People that accept the theory go by the scientific definition of evolution and the evidence that supports it.
-
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 My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Is your point to demonstrate that you can ask meaningless, nonsense questions? I would say you have finally been successful at demonstrating something.
I don't think I am going out on a limb here to suggest that, no, he does not.
I would say both as well.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
While it may seem to some that fossils confirm the theory of evolution, so far I don't see the evidence presented here in a way showing that fossils are incontrovertible evidence of evolution. So far I have not seen from anyone here in particular, or even links some may offer, anything that demonstrates with evidence of genetic changes that there were micro genetic changes in fossils that enabled them, or led to, successive forms as claimed. So perhaps instead of telling me I'm wrong, demonstrate with reports of analysis of fossil evidence that there were micro or macro genetic changes confirming that the genes changed and new forms came about.
He wants
it is a ridiculous request given that he should at least understand the basics, since he is here denying it all. What he is saying is that he does not understand, but is denying it anyway.
He wants someone to devote great time and effort to explaining science so he can make.a brief post denying it all without serious or honest review. He needs to take a class or read a book.
it is a ridiculous request given that he should at least understand the basics, since he is here denying it all. What he is saying is that he does not understand, but is denying it anyway.
It is how life changes and diversifies over time. All the evidence and reason says evolution. So much for your claim about agreeing to it. You don't even understand what you are denying.
It is not simply the fossils, but the overarching record and the change in that record observed in fossils over a period of time.
There is no DNA associated with fossils. The changes observed are in morphology, age and location. The morphological evidence is the result of the expression of genes. The expression of genes has been demonstrated.
Your objection of the evidence is superficial and based on superficial understanding. You object on insufficient ideological grounds that has no logical bearing on the rejection or acceptance of evidence or theory.
People have posted the information on here that you claim they have not. Scientists have written tens of thousands of papers and books providing that evidence. Clearly no amount of reason or evidence is going to be enough to get you to understand.
Your point here is incomprehensible.
There is plenty of evidence. You just deny for no other reason than that you chose to deny it.
I have given my response some thought before rendering it, since it clearly needs to be thoughtfully conveyed. I am not trying to offend you or put you down. It is not personal and I think you would be a fine person to know in reality given what I have seen in here and our differences aside. However, in the case where someone is placing ideology and doctrine ahead of logic, reason and evidence, they are taking an anti-intellectual position. It is not simply a dispute over common descent that I base this on. Your particular church and many churches and religions have a history of closing the door on anything that challenges the prescribed view of the world that is founded on a dogma of believed conditions and not on observed conditions. Certainly, I do not see you as a worst case. Someone like @dad is a good example of that. He just makes up fantasy interpretations of the world, religion and science, declares them universal truths and then spends his entire presence here continually repeating that nonsense. You are here and willing to discuss, so that is a positive.
Do you really think a global flood is supported by the evidence you have presented in light of all the evidence that demonstrates there was no flood? Is a Chinese character really that compelling as evidence for a global flood? Or is it the line that your church holds and since you are a good member, you hold it too? That would be an anti-intellectual position as distasteful as that may be to you.
You are equating the reliance on dogma in religion for drawing conclusions as being on a par with intellectual challenges over explanations within science. That is a false comparison. The two are not even close, let alone equal. The sheer number, sources and diversity of ideological claims shatters that comparison without any need for continuing examples.
Much is made by creationists --way too much--of the controversies in science, and scientists, admittedly at times, can be dogmatic. As much as I may wish we all met the ideal of objectivity more closely. At least science promotes and strives for objectivity and questioning. But these controversies are based on evidence, weighing that evidence for reason, and an underlying logic. Not on some dogmatic doctrine. Scientists do not propose changes caprisciously for no good reason or based on the doctrine of some group the belong to.
Scientists constantly challenge the conclusions of science. That is practically the job description. Science is forced by its own structure and ethics to deal with even the most bizarre and poorly founded claims. Just the existence of alternative claims is not evidence of a weakness in established claims or that there is a controversy or where one does exist it is to the extent of significance that detractors hope for. But even in dealing with radical or weak claims, knowledge can be discovered. Often, it is in division that science is moved forward.
Even though a position placing religious dogma over true learning is truly an anti-intellectual position, I do not wish to imply that I think that is all that you, personally, are about. I find that you are an interesting and engaging presence here and much of what you have posted has pressed me to look deeper and understand better. Even material and positions I disagree with. I hope that this post reflects the thought I put into it in recognition of that and does not inspire you to close a door. I truly believe that you can accept science and maintain your belief in God without the human imposed restrictions. Personally, I don't see that you can't be a good Jehovah's Witness even if you were to accept the theory of common descent. It is not as if any Christian truly understands God enough to make declarations about Him.
I am still thinking about this. We bandy phrases about here and often with incomplete, different or incomplete and different understanding.
it is completely conceivable, and rightly so, since this occurs with regularity, for opposing views to be both opposing and intellectually sound (pro-intelectual) at the same time. If those views are made with the best available understanding of the partcipants, open, and based on sound, logically use of evidence. Given the implication that those with lesser understanding would bear the onus of and actually take the initiative for advancing their understanding and relinquishing their initial position under the weight of sound, logical argument and interpretation of evidence. Otherwise intellectual advancement would be rather lopsided, at best. Since I have not fully reviewed your position on common descent, it is unfair of me to dismiss it as based solely on an apparent reliance on doctrinal adherence. You may very well be pro-intellectual in this particular instance and it could be me acting on preconceived notions. If you would care to briefly summarize your position and its basis, that would clarify this and enlighten my putative ignorance.
Some examples of anti-intellectual practices or instances may be stark and readily identifiable, but some, obviously may not be. In striving for objectivity I need to remember that for myself as well as for others.
One final comment--probably not, but let's pretend--scientists must live with the knowledge that even the best, most well-supported, established positions in science are tentative and subject to falsification and rejection. Much in religion is not posed under that consideration.
See. I knew I was probably only pretending the previous was a final thought. This is probably the source of a stand alone thread of its own, but I will pose it here, since it relates to the current discussion.
Is religion inherently anti-intellectual? Clearly, it can be, but is that a core position or just a result of how some people practice there version?
I would argue that it is not, or at least, does not have to be.
There are historic instances where advances in knowledge have been driven from within the framework of a number of religions, including some of the current dominate forms. A number of scientists maintain objective views in their pursuit of knowledge and description of the natural world, while maintaining strong religious positions. Some major religious divisions have supported intellectual pursuits and even alter their positions based on new information.
Of course, many consider it a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge and can also point to history and individuals as examples supporting
that view.
However, this mixed message of history does not reveal a definitive answer to my question. Perhaps it is merely a false hope to be desired, but remain ever unfufilled, but I do not think it has to be a constraint.
Is religion inherently anti-intellectual? Clearly, it can be, but is that a core position or just a result of how some people practice there version?
I would argue that it is not, or at least, does not have to be.
There are historic instances where advances in knowledge have been driven from within the framework of a number of religions, including some of the current dominate forms. A number of scientists maintain objective views in their pursuit of knowledge and description of the natural world, while maintaining strong religious positions. Some major religious divisions have supported intellectual pursuits and even alter their positions based on new information.
Of course, many consider it a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge and can also point to history and individuals as examples supporting
that view.
However, this mixed message of history does not reveal a definitive answer to my question. Perhaps it is merely a false hope to be desired, but remain ever unfufilled, but I do not think it has to be a constraint.
And that would be quite correct, nature does not care.
Now all we need is for you to be able to know the difference or if there also may be a 'd' 'e' 'F' 'g' etc or not. Then you need the ability to know if the a b c is right or wrong also.[/QUOTE]
That's where critical thinking comes into play. So if someone tells you to, A- how to properly own a slave vs B- you shouldn't own slaves, or C- you should only own certain slaves. Then the only logical conclusion is that the person is not against slavery if he allows A and/or C. Both of them allow you to own slaves. Even if you throw in D- the person does and say nothing, as long as he allows either A or C or both, he is not against slavery. See, with just a little critical thinking and acceptance, it's not difficult for anybody to know that you are in fact, wrong and is simply in denial and is unwillingly to accept the fact that you are indeed wrong. Standing by and doing nothing to stop slavery does not necassarly mean that you are against slavery, but telling someone to properly be a slave owner sure don't mean that you are not against slavery.
Here's an easy thinking exercise for you.
If a son tells his dad that he cannot kill animals with the exception of cows, does that mean that the son is against the killing of animals?
Audie
Veteran Member
I guess you are right
You know too little about evolution to be understand
that you asked a ridiculous question, and I know enough
to it for what it is.
I can try to help you understand but not thst way.
Audie
Veteran Member
No, that is not what evolution is.
I am sure you have something in mind but I dont
know what you are getting at.
You never said why you work so hard to try to show
that ToE is wrong.
McBell
Unbound
130+ pages have shown this to be the truth of it.
Audie
Veteran Member
What exactly are you asking for? If you want substantive evidence
for evolution- it can be provided-do you think researchers just make
up stories on no substantive basis?
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh, did he say that? I missed it.
Quite posdibly he does think so, but
we have, yes, substantial evidence
that it is not so at all, and most of what
there is, is misinformation.