• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Here's Some Helpful Tips When Questioning Evolution

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So you confused Creationism with Christianity, and rejected Christianity?

Now that is depressing.
Not really. I might have managed to reconcile my lack of belief in Genesis. But my main problem with doing so is that the culture of science is diametrically opposed to the Christian churches I have been a part of. That is to say, science is about saying, "Reality is Truth, but I don't know reality perfectly. How can my own understanding come closer to the truth?" While I see Christians largely claim, "The Bible is Truth. I know the Bible, therefore I know the Truth."

Once I took the blinders off and removed the need for blind faith, approaching the Bible with a more skeptical viewpoint, I found many more inconsistencies between the Bible and reality, both in the old and new testaments. Disbelieving the creation account was merely the first step on a very long road.
 
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟26,715.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
Here's Some Helpful Tips When Questioning Evolution
Read the arguments that are set out by the opposing side. Actually consider and contemplate what they are saying. Do you understand their arguments? If not, ask questions. And most importantly, think of debating as an opportunity to learn, and not just a way to win over the evolutionists.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Of course it is good to keep in mind that 99% of all scientists in related fields worldwide accept common ancestry regardless of their religious background, nationality, age, or political affililiation. It is only a few 'scientists', often with no background in the field that don't accept common ancestry based on the independent lines of evidence. Often, this small number of doubters coincidently enough, have religious beliefs that contradict the scientific conclusions. Funny that.

Sure I realize that, I was listening to one just last night.

Must We Have a Separation of Church and Science?

The evidence is not as conclusive as we have been told and even before there was such a thing as genetics common ancestory was an a priori fact. My religious beliefs are fairly irrelevant since I would have no problem taking Genesis 1 figurativly. It was science that convinced me the single common ancestor model was bogus, particularly with regards to human evolution.

Remember, a small percentage of 'historians' reject the holocaust. Often, this small number of doubters coincidently enough, have political beliefs and biases that would cause them to not want the holocaust to be real. Funny that.

So to deny evolution as a unbiquties history of all living systems is the same as denying the holocaust right? The only thing I really deny is that men descended from apes and I have looked at the evidence and found it very weak. Did you ever notice that there are no chimpanzee ancestors in natural science museums but thousands of human ancestors? Wanna know why? Because every time an ape fossil is found in Africa it is called the missing link.

One has to ask in fairness, who has more credibility - Evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, or moon landing hoax proponents. They are all based on the same thing. Irrational avoidence of the evidence.

Which myth are we going to embrace? The myth of single common ancestors or modern myths like time travel or alien visitors? See, anyone can play this little game and it distracts from the very evidence you claim is so convincing.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"Evolution as Natural Science", sure, that's what it is, a branch of the "Natural Sciences."

"Science as Natural History." Science isn't History, History is History! History is studying what we've recorded IN THE PAST. Science is looking at the here and now, which the fossils from the past are HERE AND NOW.

Sure they are here and now and they are far from conclusive since they don't provide the genetic basis for human evolution. Again! there is a profound difference between evolution as science and evolution as history.

I realize you worship a History Book.

So now you sink to the depths of insulting and belittling another Christian because they embrace the Bible as redemptive history. None of the prophets, apostles or Christ himself would treat the Scriptures as anything other then the collective testimony of eyewittnesses of God's work in human history. You however turn you satirical venom into a psuedo-Christian attack which is nothing more then secularism in sheeps clothing.

Calling Science "Natural History" really plays into your game well.

You allready said that history is not science and now you want to equate natural history with science itself. That is a poor grasp of the issues involved but somehow it does not supprise me in the slightest.

I think people should recognize bias for what it is. Innate and hard to defeat. We have Science to negate that bias. :) We have religion to indoctrinate and inforce a bias(from a very early age.)

So religion is pro-bias, what a great thesis you have their. What you seem willing and skillfull at forgeting is that religion is a matter of choice while evolution as natural history is required throughout school. It is not religion is the indoctrinating kids, it's secularists who ridicule religious belief with a passion.



So you can call a man on the carpet for saying "someone" could be delusional without knowing it(which they can.) But you can directly call Common Ancestory a "myth"(demonization) without a hiccup. Did you not realize this? Then YOU should be the one learning about innate bias. :) If you did, then don't call that man out and play the double standard.

You made some silly remark about seeing goblins while standing on your head. It didn't make a lick of sense and I just pointed out that it was utterly pointless mockery.

If you call it a myth(demonization) then be prepared to be demonized back. DON'T call him on it though because it shows us that you don't even see your own demonizing bias and, that being the case, are probably delusional to an extent.

First of all a myth is simply an elaborate fictional tale that emphasises drama over substance. The ancient Greeks were famous for their drama, loved their mythologies and their myths are still treasured as beautifull poetry. However, when I call evolution (actually Darwin's tree of life) a mythology I do so based on specific inferances into the source of Darwin's personal philosophy. This picture graces his grandfathers book on zoology.

erasmusgarden.jpg


This one is from Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature

Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(1803)

76.jpg


It's not a methodology, it's a myth.​
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sure I realize that, I was listening to one just last night.

Must We Have a Separation of Church and Science?

The evidence is not as conclusive as we have been told and even before there was such a thing as genetics common ancestory was an a priori fact. My religious beliefs are fairly irrelevant since I would have no problem taking Genesis 1 figurativly. It was science that convinced me the single common ancestor model was bogus, particularly with regards to human evolution.
That was a really good radio broadcast, I thought. Though I disagree with their statements about God and atheists wholeheartedly, they actually did sound like good scientists, scientists who would wholeheartedly disagree with you on many of the stances you have posed here.

And that broadcast also had nothing at all to do with common ancestry. And for that, I'll post once again the evidence that I think is most compelling in this field, that you have yet to respond to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Mark, I said " Calling Science "Natural History" really plays into YOUR game well." Not mine, I don't consider Science and History the same thing. That is why there is science, and there is history.

After that you mention(I guess without reading the 2 follow up posts) that I belittle the Bible as a Christian and how I shouldn't do that because it's being a Secularist in "sheeps clothing."

If you read the next two posts you will realize that I've given up on "faith" as, well, useless. I'm tired of the games.

In all fairness, and not to sound brash, but I came to this board a Christian and as a Theistic Evolutionist. I soon saw some games that Creationists like to play, they are patently obvious. I moved here when I started questioning my "faith" as anyone should. I soon quit posting in "Christians Only" subforums out of respect to the boards. It was at that point I couldn't call myself a Christian. Honestly, it was people like you that presume to know something and clearly don't, picking battles, running from old threads to start new ones, occasionally just get your facts wrong(I didn't say you had a goblin on your head) and providing biased source after biased source that made me take a look at myself and say:

"If these people bite on that stuff, are so self-righteous, what have I validated for myself in my life?" You, of three all together, had a hand in what I am today and I thank you now.

I've heard it a couple times already, before you go and tell me that it's a shame I lost my "faith" because of secularist notions realize a couple things:

1) Secularist is a word used by Christians, you can call it "PC for Pagan."

2) It was shame that brought me to Christianity, it's reason that brought me out.

You know why Evolution holds so much beauty?

It's because once you grasp it, IT'S INESCAPABLE!
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That was a really good radio broadcast, I thought. Though I disagree with their statements about God and atheists wholeheartedly, they actually did sound like good scientists, scientists who would wholeheartedly disagree with you on many of the stances you have posed here.

Of course they would, but they would at least agree with me on central doctrines regarding God's miracles in redemptive history. That's what is central, this is kind of an aside for Christian theology but I was excited to learn the director of the Human Genome Project was an evangelical. Obviously, I don't agree with some of his views but love his work.

And that broadcast also had nothing at all to do with common ancestry. And for that, I'll post once again the evidence that I think is most compelling in this field, that you have yet to respond to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

There is very little that talk origins has that I have not allready looked at and I don't get much out of it. I prefer less biased sources like the Smithsonian Human Family Tree or the Human Genome Project sites. Talk Origins is no more helpfull then many of the Creationist sites that over simplify the issues. I prefer the actual evidence when I can find it and Talk Origins doesn't do much to help in that regards.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
So religion is pro-bias, what a great thesis you have their. What you seem willing and skillfull at forgeting is that religion is a matter of choice while evolution as natural history is required throughout school. It is not religion is the indoctrinating kids, it's secularists who ridicule religious belief with a passion.

Let's discuss this thesis a bit shall we, namely your thesis.

You mention how "skillful" I am at forgetting that religion is a matter of choice. You must be equally "skillful" at forgetting that children(I BROUGHT UP "EARLY AGE") don't have a choice. "Come unto me as a child." Ringing some bells?

Evolution AS A SCIENCE IN A SCIENCE CLASS is required because people that know WAY MORE THAN YOU, MANY PEOPLE, decided it's there, and it's gonna stay there. You're grandchildren will thank them.

You redicule me in your thoughts just by saying "secularist." I know for a fact that you do because I've talked to many Christians, RECENTLY, that redicule and use this term in the same breath over and over and over. Games....

If I'm passionate about anything, it's laughing at myself till I'm completely away from your mindset.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Mark, I said " Calling Science "Natural History" really plays into YOUR game well." Not mine, I don't consider Science and History the same thing. That is why there is science, and there is history.


That's right, evolution as science is the change of alleles in populations over time. Evolution as history is the single common ancestor model.

After that you mention(I guess without reading the 2 follow up posts) that I belittle the Bible as a Christian and how I shouldn't do that because it's being a Secularist in "sheeps clothing."

You mean after you said I worship a history book right? How did you expect me to react?

If you read the next two posts you will realize that I've given up on "faith" as, well, useless. I'm tired of the games.

I'm very sorry to hear that and thanks for the clarification.

In all fairness, and not to sound brash, but I came to this board a Christian and as a Theistic Evolutionist. I soon saw some games that Creationists like to play, they are patently obvious. I moved here when I started questioning my "faith" as anyone should. I soon quit posting in "Christians Only" subforums out of respect to the boards. It was at that point I couldn't call myself a Christian. Honestly, it was people like you that presume to know something and clearly don't, picking battles, running from old threads to start new ones, occasionally just get your facts wrong(I didn't say you had a goblin on your head) and providing biased source after biased source that made me take a look at myself and say:

"If these people bite on that stuff, are so self-righteous, what have I validated for myself in my life?" You, of three all together, had a hand in what I am today and I thank you now.

I have no idea what you think was so reprehesible about my posts but my interest has been hominid fossils and genetics. I spend very little time dwelling on religious doctrine, my initial interest was Darwinism as philosophy. Human evolution is my sole concern right now. As far as losing faith over what you read in these forums I find that alltogether empty. If you have faith it is in the object of your faith, not the host of professing believers. It might interest you to know I rejected Theistic Evolution primarily because it is not any different from Darwinism. In fact, the few Darwinians I have met are TEs with an occasional exception.

I've heard it a couple times already, before you go and tell me that it's a shame I lost my "faith" because of secularist notions realize a couple things:

1) Secularist is a word used by Christians, you can call it "PC for Pagan."

Pagan is attributing anything that rightfully belongs to God to any other source. It's simply a fulcrum word that identifies non-christian systems that are opposed to knowledge of God as God.

2) It was shame that brought me to Christianity, it's reason that brought me out.

If it's not God who brought you to Christ then it is small wonder you left your faith, whatever it consisted of.

You know why Evolution holds so much beauty?

It's because once you grasp it, IT'S INESCAPABLE!

As a science I would agree, as a uniquitious history of all living systems it's a mythology.

By the way, I don't think it is a shame you lost your faith. The Christian faith is a difficult road to travel both as personal conviction and a comprehesive world-view. It's unfortunate that you lost all confidence is such a unique view of God's work in human history. I don't want to shame you for that, I just wonder if your faith was ever in the God of the Bible in the first place.

Good luck and long life to you,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is very little that talk origins has that I have not allready looked at and I don't get much out of it. I prefer less biased sources like the Smithsonian Human Family Tree or the Human Genome Project sites. Talk Origins is no more helpfull then many of the Creationist sites that over simplify the issues. I prefer the actual evidence when I can find it and Talk Origins doesn't do much to help in that regards.
They do post links to the original journal articles. An argument stands by its merits, not by who is speaking the argument.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Let's discuss this thesis a bit shall we, namely your thesis.

You mention how "skillful" I am at forgetting that religion is a matter of choice. You must be equally "skillful" at forgetting that children(I BROUGHT UP "EARLY AGE") don't have a choice. "Come unto me as a child." Ringing some bells?

Ok, my kids were raised in church and all they did was listen to the music and listen to the sermons. When I bring up creationism they have no idea what I am talking about and certainly don't get lectured about it. The cross is something that has came up and they at least understand that much. As far as coming to Christ as a little child he didn't want them to think the children were a nuisance to him. I won't dwell on the lesson there but he was not talking about indoctrinating children, he was talking about innocence.

Evolution AS A SCIENCE IN A SCIENCE CLASS is required because people that know WAY MORE THAN YOU, MANY PEOPLE, decided it's there, and it's gonna stay there. You're grandchildren will thank them.

Funny, I took a Biology 101 class and we never discussed evolution once. I still don't think it is all that important and Biology can be taught without all these cartoon creatures that never existed.

You redicule me in your thoughts just by saying "secularist." I know for a fact that you do because I've talked to many Christians, RECENTLY, that redicule and use this term in the same breath over and over and over. Games....

No TE, this is not game. When a fundamentalist of evangelical is using a term like secularist, pragmatist, humanist or liberal they are being very serious. These philosophies are in our seminaries, our schools and in or churches and they are a growing heresy, if not a potential apostasy. That is something they are as concerned about as the early church was concerned about gnosticism or legalism. Think what you like about the overuse of the word but the fact of the matter is, a term like that is no game.

If I'm passionate about anything, it's laughing at myself till I'm completely away from your mindset.

First of all you have no clue what my mindset is and that is clear from your posts. Secondly, mock as much as you like, I spend a lot of time pouring over the scientific literature secularists prize so highly. It does not present a conclusive line of evidence coming to a logical conclusion. It is asking the hard questions about the genetic basis for human evolution from an ape ancestors. It is looking for but not finding a demonstrated or directly observed mechanism.

I can't stop you from chasing the wind but I know a scientific fact from an a priori assumption.

Good luck with you'r pursuit, hope you get a big kick out of it.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
455
48
Deep underground
✟9,013.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I can't stop you from chasing the wind but I know a scientific fact from an a priori assumption.
No, you don't. You expend thousands of words in here making perfectly clear the fact that you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, you do not understand the philosophical and scientific terms you throw around, and you are in denial about the breadth of evidence for human-ape common ancestry.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, you don't. You expend thousands of words in here making perfectly clear the fact that you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, you do not understand the philosophical and scientific terms you throw around, and you are in denial about the breadth of evidence for human-ape common ancestry.

You have your nerve, you have used evolution, natural selection, metaphysics and a priori without the slightest clue what those words mean. I do understand those terms and I read the scientific literature about the genetic basis of human-chimp common ancestory. This is what I am getting from my reading, by the way, what do you read?

Human evolution is characterized by a dramatic increase in brain size and complexity. To probe its genetic basis, we examined the evolution of genes involved in diverse aspects of nervous system biology. (Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens, Cell, Vol. 119, 1027–1040, December 29, 2004)

As a species, we pride ourselves on the uniqueness of our brain. Relative to our body size, the human brain is bigger than that of any other animal. It may also contain unique structures and patterns of organization that presumably underlie our intelligence and ability to manipulate our environment. But how did our unique brain originate, and under what selective pressures did it evolve? (Molecular Insights into Human Brain Evolution, Nature 1999)

The developmental and evolutionary mechanisms behind the emergence of human-specific brain features remain largely unknown. However, the recent ability to compare our genome to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, provides new avenues to link genetic and phenotypic changes in the evolution of the human brain. We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these 'human accelerated regions', HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal–Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)

You remember the last one don't you? No wait, you never read it you just started a thread about it and refused to discuss it. You just chanted some mindless drival about natural selection did it with random mutations which the researchers realized was highly improbable.
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As a species, we pride ourselves on the uniqueness of our brain. Relative to our body size, the human brain is bigger than that of any other animal. It may also contain unique structures and patterns of organization that presumably underlie our intelligence and ability to manipulate our environment. But how did our unique brain originate, and under what selective pressures did it evolve?

Well if you studied evolution or even basic biology you'd understand we share a lot of traits with our brain structure and brain stem with many other animals from reptiles to birds to mammals.

Maybe that'd be a big clue?
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
455
48
Deep underground
✟9,013.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You have your nerve, you have used evolution, natural selection, metaphysics and a priori without the slightest clue what those words mean. I do understand those terms and I read the scientific literature about the genetic basis of human-chimp common ancestory. This is what I am getting from my reading, by the way, what do you read?
1) Human-ape common ancestry is a conclusion from data.
2) You characterize human-ape common ancestry as an "a priori assumption."
3) Therefore, you can't tell the difference between a conclusion and an assumption, and you do not know what a priori means.
 
Upvote 0

Sammael

Active Member
Aug 27, 2006
29
1
Phoenix
✟22,654.00
Faith
Christian
Because I don't make a priori assumptions that can't be founded on facts.
I know I must be reading this wrong....

You are saying that you don't make assumptions about things which you don't have experience with, and that are not based on fact.... and that is your motive to accept creation?

That can't be right. Did I miss something back in the thread?
 
Upvote 0