Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Speedwell]

That is you saying the Bible lies...see the problem now? And to try to convince others it's not a big deal to disagree with the Biblical account of creation, as you seem to at least be trying to do, is a big deal.

Nobody is saying that the Bible "lies." You are the one claiming that if Genesis is something other than 100% accurate history then the Bible is a lie. You cannot impute that nonsensical dichotomy to anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is you saying the Bible lies...see the problem now? And to try to convince others it's not a big deal to disagree with the Biblical account of creation, as you seem to at least be trying to do, is a big deal.

I would not be so quick to use the word "lie". Especially since a literal belief in Genesis requires a belief in a lying God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Especially since a literal belief in Genesis requires a belief in a lying God.

Only from Darwin's POV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only from Darwin's POV.

Nope. From any reality based POV. I don't know why some Christians hate Darwin so much. But then the weak in faith have to protect what little they have.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know why some Christians hate Darwin so much.

I don't either.

But I can honestly say that I don't know of a single atheist who hasn't condemned Mr. Darwin to Hell.

 

[rjs330]

Ahem:

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

Sorry that's not what I am talking about. It's too late to test it because according to evolution we have already evolved from the single organism and are already what we are and always will be. Except if course for evolving as a single unit. Example:. Humans will always be human even though the offspring might have some genetic differences than the parents they will always be human.

The common ancestor of evolution was not human nor fish not bird nor spider. It was.... Well we don't know what it was. But what ever it was it wasn't what we are.

Again if you look at what was written it really isn't actual proof of common ancestor. It's still based on guesswork and assumptions.

 

[rjs330]

Actually you can. Just because you can't think of a test or a reasonable series of tests does not mean that the idea is untestable.

Perhaps you should try again.

ETA: I just noticed that you moved the goalposts to all life being related. I guess that means that you accept the obvious fact that people are great apes.

If that's what science wants to call me what do I care. It still doesn't mean I share a common ancestor with a monkey or a fish. Categorize me if you wish. It still isn't proof of common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

If that's what science wants to call me what do I care. It still doesn't mean I share a common ancestor with a monkey or a fish. Categorize me if you wish. It still isn't proof of common ancestry.

I take it you're not a mutant, copy error; made in the image & likeness of God!?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry that's not what I am talking about. It's too late to test it because according to evolution...

Is it too late to test for paternity after Thomas Jefferson has been dead for centuries?

Is it too late to dust for fingerprints after the crime has been committed?

We use evidence of past events all the time. It is not too late.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's what science wants to call me what do I care. It still doesn't mean I share a common ancestor with a monkey or a fish. Categorize me if you wish. It still isn't proof of common ancestry.

Actually it does. Once again just because the science is beyond your ability to understand does not mean that you are not subject to it. Gravity is a lot like that. Most people have no understanding of it at all. They still fall if they jump off of a building or cliff. And whether you understand evolution or not you still share a common ancestor with other apes, monkeys and if you go back far enough, fish.

Until you understand how science is done you are in no position to state if something is "proof" or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't either.

But I can honestly say that I don't know of a single atheist who hasn't condemned Mr. Darwin to Hell.

Nope. Atheists do not condemn anyone to imaginary places.

Don't worry, you and Darwin are both sharing the same fate when you die.

 

[Strathos]

That is you saying the Bible lies...

No, not at all. Please don't make false accusations like that and actually try to understand my position.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, not at all. Please don't make false accusations like that and actually try to understand my position.

You mean it's not perfectly obvious to you? When you say it all came about by evolution and not by Biblical creation, that more than implies the Bible is not true.

See what I mean? If not, how do you see it? Explain to me how I ere with that assessment.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I would not be so quick to use the word "lie". Especially since a literal belief in Genesis requires a belief in a lying God.

If you need to use my post as a vehicle to slip your agenda in here, I suppose that's up to you, but as to the topic, I'm fine with my wording, at least for the moment until the OP helps me out.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You are the one claiming that if Genesis is something other than 100% accurate history then the Bible is a lie.

I didn't claim that at all. Your imagination up and ran way with you there...bigtime, my friend.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

But if it is true for the absence of mammalian fossils, then what is the worth of the falsifiability of this absence? If the absence can be explained by other means, then the falsifiability loses its value.

Probably because we're talking about scientific theories, and the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory.

Because the absence is what the theory predicts. The discovery of such a fossil would represent a failure of that prediction, thus falsifying the theory. It doesn't matter if other theories also predict the absence of such fossils.

...And of course to be clear, the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory...

Because otherwise the hypothesis can be conveniently used to explain everything without anything actually striking it down. It just becomes a self-verifying idea.

The mammal in the Cambrian layer issue could falsify evolution, but if there are other explanations for the absence of said mammals in the layer, is this falsification really worth anything? You need falsification for an aspect of evolution that cannot be explained by any other hypothesis.

Well sure, it falsifies the Theory of Evolution, regardless of what else is falsified along with it... but to be clear, the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory out there...

How do you repeat looking at a fossil record and drawing a conclusion? Do you just look at it again and again?

by examining each and every fossil as they're unearthed to see if the Theory of Evolution hasn't been falsified.... you know, like a pre-cambrian rabbit, or similar.

Where did I say there was no falsification of evolution?

I'm saying the falsification isn't worth anything when there are other explanations for the observation at hand. So this does not run counter to what Birch and Ehrlich is saying. Anyone can come up with a ludicrous example of something that could falsify evolution, but this is worthless when the thing at hand already could have another explanation.

Even if there were other explanations, it still has to be concordant with the immense body of data, facts and evidence already in support of the Theory of Evolution, regardless the other explanations...

But is that falsification worth anything if it is as zany as dogs giving birth to cats?

Of Course! Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Renee Tahass]

How do you test a theory of a single common ancestor turning into millions of different things? You can't. That shown by the evolutionary theory itself because the claim is millions of years for this to occur. Not only millions of years but in unknown environments and under unknown influences. It's just not possible.

You do know that every single type and breed of dog in the world came from wolves, they are still canines but a lot of them can not breed with other breeds, how did that happen? what do you think will be happening to canines in another 100,000 years? our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye.

 

[Renee Tahass]

error.

 

[Radrook]

500 years ago, it was considered heresy to claim that the earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible clearly stated otherwise.

Nowadays, the vast majority of Christians agree that the Bible doesn't really make that claim.

Biblical understanding has progressed considerably since that time.

BTW
How do you reconcile being a Christian with trying to prove the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error?

 

[Renee Tahass]

If that's what science wants to call me what do I care. It still doesn't mean I share a common ancestor with a monkey or a fish. Categorize me if you wish. It still isn't proof of common ancestry.

Yes it is, you may not like it but it is, a modern woman gave birth to you but go back enough generations and a woman living in a cave gave birth to a child that lived in a cave, go back even more generations and an ape in a tree gave birth to a baby ape in a tree.
Evolution is the changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next, time is the key.