Evilution VS Evolution

[Hoghead1]

Yes, Hier, you might mess up. That's the problem I have with you and others here. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on the material one way or the other. And no, I probably wouldn't agree with you. I'd probably find some sort of creation-science material, which I view as totally bogus science and theology. Why do you expect that I would agree with you? We're not here to compel agreement, are we? Do you expect that the scholarly world will jump every time some bar-stool quarterback or backseat driver says something critical?

 

[bhsmte]

Hier, I don't appreciate it when someone blows me off by directing me to some online site. I don't have the time to go online. I want to hear from you, your views, not some site online. When people blow me off this way, I get suspicious they really don't understand it and can't explain it in their own words.

That would appear to be the case.

 

[bhsmte]

US is right, Hier. That person you recommend has absolutely no education in science and no qualifications that would enable him to make such judgments. Those of us in the field are interested in lay opinions such as he has, but we are not about to take them seriously. We'd be crazy to turn our work over to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to play bar-stool quarterback with science, biblical studies, religion, etc.

No education in science, but he tells him what he wants to hear.

 

[SteveB28]

Of course, the ad hominem argumentation.
He just made a short documentary.
You don't need a PhD to make a documentary.
A documentary documents documentation.

No, you are quite wrong. What was presented was NOT an ad hominem fallacy. The comments went to the man's qualifications, not his character.

It is quite acceptable, indeed required, that the expertise of one proposing claims be established before accepting those claims.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you are quite wrong. What was presented was NOT an ad hominem fallacy. The comments went to the man's qualifications, not his character.

It is quite acceptable, indeed required, that the expertise of one proposing claims be established before accepting those claims.

Indeed.

But, when the person tells you something you really like to hear and gives you comfort, the fact he has no qualifications to know what he is talking about, doesn't really matter.

 

[USincognito]

Of course, the ad hominem argumentation.

You bet. If the only thing you can bring to the table is spamming a playlist of You Tube videos, don't expect us to take too much time addressing them. If you want us to address the content, learn to express it in your own words.

 

[USincognito]

Yes i did.

No, you posted a link to dozens of You Videos. That's not quite the same as you providing substance.

Would it change anything if i linked to pictures and commented on it or cut / paste quotes from sources?

Yes, exhibiting an actual understanding of the subject at hand would be a nice start. Linking to a You Tube playlist shows merely that:
1. You can provide a link.
2. You're easily impressed by glib merchants of doubt.

I guess i should do that more often, but nothing beats a documentary or lecture on video.

Original papers and exhibiting an understanding of the subject beats You Tubes every, single, time.

How about this... part of Werner's shtick is that Gingerich didn't find feet on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus, therefore any speculation about the nature of their feet was wild-eyed fantasy. Well, the thing is that fetal cetaceans actually develop feet in utero and because the gene package (Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2) for growing hind legs is present, but broken, the limb buds eventually stop developing and are absorbed back into the body.

^^^ This is completely from memory and my own research on the subject. Can you do anything similar to this?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Ask yourself why do they bother coming here to post?
Don't they have anything better to do with their life?

Better you should ask yourself why it's even remotely your business why someone else chooses to post here. You don't have any ownership of this site. None.

The actual site owner doesn't have a problem with it, so you don't get to have a problem with it.

 

[Moreso]

Ask yourself why do they bother coming here to post?

Because creationist thinking is dangerous to everyone including creationists, if it was not it would be left alone just as the Amish religion is left alone, creationism advocates ignorance as a virtue.

Don't they have anything better to do with their life?

When what people think and do verges on the crazy it's in everyone's interest to fight against it.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Good grief, where do you get these ideas. Inquisitive people (Christian, atheists Muslims etc) look at the world about them and formulate ideas about what they observe, these ideas can help us in improving many physical aspects of our lives.

Why is that evil?

Hi Jimmy. I don't think any person, christian or atheist, would consider "formulating ideas" to be evil. I think the contention (from the Christian perspective) comes when the formulated ideas lead toward denying or disproving the creator. It makes sense, from the Christian perspective, that if there really is a creator, then denying it's existence would be offensive (i.e. evil?) to the creator.

From both the atheist and Christian perspective there is plenty of evidence, though in my experience the issue has never been about evidence (or lack of it) rather how we interpret the evidence. There are lots of examples of religious people throughout history twisting and abusing their interpretations for personal benefit, but then again there are plenty of examples of people in general (including scientists) who do the same.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

When what people think and do verges on the crazy it's in everyone's interest to fight against it.

If there really is a creator (which I think there is), then it would be crazy to support theories which either deny or diminish the creator's role in our creation.

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, Endtimes. But the issue is what do you mean by diminishing the creator's role.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I hear you, Endtimes. But the issue is what do you mean by diminishing the creator's role.

Hey HH. I believe God wants us to appreciate that he knows more than we do, and that he wants us to learn from him as a result. I think this is something we can relate to on a human level. If one kid in class teaches the other kids that the teacher doesn't really know what he's talking about, then of course the teacher would not appreciate something like that.

Or, one employee who undermines the experience/authority of the boss so that the other employees feel less inclined to respect the boss' superior understanding of the issues etc. Of course the boss would be annoyed with that kind of behavior, not only because he'd naturally want to be respected as the boss, but because it would be counter productive for other employees who happen to go along with the undermining.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, Endtime, fine. But what does this have to do with evolution?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

OK, Endtime, fine. But what does this have to do with evolution?

Have you ever experienced situations where people suggest that evolution disproves a creator?

 

[Jimmy D]

Hi Jimmy. I don't think any person, christian or atheist, would consider "formulating ideas" to be evil. I think the contention (from the Christian perspective) comes when the formulated ideas lead toward denying or disproving the creator. It makes sense, from the Christian perspective, that if there really is a creator, then denying it's existence would be offensive (i.e. evil?) to the creator.

From both the atheist and Christian perspective there is plenty of evidence, though in my experience the issue has never been about evidence (or lack of it) rather how we interpret the evidence. There are lots of examples of religious people throughout history twisting and abusing their interpretations for personal benefit, but then again there are plenty of examples of people in general (including scientists) who do the same.

Hi ES, thanks for your response. I wholeheartedly agree with most of your post. My point is that evolution and science in general does not formulate ideas that deny or disprove a creator, it deals with the natural world. There are plenty, I would think most actually, of Christians (even on this thread - Hoghead, Papias, lesliedellow for example) who can reconcile their religious beliefs with the observations of science. I admit that there are some outspoken atheist proponents of evolution who do attack religion, Dawkins for example, but they are the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, some of the most famous 'evolutionists' have a very strong religious faith such as Francis Collins.

It seems to me that rather than threatening anyone's faith in God the only thing that science challenges (and I include biology, geology, cosmology, paleontolgy etc etc) is a rather strange view that everything written in Old Testament has to be interpreted literally, word for word. We can't even be sure that that's what the original authors intended, as the stories were passed down verbally for many generations before anyone made a record of them.

If observations and facts we can verify for ourselves (and we can, there is no conspiracy), with a little education, conflict with an interpretation of an ambiguous ancient text is it not sensible to be open to the fact that there's a possibility that that interpretation may not be correct? The Bible is not God, you may believe it was inspired by God but it was written, copied and translated by fallible men. If you do believe in God surely the best evidence for his Creation is in what we see in the world around us? It isn't lying to us, despite the fact that some have to try invent justifications like the Devil has planted evidence or is tricking us somehow.

Sorry, I rambled a bit there!

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, Endtimes, I have. However, my response is that evolution would not be possible without God. Of course, I elaborate this much further than I have time for now.

 

[Moreso]

It seems to me that rather than threatening anyone's faith in God the only thing that science challenges (and I include biology, geology, cosmology, paleontolgy etc etc) is a rather strange view that everything written in Old Testament has to be interpreted literally, word for word. We can't even be sure that that's what the original authors intended, as the stories were passed down verbally for many generations before anyone made a record of them.

That alone should tell people just how true it all is and why they can't place much store by it, if I told you that someone told me that they had heard a story from someone else who said that they had heard someone say that they had been told on good authority that so an so was true, would you need to be a genius to realise that's it's quite possible that the story was not 100% true? on top of that could you be 100% sure that you would repeat the same story 50 years later in exactly same way using the exact same words as it was told to you?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The Bible is not God, you may believe it was inspired by God but it was written, copied and translated by fallible men.

Agreed. My understanding of the Bible is that it is not infallible, but neither does it ever claim to be and neither does it need to be to still be relevant. It's a collection of testimony, insight, and information.

If observations and facts we can verify for ourselves (and we can, there is no conspiracy), with a little education, conflict with an interpretation of an ambiguous ancient text is it not sensible to be open to the fact that there's a possibility that that interpretation may not be correct?

Observations and facts in themselves have a habit of making very little difference to any of us. Interpretation is the final arbiter for all our conclusions and there are a wide variety of situations, quite apart from science and God, where we consistently choose interpretations of facts and the observable evidence which can be quite different to what the facts actually suggest. This is how we can have a book entitled, "Maybe he's just not that in to you".

I think probably one of my favorite examples of this kind of interpretation is the watchmaker analogy and the solar system. We have watches which are based on the movements of the solar system. We see intelligence in the watches but we do not see intelligence behind the solar system, and the only difference appears to be that humans have experience with watch-making while we do not have experience with solar system-making. In other words, if humans didn't make it, then it is not intelligently designed, but if you compare the complexity of a wrist watch to the complexity of Newtonian/quantum physics behind the solar system's existence and movements, there is no contest as to which is more complex and yet, still, it is not intelligently designed like the wrist watch.

We can both look at the same evidence and come to radically different conclusions, all because of interpretation.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

on good authority

Most of what all of us believe is "on good authority". You believe the world is round because that's what you've chosen to believe on good authority, unless you've actually been to space.