McBell
Unbound
And yet again you avoid answering.
Seems taking you off ignore has seriously lowered the level of honesty in this thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?
- Thread starter pro4life
- Start date
Seems taking you off ignore has seriously lowered the level of honesty in this thread.
ScottySatan
Well-Known Member
Ironically, biology researchers don't constrain themselves to the sceintific method any more.
Anyway, you have to define what you mean by a kind, because that is not a scientific term.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
True. Or we wouldn't have tried to destroy the world by burning them and would have developed hydrogen or electric power instead. For example the fuel used to shoot the Space shuttle was actually hydrogen not gasoline or any kind of fossil fuel.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you study? Specifically. If you are a researcher then you wouldn't research something as general as "biology". You would study something very specific. The most common being bio-chemical reactions to different pharmaceuticals.
Of course.
That the guy and his girlfriends are there is a coincidence. The odds of them being there doing that were ridiculously small, in the big scheme of things.
To be more precise: the conditional probability of winning the lotto many times /under the condition that they exist and are dating is higher than we should expect otherwise.
But the unconditionl probability is very low. Because the probability of their very existence is very low, if we measure at the big bang.
The same with you, even under the condition of an existing universe. Think to the chain of events which took place in the last 14 billion years that led to your birth. Do you think that God had you in mind, and not any of the other humans, or members of other species, who could have been born instead?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
What in the hell does being a biologist as being an atheist or a theist?
Being a biologist is a profession or career (or a researcher). Why would it interfere with what you believe in or don't believe in?
If you was an automobile mechanic, would you learn about cars and their engines from the Bible or the Qur'an? If you attended church masses every Sunday or read the bible regularly, do you need to understand the mechanics or the engineering of motor engines? If they are not same things, then why do you treat biology/evolution in the same manner?
The idiocy is thinking that biology is synonymous to atheism. Or evolution being synonymous to atheism.
Evolution is a field in biology. It shouldn't affect your religious side of your life.
That's what i think is so ridiculous about Christian literalistic creationists, they let their emotions of their religion(s) cloud their judgments. Biology and evolution are not atheism, they are science. And science and theology are not one and the same things, and those who think they are, will remain ignorant and irrational and conflicted.
Last edited:
I think evolution is shown all around us. Life starts in the water, walks out onto land, adapts to walking upright, and finally refines the mind. Fish...dolphins/whales...reptiles/amphibians...animals...kangaroos/monkeys...man
gnostic
The Lost One
The fact is, about 20 or so years after writing On the Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that he wasn't an atheist. He was Christian who later in later in life became agnostic.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with your points/post. I'm just explaining Darwin's own position with atheism, that he wasn't one.
gnostic
The Lost One
sorry, but I very skeptical with pro4life's claim that he is a "biology researcher". I don't think he has admitted in what specific biological field he has been researching on.
Does anyone find it strange that pro4life had disappeared from this thread, after claiming to be biology researcher?
His silence and evasion is quite telling.
Does anyone find it strange that pro4life had disappeared from this thread, after claiming to be biology researcher?
His silence and evasion is quite telling.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
No. I would classify the following:
Theism: believing
Atheism: not believing
Atheism: not believing
Knowing and believing are not necessarily the same things, but I can understand why you might confuse the two.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
There is 'know' and there is 'absolute know' . The atheist has know and the theist absolute know. I am not confused. The argument if to include the world, not religion.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's really just your opinion, Robert.
Faith and belief are nothing more than opinion. And with religion, it is a matter of faith, not "knowing", as in knowing with verifiable evidences.
I don't see how faith and theism can have absolute knowledge, when you can't in any way verify what you believe in or read from scriptural literature that sounds like the sound of wishful thinking.
ImaTroll
Member
please reference the caterpillar that turns into a butterfly or the tadpole that turns into a frog. this is accelerated evolution, also called metamorphosis. the animal changes from one species to another. the answer to your question is already displayed in nature.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
no
no. It is a matter of Grace, and that is of God. One does not assume anything about that. God is the one that opens eyes. It is gnosis, the inner witness. Faith is merely what is seen on the outside and gives evidene for what is on the inside. Your opinion is a common mistake
God verifies not man.
It is spiritually discerned and of God.
Theists know absolute that there is a God.... I don't mean all things
That's not evidence.
The whole idea of evolution is instilled in all science books nowadays, how can you say that it's not related to biology?
All athiests believe in evolution. All non-believers in evolution are thiests. Do you see the equation I have put up for you?
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
A theist here that has no issue with evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Darwin did not propose a "Theory of Evolution" He wrote a Theory of the cause for it.
Evolution was recognized as fact at least 1000 years before Darwin. One example is in the writings of the Muslim Scientist al-Jahiz in His 9 volume "Kitab al-Hayawan"
See HERE
While we theists can present a rational explanation for evolution through "Divine intervention" we are acting stupid when we deny the existence of Evolution.
Although it was through selective breeding a very large amount of the food products (Meats and vegetables) we modern people eat, did not exist 100 years ago. Evolution through selective breeding. In more modern times we now even have new plant varieties developed through Genetic Engineering. If us frail, ignorant humans can cause evolutionary changes in just a few decades it is very ignorant to say nature and God(swt) did not do much more over millions of years.
Evolution was recognized as fact at least 1000 years before Darwin. One example is in the writings of the Muslim Scientist al-Jahiz in His 9 volume "Kitab al-Hayawan"
See HERE
While we theists can present a rational explanation for evolution through "Divine intervention" we are acting stupid when we deny the existence of Evolution.
Although it was through selective breeding a very large amount of the food products (Meats and vegetables) we modern people eat, did not exist 100 years ago. Evolution through selective breeding. In more modern times we now even have new plant varieties developed through Genetic Engineering. If us frail, ignorant humans can cause evolutionary changes in just a few decades it is very ignorant to say nature and God(swt) did not do much more over millions of years.
gnostic
The Lost One
Where in the bl@@dy hell did I say that "evolution" is not related to "biology"?!?!?!?!
I don't know what you have been reading to misunderstand me about evolutionary biology.
That's a silly and very ignorant generalisation.
Practically most of uncles and aunts who migrated to Australia in the 50s & 60s, are and were (most of them past away now) atheists and non-theists Buddhists. They may have been Chinese but they weren't communists. They were shop keepers and cooks, who never studied in university before and are completely science illiterate, so they never accept evolution, because they never studied biology before, therefore didn't know anything about evolution.
And my own parents wouldn't understand what I was talking about, if I was to bring up the subject of evolution or natural selection. They couldn't accept evolution because they had no idea what it is.
And when some of cousins who did study in universities in Melbourne, and are atheists, didn't mean they accept evolution, because most of them didn't study biology. They had mostly studied business, and went into fields of accounting, finance or marketing. They simply weren't interested in discussing subject, like evolution, not because they were against evolution; no, they just didn't understand evolution.
The example, I had given, about my relatives, is they don't accept or reject evolution, because most of them don't bother to learn about the theory of evolution. That's just honest apathetism; they simply just lack interest in learning about evolution, because it is not part of their agenda to accept or follow evolution, but at the same time they don't reject it.
I have friends and know other people in my life, who are atheists, and some atheists may accept evolution, while other don't, because of the education and career paths that they have chosen.
Also blatant and ignorant generalisation.
A number of Christians and Jews here (including those who have replied in this thread), do accept evolution to be fact.
Of course, there are others who don't accept.
So you don't know what you are talking, especially your askew idea of an equation.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
As you note, the odds of anything are low, the odds of any 10 random people winning the lotto with any 10 random numbers- is exactly the same as the lotto couple winning 10 times with the same number, right?
so why do we suspect cheating? not because the odds of chance are any different, but because the odds of cheating are far better, there is simply a better explanation- that the result was designed, intended, tampered with by creative intelligence, offers a superior power of explanation, even where we can't possibly figure out how it was done.
similarly with the word 'help' being spelled with rocks on the deserted island beach- the waves might wash that pattern up as well as any other, but does this 'even chance' mean it's the best answer?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
think of the chain of events that led from billions of seemingly completely random tiny pits on a DVD which led to an actor's face appearing on your TV screen, did the maker intend this face to appear instead of the infinite other possibilities?
Yes I think you and I were ultimately coded into the highly compressed self extracting archive of information, called by it's discoverer - 'the primeval atom'. Otherwise you are saying, that some interfering influence outside our universe put us here? either way I think the improbability v the consequence implies the same thing, that there are better explanations than chance.
Last edited: