Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just fine with original my comment to you.

But it was false. Standing with a comment that was explained to be false means that you are now supporting a falsehood. That is not the way that a proper Christian behaves.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But it was false. Standing with a comment that was explained to be false means that you are now supporting a falsehood. That is not the way that a proper Christian behaves.

I was trying to avoid saying it, but if I must, you won't be the first Atheist to use "poor me" "bad, bad Christian", as reason to evade an issue.

My reasoning for my comment, you popped in there with something totally off topic so I think you had an agenda, just that simple, and your reaction, only substantiates my thoughts on that.

Your disagreement is duly noted, and I'll waste no more time on such a nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My belief in an ID isn't based ion faith.

Since there is no scientific evidence that supports it I don't know what else your belief could be based upon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was trying to avoid saying it, but if I must, you won't be the first Atheist to use "poor me" "bad, bad Christian", as reason to evade an issue.

My reasoning for my comment, you popped in there with something totally off topic so I think you had an agenda, just that simple, and your reaction, only substantiates my thoughts on that.

Your disagreement is duly noted, and I'll waste no more time on such a nothing.

No, there was no "agenda", unless you want to call attempting to get the facts clear an agenda. And my comment was not off topic. If you did not understand the proper action to take would be to ask questions politely and properly.

And I was lately merely explaining how your current behavior is not proper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am almost forgot. I promised this image to Radrook a while ago. It alone refutes the "worldwide flood" claim:

Here is a link to the source, you can blow that image up about 20 times by clicking on it twice:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

It alone refutes the "worldwide flood" claim:

If it does, I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[sfs]

If it does, I'm Genghis Khan.

Hi Genghis. Nice to meet you.

 

[sfs]

I am not denying you have to make certain assumptions when deducing anything from data, but are you trying to argue this is really no different from studying fossils, noticing patterns, etc? One is decidedly more qualitative. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure, I'd agree that physicists usually study systems that permit more quantitative predictions than biologists do; complex systems are usually harder to predict. Evolutionary biology is often more mathematical than just noticing patterns, though, and in fact theoretical population biology has plenty of hairy math.

What about you? I don't really care for credentials, you're clearly very intelligent regardless, though you've made me curious now.

A PhD and ten years working as an experimental particle physicist, 17 years as a geneticist.

It doesn't feel simple to me, haha. I suppose it's simpler in that you can be more sure of the answer when you actually come to it, but perhaps that's not what you meant.

I mean that physicists study the simplest systems, or the systems that can most effectively be simplified. (Pretty much, by and large.)

Would you assert the certainty with which we can hold the supernova actually happened is on the same level with which we can look at fossils and genes and conclude evolution is a reality?

I'd say our certainty that a supernova was a star exploding is comparable to our certainty from genetics that all animals descend from a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it does, I'm Genghis Khan.

And you have shown yourself to be Genghis Khan in other posts and you do so once again.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A PhD and ten years working as an experimental particle physicist, 17 years as a geneticist.

Oof! Yeah you're lightyears ahead of me. That's so interesting you have experience in both fields, what inspired the switch?

 

[Strathos]

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.

Do you believe the Earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa?

 

[Strathos]

Biblical understanding has progressed considerably since that time.

And it will continue to do so. That's my entire point.

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

You are putting words in my mouth. It's our understanding that is not always perfect. Context is important.

 

[Strathos]

BTW
The way that you use the term "literalist "demonstrates that you are biblically illiterate since anyone even vaguely familiar with the Bible knows that it contains both literal and symbolic language and that both are very easily distinguishable from the other.

Not always. There have been disputes, schisms, and even wars over this.

One example is the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Catholics believe that Jesus was being completely literal when He said that the bread was His body and blood, so they believe that consecrated communion wafers literally become the flesh of Christ. Most other denominations believe it to be symbolic.

 

[Strathos]

I'd also like to point out that the atheists who often hijack these threads to change the topic to the existence of God or the historicity of Jesus aren't helping.

They're basically feeding into the creationist narrative that acceptance of ToE = atheism, by arguing atheist points along with the ToE, which gives people the mistaken idea that they are somehow inherently linked or associated. That's more likely to drive creationists away from ToE acceptance.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd also like to point out that the atheists who often hijack these threads to change the topic to the existence of God or the historicity of Jesus aren't helping.

They're basically feeding into the creationist narrative that acceptance of ToE = atheism...

No, as I see it, it is frequent, persistent and often hostile accusations of the same by Creationists, most often directed at other Christians rather than atheists.

 

[Strathos]

No, as I see it, it is frequent, persistent and often hostile accusations of the same by Creationists, most often directed at other Christians rather than atheists.

Just saying that the atheists really aren't helping when they try to change the subject to something else.

 

[Renee Tahass]

My belief in an ID isn't based ion faith.

Do you think you have evidence for ID? BTW "Well it looks designed" is not enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think you have evidence for ID?

Scientists?

(Just kidding.)

 

[Jimmy D]

I'd also like to point out that the atheists who often hijack these threads to change the topic to the existence of God or the historicity of Jesus aren't helping.

They're basically feeding into the creationist narrative that acceptance of ToE = atheism, by arguing atheist points along with the ToE, which gives people the mistaken idea that they are somehow inherently linked or associated. That's more likely to drive creationists away from ToE acceptance.

I agree, there's no need.

 

[dickyh995]

So is there no merit to their paper? Would you not agree with the dogmatic way in which the theory of evolution is held up, and the disdain for skepticism?

I thought quickly dismissing peer-reviewed papers from Nature no less was the business of creationists, not eminently scientifically minded persons such as yourself.

Also, would you say this casts doubt on the integrity of the peer-review process, given that they missed such a glaring error on Birch and Ehrlich's behalf? Why or why not?

Can anyone explain where this misconception about the scientific community treating the ToE as dogma? Why does that accusation only seem to be around the Theory of Evolution. Science is all about trying to falsify ideas and following the evidence to logical conclusions. Surely a scientist have way more to gain from falsifying the ToE than dogmatically supporting it.