Evolution - implications

[CabVet]

I prefer to interpret the evolution story as a lie.

That's not an interpretation, it is an opinion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then don't ask us to take the evolution story literally either.

Seven years experience and you think it's everyone else's fault you keep getting it wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not an interpretation, it is an opinion.

Then I prefer to opine the evolution story as a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seven years experience and you think it's everyone else's fault you keep getting it wrong.

It's wrong to begin with -- so what's the difference if I opine it your way, my way, or Darwin's way?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's wrong to begin with -- so what's the difference if I opine it your way, my way, or Darwin's way?

Might help you to show at least a sliver of understanding, competence, integrity... I dunno, something that puts Christianity in a good light as you opine...

Goodness knows there's been a critical shortage of any of that among the latest batch of anti-evolution crusaders; one would think with all your experience you could teach them a little dignity.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

It's wrong to begin with -- so what's the difference if I opine it your way, my way, or Darwin's way?

Well let's just go with the facts then; Allele frequencies do change over generations; the mechanisms of change are known and observed; Speciation is observed; Life's diversity at many independent levels shows homology in the form of nested hierarchies; This pattern is both predicted and explained by the change in heritable characteristics over generations plus speciation; fossil succession through geological time and the present day biogeography of species match the predictions of common descent; life is unified by basic biochemical mechanics with no breaks in the fundamental nature of this biochemistry ie life is all variation on a basic theme rather than a set of utterly separate unique examples

These are the facts. For an opinion to have any weight it needs to take these facts into account.

 

[AV1611VET]

Might help you to show at least a sliver of understanding, competence, integrity...

Again ... it's a matter of degrees, isn't it?

I like the joke where the little girl comes home and says she won first prize in the science contest by guessing a dog had three legs.

When questioned why she won, she said she won because she came the closest to the right answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

These are the facts. For an opinion to have any weight it needs to take these facts into account.

Fine -- then I'll interpret the facts as leading to the wrong conclusion.*

Either way ... interpret or opine ... I'm wrong -- right?

* That we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Fine -- then I'll interpret the facts as leading to the wrong conclusion.*

Either way ... interpret or opine ... I'm wrong -- right?

Not sure...how does your opinion fit with the facts?

* That we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

I wouldn't know about that...what is meant by "image"?

 

[CabVet]

Fine -- then I'll interpret the facts as leading to the wrong conclusion.*

Either way ... interpret or opine ... I'm wrong -- right?

* That we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

You are not interpreting the facts. Looking at the conclusion and saying it is a lie is not interpreting the facts, it is an uninformed opinion.

 

[dlamberth]

What do you - both believers and the rest - believe are the philosophical implications of evolution? Is it just a scientific fact to you, or is it much more?

Evolution to me is a window into how God creates. There is both a sacredness and thankfulness that I have because we are able to know how God creates new life forms.

When I compare the knowledge gained through the window that evolutionary study gives us compared to the ancient middle-eastern creation story of a tribe of desert nomads I feel very thankful that we have the sciences to open up the true creation story.

.

 

[Gottservant]

blind faith tells me there is someone in this thread who has said "science is just facts"

to that person I remind them "just because science is limited to facts does not mean those outside of science are limited to the facts science limits itself to"

Morality, for example, is not limited by subject, even if the facts say science should be.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not interpreting the facts.

That's fine then.

I don't need to interpret the facts.

Looking at the conclusion and saying it is a lie is not interpreting the facts, it is an uninformed opinion.

I disagree with "uninformed opinion."

What I do then, is compare the conclusion (we are mutant copy errors with DNA links to a common ancestor -- some Homo) with what the Bible says (we are ex materia, made in God's image & likeness, and linked to a common ancestor -- Adam).

 

[CabVet]

That's fine then.

I don't need to interpret the facts.

Alright then.

I disagree with "uninformed opinion."

What I do then, is compare the conclusion (we are mutant copy errors with DNA links to a common ancestor -- some Homo) with what the Bible says (we are ex materia, made in God's image & likeness, and linked to a common ancestor -- Adam).

And I am ok with your opinion on a religious basis. I only say it is uninformed because you don't know the facts that are used as a basis for the conclusion you are disagreeing with. It's like a person that never read the Bible disagreeing that Jesus is the son of God. The opinion is uninformed simply because said person does not know both sides of the issue.

And before you ask, I have nothing against uniformed opinions, as long as you don't use fallacious logic to justify them.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

blind faith tells me there is someone in this thread who has said "science is just facts"

to that person I remind them "just because science is limited to facts does not mean those outside of science are limited to the facts science limits itself to"

Morality, for example, is not limited by subject, even if the facts say science should be.

Science isn't just facts but any scientific interpretation must account for the facts as a minimum.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's like a person that never read the Bible disagreeing that Jesus is the son of God.

It's more than that though.

It's like a person that never read the Bible disagreeing that Jesus is the son of God because he believes [the Koran] says otherwise.

As I'm fond of pointing out, I may not know much about evolution, but I don't have to; since I believe evolution's antithesis: a literal Genesis 1.

Put another way, people here, despite what they might say to the contrary, know exactly why I believe what I do.

Put yet another way, I'm not disagreeing just to disagree -- I have a Reason to disbelieve.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

It's more than that though.

It's like a person that never read the Bible disagreeing that Jesus is the son of God because he believes [the Koran] says otherwise.

As I'm fond of pointing out, I may not know much about evolution, but I don't have to; since I believe evolution's antithesis: a literal Genesis 1.

Put another way, people here, despite what they might say to the contrary, know exactly why I believe what I do.

Put yet another way, I'm not disagreeing just to disagree -- I have a Reason to disbelieve.

Sounds like leaning on your own understanding. Why not test your interpretations against God's creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like leaning on your own understanding.

I'm sorry you think that way.

You have no idea how faith operates, do you?

Why not test your interpretations against God's creation?

Because I wasn't there, and Genesis 1 cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

The universe ran under a somewhat different set of conditions back then.

 

[Al Gammate]

As I understand it, the theory of evolution (e.g., swampy slime transforming into bacteria) is merely a theory and not a scientific fact. I know that there are some hardcore atheists that will vehemently proclaim that the theory of evolution is absolute fact, but they are wrong. Wishing or saying that something is true, does not make it true.

Atheists often use the fossil record as their main source of proof for the theory of evolution (e.g., bacteria transforming into fish). But the fossil record does not show a smooth transition from one species to the next. It's choppy at best, and there appears to be huge gaps between some species. In fact, when I look at the fossil record, it looks like the species were created separately.

The Cambrian Explosion occurred around 542 million years ago. During this time period, almost all of the major animal phyla that exist today appeared suddenly. This was indicated in the fossil record. And as time went on, the vast variety of animals that suddenly appeared became less and less, as if there was a pruning process. The fossil record shows this as well. To me, when I look at the fossil record, it implies that living things were created suddenly rather than having evolved slowly from something.

What are the philosophical results of believing in the false doctrine of evolution (e.g., fish transforming into monkeys)?

Well, for starters, the theory of evolution (e.g., monkeys transforming into human beings) takes away the specialness of human beings; it takes away the divineness of human beings, leaving them without human rights, to be trampled underfoot by a dictator.

Secondly, the theory of evolution promotes racism, in that one group of people may be deemed as less evolved and worthy of death. This went on in Nazi Germany.

Thirdly, if you are an atheist who believes wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution, you probably are not very happy. After all, how can you be happy knowing that you will soon be obliterated from the face of reality, never to be heard from again?

 

[juvenissun]

You believe in purgatory?

No.