropriate thread: there are many old ones here that I suggest you go read, because you're rehashing stuff that's been said before--not that you can't, but you'll save you and us time!

 

So, if you wanna revive an old thread or start a new one that's fine, but its not appropriate in this one.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

[Larv]

Down boys!

 

This is a poll thread. If you're gonna go arguing Creationism, do so in an appropriate thread: there are many old ones here that I suggest you go read, because you're rehashing stuff that's been said before--not that you can't, but you'll save you and us time!

 

So, if you wanna revive an old thread or start a new one that's fine, but its not appropriate in this one.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

Agreed. But may I point out that the operative word in the poll is "belief." True-believer orientation is inconsistent with science. Nuff said.

 

—Larv

[REASON]

I am a believer in the processes of evolution. As with all belief, this is a choice I make. Belief in anything is a choice, and there are a vast number of reasons why people choose to believe in this or that. Since none of us are experts in everything, or are all knowing, there is a certain amount of faith that is required when choosing to believe in something. The constant companion of faith is the unknown. The unknown is ultimately what generates the need for faith.

 

Science is an approach used to understand the nature of the universe in a way that seeks to verifiably remove the unknowns through the scientific method, which contains a strict set of rules, and employs exhaustive research, testing, analyses, data, and peer review to generate hypotheses, theories, proofs and facts. This is not done to discredit anyone's faith, or faith in general, or to attack religion or God. It is done because belief based in faith allows for too many unanswered questions. People who are followers of science are not content to allow those questions to remain unanswered. As an agnostic, a pragmatist, a realist, and a seeker of truth, I fall into this category.

 

Evolution is a natural process that, according to science, explains the age old question, "How did all this diverse life get here?" In reality, it is only trying to explain the processes by which living organisms have changed over time. The term can also be used when referring to the change over time of non-living things. Among the experts in the field, the one's who have done the exhaustive research and analysis, there is little doubt that evolution has occurred, and is ongoing. They would be happy to explain why they believe as they do and show you their work.

 

I am, by no means, an expert in the study of evolution. I've done no research, collected no data, and performed no anaysis. I, like most people, am relagated to the cheap seats as an outside observer. Yet I choose to believe in evolution because it is a process that is supported by an enormous amount of research, data, and evidence. These things are tangible, observable, and testable, and that gives them credibility. My faith in science is strengthened by it's credibility. And since I have not given myself to the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God, I do not feel bound by it's historical contentions, or constrained by fear that I am betraying my religious faith.

 

I choose to believe in a current understanding of the world around us.

 

Evolution is a part of that understanding, like it or not.

[Larv]

***Buffy and InfiniteNow have requested me to move this topic to a new thread. So I have moved it over to the The Philosophy of Scince forum, under a new thread I'll call "Belief, Faith, Truth, and Science."***

 

—Larv

[InfiniteNow]

All -

 

Please recall the previous request. This is a community poll, and we ask that such discussion be taken into the appropriate forum or thread. Warnings have been provided, please acknowledge them and act accordingly.

[hbah427]

If the world is a product of chance, than your brain is a product of chance, therefore your logic is a product of chance, so you can't be sure what you are thinking is right, because everything is a product of chance.

 

-Ken Ham

 

A Great Man With A Great Mind

 

Christianty is the real truth

 

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. :shrug:

[Lancaster]

If the world is a product of chance, than your brain is a product of chance, therefore your logic is a product of chance, so you can't be sure what you are thinking is right, because everything is a product of chance.

 

-Ken Ham

 

A Great Man With A Great Mind

 

Christianty is the real truth

 

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. B)

 

I suggest you read that quote you wrote, then read your own post.

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that evolution is simpler things forming increasingly complex things using the logical laws of sciences. This works for the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. For some reason, when we reach life, the logical laws of science sort of take a back seat to the roll of the dice. This is where I depart from current evolutionary theory.

 

If one sees a cloud of hydrogen in space beginning to contract it going to become a star. We don't say, quickly get the dice; it might form a star or may form something never seem before. It is not a crap shoot, but a logical series of events that lead to a predictable result. But with life, science runs for the dice, right from the beginning, as though the laws of science longer apply, when it come to life. Yet there is nothing in life that is outside the laws of science. Yet the crap shoot approach implies this, without directly saying it. Maybe the basic assumptions are flawed and therefore require the crap shoot approach for the needed fudge factors.

 

The crap shoot approach to life is analogous to the curtain in the scene in the Wizard of Oz, where Toto pulls the curtain away and exposes the old guy working the Oz machine. "Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain". With the curtain in place Oz (DNA) looks all powerful. Take away the crap shoot fudge factor, that is not required elsewhere in evolution, and the powerful Oz was nothing but an illusion.

 

Rather that do it right, the evolution of life, continues to take advantage of the Oz curtain, since even incomplete or discontinuous data falls with the range of the crap shoot and appears to support it.

 

Let us assume that the sun formed by a crap shoot in space. It could have been here there, round or square. If we do that, we can get rid of many of the known laws of science. Every time a star goes supernova, what forms next from this start stuff, does so by selective advantage and the survival of the fittest. We can readily observe binary stars, "duking it out", for supremacy in their region of space. The one that wins the contest of will pass on its atomic genes to the next generation of stars after it goes supernova. Sounds like mythological pre-science. But such mythological pre-science is considered acceptable for life.

[InfiniteNow]

I believe that evolution is simpler things forming increasingly complex things using the logical laws of sciences.

Not all evolutionary changes increase complexity. In fact, many changes move toward simplicity. For further information, check out the work of Chuck Darwin. Until then, the "logic" you so highly value falls apart, since you rooted your argument in an invalid point.

[Lancaster]

I believe that evolution is simpler things forming increasingly complex things using the logical laws of sciences. This works for the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. For some reason, when we reach life, the logical laws of science sort of take a back seat to the roll of the dice. This is where I depart from current evolutionary theory.

 

This is common misconception that non-evolutionists make. Evolution is not a roll of the dice. Evolution is not mere chance. The only individual part of the evolutionary process that is pure chance is mutation. And mutation, of course, is something that we can observe every day. Natural selection is in no way random, by it's very definition. The weak die, but the strong survive. Non-random. Considering that these two examples are the two fundamental halves of evolution, I see no randomness to the theory.

[InfiniteNow]

This is common misconception that non-evolutionists make. Evolution is not a roll of the dice. Evolution is not mere chance.

Your stance may be a bit too extreme. Are not the environmental/contextual changes that drive natural selection themselves subject to probabilitic laws?

[Lancaster]

Your stance may be a bit too extreme. Are not the environmental/contextual changes that drive natural selection themselves subject to probabilitic laws?

 

Yes, but even those laws are not entirely up to chance. Even if they were, it's Evolution as a process we're talking about here, not all the variables that any situation might create.

 

And while I do see your point, you've got to admit that Natural Selection is not just chance.

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, but even those laws are not entirely up to chance. Even if they were, it's Evolution as a process we're talking about here, not all the variables that any situation might create.

 

And while I do see your point, you've got to admit that Natural Selection is not just chance.

 

Hmmm...maybe in another thread... :singer:

[Lancaster]

Ooh, here's a link. Yeah, another thread would be best to continue this.