• 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!

Evolution: anything to replace religion.

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Snark aside (I couldn't help it), if it's nothing more than semantics, would you care to confirm this by explaining what you mean when you ask for "proof"?
The creationist proof exists of a text that's very ancient that depicts stories and visions of people we have very little information about.

Creationists will accept Darwin's book 2,000 years from now. Not one day earlier.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
no it isn't.
Your OP is sillier because you actually believe your OP.
The gravity thing was to demonstrate how silly your OP is.
Yes, I understand. Literal here, metaphor there, proof here, theory there, great.
I'm not the one saying that something is a 'fact' when it clearly isn't.
The semantics game can begin now.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The creationist proof exists of a text that's very ancient that depicts stories and visions of people we have very little information about.

Creationists will accept Darwin's book 2,000 years from now. Not one day earlier.

To be fair, it's really a collection of Jewish and early Christian literature, that over time were brought together in a number of accepted canons. So it's not really a single book as it is a canon.

THAT'S semantics.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No, Disciple. You most obviously do not understand. Unless you are lying?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
Yes, I understand. Literal here, metaphor there, proof here, theory there, great.
I'm not the one saying that something is a 'fact' when it clearly isn't.
The semantics game can begin now.
No, you clearly do not understand.

Or are you admitting to being blatantly dishonest?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
No, you clearly do not understand.

Or are you admitting to being blatantly dishonest?

I clearly understand that you have not presented proof or evidence of your theory. I actually think that either you do not understand the process by which we might ascertain ''facts'', or are obfuscating. I don't think your obfuscating, so I rather think it's the former option.
 

McBell

Unbound
I clearly understand that you have not presented proof or evidence of your theory. I actually think that either you do not understand the process by which we might ascertain ''facts'', or are obfuscating. I don't think your obfuscating, so I rather think it's the former option.
Yet it is your "thinking", not mine, that this thread has revealed is seriously lacking.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I clearly understand that you have not presented proof or evidence of your theory.

Plenty of evidence has been presented.

Again: you look different from your parents. Breeding programs exist. Medicine works.

There's no such thing as "scientific proof". To quote this article: Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof” | Psychology Today

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

I have a few problems with the personal opinions the author presents in some other articles, but this is spot-on.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
To be fair, it's really a collection of Jewish and early Christian literature, that over time were brought together in a number of accepted canons. So it's not really a single book as it is a canon.

THAT'S semantics.
True. But the books are put in a bigger book, so it's still a book. :)
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Breeds of dogs doesn't prove evolution. It isn't even an indicator, really.

Think of foxes in Canada. White foxes. During an ice age, they would likely flourish because their white coats blended in with their environment. By blending in with their environment, they were better equipped to hunt and catch prey; and to evade and escape predators. Any time a fox was born to this species that was not entirely white had a survival disadvantage. Its darker spots or colors made it stand out against the wintery backdrop; thus they had a harder time hunting for themselves and a harder time escaping predators. As a result, these foxes rarely grew to maturity to have a den of cubs; passing on their genetic trait of spots or darker colors.

Ice ages don't last. The ice caps melt, the treeline extends, and now the environment where these foxes once flourished changed. Against the backdrop of pine trees and brown earth and ground, the white foxes now struggled to survive; their white coats made them stand out against the environment that was now robust with darker colors. Ironically, it was now the foxes that weren't completely white who had the survival advantage; as their darker colors and spots helped them hide and blend in with their environment, better equipping them to catch prey and avoid predators.

Many totally white foxes died of starvation or were captured and eaten by predators. The foxes that weren't completely white were now the ones that grew to maturity and had a den of cubs; passing on their genetic trait of spots or darker colors.

After a few successive generations, white foxes in this environment were all but unheard of; and as the genetic trait of darker colors was passed down, their cubs became darker in color over time. Those who did not share the genetic trait of darker coats became all but extinct as their lighter colors was a hindrance to their efforts to survive.

The only difference between this example and domesticated dogs is that the domesticated dogs were selected by humans for favorable traits; just as in nature, the wild foxes were selected by the conditions of their environment for those traits that were beneficial to their survival.

We actually see this in field mice along our coastlines; where, as we start (for example) South and move North, we see changes in the species of field mice and changes in their characteristics. Mice may be able to mate with their neighbors and bear offspring; but when we take field mice from the northernmost region and pair it with a field mouse from the southernmost region, their genetic constructs are too different to produce viable offspring.

Different breeds of dogs are a compelling indicator that staunchly supports ToE.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Evolution really is silly. It couldn't explain the lack of fossil evidence. It couldn't explain the timeline goofup that ultimately led to ''quick evolution', lol. What, are you joking?

Evolution as a replacement for religion? No thanks. I fully reject all and every religion because they are dumb, independent how we got here and where we came from. Science isn't even necessary for me to realize how much of a scam any and all religions truly are.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Anyone who does not accept the basic concept behind the ToE simply is not using common sense. All materials things appear to change over time, genes are material things, therefore evolution has to happen.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Evolution as a replacement for religion? No thanks. I fully reject all and every religion because they are dumb, independent how we got here and where we came from. Science isn't even necessary for me to realize how much of a scam any and all religions truly are.

"Science"? I actually wrote 'evolution', not ''science''. Anyways, I don't have faith in your theory.
 
Last edited:
Top