firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course it doesnt help atheism. But to some, its an industry, and to some, its religion. To some, the top of mind apologetics is impulsive. The same as a evangelist bible thumper fresh out of missionary education.
-
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 has been observed... right?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Of course it doesnt help atheism. But to some, its an industry, and to some, its religion. To some, the top of mind apologetics is impulsive. The same as a evangelist bible thumper fresh out of missionary education.
There is no scientific concept of 'devolving'. It would be a change of allele frequency over time, so it would be *evolving*.
The term 'devolving' carries a value judgement that isn't there in the science.
Oh boy.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Such a design whereby life can adapt is remarkable. This adaptation seems to include changing from one life form to another also. (sea life to land life for example).
A lot of what is seen as evolution is what exists in the genes already but is brought to the fore when breeding involves a greater amount of breeding with life that has similar genes. So in an artificial way a certain sort of dog can be bred by choosing breeding partners with similar features. This seems to degrade the gene pool to an extent and can make it more difficult for a breed to be bred back to the original.
No doubt mutations of genes can result in positive advances but most mutations result in a degradation.
When it comes to humans, I can see how the body of and certain traits in humans was made through evolution but that those animals did not become man until God breathed His life into the body.
I'm not sure what happened at the transition but I do believe in an original Adam and Eve.
Whether or not we have devolved, I don't know.
But of course in all this I am not a scientist and just see possibilities through my faith.
Science on the other hand cannot see a system that was designed to work in that way even though science has no idea how some chemicals became collectors and users of data.
In science it is, given enough time and anything is possible.
Much of that is Capitalism selling unhealthy foods that are tasty to the undisciplined consumer. From a conservative POV that is the freedom citizens have: to be ignorant and get fat.
If you are suggesting the government wants fat citizens, why? That just puts a huge burden on all of society, mostly in the healthcare system having to deal with the chronic consequences of obesity. All through the 20th century government has advocated for healthy habits. In recent decades this is more on the liberal side of government.
If we look at the fiasco in Flint, MI that was a result of republicans trying to get cheap water instead of good water. Many children and adults were poisoned. This isn;t deliberate poisoning, but it's incompetence on the part of conservative policy.
Irony.
Why would we look like hairless gorillas, if evolution was not true? Was God so obsessed with apes to make them the very reason He created the whole Universe for?
Ciao
- viole
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Evolution is based on natural selection, whereas the Pug evolved by manmade selection, which is not natural. Manmade selection is a type of evolution, based on human willower and choice, within manmade environments. Man gets to play god; atheist creationism via science.
Natural selection is about fitness within the natural environment. This is why the wolf is the top of the natural canine food chain. Manmade selection is more dissociated and turned the wolf into 150 breeds from short to tall. This is closer to Creationism, where man gets to play god with natural evolution.
Nature will select based on fitness, while manmade often selects based on vanity and shallow criteria; market value. Interestingly, if dogs or cats of all breeds are allowed to go ferrel into the wild, the differences created by manmade selection, will begin to homogenize, as natural selection takes over.
Natural selection appears to integrate toward perfection for any given environment; wolf and shark. We will not see as many changes, that are drastic like manmade selection, happening in natural selection. Nature is not about free market gimmicks. Manmade selection is often not done with practical reasons in mind. Nature is more practical, and is not about fly in the night fads.
AlexanderG
Active Member
Indoctrination is telling someone what to believe by fiat, and discouraging them from questioning these beliefs. In Islam, for example, it is common practice in many countries to imprison or execute people who question Islam or abandon its core doctrine, yes? This is interesting, because why would truth ever need to fear being questioned?
Teaching involves conveying accurate information in a clear way, and being freely open to any and all questions. I am teaching about the accurate facts of evolution. No one is ever threatened with violence if they do not understand or accept these scientific facts, because it is not indoctrination. In fact, if scientists are wrong then they would very much like to know, but the standard of evidence to disprove a scientific model is higher than the "evidence" any philosophical argument or theological post-hoc rationalization can provide.
Ultimately, it's clear that if the reality we conceive in our minds matches the actual reality of the objective world, we will be safer in life and more often succeed in our endeavors. If our understanding poorly matches reality, then the opposite will be true. I value people being safe and successful, which is why I make such posts. I can point to many verifiable aspects of reality that match our understanding of evolution. There is no such evidence for any religious doctrine that I'm aware of.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Its indoctrination to create a top of mind urge to eternally bring up religions, God, Adam and Eve, etc etc for every discussion. Now its Islam. So this is your indoctrination. You are a victim.
AlexanderG
Active Member
I don't even understand what you're saying here. I consider people indoctrinated into religions that threaten eternal punishments to be psychological victims. So we may just agree to disagree in this case. I wish you luck and enlightenment in your thoughtful journey, wherever it takes you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Why did you bring up religions? Whats the necessity?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
A lot depends on how you define evolution. Are there different colors of dogs? Of course. Has corn changed size and shape over many years? Sure. Did a fish turn into a bird or dog become a cat? Much less likely. Individual animals or plants may change within a species. Something changing from one species to another is not so certain. There is no evidence that a farmer planted corn and got beans.
Actually, it's not indoctrination. It's self-defense when being attacked by religionists who attack science because they are unable to interpret their own faith in such a way as allows for science to be true.
It's called education, not indoctrination. Educating against active falsehoods and misrepresentations being initiated by those of weak religious faith. Science invites us to look and see. Bad faith religions tell us to ignore everything else and only listen to what is approved for you to believe. That's the difference between education and indoctrination.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Can you please show that the comment I responded to was in defence of a so called "religionists attack" like you just proposed? Go ahead.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats a script. Who attacked you in this thread? Can you pinpoint?
You said that atheists bring up at every chance talking about evolultion and countering what religionists say to the contrary. You called that indoctrination. It is not. It is defending the integrity of science, and educating others against false propaganda.
Atheists didn't find evolution and say, "Hey, now we can can deconvert the religious!". No. It was the religionist who said, "Wait! If science is right, then our idea of God would be wrong! Science has to be wrong!".
That's the religionist who leapt to that conclusion and hopped into the ring challenging science. So when ignorance is countered by education, that is all this is. It's not indoctrination. It's correcting error.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nah. Please show " that the comment I responded to was in defence of a so called "religionists attack" like you just proposed? Go ahead." Otherwise what you did was a script. When people use evangelical type of scripts sometimes its not relevant. Unless you can show where he was attacked. Go ahead.
That's not a script. That's my thoughts from years and years of seeing what I see in discussion forums on this topic. I am an observer of behaviors, and this is what I see.
Add to this, I believe in God. I used to be with those who embraced ignorance and fear in religion, afraid for any knowledge from outside itself to penetrate its boarded windows and let light in that may expose its own ignorance. All of that is a lack of faith, from my perspective and decades of personal experience.
Now, you can try to believe that this is all just me just parrotting some "script" if that makes you feel better, but that's just as errant as believing evolution isn't actually real. I can guarantee you, I go where few do, so I'm not even aware of any script I could be running that says what I'm saying. No, these are my thoughts, and you should approach them as such having integrity, if you are willing to engage honestly.