How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[McBell]

Yeah I was thinking about that and wonder if you think religion is part of human evolution

Let us just say that I would be interested in seeing someone arguing it is not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let us just say that I would be interested in seeing someone arguing it is not.

Another little lol. Thinking is part of the process of the theory of evolution, isn't it? Or is it? You tell me, I'd certainly be interested in hearing what people believe about religion and human thinking and evolution in the mix.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let us just say that I would be interested in seeing someone arguing it is not.

By the way, just to say I'm hoping to get your opinion maybe as well as others as to whether religion is part of mankind's evolutionary process.

 

[metis]

Religion has some positive effects but also some negative ones as well, thus stereotyping it one way or the other seems the wrong way to go.

 

[YoursTrue]

T

Let us just say that I would be interested in seeing someone arguing it is not.

So here's the thing -- gorillas and ducks, for example, did not develop tools to write down their experiences. Only humans have that capacity. So now it's interesting to see how evolutionists think religion came into the picture, in other words, the human psyche and perspective and historical data. Since apparently (there is no evidence) gorillas and ducks do not have the capacity to document any experiences whatsoever.

 

[metis]

T

So here's the thing -- gorillas and ducks, for example, did not develop tools to write down their experiences. Only humans have that capacity. So now it's interesting to see how evolutionists think religion came into the picture, in other words, the human psyche and perspective and historical data. Since apparently (there is no evidence) gorillas and ducks do not have the capacity to document any experiences whatsoever.

OK, let's apply this to Christianity. Since gorillas and ducks didn't write about Christ, should we then draw the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist?

Evolution is simply logical, so an observant person should logically see this themselves even if they had no clue about the ToE.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, let's apply this to Christianity. Since gorillas and ducks didn't write about Christ, should we then draw the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist?

Evolution is simply logical, so an observant person should logically see this themselves even if they had no clue about the ToE.

Here is another thing, and I appreciate your answer. I understand the logic of the theory of evolution, and don't need to go into details to think it's logical. (Although I do believe "in the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth." Not evolution...or abiogenesis.)
Going on to your statement there, if some people that 'belong' to a religion, call themselves Christian or otherwise but think some or much of the Bible is mythical, should they, like some others, draw the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist as written? And that Moses did not exist as written? etc. Because they can't "prove" it, or because they think circumstances now do not coordinate with the testimony in the Bible?
As Jesus said, a house built on sand will fall. (Matthew chapter 7) "And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house, and it caved in, and its collapse was great.”
Did Christ (the anointed one) exist? Or was it a mythical embellishment? Did Moses exist? Is the Exodus account made up?
I used to think, when I sang in church as a professional but then an atheist, that "Jesus was a good guy," but not the Messiah. I saw depictions of him hanging on a cross usually on a wall of the church, and thought, wow, too bad he suffered like that, but -- I did not think or believe he was The Messiah. I learned different later. As the old song goes, "Amazing Grace." God saved a wretch like me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Religion has some positive effects but also some negative ones as well, thus stereotyping it one way or the other seems the wrong way to go.

Then one decides what's good and what's bad for himself and suffer the consequences in the eyes of men and/or God. Worldly courts we know are not perfect. God is perfect, no fault found in Him and His judgment. I will say I had to make a decision as to who or what do I believe as I continued my studies. My vote <smiile> is with God and Jesus. Along with the record as written and understood. It was NOT the easiest decision, in fact it was a very weighty decision, but -- I am truly glad God brought me to this point.

 

[Alien826]

Except for flu vaccines. And artificial selection , which still is a from of evolution even if you do not like it.

Yes, dogs could throw off future researchers. So what? People being wrong about one extremely small part of evolution does not harm the theory. And I will do you a favor and just ignore what looks to me like a transphobic argument alone for now.

An aside that I'd like your opinion on.

It seems to me that "natural" selection is not that different from "human" selection, in principle at least. We are part of nature at least. As an example, ants "farm" aphids to their mutual benefit. Aphids secret a sweet substance when stroked that ants feed on. Ants move aphids around to different plants, to the benefit of aphids. What came first, the aphids' secretions or the ant behavior? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be all that different from a human farmer selecting between different animals to get some desired feature, and from an evolutionary viewpoint the animals "benefit" by surviving better. Nobody would suggest the ants and aphids are not part of "nature", so why exclude humans?

 

[Alien826]

I don't know. You might want to ask a beagle


Actually I am not an expert at all, so the claim that the great variety of dogs would throw off future researchers may not be true.

I'll ask my poodle. No response after she determined I wasn't offering a treat.

Actually, these alien scientists might observe that the more extreme forms of dogs (like the English Bulldog that can hardly breathe with its malformed jaw) would not be likely to survive without human protection. They would have evidence that we lived with dogs as pets. They could also observe many other domestic animals that showed a similar pattern. It might not be a huge jump to suggesting that we selected for the particular features that they observed.

Of course that assumes that they were reasonably like us. If they were some kind of intelligent jellyfish, they might be puzzled about how we managed to move around without ocean currents to assist us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An aside that I'd like your opinion on.

It seems to me that "natural" selection is not that different from "human" selection, in principle at least. We are part of nature at least. As an example, ants "farm" aphids to their mutual benefit. Aphids secret a sweet substance when stroked that ants feed on. Ants move aphids around to different plants, to the benefit of aphids. What came first, the aphids' secretions or the ant behavior? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be all that different from a human farmer selecting between different animals to get some desired feature, and from an evolutionary viewpoint the animals "benefit" by surviving better. Nobody would suggest the ants and aphids are not part of "nature", so why exclude humans?

A good point. Artificial selection is still evolution. It is just evolution for specific traits that nature on its own (assuming that man is not part of nature and that may not be a valid assumption as you pointed out) would not select. The results are similar. The difference is one of speed. As a result negative mutations or results that would normally be removed over time are not. The problems of that English bulldogs have in breathing that you pointed out in your most recent post is a good example. Artificial selection is still evolution. I have to agree with you on that.

 

[metis]

Here is another thing, and I appreciate your answer. I understand the logic of the theory of evolution, and don't need to go into details to think it's logical. (Although I do believe "in the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth." Not evolution...or abiogenesis.)
Going on to your statement there, if some people that 'belong' to a religion, call themselves Christian or otherwise but think some or much of the Bible is mythical, should they, like some others, draw the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist as written? And that Moses did not exist as written? etc. Because they can't "prove" it, or because they think circumstances now do not coordinate with the testimony in the Bible?
As Jesus said, a house built on sand will fall. (Matthew chapter 7) "And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house, and it caved in, and its collapse was great.”
Did Christ (the anointed one) exist? Or was it a mythical embellishment? Did Moses exist? Is the Exodus account made up?
I used to think, when I sang in church as a professional but then an atheist, that "Jesus was a good guy," but not the Messiah. I saw depictions of him hanging on a cross usually on a wall of the church, and thought, wow, too bad he suffered like that, but -- I did not think or believe he was The Messiah. I learned different later. As the old song goes, "Amazing Grace." God saved a wretch like me.

All you are doing is rambling while throwing in a sermon as if I didn't believe in Jesus in the first place. Between us, it's not whether God created all but how it was done? "Evolution" is simply change over time, and it's obvious that this is and has happened, so to deny that is to deny the reality that we even see day to day.

The Creation accounts probably were written as a teaching "myth" to counter the Babylonian polytheistic creation narratives that were in wide circulation back then. No serious Christian theologian today would believe that it's literal history because it simply doesn't add up as history.

Finally, for you to question another's Christianity is unethical, as just because someone may disagree with some details doesn't mean that they ain't a "true Christian". If you are so willing to judge others, then I'm simply going to ignore you from that point on as you would also be disobeying Jesus' command that we "judge ye not...".

 

[Alien826]

What did Darwin call it...Origins of species. Same same just different perspective.

Btw, have you not noticed the domain name here... religiousforums.com

If you want to talk exclusively about secularism...this isnt the place

I think it is obvious to most people that (some) religious beliefs are not compatible with (some) scientific findings. I think most believers accept that and don't try to force fit the two things. That's fine, as the two "sides" can talk about their "thing" separately (or even together as long as that principle is accepted) and everyone is happy. The problem arises when a believer tries to support his beliefs using science. That then pushes the discussion into the realm of science and scientists will correct erroneous claims about science. They really have to if you think about it. It's no different from my making some claim about the interpretation of a Bible passage. I would have pushed the discussion into an area where I am open to correction by those more expert in the subject.

 

[Eli G]

What a great joke: scientists don't make mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a great joke: scientists don't make mistakes.

No one ever implied that. But you were close. What a great joke" the Bible doesn't have any mistakes

There. Much better. When scientists make mistakes, and they all do at times, those mistakes are discovered and corrected by other scientists. How do you correct the mistakes in the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

All you are doing is rambling while throwing in a sermon as if I didn't believe in Jesus in the first place. Between us, it's not whether God created all but how it was done? "Evolution" is simply change over time, and it's obvious that this is and has happened, so to deny that is to deny the reality that we even see day to day.

The Creation accounts probably were written as a teaching "myth" to counter the Babylonian polytheistic creation narratives that were in wide circulation back then. No serious Christian theologian today would believe that it's literal history because it simply doesn't add up as history.

Finally, for you to question another's Christianity is unethical, as just because someone may disagree with some details doesn't mean that they ain't a "true Christian". If you are so willing to judge others, then I'm simply going to ignore you from that point on as you would also be disobeying Jesus' command that we "judge ye not...".

Jesus more than questions it if you read and believe what he said in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

All you are doing is rambling while throwing in a sermon as if I didn't believe in Jesus in the first place. Between us, it's not whether God created all but how it was done? "Evolution" is simply change over time, and it's obvious that this is and has happened, so to deny that is to deny the reality that we even see day to day.

The Creation accounts probably were written as a teaching "myth" to counter the Babylonian polytheistic creation narratives that were in wide circulation back then. No serious Christian theologian today would believe that it's literal history because it simply doesn't add up as history.

Finally, for you to question another's Christianity is unethical, as just because someone may disagree with some details doesn't mean that they ain't a "true Christian". If you are so willing to judge others, then I'm simply going to ignore you from that point on as you would also be disobeying Jesus' command that we "judge ye not...".

Jesus more than questions it if you read and believe what he said in the Bible. We all have a right to question.

 

[YoursTrue]

All you are doing is rambling while throwing in a sermon as if I didn't believe in Jesus in the first place. Between us, it's not whether God created all but how it was done? "Evolution" is simply change over time, and it's obvious that this is and has happened, so to deny that is to deny the reality that we even see day to day.

The Creation accounts probably were written as a teaching "myth" to counter the Babylonian polytheistic creation narratives that were in wide circulation back then. No serious Christian theologian today would believe that it's literal history because it simply doesn't add up as history.

Finally, for you to question another's Christianity is unethical, as just because someone may disagree with some details doesn't mean that they ain't a "true Christian". If you are so willing to judge others, then I'm simply going to ignore you from that point on as you would also be disobeying Jesus' command that we "judge ye not...".

Jesus more than questions it if you read and believe what he said in the Bible. We all have a right to question. It would be untenable to imagine that a person in one religion thinks someone else in a different religion is right. Otherwise an honest person imo would join the religion be thinks is right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus more than questions it if you read and believe what he said in the Bible.

Please hit refresh when you get the error message. Your post went through. Three times in fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just read that Darwin never used the word evolution. Not sure if that's true.

Why would that even matter?