-
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!
Evolutionary science and atheism
- Thread starter Abdul Latif
- Start date
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Look at the date for the first post, this one was drug up from far beyond a shallow grave.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
The bible puts it this way: The Lord answered, Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. - Genesis 15:9
egcroc
we're all stardust
Look at the date for the first post, this one was drug up from far beyond a shallow grave.
yeah, I noticed that right after I made the reply
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
"Immaculate design"? Um, what universe are you living in? In THIS universe, the real one, things are imperfect indeed. In fact, things look pretty much exactly how you would expect if they were the result of a random process working with limited resources, rather than an omnipotent being acting purposefully.
In any case, there's very little faith required- evidence is a great remedy for this.
Um, no, not really. This sounds like the statement of someone who has only learned about evolution second-hand; have you ever reviewed the evidence- fossil, genetic, geological, etc.? There's certainly no lack, and it comes from all different fields.
Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. And once again, this just sounds like an ignorant claim; evolution is as well-established as any theory in the sciences. It meets all the criteria for a successful theory. If one finds it "utterly unreasonable", then one clearly has a peculiar notion of what is reasonable.
The watchmaker argument is a ****-poor argument, and is representative of the absolute poverty of the line of reasoning it is part of. You want "utterly unreasonable"? It's hard to beat arbitrary inductive arguments for pre-determined conclusions based on faulty analogies.
And life being purposefully created by an omnipotent (despite all its faults AND imperfections) and invisible.... wizard basically, strikes you as more plausible...
The correct word here is "believe". Knowledge generally applies to truths, not superstitious pipe-dreams.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
1) Abiogenisis is not Evolution
2) Abiogensis is a legitimate theory and we have some promising laboratory experimentation. Honestly don't think you will understand the specifics of the experiment (most people don't. I don't claim to. I have a very basic understanding of it) but here is the wiki Miller
3) God has no evidence. Evolution has evidence. Ergo evolution has nothing to do with god. It doesn't support atheism or theism in a broad sense. It does smack biblical litteralists YEC types in the face however. But only those types think that it supports Atheism.
2) Abiogensis is a legitimate theory and we have some promising laboratory experimentation. Honestly don't think you will understand the specifics of the experiment (most people don't. I don't claim to. I have a very basic understanding of it) but here is the wiki Miller
3) God has no evidence. Evolution has evidence. Ergo evolution has nothing to do with god. It doesn't support atheism or theism in a broad sense. It does smack biblical litteralists YEC types in the face however. But only those types think that it supports Atheism.
Evolution does have evidence, but it has been exaggerated to a most irrational body. It, and the atheism with which it is normally associated are, in my opinion, utterly unreasonable.
This is what I would like to concentrate on and agree with you. Scientists don't even try to discredit evolution. This new creature is found and all they do is try to find out how it can fit into the evolutionary tree. The first one to find a way rushes to publish.
Evolution is taken to be a bible of life development. Anyone that searches for a different path or disagrees in laughed at. Evolution is not even provable using the scientific method.
Its quite funny how they create a reasonable story about how this gene and that gene combined to give you this new feature. They don't fully understand gene's, yet they can understand that by working things backward it must have been this way. Nothing else could have caused it.
It is the best story for how life came to be but it is as full of gaps and lies as any bible.
A problem is that so very many who take a different path, use only religion to debunk evolution.
Those of us who don't share their myths as a premise will snicker at them. Some try to use
science, but this really becomes comical when they fail at basic scientific techniques.
This is of course correct. But rather than being an indictment of evolution, it is merely a fundamental of the scientific method. Let's visit....
UNL's AgBiosafety for Educators
These folk offer a succinct explanation....
"Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method.
Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often
misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but
all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of
science, are tentative."
No better explanation has yet been devised. Note: To be better, it must be testable & have predictive value which improves upon what the TOE delivers.
I hope this helps.
You & I may agree that biological evolution is not "true".
Last edited:
There are not a lot of scientists out to discredit gravity either, or try to disprove electromagnetism. When a new observation is made scientists will often try to fit it into currently accepted models of gravity, relativity, electromagnetism etc. But this does not point to a weakness of these theories, quite the contrary.
The critics of evolution have failed to produce any successful explanations or provide even a coherent one.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
:sarcastic
Well the main or key difference is that atheism isnt a science nor is it considered one.I've gone away for two months, searching everything I could on atheism and evolution.
And let me tell you i'm having real problems getting around Cosmic, Organic and Macro-Evolution. The claim that immaculate design in the universe being nothing more than a result of random mutation and natural selection evolving from some organic soup really does require as much faith as any religion I know.
Micro-Evolution? No problem. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Earth older than 6000 years old? No problem as a Muslim. Blind religious faith without evidence? Dangerous phenomenon that's plain stupid, I agree.
Evolution does have evidence, but it has been exaggerated to a most irrational body. It, and the atheism with which it is normally associated are, in my opinion, utterly unreasonable.
If science is represented by evolution (speculative chance), and religion by associating the watch with a watchmaker, then I know where I sit. The designer ought to get credit for his design, and the creator ought to be worshipped for his creation.
"Verily in the heavens and the earth are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves, and the animals scattered through the lands, are signs for those of assured faith. And in the alternation of night and day, and that fact that Allah sends down sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are signs for those who are wise" (45:3-5).
"Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with his creation" (49:13)
I understand I might be profoundly affected by the environment I grew up in, but I really can't get around life coming from an organic soup billions of years ago, and it leading to what we see around us. I know there is a creator, whether it is the Jewish, Hindu, Christian or Muslim god is irrelevant, the universe is proof of the a supernatural creator.
I could be wrong though
Your creation comment has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isnt creationism and creationism isnt evolution. Evolution is a process and creationism is, well creationism isnt much of anything because it doesnt explain any processes of how things were created.
The difference between macro and micro is that macro deals with broader subject area, while micro is more concerned with finite changes.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
No, the "tree" that Darwin once drew in the 1800's isn't something we currently use, we use the ToE to establish it's place per it's DNA.
And this is the point where i realize that you don't even know what the scientific method is and understand that you are either 12 years old or you were not paying attention in middle school.
NOTHING is EVER provable using the sceintific method.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
fantôme profane;3528773 said:
Well... since it's known that the theory of gravity is false i suppose you're right on this one but they are still trying to find out why.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
No. There is no such thing as "finite evolutionary changes" in any living organism.
It's intra and inter species evolution, changes within a species and changes that restricts the organism to procreate with the original group.
By finite I meant relatively small incremental changes within a generation of species that is limited in scope and size.
In other words, they are not large drastic changes.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Well i'm glad you decided not to dispute someone who is in this field of science.
It's just bad usage of words, finite literally means limited and i'm sure you can see how it's anything but limited.
They can be quite drastic though, on a biology scale any change thet does change anything at all is pretty big.
Misunderstanding, think nothing of it.
Are you sure you are in the field of science, because it seems like you could get a job doing standup comedy, because these posts just keep getting funnier and funnier. :biglaugh:
In all seriousness though, you seem to be confusing or conflating the issue of what micro and macro evolution actually is. Any type of drastic change can only occur over a large period of time amongst many generations, not at the micro level.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Not really, i'm making fun of it because there really is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, the Theory does not distinguish between long term or short term evolution at all.
But since everyone sane knew that and are now laughing at you, i just thouhgt i'd keep the joke running until you got it...
No such luck.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Some biologists use "micro-evolution" to refer to changes within a species, and "macro-evolution" being a reference to the eventual emergence of new species. Myself, I prefer not to use this terminology because it's misleading. As an anthropologist, I have never seen either term used in our field.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
I agree fully with this, in my line of work the need to mention the differences is ... well it's unnecessary but if we'd be forced to we'd just agree with you.
There is ONE theory of evolution and it in NO way distinguishes between short term or long term evolution.
"some biologists" are not worthy of their grants... Behe being one of them. being useless in your field should be grounds for getting fired but i hear they are using that poor sap to make articles in their own "scientific" magazines now which are peer reviewed by their own kind so they can come up with whatever and its' all good for them.
It's pathetic.