Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[bhsmte]

A critically thinking mind - at least if we are equivocating denial to non-belief/non-acceptance.

Ok, show the critical thinking to us.

Why do you reject the well evidenced TOE?

Do you reject any other well evidenced scientific theories?

 

[TheBear]

And just as riveting now as it was then. ; )

Indeed. That's why it took a 2 year break, and took a newbie to necro the thing. ;-D

 

[Extraneous]

If you want to claim this then you need to define what you mean by the word "doctrine". But you are wrong, I do not think that science is holy. The scientific method is the best method that we have right now for answering life's questions. It is not perfect. If it was perfect it would not need a self correcting mechanism. The problem is that theists as a rule have doctrinal beliefs that can be shown to be wrong, but since there is no self correction in most religions they are stuck with those errors for quite some time.

I see ToE just as i see those religions that you say are stuck in their errors. ToE doesnt actually change its errors, it only justifies them with rhetoric, at least that the impression i get when i hear ToE posters deny that scientists mistakenly asserted that the human appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolutionary process. There are many such examples i suppose. This is how ToE becomes nothing more than another false doctrine created by man. Its just another religion. Anyway, i guess it doesnt matter, does it? You will believe what you believe, and i will too, and so will everyone. Goodnight Subductionzone.

 

[bhsmte]

I see ToE just as i see those religions that you say are stuck in their errors. ToE doesnt actually change its errors, it only justifies them with rhetoric, at least that the impression i get when i hear ToE posters deny that scientists mistakenly asserted that the human appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolutionary process. There are many such examples i suppose. This is how ToE becomes nothing more than another false doctrine created by man. Its just another religion. Anyway, i guess it doesnt matter, does it? You will believe what you believe, and i will too, and so will everyone. Goodnight Subductionzone.

What do you think of Francis Collins opinion on the strength of the evidence for evolution. Keep in mind, Collins is a devout Christian, former head of the human genome project, geneticist and physician.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.4uiMhkII.dpuf

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see ToE just as i see those religions that you say are stuck in their errors. ToE doesnt actually change its errors, it only justifies them with rhetoric, at least that the impression i get when i hear ToE posters deny that scientists mistakenly asserted that the human appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolutionary process. There are many such examples i suppose. This is how ToE becomes nothing more than another false doctrine created by man. Its just another religion. Anyway, i guess it doesnt matter, does it? You will believe what you believe, and i will too, and so will everyone. Goodnight Subductionzone.

What are the supposed errors in the theory of evolution? It has had changes over the years, but nothing has changed its general premises, and no, that is not "doctrine". Darwin was fairly close to being correct.

I hear claims from you, but you have yet to post any evidence at all that supports your claims. Odds are that you have misunderstandings on your part of how evolution works at best.

And no, evolution is not a religion. If you claim that I can guarantee that you have almost no understanding of the science involved. But go ahead. Give it your best shot.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Ok, show the critical thinking to us.

Why do you reject the well evidenced TOE?

Do you reject any other well evidenced scientific theories?

Nope. Not derailing this thread for 40 pages

 

[Extraneous]

Nope. Not derailing this thread for 40 pages

That's what it always boils down to as well, fruitless and senseless argument, over at least 40 pages, if not a couple thousand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what it always boils down to as well, fruitless and senseless argument, over at least 40 pages, if not a couple thousand.

It does not have to be fruitless. The problem is that some Christians, and probably not most, irrationally reject one aspect of science only because it goes against their personal interpretation of the Bible. Accepting reality does not mean that you can no longer be a Christian.

 

[Extraneous]

It does not have to be fruitless. The problem is that some Christians, and probably not most, irrationally reject one aspect of science only because it goes against their personal interpretation of the Bible. Accepting reality does not mean that you can no longer be a Christian.

Actually my opinion about the bible only caused me to question toe, just as it made me question many things, like war and politics, however it is my examination of ToE and its wild assertions that make me reject it. I could go into detail, i could post things but then you would just argue it down, saying its not the majority consensus and therefore is wrong, and it would derail the thread, and waste countless hours, and many mind numbing, pointless, and insane contentions, spanning many many pages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually my opinion about the bible only caused me to question toe, just as it made me question many things, like war and politics, however it is my examination of ToE and its wild assertions that make me question it. I could go into detail, i could post things but then you would just argue it down, saying its not the majority consensus and therefore is wrong, and it would derail the thread, and waste countless hours, and many mind numbing, pointless, and insane contentions, spanning many many pages.

If you think that there are "wild assertions" in the theory of evolution, then I can guarantee that your understanding of it is severely lacking. Again, claims without evidence are worthless. I cannot go into the hours and perhaps years of study needed to understand the science in one post, but I could link sources that would get you started to understanding this. But if you have no real interest there would not be much of a point to it.

Once again I am asking for evidence that life is not the product of evolution. By the way, there are various anti-evolution and anti-reality sites that tell their workers that they cannot use the scientific method. I would suggest that you avoid those.

 

[Extraneous]

If you think that there are "wild assertions" in the theory of evolution, then I can guarantee that your understanding of it is severely lacking. Again, claims without evidence are worthless. I cannot go into the hours and perhaps years of study needed to understand the science in one post, but I could link sources that would get you started to understanding this. But if you have no real interest there would not be much of a point to it.

Once again I am asking for evidence that life is not the product of evolution. By the way, there are various anti-evolution and anti-reality sites that tell their workers that they cannot use the scientific method. I would suggest that you avoid those.

Just because man shares DNA with animals means nothing, that's to be expected, because we are animal. We share DNA with plants too, im assuming. So God made apes similar to man, now scientists, who refuse to acknowledge God, think that he evolved from a prehistoric creature that was less intelligent than a chimp. Im not surprised that God would do that, after all these scientists wont even acknowledge him, so why wouldn't he cause them to believe such a thing? Man wont believe he came from God, so God allows him to believe hes nothing but a dumb beast. Isnt it possible that man is not evolved at all but that God has only allowed mankind to believe this? Isn't my theory plausible? Surely you cant deny its possible can you? What proof would you show?

 

[Extraneous]

Contrary to popular belief, i believe that the more education a person possesses, the more foolish he becomes, and i base this on observations over mans pride, and also on scripture. I believe its better to be simple, humble, and mind only spiritual things. This doesn't mean education is bad, but it means that education should be seen as useful, but only in its proper place. Better is an uneducated man who is humble, kind and God fearing, because he is wise. He has more wisdom than a well educated man who is proud and doesn't revere God, or who may think he is wiser than those with less education. A poor man is also better than a rich man because the poor man doesn't constantly feed his lust, he will increase in wisdom where the rich man will only increase in ungodliness. The poor man seeks God in his poverty, but the rich man is already full and needs nothing, so he denies God. If we see it that way, we can humbly increase education without being blinded by it. So you see, i believe education is more often than not, something that only hinders wisdom rather than increasing it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because man shares DNA with animals means nothing, that's to be expected, because we are animal. We share DNA with plants too, im assuming. So God made apes similar to man, now scientists, who refuse to acknowledge God, think that he evolved from a prehistoric creature that was less intelligent than a chimp. Im not surprised that God would do that, after all these scientists wont even acknowledge him, so why wouldn't he cause them to believe such a thing? Man wont believe he came from God, so God allows him to believe hes nothing but a dumb beast. Isnt it possible that man is not evolved at all but that God has only allowed mankind to believe this? Isn't my theory plausible? Surely you cant deny its possible can you? What proof would you show?

As I thought, it seems that you are extremely ignorant of the massive evidence for the theory of evolution. It is not just DNA, though that alone is a slam dunk for the theory of evolution, it is all of the evidence combined that can only be explained by the theory of evolution. And please, the Ninth Commandment tells you not to bear false witness against your neighbor. By claiming that scientists "refuse to acknowledge God" you are doing just that. If you can't show that scientists "refuse to acknowledge God" then you should not make such a claim as a Christian. And even if a particular scientist is an atheist it does not mean that he "refuses to acknowledge God". That statement of yours is wrong on more than one level.

There are many Christians, probably the majority worldwide, that accept the theory of evolution. There are even Christian scientists that quite rightfully point out that to say the theory of evolution is wrong means that one has to believe in a lying God. All of the evidence points clearly to evolution and only evolution. Since God would have had to create the evidence that means that God would have to have lied to you by making the evidence point towards evolution.

By the way you don't seem to even know the definition of "theory". What you have is just a nonsensical idea. It is denied by the idea that God cannot lie.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yawn. Same old, same old, Extraneous. Down through the ages, the church persecuted and denounced science as a thing of the Devil. In every case, however, the church was found dead wrong in the end. Why should evolution be an exception? All I see you doing is repeating a highly neurotic behavior pattern that has been part of Christianity for far too long. I don't think you realize that religious ideation can be very close to irrational, neurotic thinking. I recommend you read sometime a book by the noted psychotherapist Albert Ellis, entitled "Against Religiosity," in which he points out many examples of religious ideation which would easily qualify as highly neurotic thinking, one of which is refusing to go on modern scientific thinking.

 

[Extraneous]

As I thought, it seems that you are extremely ignorant of the massive evidence for the theory of evolution. It is not just DNA, though that alone is a slam dunk for the theory of evolution, it is all of the evidence combined that can only be explained by the theory of evolution. And please, the Ninth Commandment tells you not to bear false witness against your neighbor. By claiming that scientists "refuse to acknowledge God" you are doing just that. If you can't show that scientists "refuse to acknowledge God" then you should not make such a claim as a Christian. And even if a particular scientist is an atheist it does not mean that he "refuses to acknowledge God". That statement of yours is wrong on more than one level.

There are many Christians, probably the majority worldwide, that accept the theory of evolution. There are even Christian scientists that quite rightfully point out that to say the theory of evolution is wrong means that one has to believe in a lying God. All of the evidence points clearly to evolution and only evolution. Since God would have had to create the evidence that means that God would have to have lied to you by making the evidence point towards evolution.

By the way you don't seem to even know the definition of "theory". What you have is just a nonsensical idea. It is denied by the idea that God cannot lie.

No, i understand.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope. Not derailing this thread for 40 pages

That is what i thought.

 

[Ophiolite]

Without God, all men are blind, and prone to bias, delusion and false doctrine. This is true even in science. I know that atheists wont agree, but its still true. Its also true that its impossible for natural minds, blinded by delusion, to agree with spiritual minds.

And yet you continue to ignore the point that precisely because men can be blind and prone to bias and delusion they have evolved a proven system and methodology to overcome those human limitations. The proof that the system is effective lies in its enormous success in investigating the world we inhabit. What aspect of your logic justifies continually ignoring that key point?

 

[Extraneous]

And yet you continue to ignore the point that precisely because men can be blind and prone to bias and delusion they have evolved a proven system and methodology to overcome those human limitations. The proof that the system is effective lies in its enormous success in investigating the world we inhabit. What aspect of your logic justifies continually ignoring that key point?

I already gave you that answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do not pontificate, but rather express the truth that i have seen. Science can be, and is often, a false doctrine where politics and religious notion do play a role. To say that science is above mans folly is incorrect. To say that science is pure and un-defiled by mans spiritual blindness, hypocrisy and false doctrines, is incorrect.

Please tell me where in this thread any member has claimed that "science is above man's folly", or that "science is pure an undefiled".

You can make up great arguments all day against points that no one is claiming. Why are you doing that? It is leading to self deceit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, i understand.

It is rather clear that you do not understand the theory of evolution at all. How do you explain that one has to believe in a lying God if one both understands the clear and undeniable evidence for the theory of evolution and believing that evolution is wrong?

You do realize that there is no scientific evidence for any other explanation, don't you?