The Truth About Evolution: Somebody's Making A Monkey Out of You

[MrBishop]

He's talking about Australian aborigines, Bish. They are a separate racial group. How do you get separate racial groups ond not have evolution? If it all started with one anglo couple in the middle of Iraq? Enquiring minds want to know.

Aah right...this was before they turned Australia into a huge penal colony.

 

[freako104]

Oh, and once again, Darwin's theory has nothing whatever to do with whether we evolved or not, he simply postulated a mechanism by which evolution has occured (that being natural selection).

yes you mentioned that in PM. sorry about my mistake. and Gonz: what if you dont believe?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

there are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn.

you said a mouthfull.

 

[Gonz]

Gonz: what if you dont believe?

Hell if I know. That's the point of the argument. Those who do believe say if you don't believe, you're screwed.

 

[PT]

Hell if I know. That's the point of the argument. Those who do believe say if you don't believe, you're screwed.

Isn't it just as possible that if you DO believe, you're screwed? What if god doesn't want us to believe? What if you believe you go to hell, but if you just accept the world as natural, then you are blessed with eternal life? I know, it sounds stupid, just about as stupid as believing in God sounds to me.

 

[Gonz]

A god who doesn't want to be recognized? You've got to be kidding.

 

[chcr]

Isn't it just as possible that if you DO believe, you're screwed? What if god doesn't want us to believe?

A god that doesn't expect to be deferred to and fawned over regardless of what it does? That'd be a curiosity to rival a talking dog, wouldn't it? Sorry PT, man creates god in his own image, with all the little foibles, neuroses and flaws fully intact.

Note: IMO

Everyone else is certainly welcome to have and express their own opinion (no matter how poorly thought out or erroneous it may be. )

 

[Lopan]

And as has been sad many times over, there are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn. It's the beauty of free will. You don't have to believe now. But you will.

When it has something worthwhile to say then I will listen.

 

[freako104]

Hell if I know. That's the point of the argument. Those who do believe say if you don't believe, you're screwed.

and those who dont believe remind the believers regularly that they blindly follow ideologies that have no sceintific facts

 

[Gotholic]

Not to mention from Gotholic'x own church's leaders:



Source

I'm quite aware of this. But the pope did not fully endorse Evolution.

Evolution was regarded as a hypothesis (simply a possible explanation) by the Church. Then in 1996, the pope thinks there is evidence to support Evolution and so he declared it as "more than a hypothesis." So he now calls it a theory (an explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and research).

Can Christians accept Evolution? Yes, with the proper theological qualifications in place, which won't be contradicting their faith.

IMHO, I believe that Evolution is inconsistent with the Creation account. One reason is because Evolution states that there were millions of years of death and disease before Adam and Eve. Death and suffering only came about after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit...

 

[Dave]

When it has something worthwhile to say then I will listen.

there are a few things. commandments 5-10 are pretty worthwhile.

 

[Dave]

edit: misread the post...disregard

 

[freako104]

I'm quite aware of this. But the pope did not fully endorse Evolution.

Evolution was regarded as a hypothesis (simply a possible explanation) by the Church. Then in 1996, the pope thinks there is evidence to support Evolution and so he declared it as "more than a hypothesis." So he now calls it a theory (an explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and research).

Can Christians accept Evolution? Yes, with the proper theological qualifications in place, which won't be contradicting their faith.

IMHO, I believe that Evolution is inconsistent with the Creation account. One reason is because Evolution states that there were millions of years of death and disease before Adam and Eve. Death and suffering only came about after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit...

I think history would disagree.

 

[chcr]

I think history would disagree.

Goodness knows I do.

 

[Gato_Solo]

and those who dont believe remind the believers regularly that they blindly follow ideologies that have no sceintific facts

As opposed to those who blindly follow scientific facts? Which are changed to fit the situation on an almost regular cycle?

 

[chcr]

As opposed to those who blindly follow scientific facts? Which are changed to fit the situation on an almost regular cycle?

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Scientific "facts" are overturned only when better evidence arises which proves the accepted fact incorrect. Quite different from "changed to fit the situation on an almost regular cycle."

A fact in science does not (and never will) imply an immutable truth. It simply represents a statement that so much evidence supports that it is obtuse in the extreme to withhold provisional acceptance.
Example 1: There are four elements, Air, Earth, Fire, and Water.
Perfectly accepatable explanation given the lack of tools at the time this was postulated. Accepted as fact for centuries, untlil experimentation and study proved it to be incorrect.
Example 2: It is a fact that the sun will rise each morning.
Until the morning it does not.
Example 3: "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
[Cardinal Bellarmino 1615, during the trial of Galileo]


If you want or expect pearls of immutable truth then religion is your oyster. The may or may not be correct but they will be presented as immutable truths. I prefer the relative uncertainty of scientific principle, of cause and effect. I dislike supernatural "explanations" because in my opinion they explain nothing. Simply because we do not understand everything it does not necessarily follow that there are things which are not understandable. Just my opinion.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Scientific "facts" are overturned only when better evidence arises which proves the accepted fact incorrect. Quite different from "changed to fit the situation on an almost regular cycle."

Whoops...there you go again. In your rush to prove me wrong, you've left yourself open. I'll explain...

How many revisions has the theory of relativity been through since it's inception? Now...According to Einstein, the speed of light is a fact. Also according to Einstein, the speed of light is an impenetrable barrier. Fact. So how come some objects move faster than light? When these objects were 'discovered', the fact was changed to permit this anamoly...i.e. the objects in question started out at the speed of light, and accelerated from that point onward. So much for facts being facts......and so much for the supporting evidence. Talk about a failure...

A fact in science does not (and never will) imply an immutable truth. It simply represents a statement that so much evidence supports that it is obtuse in the extreme to withhold provisional acceptance.

Then why the argument over faith? Why constantly tell me, and others who believe in a higher being, that we are, somehow, less because of it?

Example 1: There are four elements, Air, Earth, Fire, and Water.
Perfectly accepatable explanation given the lack of tools at the time this was postulated. Accepted as fact for centuries, untlil experimentation and study proved it to be incorrect.
Example 2: It is a fact that the sun will rise each morning.
Until the morning it does not.
Example 3: "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
[Cardinal Bellarmino 1615, during the trial of Galileo]

So ignorance was bliss when it came to ancient science? How quick of you to judge those who paved the way for modern science. So they never changed the facts, those facts were replaced. In this case, it's the same difference. Things were changed to fit the situation. All elements existed then, as they do now.

BTW...It was never promised that the sun will rise every morning...

If you want or expect pearls of immutable truth then religion is your oyster. The may or may not be correct but they will be presented as immutable truths. I prefer the relative uncertainty of scientific principle, of cause and effect. I dislike supernatural "explanations" because in my opinion they explain nothing. Simply because we do not understand everything it does not necessarily follow that there are things which are not understandable. Just my opinion.

If you want misleading explanaions based on an attempt to understand the universe instead of just embracing and enjoying it for what it is is, IMO, a complete waste of time and effort. Because you study something, take it apart, and put it back together doesn't lead to understanding, either. You might understand how it works, but science will never tell you why it works.

 

[freako104]

Goodness knows I do.

As opposed to those who blindly follow scientific facts? Which are changed to fit the situation on an almost regular cycle?

Facts dont change. What people say does change Plus science has a backing to it. So it is far less blind to follow. Plus religions have changed their stories as well

 

[chcr]

Facts dont change. What people say does change Plus science has a backing to it. So it is far less blind to follow. Plus religions have changed their stories as well

Sorry freak, but scientific facts do change.

Whoops...there you go again. In your rush to prove me wrong, you've left yourself open.

Umm.. You're the one who brought up "blind faith in science." Nothing could be further from the truth. Certain scientific facts are well enough laid out to get provisional approval given what we know right now (hardly blind faith, not even faith at all). That may change tomorrow simply bcause we might learn nothing new. BTW, no objects have ever been proved to travel faster than light. Some equations in particle theory seem to allow for certain particles to travel faster than light, but none have ever been proven to do so. It's a pretty theory, but until you detect particles moving at FTS speeds it's a hypothesis, nothing more. Actually, the theory of relativity has stood the test of time remarkably well as these things go. Time dilation has been effectively proved, for instance.

As for your ignorance is bliss argument, sorry but I don't agree (aren't you surprised ). The elements were certainly there, but the technology to isolate them did not exist. The technology to detect the multiple universes that string theory suggests may be discovered tomorrow and virtually everything we understand about quantum theory bay be turned upside down. Is that a good reason to abandon quantum theory altogether right now? By your argument it is.

Simply put, the fossil record shows a clear epochal progression from simple to more complicated organisms. Evolution explains this to my satisfaction until someone posits a plausible explanation that agrees with the evidence at hand that supercedes it, I'm sticking with it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Sorry freak, but scientific facts do change.



Umm.. You're the one who brought up "blind faith in science." Nothing could be further from the truth. Certain scientific facts are well enough laid out to get provisional approval given what we know right now (hardly blind faith, not even faith at all). That may change tomorrow simply bcause we might learn nothing new.

Yet, you believe them today...Thus, blind faith.

As for your ignorance is bliss argument, sorry but I don't agree (aren't you surprised ). The elements were certainly there, but the technology to isolate them did not exist. The technology to detect the multiple universes that string theory suggests may be discovered tomorrow and virtually everything we understand about quantum theory bay be turned upside down. Is that a good reason to abandon quantum theory altogether right now? By your argument it is.

Simply put, the fossil record shows a clear epochal progression from simple to more complicated organisms. Evolution explains this to my satisfaction until someone posits a plausible explanation that agrees with the evidence at hand that supercedes it, I'm sticking with it.

I knew you would...