More proof Evolution is not true

[Michie]

So do you or not?

Why are you stirring the pot in OBOB? I'm just curious.

 

[TheMightyTurtle]

Here's what you said when you quoted my post...

"Besides, it makes you sound really haughty and self-righteous because such a statement insinuates that you, as a "bible-believer", are inherently above those who see a harmony between science and faith."

Sounds like you were talking about me, does it not? Who is the "you" you're talking about then? Who's supposed to be haughty and self-righteous? Some other poster?

Just to butt in here; those aren't names, those are adjectives. With the use of the phrase "it makes" the post is about what CAN be perceived, and not what IS perceived.

 

[FullyMT]

I don't think it's either/or.

However, it does seem to me that either all life (and all stuff) originated and evolved from one thing (big bang/evolution) or we came from originally created proto-types similar to ourselves.

I used to find the latter kind of ridiculous scientifically speaking but now I have to say the both sound quite ridiculous and equally believable, objectively speaking.

True...I was just stating my opinion on the matter. I don't really care if someone is a Creationist, so long as they understand that evolution is also a viable system within the Creation story (of course within certain parameters, blah blah blah).

 

[Michie]

Thats the thing though. People do seem to care when one is a creationist. I think Chrystal's comments were taken the wrong way. She never said she was anti science or anything. People can get a bit brusque with those that have not come to the point they are yet in understanding the subject.

 

[ebia]

Why are you stirring the pot in OBOB? I'm just curious.

It's not stiring the pot at all. Either it's a generalised insult of most Catholics including the Pope or she shouldn't mind clarifying.

 

[ebia]

Thats the thing though. People do seem to care when one is a creationist. I think Chrystal's comments were taken the wrong way. She never said she was anti science or anything. People can get a bit brusque with those that have not come to the point they are yet in understanding the subject.

I struggle to see how:

"And (in my opinion) whether you believe in the infallable Word of God (bible) or would rather put your belief in the fallable hands of man-made science."
​

is not a swipe at all who take TE tack.

 

[Michie]

It's not stiring the pot at all. Either it's a generalised insult of most Catholics including the Pope or she shouldn't mind clarifying.

I just think Chrystal being in her own forum & all should not be berated for stating her thoughts on the subject as she understands it now. Everyone, including myself is so touchy lately.

I think there is a lot of miscommunication & misreading of intentions in this thread right now. I hate seeing one person targeted to jump on.

 

[Michie]

I struggle to see how:

"And (in my opinion) whether you believe in the infallable Word of God (bible) or would rather put your belief in the fallable hands of man-made science."
​

is not a swipe at all who take TE tack.

She clarified in posts 152 & 8.

She said-

You just basically just stated what I meant. Faith cannot be proven by science, but some human things can be. (That's why I added that I'm not anti-science.) Science is good for medicine and for other scientific fields. I just don't believe faith is one of them. Science relies mainly on man and his abilities, faith relies on God. There is a difference.

How is that an insult? That is how she see's it right now.

I don't see her calling anyone faithless because of their take on it.

And really, does it matter? Is this a salvation issue I was not aware of?

 

[Dylan Michael]

Says who? You? If your side of the fence means calling other people names (while claiming to be Christian), I'll stay on my side of the fence.

Who called anybody names? If I recall correctly, it wasn't "My Side of the fence" who started this thread...
I have no problem with people believing in Theistic Evolution or not. It seems that the creationists are the ones who have a problem with us.

 

[Antigone]

Says who? You? If your side of the fence means calling other people names (while claiming to be Christian), I'll stay on my side of the fence.

You're way out of line here. That was a very rude reply to a not very rude post.

 

[Antigone]

Who called anybody names? If I recall correctly, it wasn't "My Side of the fence" who started this thread...
I have no problem with people believing in Theistic Evolution or not. It seems that the creationists are the ones who have a problem with us.

QFT.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Church believes in Theist Evolution [i am a late comer as usual]
And in fact no evolution - even the reported bang theory - did not come of its own existence.
For whatsoever way man tries to explain how the universe - life - came into existence - even if outside of time it took millions of years only according to our own measure of time, it still derived from God.

How it continues - whether by His hand in things directly for each species or by His hand in it indirectly via the survival of each species - really doesnt matter.

Because the order of everything of itself speaks volumes that a Higher Intellect put it together.

SO if He chose to use chemicals that supposedly existed - the chemicals still reflect His essence...Eternal Being and Creator.
For nothing exists without a beginning. Except Him Who created all that exists.

It's unnatural to expect nothing to ever reproduce something.
So something had to exist. And that Someone - created order or the chaos would have self imploded long before modern man.

So evolution is acceptable, if it includes to understand a Being of Highest Intellect put it together.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I've been dying to say this in light of the subject of the thread...Science evolves.


Argh!!!!

*ok I feel better now*

When evolution is outlawed only outlaws will evolve

 

[Michie]

When evolution is outlawed only outlaws will evolve

Nice quote.

Good sig line if thats a concern to anyone.

 

[Michie]

Chrystal, you might be interested in this article.


Scientism, Knowledge, and Truth

 

[MKJ]

okay, it is an unproven theory nothing like Gravity. You may have gotten on semantics, but when you see that evolutionary theory is built in large part on politics and not sound science, it's rather disheartening. I am not saying that there is no science to it. I am also not saying that such a theory is incompatible with Christianity. I'm not threatened by the possibility of evolution being true or not and I don't care if one holds it or not. What I do care is when people desecrate science and make it less meaningful by abusing what observable fact is.

The fact is that evolution from species to species has never been observed. That is only a theory of what "must" have happened to connect this to that. But just becuase we can only imagine one way to connect fossil records does not make it fact unless we can actually observe it. It may make it plausible or the most plausible theory.

Also, it may well be the most plausible theory for an Atheist for they are self-prohibited from considering anything beyond nature. Science has come to a point that it does not allow for the theory that perhaps a supreme being was involved. One might say to that, "No, it's just that science has to limit itself that way because it is only about the observable natural universe... it doesn't deny what is beyond it's scope". But a scientist should be cogniscent that the answer to the question they pose is perhaps not answerable with natural theory. That doesn't mean they can't try to make the best natural theories possible, but what science does is completely dismisses that it is even possibility that there is someother explanation. If scientists are out to find truth then they should respect that in some instances, it is possible that a theologian may have the answer they are never able to reach and respect that as a plausible answer.

Evolutionary theory seeks to fill in the blanks... big blanks. And that's fine. That's good science. It is not good science to pretend that there are no blanks being filled in with pure theory. Just because it might be the BEST theory out there does not mean it can never be topped with something else... unless thsoe blanks are not blanks and have been objectifiably obsrerved.

Evolutionary theorists are no less dogmatic than a baptist fundamentalist is in regards to the literal creation story. The only difference is that the latter is honest about that fact.

But, evolution has become such a religion that those who sign on are generally quite fundamentalist about it and unable to hear. Again, I have no problem with evolution and it does not threaten my faith. I believed in it for about a decade. Now, I'm quite agnostic on it.

I'm not sure why you think evolution from species to species has never been observed? How do you think it is different from evolution within a species?

I also don't think it is reasonable to consider the religious views of stupid scientists as typical, unless we want to consider the religious views of stupid Christians as typical as well.

 

[MKJ]

Here's what you said when you quoted my post...

"Besides, it makes you sound really haughty and self-righteous because such a statement insinuates that you, as a "bible-believer", are inherently above those who see a harmony between science and faith."

Sounds like you were talking about me, does it not? Who is the "you" you're talking about then? Who's supposed to be haughty and self-righteous? Some other poster?

Given that you keep comparing those who think evolution is a good theory to your atheist relatives, I think you don't have a lot of leg to stand on here. It does sound haughty when you continuously imply that non-creationists are not serious Christians.

 

[Fantine]

Well, if Methusaleh really lived until he was 999, and Moses began his public career at age 80, and they had the secret to the fountain of youth, well then why didn't they put that in the Bible? I'm over 60. I could use a lift.

 

[Joshua G.]

I'm not sure why you think evolution from species to species has never been observed? How do you think it is different from evolution within a species?

I also don't think it is reasonable to consider the religious views of stupid scientists as typical, unless we want to consider the religious views of stupid Christians as typical as well.

I think that's a false comparison. People are allowed to be biased in their religious views. That makes sense becuase it is taken on faith. Scientists should not be biased in their professional endeavors.

But the heart of the issue is that scientists are regularly censured from sharing (in popular forums like journals and important universities) their scientific findings that do not mesh with evolution or that call into question evolution.

Josh

 

[MKJ]

I think that's a false comparison. People are allowed to be biased in their religious views. That makes sense becuase it is taken on faith. Scientists should not be biased in their professional endeavors.

But the heart of the issue is that scientists are regularly censured from sharing (in popular forums like journals and important universities) their scientific findings that do not mesh with evolution or that call into question evolution.

Josh

I don't think people are allowed to be biased in their religious views, any more than scientific views. The basis of all human knowledge is faith, and if we cannot hold that up to the light there is really no reason to say that one form of religion is preferable to another.

Of course science, like all studies, operates in particular ways that reflect what we as a culture understand what science is. Not all scientists realize this, just as many fundamentalist Christians don't realize that Scripture is always read in a context, whether we acknowledge it or not.

I think that creationists claim way too much for scientists who are supposedly shut out for criticisms of evolution. It is false to imagine that any academic appointment is based only on the merits of the individual, first of all. University departments always have an approach to their subject, and they look for ways to strengthen that. If they are wise they understand that can mean including diversity and academic rebels as well as conservatives, but not all do. This is why we have theological colleges that lean too hard in one direction as well as science departments. But that is not a sign that science is somehow less sure than other areas of study.

But those who try to make the argument that evolution is a bad theory have mostly failed because they have not met the burden of proof. And yes, for evolution it is high, because it has become a fundamental theory in biology, much like the kids of ideas that used to get called "laws". Not only is there significant data and experimental indications, as a theory it manages to make sense of and explain many many other problems, ideas, and information in the field.

There are tons of people working in biology that are working on gaps in the theory, or problems. Any biologist knows that these exist, it is not news, all realize that many things are not understood. That is why they keep studying it. If that was the claim then no one would be blacklisting people over that. But you cannot point out gaps and problems and then conclude the whole idea is false - it is too big a leap. Doing in evolution as a theory would create far more serious and significant gaps than the ones that are being pointed out.

And I think if you look at the history of science, it is unusual to see a fundamental theory like this scrapped without something to replace it. It is usually when an alternate model is proposed that you start to see some kind of change. And in this case, if the idea is to support Biblical literalism and YEC, we would have to ditch several other major branches of science as well, all with their own data and explanatory power.

I don't think it is uprising that scientists and organizations would be suspicious of someone who makes such a major claim based on the kinds of problems and questions scientists are already aware of, especially when they haven't suggested an alternate theory that better explains the evidence.

I also take issue with the idea that almost all scientists are reflexively dismissive of non-traditional views within their subject. I'd be very curious to see how anyone could justify making such a claim. Some I know are - I also know some who are not, including religious scientists.