-
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!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. Why the false claims? Why the name calling? If you want more detail about how and why you are wrong then debate properly. No name calling allowed.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't know. I have a different faith than you. Do you have more than faith? I don't.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't know either but I have almost no faith at all. I strive to have no beliefs.
Other than a few things I take as being axiomatic I only believe reality exists and is logic manifest. All of reality affects all other reality as a process unfolding. Mathematics is merely logic quantified and can never be directly applied to reality though there is usually a great deal of concordance. Consciousness is life and all life, all consciousness, is individual. All people always make sense in terms of their beliefs and all other life makes sense in terms of their knowledge.
People before the 'tower of babel" acted on their knowledge just like all other life.
These are my beliefs.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And I have different beliefs. Now what?
I do not make the rules. If I could, I would have created the pinnacle of my creation completely differently. For sure, not like an ape. For starters, to avoid discussions with those pesky evolutionists, which I can see coming, being omniscient and all.
Anyway. Evolution has a lot of evidence, and denying it would be foolish. Intellectual masochism that has nothing to do with the debate atheism vs, christianity, since most Christians accept evolution without problems.
the problem is that most creationists (the ones fighting evolution, since all Christians are creationists), indulge in ultracrepidarianism, and instead of getting themselves an education, they parrot what they heard from people with even less clue.
i don’t think that is intellectually honest. It would be like me challenging claims about the history of theater in medieval China, when it takes no time to realize I have no clue about medieval Chinese theater. In the same way it takes a third grader to realize those creationists are totally ignorant about the subject they debate.
however, to be fair, not all creationists (of the YEC, anti evolution kind) are intellectually dishonest. Some realize that evolution has a lot of evidence, but they just decide to trust God, instead. They do not fight it, they trust God, instead.
here is an example:
“Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is notjust speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution”
my personal recommendation is to use the same strategy, because the standard one is clearly a losing one. As it has been losing for the last 150 years. For sure, that guys shows more honesty, and faith in God, than those creationists trying the futile attempt to fight it. A fight, that can only do damage on your flock.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Too long to read. Neither evolution or creationism interests me.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Obviously the rejection of reason, logic, or facts can harm an individual but I don't understand how the rejection of a scientific hypothesis based on erroneous assumptions and that has never been supported by experiment can harm anyone at all. Oh, I suppose it would be difficult to be a Peer in biology if you reject Evolution.
Is science going to start a scientific purgatory now or create hell on earth through the establishment of reeducation camps? Are only believers going to be allowed to reproduce so we can rid the earth of the scourge of non-believers.
cladking
Well-Known Member
More gainsaying and semantics.
We are all stinky footed bumpkins and those who lived in ancient times were not. Homo sapiens are dead and we are homo omnisciencis; just ask anyone!
cladking
Well-Known Member
I for one would be interested in talking about your or my beliefs and ideas related to "Darwin's Illusion" or Evolution.
It's entirely possible we could iron out differences or at least come to see these differences.
It depends, of course. If we are insulated from the outer world, then it is not so difficult. But if i swallowed that, and still have a sort of social life with interaction with people beyond my flock, internet and stuff, then I would succumb in no time when challenged. I would be totally unable to defend my position.
that is why it vastly better to acknowledge that evolution has a lot of evidence, while trusting God that it is not true, rather than fighting a pointless war. It would, for starters, take away a lot of surface of attack from a potential skeptical challenger.
ciao
- viole
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I don't know that I have absolute truth as such. For me it works to believe in evolution. I accept it is different for you. As for how you stand on absolute truth or other such words is something you do.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Reality exists. Many truths are real. But no consciousness can see reality directly. Homo omnisciencis can see reality solely in terms of our beliefs but all consciousness before the "tower of babel" saw reality only in terms of what it knew. Individuals used to see very very little because of this. But we know everything today so we believe we can see everything and everything we see exists in terms of beliefs. "Faith" is a belief or more commonly a set of beliefs and our world becomes what we believe whether that is people who are different or believe differently must die or that we can construct a better future by some means. But, of course, we all have different beliefs so a "better future" is different for each individual. I believe what is good for individual homo omnisciencis is good for the human race and the most important thing for the human race is to survive the several trials of the next century. I don't believe we can survive with our current beliefs that leaders aren't responsible for outcomes and the fit survive. So long as the world is divided between the fit and unfit none can survive. Deferring to Peers and specialists in matters of philosophy will lead to our extinction. Brainwashing and so many willing to let others do their thinking are huge hurdles to our survival.
Our beliefs in our own omniscience and the complete knowledge of Peers is leading to reckonings any one of which can mean extinction.
People simply need to be aware of the limits of their knowledge and the metaphysics that define these limits. The ToE grossly exceeds any such limits and is based on bad assumptions and exists as a poor paradigm.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't much care what others think until it infringes on me.
I find "evolution" highly problematical to the future of the human race.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I am merely asking you to follow the rules of the forum if you want a discussion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Evolution is merely reality. How is reality a problem?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is your worldview. I have another.
That cannot be otherwise. We will necessarily evolve into something that cannot be called human, anymore. Like having four eyes, or a forehead the size of football. Or get extinct before.
But why don't you like it?
Ciao
- viole
gnostic
The Lost One
In different branches, fields and subfields of works and education/studies, they have they may use the same words, but each word may have different contexts.
Meaning these branches and fields disciplines will have their own terms that mean different things to other disciplines.
While people who work as judges or lawyers will have their own terms and vocabulary that have different meanings than those in natural sciences, computer sciences, engineering, medicine, business.
So if you are going to argue with someone about sciences, for or against, at the very least you can do
While judges, lawyers, politicians and everyone else who may have little to no education in science, they will use evidence and proof as synonymous - meaning they mean the same things.
But this is "Science and Religion" forum with threads/subjects about science and religions, this is not a "Law and Religion" forum with science and religions threads/subjects.
To both scientists and mathematicians, proof and evidence are not synonymous, they have different meanings and they have different purposes. So proof and evidence are not the same in the worlds of science and mathematics.
If you are going to argue for or against physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy or biology - all of which belonged to "Natural Science", then you will have to learn the distinctions
- between proof & evidence,
- between hypothesis & theory & theoretical model
- between scientific observation and all other meanings of observations
Have you ever study science or worked in the field?
If you have, you should've known the differences between proof and science, and none of us would be having this discussion with you.
But because you have said "Proof is evidence", I don't think you have study or work in science-related field.
The differences between the two, are the following:
- Proof is abstract logical modeling, and in sciences and maths, most often expressed as mathematical models, like EQUATIONS, with combination of CONSTANTS, VARIABLE & NUMBERS;
- ...while evidence are physical, required observations to get information about the evidence, eg information like quantities, measurements, can be recorded using devices or instruments.
Observations and testings are important parts to sciences. And observation and testings can only be achieve through evidence - discoveries of evidence - not proof or mathematical equations.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's funny when you keep saying today's science is "look and see science" (or more precisely observational science), not "experimental science".
Except that EXPERIMENTS are observations.
Observation are vital part of science, because without observations there can be no evidence.
Observations provide information (DATA) about the evidence, especially quantitative measurements (eg quantities, numbers, counting, etc, which are also used in statistics, which also help with probabilities and predictions), measurements of all kinds (eg measuring dimensions, masses, areas and volumes, densities, electric current, wavelengths, etc).
But observations in science don't just mean looking or seeing with eyes alone.
Meaning, you can use instrument and devices to assist with observations, especially detecting that cannot be seen (eg radio waves, sound waves, electric current, etc) or hear (sound beyond the frequencies humans are capable of hearing).
Experiments are "look and see" or observations. If you don't understand, you have never understood sciences in the first place.
And this whole metaphysics being the basis of science is BS, because experiments are not a requirements in Metaphysics.
Plus, there are no science 40,000 years ago, and there were never any Tower of Babel or nonsensical made-up Homo omnisciensis. That's just more BS claims of yours.
As to Evolution, the evidence supporting have support not only to Natural Selection (not "Survival of the Fittest"), but there are other mechanisms in Evolutionary Biology, like Mutations, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.
Science isn't about personal preference, your like or dislike. Sciences are all about attempting to understand, and relying on evidence to test any explanatory/predictive models of theories or hypotheses.
Like every other creationists, you have weird and false sense of what sciences are, thinking it have to conform to your preferences, like the weird craps about ancient language and science going back to 40,000 years.