Also no response from those obsessed with attacking their fellow Christians for not believing what they do.
-
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 of what?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Also no response from those obsessed with attacking their fellow Christians for not believing what they do.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I believe you have a distorted view.
Have a good evening.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK ... I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that is your viewpoint, thank you.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
At a certain point, it may be best to stay out of the line of fire. I understand why "I" believe in God. And when I explain, I get a lot of retorts ala Spinoza. But that's ok, I'm learning...so thanks for expressing your viewpoint. I care about certain ones. Take it as you will, thanks again.
gnostic
The Lost One
@YoursTrue
In no ways, do any scientific theory in Natural Sciences speaks of God, and it is not just the theory of Evolution.
The following sciences in Natural Sciences are:
Natural Sciences including everything that have to do with studies of nature, of both non-living phenomena and living phenomena.
There is another branch of science, which included all the same as above, but without Life Sciences, so Physical Sciences only included non-living physical phenomena. Physical Sciences have a great deal of applications in engineering and technology.
Both Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences go through exactly the same processes and required to meet same three requirements, that underlies in the Methodological Naturalism:
Both Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences must formulate falsifiable hypotheses ( should include sets of explanatory models & sets of predictive models) that are based on observational TESTS - tests such as
There are other classifications of science - such as Social Sciences and Formal Sciences that often do not rely on following the Falsifiability & Scientific Method.
Social Sciences deal with mainly human social activities, such as studying human thinking & behavior (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioural sciences, mental health, etc), human cultures like how humans lived their lives, following customs (eg anthropology, sociology, etc), and human activities and human history (eg archaeology, political science, economics, etc).
I should not forget that mathematics played a great deal part of Natural Sciences, and to extents to Social Sciences, because maths are useful tools and so they can have many applications. Mathematics belonged to a different category of science, known as Formal Sciences.
There are great deals of overlaps between them. The original "science" started way back in the 6th century BCE, in ancient Greece, where it was known as "Natural Philosophy". The differences between Natural Philosophy and other philosophies, is to not always rely on their religion and the beliefs in the supernatural, where superstitions pervaded contemporary schools of medicine and astronomy. The ancient Greek naturalists tried to explain medicine & astronomy without the gods and magic, by attempting to use logic and mathematics.
For instance, a great deal of 3rd & 2nd millennia BCE Egyptian astronomy and Mesopotamian astronomy predated Greek astronomy, but it was mired with religious stories that involved supernatural events, eg magic and miracles. The ancient Greek Natural Philosophy is to focus on the studies of nature, by understanding WHAT nature is (eg natural phenomena) and HOW nature works (eg natural processes or the mechanisms of nature), all without resorting to the supernatural and superstitions.
Natural Philosophy continued by naturalists like the Romans, Hindu naturalists, Chinese, the Arabs and Persians during the Islamic Golden Age, in Western Europe that started in Florence Italy, the birthplace of the Renaissance. Natural Philosophy continued in Europe with Scientific Revolution and Age of Enlightenment.
In the 19th century, Natural Philosophy became Natural Sciences, and this science was broken down to different branches that I listed earlier.
The problems with natural philosophy is that despite trying to keep natural philosophy as studies of nature without the supernatural, religions like Christianity and Islam were still interfering natural science. For instances some of famous astronomers were also astrologers, astronomy and astrology have been tied together since the Bronze Age Egyptian astronomy and Babylonian astronomy, as well as in Iron Age Greek astronomy.
When separation of state and religion occurred during the Age of Enlightenment, it mainly separate politics and laws from religion, but in education.
The separation occurred in the 19th century, when biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and friend of Charles Darwin and the person who coined agnosticism, tried to education system, so that theology (like Genesis Creation) was separated from science classes in public schools and universities. This separation of natural sciences from religion in the education system, also led to Natural Philosophy to becoming Natural Sciences.
The newly dubbed Natural Sciences would undergo even more profound changes or revolution shortly after the turn of century, the 20th century modern sciences with Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics played essential parts in the understanding of fundamental particles (eg the Standard Model of particle physics), but it reached it zenith, when it combined particles with quantum fields, hence the Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT arose from electromagnetic fields of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and from Einstein’s paper on Photoelectric Effect (1905), where light has dual properties of both waves and particles (eg photons).
In biology, the 19th century Darwin’s Natural Selection and Mendel’s Law of Inheritance (genetics) would meld together in the early 20th century and become the Modern Synthesis. Other biological fields, including biochemistry, molecular biology and modern genetics and the genome project (that include understanding nucleic acids, DNA & RNA), have only consolidate the theory of Evolution.
So what I don't understand with anti-science creationists, like yourself, that you can so easily dismiss Evolution, simply because you don't like Evolution due to your religious beliefs, but every single scientific theories in non-biology sciences, like physics or chemistry or astronomy, have also ignored God and every other theistic religions. Every theories ignored God and his so-called powers (eg ability to create, the ability to cause miracles that defy science), because God is unobservable and untestable, therefore the concept of God, is unfalsifiable.
Remember, I clearly stated that all Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences, must follow the Falsifiability and Scienctific Method, meaning any explanation or concept must be testable and therefore be tested. You cannot test God, you cannot observe or measure God, which mean it would be useless and stupid to say "God did it", when no one have any way to test this superstitious belief.
Why single out Evolution, when other sciences like EM fields, Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, etc, all ignored God? Why are you so adamant with Evolutionary Biology, when it is a biological fact, as much as gravity or germ theory are facts?
In no ways, do any scientific theory in Natural Sciences speaks of God, and it is not just the theory of Evolution.
The following sciences in Natural Sciences are:
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Earth Sciences
- Astronomy
- Life Sciences (all relevant modern fields in biology)
Natural Sciences including everything that have to do with studies of nature, of both non-living phenomena and living phenomena.
There is another branch of science, which included all the same as above, but without Life Sciences, so Physical Sciences only included non-living physical phenomena. Physical Sciences have a great deal of applications in engineering and technology.
Both Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences go through exactly the same processes and required to meet same three requirements, that underlies in the Methodological Naturalism:
- Falsifiability or Falsification
- Scientific Method
- Peer Review
Both Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences must formulate falsifiable hypotheses ( should include sets of explanatory models & sets of predictive models) that are based on observational TESTS - tests such as
- repeatable ”Experiments”, and
- “Empirical Evidence”,
- and both (of the above, experiment & evidence) gathering information about physical properties of the physical evidence - these information are often referred to as Data.
Social Sciences deal with mainly human social activities, such as studying human thinking & behavior (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioural sciences, mental health, etc), human cultures like how humans lived their lives, following customs (eg anthropology, sociology, etc), and human activities and human history (eg archaeology, political science, economics, etc).
I should not forget that mathematics played a great deal part of Natural Sciences, and to extents to Social Sciences, because maths are useful tools and so they can have many applications. Mathematics belonged to a different category of science, known as Formal Sciences.
There are great deals of overlaps between them. The original "science" started way back in the 6th century BCE, in ancient Greece, where it was known as "Natural Philosophy". The differences between Natural Philosophy and other philosophies, is to not always rely on their religion and the beliefs in the supernatural, where superstitions pervaded contemporary schools of medicine and astronomy. The ancient Greek naturalists tried to explain medicine & astronomy without the gods and magic, by attempting to use logic and mathematics.
For instance, a great deal of 3rd & 2nd millennia BCE Egyptian astronomy and Mesopotamian astronomy predated Greek astronomy, but it was mired with religious stories that involved supernatural events, eg magic and miracles. The ancient Greek Natural Philosophy is to focus on the studies of nature, by understanding WHAT nature is (eg natural phenomena) and HOW nature works (eg natural processes or the mechanisms of nature), all without resorting to the supernatural and superstitions.
Natural Philosophy continued by naturalists like the Romans, Hindu naturalists, Chinese, the Arabs and Persians during the Islamic Golden Age, in Western Europe that started in Florence Italy, the birthplace of the Renaissance. Natural Philosophy continued in Europe with Scientific Revolution and Age of Enlightenment.
In the 19th century, Natural Philosophy became Natural Sciences, and this science was broken down to different branches that I listed earlier.
The problems with natural philosophy is that despite trying to keep natural philosophy as studies of nature without the supernatural, religions like Christianity and Islam were still interfering natural science. For instances some of famous astronomers were also astrologers, astronomy and astrology have been tied together since the Bronze Age Egyptian astronomy and Babylonian astronomy, as well as in Iron Age Greek astronomy.
When separation of state and religion occurred during the Age of Enlightenment, it mainly separate politics and laws from religion, but in education.
The separation occurred in the 19th century, when biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and friend of Charles Darwin and the person who coined agnosticism, tried to education system, so that theology (like Genesis Creation) was separated from science classes in public schools and universities. This separation of natural sciences from religion in the education system, also led to Natural Philosophy to becoming Natural Sciences.
The newly dubbed Natural Sciences would undergo even more profound changes or revolution shortly after the turn of century, the 20th century modern sciences with Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics played essential parts in the understanding of fundamental particles (eg the Standard Model of particle physics), but it reached it zenith, when it combined particles with quantum fields, hence the Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT arose from electromagnetic fields of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and from Einstein’s paper on Photoelectric Effect (1905), where light has dual properties of both waves and particles (eg photons).
In biology, the 19th century Darwin’s Natural Selection and Mendel’s Law of Inheritance (genetics) would meld together in the early 20th century and become the Modern Synthesis. Other biological fields, including biochemistry, molecular biology and modern genetics and the genome project (that include understanding nucleic acids, DNA & RNA), have only consolidate the theory of Evolution.
So what I don't understand with anti-science creationists, like yourself, that you can so easily dismiss Evolution, simply because you don't like Evolution due to your religious beliefs, but every single scientific theories in non-biology sciences, like physics or chemistry or astronomy, have also ignored God and every other theistic religions. Every theories ignored God and his so-called powers (eg ability to create, the ability to cause miracles that defy science), because God is unobservable and untestable, therefore the concept of God, is unfalsifiable.
Remember, I clearly stated that all Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences, must follow the Falsifiability and Scienctific Method, meaning any explanation or concept must be testable and therefore be tested. You cannot test God, you cannot observe or measure God, which mean it would be useless and stupid to say "God did it", when no one have any way to test this superstitious belief.
Why single out Evolution, when other sciences like EM fields, Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, etc, all ignored God? Why are you so adamant with Evolutionary Biology, when it is a biological fact, as much as gravity or germ theory are facts?
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Birds still remain birds even if their beaks change.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you continue to tell us that you do not understand the theory of evolution at all.
gnostic
The Lost One
And humans are still humans, but they are also apes, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, eukarotes, etc...humans are all these these classifications.
And every single human have come to being through reproduction and live birth (childbirth), they are never created - as the Genesis claimed - never created from "dust of the ground", which are another for soil.
If you understood biology as you claimed to be "enlightened", then you would know that Adam being created from the dust of the ground, is not only impossible, it is highly improbable, and utterly unscientific.
But as you said, you believe in God, you believe in the Bible and your church - Jehovah's Witnesses. So you would ignore natural reproduction in favour of unnatural fairytale of Genesis Creation.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Nah humans are not apes. You might as well say fish are apes as well.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
All life seems to have come from the ground. And water.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
They don't remain birds?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is besides the point. In fact if anything this has been explained to you. You try to use the obvious facts for evolution as if they refute it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Does that stop it from being a fact?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No it's not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And there you go demonstrating that you do not understand evolution again.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It equates to not explaining in truth the theory of evolution. Gravity is insofar as I understand a fact. No matter what others say about evolution it is not a fact.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's besides the point that birds with changing beaks does not equate to evolution? Alright I think tonight's discussion is over for a while...
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I think folks who study evolution certainly study and understand the dynamic environments life exists in.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was not what I said. You should know that.