Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Because, they (the Muslimun) favor/choose obedience to Allah and the Islamic faith.
-
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!
If the Theory of Evolution is true what does it prove?
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
Because, they (the Muslimun) favor/choose obedience to Allah and the Islamic faith.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Try not to use terms like "Darwinist ToE." Seriously, it makes you sound like a moron repeating propaganda about things you don't understand.
Aside from that, there definitely are theological and spiritual implications of the Theory of Evolution not only for Biblical literalism but for any person whose fragile ego requires them to cling to the belief that they are the center and purpose of the Universe.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Dogma
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
doppelgänger;2475004 said:
You understand ToE better than Charles Darwin? . .
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Anyone who studies biological evolution understands the Theory of Evolution better than Charles Darwin, we have come a long way in the last 150 years.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
What do you mean...?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
From what I understand, Darwin was a professed agnostic/atheist . .
In that case, "Darwinist" evolution suggests that species evolved and mutated by random chance.
Of course, I'm just a beginner at the basics of ToE.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
- Biological Evolution is an observable, testable phenomenon.
- Darwin was a naturalist who postulated a means by which biological evolution occurs.
- The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that best explains observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in Evolutionary Biology.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again, what does Darwin's religious or non-religious background have to do with evolution?
The simple answer is nothing.
If Darwin was a Christian, then would creationists accept it?
Most would probably still not agree with it.
And it is not random chance. As I have said earlier, environment would cause species to adapt to particular geographical location, regional climates, dietary or in other contributing factors in order to survive. This being the case, then is possible to predict the possible changes.
No.
Genetic mutation is a random chance.
Whether or not that mutation is passed on to the next generation is decided by natural selection.
This is a selective process.... the exact opposite of chance!
Hope that helps.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
You don't take the time to read things before you respond to them?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
doppelgänger;2475164 said:
Yes.
Is it becoming more and more popular for people to call themselves agnostic/atheist.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
If I'm going to learn about something, I'm going to look up the person that first pioneered the original theory.
The classic evolution vs. creationism debate also has much to do with worldview and ideology as much as evaluating observable evidence.
All I have to do is a take a course in biology and suddenly I can go around telling people what evolution is? . . ok
Last edited:
If that's a question, it needs a "?" at the end.
If that's a statement, your "Is it" should be an "It is".
Anyway, what has popularity got to do with a personal belief or lack thereof?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Way to completely miss the point.
No, it isn't. It is about what is science and what isn't - do not allow people to con you into thinking that this is about "worldviews" or "ideologies". It's about facts, and the facts of evolution and how they measure up to the supposed "facts" of creationism. As soon as you start talking in terms of ideologies or worldviews, as far as myself, most people on here and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, you are not talking about evolution - or even science, for that matter.
Regardless of whatever could have been learned since?
That might be a good way of learning about the original idea, but it is certainly not a very good way of learning what the Theory actually says.
Science works that way, and that is how it should be. That is one of the differences between dogma and scientific knowledge, and why the later is so much more reliable than the earlier.
It only exists because one side takes ideology over observable evidence, in fact.
Well, yes. High school education suffices, even. Did you expect otherwise?
It is usually accepted that people should be aware of and have a basic understanding of the core concepts of an idea before professing to be beginners at the basics of those ideas.
So, you would need to have a functional understanding of natural selection in order to be a beginner. Since you have just stated that the ToE has no concept of natural selection, I don't think you can claim to have a beginner-level understanding of the ToE.
I can understand how some creationists may need to believe that Darwin was ideologicaly motivated, but what evidence there is suggests that he was so motivated against revealing the Theory of Evolution - so much so that he actually hid his findings until he realized that the ToE would come into notice regardless of his wishes. Were there no Darwin, Wallace would eventually publish his own findings. Were there no Wallace, someone else would come forward sooner or later.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yea, but we've come a long way since Darwin. Shucks, we've come a long way in 20 or even the past 10 years. Additionally, he wasn't the first to hypothesize about evolution.
But not amongst scientist using the Scientific Method. Ideology takes a back seat when you, as a scientist, adhere to this protocol. When you veer away from the SM and into the realm of ideology (e.g. religion) then it becomes pseudoscience.
So you think all you need is one course and that would qualify you? I don't think so. I don't think any of us who accept the facts of evolution would dare take one course and feel as though he or she is qualified enough to go and speak to people about evolution. That would be a great disservice to the understanding of the theory.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Biblestudent 007 said:
Consider the following:
evolution (scientific theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia said:
If animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting forms, that does not necessarily prove that no God exists, but it does necessarily prove that the book of Genesis is not literally true.
Biblestudent 007 said:
Actually, many Christian experts grew up as creationists, and are now theistic evolutionists, or atheists or agnostics. So, predispositions frequently change.
Do you have a problem with theistic evolution?
Do you believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young? I assume that the majority of Christians who have Phds in geology or physics do not believe that a global flood occurred, and do not believe that the earth is young.
Are you aware that over 99% of American scientists who study the earth and its lifeforms accept naturalistic or theistic evolution?
Last edited: