Evolution is illogical and non sense

[jonathan180iq]

The real freedom is to choose belief in the choice and there's only one correct choice; to submit. That's how I understood it. It includes objects as well as living things.

Yeah, I think it loosely has something to do with subjectivity and how he thinks evolutionists and atheists deny subjectivity and therefore the entire system is corrupt.... or something.

Most of his arguments were pretty good, back in 1902.

What's 100+ years though, am I right?

 

[LuisDantas]

The real freedom is to choose belief in the choice and there's only one correct choice; to submit. That's how I understood it. It includes objects as well as living things.

I am trying to decide whether I wish I understood that. But it sure does sound accurate to what has been presented. With all due respect. Or something.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, I think it loosely has something to do with subjectivity and how he thinks evolutionists and atheists deny subjectivity and therefore the entire system is corrupt.... or something.

I always wanted to have a superpower. Too bad it is one I can't make heads or tails of.

 

[Valjean]

Can anyone explain this "subjectivity?"

 

[David M]

Doesn't really make sense, it's already been 150 + years of evolution theory, and still significant lack of acceptance in the religious community.

Wrong. Huge sections of religious communities accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life.

In the US for example its only the Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and JWs where the acceptance of Evolution drops to low figures (>25%).

 

[Katzpur]

Wrong. Huge sections of religious communities accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life.

In the US for example its only the Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and JWs where the acceptance of Evolution drops to low figures (>25%).

I'm pretty sure you're right with respect to Evangelical Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I strongly suspect you're wrong with respect to Mormons. I'm sure there are Mormons who don't believe in evolution, but an awful lot of us do. The LDS Church hasn't actually taken a firm position on the age of the earth or anything like that, but evolution is openly taught at Brigham Young University. Still, we would never go so far as to say that our universe simply came to exist through a random series of events without any sort of divine direction. We believe in God, but we definitely aren't "anti-science." As evidence of this fact, when I first visited the new Natural History Museum of Utah when it first opened a couple of years ago, I noticed that one of the significant benefactors was the LDS Church. The museum is definitely NOT a creationist museum but is as good a natural history museum as you'll find anywhere.

 

[David M]

I'm pretty sure you're right with respect to Evangelical Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I strongly suspect you're wrong with respect to Mormons. I'm sure there are Mormons who don't believe in evolution, but an awful lot of us do.

Apparently in the US in 2007 22% of Mormons accepted evolution as the best explanation for the origin of humans, which seems to be the most rigourous was of determining support for the theory. It may be higher for a general acceptance for the diversity of life

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently in the US in 2007 22% of Mormons accepted evolution as the best explanation for the origin of humans, which seems to be the most rigourous was of determining support for the theory. It may be higher for a general acceptance for the diversity of life

Well, if that's an accurate statistic, I'm embarrassed! (By the way, I was revising my last post while you were posting. You might want to re-read it.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if that's an accurate statistic, I'm embarrassed!

I see it as good.
22% means that a very large number see no conflict between scripture & evolution.
This bodes well (for fans of evolution) cuz the other 88% might join us.

(There are 110% of Mormons.)

 

[Sapiens]

I'm pretty sure you're right with respect to Evangelical Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I strongly suspect you're wrong with respect to Mormons. I'm sure there are Mormons who don't believe in evolution, but an awful lot of us do.

The TOE is a product of science and science does NOT operate on the basis of belief. As long as y'all continue to maintain that "there are (or are not) Mormons who don't (of do) believe in evolution" don't expect to be taken seriously.

The LDS Church hasn't actually taken a firm position on the age of the earth or anything like that, but evolution is openly taught at Brigham Young University. Still, we would never go so far as to say that our universe simply came to exist through a random series of events without any sort of divine direction. We believe in God, but we definitely aren't "anti-science." As evidence of this fact, when I first visited the new Natural History Museum of Utah when it first opened a couple of years ago, I noticed that one of the significant benefactors was the LDS Church. The museum is definitely NOT a creationist museum but is as good a natural history museum as you'll find anywhere.

Not a bad museum, but really ... it is not the American Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum, the Carnegie, the University of Michigan Exhibit Museum of Natural History, or the Natural History Museum in London, to name a few.

 

[Katzpur]

The TOE is a product of science and science does NOT operate on the basis of belief. As long as y'all continue to maintain that "there are (or are not) Mormons who don't (of do) believe in evolution" don't expect to be taken seriously.

Sapiens, I could tell you that the earth revolves around the sun and you wouldn't take me seriously. I really have nothing more to say to you.

 

[outhouse]

We believe in God, but we definitely aren't "anti-science."

I have not met one here in a debate that did not refuse quite a bit of academia.

Accepting evolution by a small minority does not make you pro academia either. I will say a slow start is better then no start. That number should be 100% tomorrow if the majority of the group wasn't anti science.

I could easily build up a small list, and even though I like you a lot, I know where you start siding against science rather quickly. Especially when it comes to science used to determine history that goes against biblical mythology.

I think you try and suit it to your needs instead of following correct methodology


Sorry if you see frustration in this reply, its not directed ay you personally. Just members of your faith I have tried to debate and reason with.

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens, I could tell you that the earth revolves around the sun and you wouldn't take me seriously. I really have nothing more to say to you.

I'd take that seriously but don't expect a free pass when you post trash. The fact that you don't recognize it for trash is a large part of your problem.

 

[Katzpur]

I could easily build up a small list, and even though I like you a lot, I know where you start siding against science rather quickly. Especially when it comes to science used to determine history that goes against biblical mythology.

Could you give me an example?

 

[Riverwolf]

Comments like that somebody doesn't know what science is, are empty rhetoric.

"Science" is, specifically, the methodical elimination of knowledge-gaps, via a specialized deductive method of questioning, experimenting, and observing; supplemented with the peer-review process for the purposes of indefinite refinement.

However, that's not how "science" is seen by most people, as the media portrays it as pretty much magic with big, Greco-Latin words that sort of sound like the words that were said in science class. The comment I was responding to implies a perspective of "science" that is more in line with this popular misconception.

 

[David M]

Well, if that's an accurate statistic, I'm embarrassed! (By the way, I was revising my last post while you were posting. You might want to re-read it.)

I wouldn't be. After all in the US the average for the whole population is 48%.

And of course its 22% affirmative which does not mean everyone else is a negative, these polls usually have a reasonable percentage of "don't knows".

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm pretty sure you're right with respect to Evangelical Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I strongly suspect you're wrong with respect to Mormons. I'm sure there are Mormons who don't believe in evolution, but an awful lot of us do. The LDS Church hasn't actually taken a firm position on the age of the earth or anything like that, but evolution is openly taught at Brigham Young University. Still, we would never go so far as to say that our universe simply came to exist through a random series of events without any sort of divine direction. We believe in God, but we definitely aren't "anti-science." As evidence of this fact, when I first visited the new Natural History Museum of Utah when it first opened a couple of years ago, I noticed that one of the significant benefactors was the LDS Church. The museum is definitely NOT a creationist museum but is as good a natural history museum as you'll find anywhere.

I find a non-committal stance on these things contradictory. Religious beliefs sort of go tandem with other religious beliefs that are in the same texts, etc. And even in the same ''genre''; for example, once there is a non-committal stance on evolution, it becomes very easy to say, well, this other stuff is all metaphor as well. That is a logical conclusion, actually. So, what is the religious teaching, then? It seems, why believe one statement, if a lot of other things in the Bible are blatantly false. There is no way to get around the fact that the Bible, hence traditional teaching, stating that creationism not only happened, but happened rather quickly, etc.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have only read the part about the development of the cell, and it was very convincing.

That is off topic, but I appreciate your honesty. I see from your profile that you are Muslim. Perhaps you are approaching this topic from an authoritative position rather than from one based purely upon observations of nature. A Muslim submits, so it is not surprising that you submit to authority rather than appeal to nature on its own merits.

Who does not view a person in terms of them being the owner of their decisions, does not really know any person. You ignore the soul, the heart? What do you think love is doing? All main concepts in religions have to do with choosing. The idea that you can just do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen, and still have a functioning religion, is an illusion.

Again, just throw that evolution theory back at the biology teacher, and tell them to come up with a theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. You get to decide it what you accept.

Or simply go look yourself for the best current theory around in which freedom is posited as real and relevant.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I find a non-committal stance on these things contradictory. Religious beliefs sort of go tandem with other religious beliefs that are in the same texts, etc. And even in the same ''genre''; for example, once there is a non-committal stance on evolution, it becomes very easy to say, well, this other stuff is all metaphor as well. That is a logical conclusion, actually. So, what is the religious teaching, then? It seems, why believe one statement, if a lot of other things in the Bible are blatantly false. There is no way to get around the fact that the Bible, hence traditional teaching, stating that creationism not only happened, but happened rather quickly, etc.

Not so, there are things which are more important and less important in scripture. We could live with pretty much any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. That is because with decisions subjectivity is introduced in respect to the spirit in which it is decided. Subjectivity provides room for faith.

 

[darkendless]

Not so, there are things which are more important and less important in scripture. We could live with pretty much any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. That is because with decisions subjectivity is introduced in respect to the spirit in which it is decided. Subjectivity provides room for faith.

It concerns me how there seem to be levels of importance. Is it true that Imams 'choose' (for lack of a better word) which interpretations are take literally and which can be relaxed for subjectivity?