Evolution by Jerks

[StaccatoLogic]

Science and religion are entirely different in the type of information they provide. Spiritual revelation and religion are far too subjective and dependent on individual perception to be deemed a science. Science, like one has said here is a "cold tool" with which to collect and analyze data and then come to conclusions based on that data. If archaeologists could prove that the Ark exists or that the ten commandments are real based on archaeological digs it still wouldn't prove that God exists. There is a leap of faith that must be taken despite the physical evidence. The spiritual and physical realms are like comparing apples and oranges, and I wish people would learn to separate them more clearly rather than pass them off one for the other (religion for science in the case of ID). I believe in evolution based on the scientific record. I believe in God due to my personal life experiences. Simple as that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a leap of faith that must be taken despite the physical evidence. The spiritual and physical realms are like comparing apples and oranges, ...

No, the "spiritual and physical realms" are like Pixies and Pineapples.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Scientist: In the beginning it appears...according to these numbers and these tests.

Note the difference. "In the beginning God created..." isn't exploring possibilities with curiousity or forming objective analysis.

Just a minor thing, the Torah says: Be're**** bara Elokim

Not: Ba'hatkhaka bara Eloka (In the beginning G-d created)

But continue on...

 

[beleiver_in_logic]

Though it is true people often do not often make the distinction between the physical and the spiritual do the degree that is needed, but I’m afraid the new testament tells the story of events that Christians believed actually happened, its not a philosophy or a metaphoric guide, so isn’t it imperative that people, at least before they devote their lives have the tiniest scrap of truth in stories written centuries after Jesus’ death?
When people talk of the "leap of faith" I believe that this means they are willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence against them to fill the empty void in their personality, some people fill this void with drugs or alcohol, so I admit it is more pro productive to chose to turn to a religion.

 

[world nonpotent]

Staccatologic's point I take well. If the metaphysics be deemed that some people for reasons of idealism as opposed to realism have their understanding for 'causally' existing realities in the sipritual realm then that is good. If some people have it for realism opposed to idealism, and the positive realm of applying scientifically conclusive transcendence into the existence in essence there-somewhat (it may be caused or after-all 'yawn-yawn' an environmental formulation for PROGRESS :tsk: )is the truth for sharing OPINION then that is good.

My opinion of spiritual religion is as a whole; my opinion of tolerance of different minds made up on religion wholly comes from BARING SCIENCE as not quite explaining the intolerance in the World and, yes, the facts of the world not EVEN being to the religious spiritual perception.

 

[michel]

Though it is true people often do not often make the distinction between the physical and the spiritual do the degree that is needed, but I’m afraid the new testament tells the story of events that Christians believed actually happened, its not a philosophy or a metaphoric guide, so isn’t it imperative that people, at least before they devote their lives have the tiniest scrap of truth in stories written centuries after Jesus’ death?
When people talk of the "leap of faith" I believe that this means they are willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence against them to fill the empty void in their personality, some people fill this void with drugs or alcohol, so I admit it is more pro productive to chose to turn to a religion.

Hi beleiver_in_logic,

Welcome to the Forum;

As I notice that this is your first visit here, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself to the other members, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to see.

I hope you'll like it here, and I look forward to seeing you around.

 

[Super Universe]

Dear sir, if evolution is true does it change God in any way?

It changes your idea of Him but...maybe that's not such a bad thing. The scientists are revealing the clue's to God's great creation. This is fantastic because it is improving our understanding of God day by day. You can't get that from any religion.

At some point we are going to have to accept that God created the universe the way He wanted it to be and not necessarily the way we wanted or think it should be.

As far as punctuated equilibrium, well, nobody knows exactly why it happens. It seems to be built in. After so much time the many mutations begin to add up and there are quick dramatic changes. Almost like someone said "Okay people, it's time for you all to evolve!" Then flipped a switch.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dear sir, if evolution is true does it change God in any way?

Yes - it renders her superfluous.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes - it renders her superfluous.

Right. You don't have to want to find God. And if you don't you will still have your life to live as you wish.

But if you want more it is waiting for you to find it.

 

[Abram]

A beating tool for religion. No, it's only a different way of explaining the three big questions, Who am I? Where did I come from? and where am I going?

You can use either view as a beating club, like this...Knockout

One day in outer space a million billion years ago there was these two lifeless rocks flying around and the BANG! ran into each other with the right force and gas charges to form a round planet. It started to spin at such a perfect rate that gravity was created. Then the planet some how stuck perfectly between the sun and moon and that made the perfect seasons for plants to magicaly appear. Then it grew a ozone layer to protect it from space. One day the oceans and rivers decided they would lift and fall else where. Just by chance the plants needed that water so they could grow special seeds. Meanwhile in the bottom of the river beds this cosmic goo wanted to have free will and learn to love one another. So it willed it's self legs so it could get out of the water to build homes and get a job. Just by chance the trees gave them strength so they could hunt the animals to dominate them to...
Science is something people do with to much education and not enough common since. They make theroy's.

God created the world in 7 days because he said so. Some ask how do we know that his days mean the same as our days? Well, he knew we would ask so he put it in the 10 Comandments.
"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh days is sabbath to the Lord your God... For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that it is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." -Exodus 20:9-11

But if you don't believe in the Bible of course your view will differ!

 

[Angama]

A beating tool for religion. No, it's only a different way of explaining the three big questions, Who am I? Where did I come from? and where am I going?

Evolution does all that? I think your confused. Evolution can answer 2 of those questions vaguely enough to mean nothing to you personally. The last question it can care less. Your comparison is a fallacious one.

AA

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How, for example, did the bat suddenly find itself with a workable sonar? True or not, punctuated equilibrium is really a refutation of Darwin, who said that his theory would break down completely "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight variations."

The author of this article is simply making an argument from ignorance; most of us (especially those of us who aren't knowledgable about biology) don't even know what parts are involved in bat sonar and how they work, so of course we can't imagine how earlier adaptations/mutations could have built up to it. Furthermore, most of us are too lazy to go to the library or search the web and read about bat sonar and how it evolved. However, as the author of this TalkOrigins post points out,

A modern bat that develops a problem through injury, developmental pathology, or congenital defect is at a competitive disadvantage relative to its conspecifics. This is a situation distinct from consideration of how various steps in evolutionary development of bat sensory systems might have come about.
Not all bats utilize the same degree of specialization in their auditory systems. Comparative studies of bat auditory systems reveals quite a range of adaptation from a presumably typical mammalian common ancestor. These differences in modern bats can be taken as evidence that the stages that the more specialized bats must have passed through were possible and permitted populations to be maintained over time.

The extreme capabilities of biosonar as seen in bats and dolphins actually are not so far removed from other mammals. Humans have been shown to perform on a level comparable to dolphins on certain acoustic discrimination tasks when echo returns are time-stretched to fall within the human audio range, and humans have no specializations for biosonar. Many of the capabilities that we regard as special in bats or dolphins are simply modifications from what mammals in general have in the way of an acoustic sense.

Besides the "punk eek" crowd, there are two other evolutionary camps today. There is the mainstream, which clings to old-fashioned Darwinism because there is no better explanation for the origin of species. For these scientists the engine of species creation is small DNA copying errors, which presumably add up over millions of years to "evolution."

These retro-Darwinists explain away the gaps in the fossils and do not seriously address the question of how smooth intermediates between land mammals and whales, or reptiles and birds, could ever have existed.

The author clearly hopes that his/her audience is ignorant of the many transitional fossils which do exist, and the many similarities between land mammals and whales, and between reptiles and birds. Did you know, Victor, that whale embryos actually develop legs, but later these are reabsorbed? Did you know that there are many fossils which illustrate the evolution from land mammals to aquatic mammals to modern whales? (Tons of stuff on whale evolution here: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ) Did you know that many dinosaurs had feathers and hollow bones, just like birds? The author of this article you quoted hopes you don't.

And this past year, Behe's Darwin's Black Box has caused a stir by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is biochemically impossible.

That's simply not true. When Behe wrote his book, he pointed out examples of structures which, at the time, didn't have good explanations with regards to how they evolved. But he did not show that evolution is "biochemically impossible". In fact, some of his examples--like the flagellum of bacteria and the blood clotting system--have since been shown to have evolved from a combination of earlier adaptations and mutations.

Scientists and philosophers who disagree with Darwin who deny that small mutations guided by natural selection can add up to "macro" changes still call themselves "evolutionists" since they recognize that all life forms share basic genetic material and so may be descended from a single ancestor; but they are frank about not being able to explain how this happened. Some speculate that species undergo a "genetic snap" which produces new ones. This would mean that evolution was somehow "pre-programmed" in the DNA. This scenario sounds a lot like St. Augustine's and is, of course, anathema to Darwinists because it points to a Programmer God.

The author appears to be suggesting that species do not evolve in response to the selection pressures of their changing environment, but rather to the "pre-programming" in their DNA, which presumably tells hippos to evolve into pygmy hippos just when they happen to start living in a jungle environment, and tells finches to speciate just when they happen to come to the Galapagos islands. Also, if what the author is claiming were true, animals in captivity or in some environment which isn't changing would evolve into new species because of their deterministic "pre-programming" in their DNA telling them to. But that's not what happens. Organisms don't evolve into new species without some kind of selection pressure from the environment--there is not genetic "pre-programming" telling them what to become, and when.

Why, in the face of so much negative evidence, does Darwin's theory maintain its hold over scientists and educators?

The real question is: why, in the face of so much evidence, does creationism and pseudoscience maintain its hold over much of the public? I blame natural history museums. They're way too educational for anyone to want to go to them, even if they're free.

Mainly because it is an effective club with which to beat religion.

Right, because evolution explicitly says that Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, and Wicca are all false. Thermodynamics says the same thing.

Why should anyone want 'an effective club' ? You make non-theists sound like a crowd intent on pulverising religion into the ground. besides, evolution does not necessarily 'negate religion'.........

Exactly. Countless Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. have no problem accepting modern biology. Many religious people (and scientists) accept the scientific explanation of evolution as an unguided process just as they accept the scientific explanations of earthquakes, volcanos, lightning, the movement of the planets, and disease as unguided processes. All of these were once believed to be directly controlled by god(s), and none of them seem to have destroyed religions. The religions simply adapt to the changing intellectual environment and evolve themselves.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One day in outer space a million billion years ago there was these two lifeless rocks flying around and the BANG! ran into each other with the right force and gas charges to form a round planet. It started to spin at such a perfect rate that gravity was created. Then the planet some how stuck perfectly between the sun and moon and that made the perfect seasons for plants to magicaly appear.

:biglaugh: Are you making this up as you go along?

Then it grew a ozone layer to protect it from space. One day the oceans and rivers decided they would lift and fall else where. Just by chance the plants needed that water so they could grow special seeds. Meanwhile in the bottom of the river beds this cosmic goo wanted to have free will and learn to love one another. So it willed it's self legs so it could get out of the water to build homes and get a job. Just by chance the trees gave them strength so they could hunt the animals to dominate them to...

Honestly, Abram, please do yourself a favor and go to the library and read a book about the origins of Earth. You don't have to believe it--but at least know what science actually says before rejecting it. No offense, but what you've written here is not even close to what scientists believe about the origins of the Earth, plants, and animals.

Science is something people do with to much education and not enough common since. They make theroy's.

They may have to much education and not enough common since, but they are courageous people nonetheless. After all, you can't spell "theroy's" without "hero". :biglaugh:

God created the world in 7 days because he said so.

And we know He said so because some people told us He said so. Case closed!

 

[Abram]

Evolution does all that? I think your confused. Evolution can answer 2 of those questions vaguely enough to mean nothing to you personally. The last question it can care less. Your comparison is a fallacious one.

AA

Evolution does a great job of explaining it. I can see why so many people believe. In fact evolution even answer the third question "where am I going."

Thats why I said you have to believe the Bible to except my view. The thread said evolution by jerks and thats me.

You can beat either view with a club. And evolution is a very stong club to beat religion with because of all the education that goes into it...

By the way DNA is a digital code that transfer info like burning a cd to a cd. It's all numbers (0010101111101) You can copy a cd for eternity without loseing it's quality...

 

[Abram]

:biglaugh: Are you making this up as you go along?

I thought my story was good. I felt witty and creative. I don't get that feeling very often. I like the part where we got jobs. But it was my story so of course I liked it.

They may have to much education and not enough common since, but they are courageous people nonetheless. After all, you can't spell "theroy's" without "hero". :biglaugh:

Thanks I have been doing that and can't stop but the "hero" thing will help me remember. In fact frubal 4U.

And we know He said so because some people told us He said so. Case closed!

I know, for the believer and unbeliever.

 

[Quiddity]

The religions simply adapt to the changing intellectual environment and evolve themselves.

To be fair Spinks, I think you implied too much about the author. The guy isn't anti-science or anti-evolution.

You have made the above statement more then once and don't know where you get that from. Are you talking about in regards to evolution alone? Or all of science? And if so, where is the documents to show that RC (as an example) held and official stance on such things. Are you talking about other faiths?

~Victor

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Dear sir, if evolution is true does it change God in any way?

It changes your idea of Him but...maybe that's not such a bad thing. The scientists are revealing the clue's to God's great creation. This is fantastic because it is improving our understanding of God day by day. You can't get that from any religion.

At some point we are going to have to accept that God created the universe the way He wanted it to be and not necessarily the way we wanted or think it should be.

As far as punctuated equilibrium, well, nobody knows exactly why it happens. It seems to be built in. After so much time the many mutations begin to add up and there are quick dramatic changes. Almost like someone said "Okay people, it's time for you all to evolve!" Then flipped a switch.

If you are a biblical literalist, then yes, knowing the truth of evolution does indeed impact on ones idea of an Abrahamic God. If you contend that the Bible is true, literally to be construed, every word of it, and we can scientifically prove that certain parts of it are untrue (creation, Jonah, The Flood, etc.) then this has a profound impact on the fundamentalist.

If however you are the sort that will continue to cling to the Bible and will bend it to fit with what science has proven then you are likely the sort who will beleive in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

B.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To be fair Spinks, I think you implied too much about the author. The guy isn't anti-science or anti-evolution.

You have made the above statement more then once and don't know where you get that from. Are you talking about in regards to evolution alone? Or all of science? And if so, where is the documents to show that RC (as an example) held and official stance on such things. Are you talking about other faiths?

~Victor

I don't understand the question. My point was that religions--like all of human culture--evolve.