Seven Reasons it's easier to Believe in God than to Accept Evolution

[LuisDantas]

Well if we are talking about terms, I disagree.

The meaning of a word theory is something that is not proven.

A fact is proven.

I agree that observation would turn a theory into a fact but I don't think that observation actually took place.

That is a use of the term that got popularized in large part because Creationism wants to see it with that meaning.

But in a scientific context a theory is simply as good as it gets. You may find more evidence for it, you may test it, you may even refine it or find an even better theory. But you can't "promote" it to anything "better" while still talking about scientific knowledge.

 

[Riverwolf]

Evolution is not a fact. That is why it is called "THEORY of evolution"

There is no status in science higher than theory. Qualification for theory-hood requires all relevantly observed facts consistently pointing to it.

Therefore, it's called the theory of evolution, because all the facts we currently have available point to it far more than any other alternative.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not important which is easier, the important thing is which idea is the truth.


And what about the word "easier" in the title? It suggests that evolution theory was only created to have an alternative to believing in God. It sounds like hey don't believe in God and think about the matter, believe in evolution.

It does? I guess one would need to be aware of the historical reality or not be predisposed against accepting evolution to realize that it is not at all the case.

 

[Sabour]

Well apologies and thank you guys for explaining to me the term "theory". I guess I had it wrong.

But as I said there are more reasons behind why I don't believe in evolution

 

[Sabour]

It does? I guess one would need to be aware of the historical reality or not be predisposed against accepting evolution to realize that it is not at all the case.

That is how it sounded to me.

From where I stand, there are more reliable sources than what we are referring to as "historical reality". What I see as an historical reality is the "piltdown men"

 

[LuisDantas]

I am always a bit surprised by that.

 

[Viker]

That is how it sounded to me.

From where I stand, there are more reliable sources than what we are referring to as "historical reality". What I see as an historical reality is the "piltdown men"

Using one example of fraud does not discredit evolution. What are your reliable sources?

 

[Sabour]

Using one example of fraud does not discredit evolution. What are your reliable sources?

That example demonstrates how it took about 40 years I think to discover the fraud. Was it negligence or walking with an eye closed I wonder.


"Reliable sources" I would say is believing in Allah. Allah created Adam and Eve and they were the first to step foot on earth. We were not originally monkeys nor something else.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution is not a fact. That is why it is called "THEORY of evolution"

A theory in science means that it's a construction based on facts, evidence, reasoning, math, laws, and more. A theory is the compilation of facts.

Evolution is a fact, because we know evolution is happening.

But... why it is happening and how, that's falls more into the theory. The theory of evolution is the combination of all the facts and knowledge that constitutes the science behind what we know about evolution.

So evolution is both a fact and a theory. Fact, as in, we know it's happening. Theory, as in, explanation to why and how it's happening.

 

[Viker]

That example demonstrates how it took about 40 years I think to discover the fraud. Was it negligence or walking with an eye closed I wonder.


"Reliable sources" I would say is believing in Allah. Allah created Adam and Eve and they were the first to step foot on earth. We were not originally monkeys nor something else.

I'm certain Allah doesn't want anyone ignoring scientific discovery and progress. I agree, we're not originally monkeys. We do share common ancestry.

 

[Sabour]

A theory in science means that it's a construction based on facts, evidence, reasoning, math, laws, and more. A theory is the compilation of facts.

Evolution is a fact, because we know evolution is happening.

But... why it is happening and how, that's falls more into the theory. The theory of evolution is the combination of all the facts and knowledge that constitutes the science behind what we know about evolution.

So evolution is both a fact and a theory. Fact, as in, we know it's happening. Theory, as in, explanation to why and how it's happening.

Thank you for explaining the (Fact - Theory) terminology. I was already pointed to that

But still I don't believe in Evolution as I have explained why.

By the way nice to see you again friend

 

[Ouroboros]

That example demonstrates how it took about 40 years I think to discover the fraud. Was it negligence or walking with an eye closed I wonder.

Or was it that the science wasn't fully developed?

New techniques of dating, other fossils contradicting the Piltdown Man, and many other reasons like that. It was the growing distrust in the scientific community that finally got it to the point.

After all, it was scientists and science that showed it was a fraud. Did you? Did your fellow believers prove it? Why not? You need science to do it. And you need scientists to perform the experiments. If we're to be suspect of the science, then we can't be sure if it was a fraud either. It could be true, since the science is untrustworthy. The benefit of science is that it corrects itself.

"Reliable sources" I would say is believing in Allah. Allah created Adam and Eve and they were the first to step foot on earth. We were not originally monkeys nor something else.

Where is Allah? I want to ask him myself. I want to ask him about why he didn't disprove the Piltdown Man himself.

We were something else, originally, we can see that in the fossils. There are way too many fossils of hominids to reject evolution.

Piltdown man was one fossil.

Since then, we've uncovered thousands, literally thousands of hominid fossils.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you for explaining the (Fact - Theory) terminology. I was already pointed to that

Good.

But still I don't believe in Evolution as I have explained why.

That's too bad that you don't. If you only could have gone to the same classes I did and see the evidence, you'd instead would praise God for creating such a wonderful world that can produce life this way.

We're limiting ourselves by sticking to ancient texts and rejecting the actual evidence in nature. Nature points to what God did, and who God is.

By the way nice to see you again friend

Thank you.

Good to see you too.

 

[Sabour]

I don't subscribe to the idea that it was scientists that showed it was a fraud. I would say they couldn't hide it anymore.

Piltdown was just an example on why I won't trust what I hear.

If something contradicts with what Allah tells us, than I am sure I know who is the one at fault. After all there was a time when the brightest minds on earth thought that the earth was flat.

 

[Sabour]

Good.


That's too bad that you don't. If you only could have gone to the same classes I did and see the evidence, you'd instead would praise God for creating such a wonderful world that can produce life this way.

We're limiting ourselves by sticking to ancient texts and rejecting the actual evidence in nature. Nature points to what God did, and who God is.


Thank you.

Good to see you too.

I agree that nature points to what God did and how God is all knowing and can do things just like that but where I come from is believing in the Quraan.

Quraan is not an ancient book. It is the word of Allah. so I am not limiting myself to an ancient book. I am limiting myself to Allah, the All knowledgeable passed down to us through his prophet. Therefore, I am not limiting myself at all and I am sure you understand what I mean by that.

Of course if that is true or not is a different matter.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't subscribe to the idea that it was scientists that showed it was a fraud. I would say they couldn't hide it anymore.

Conflicting body of evidence

In the 40 years since the original 1912 announcement of Piltdown Man, increasing numbers of ancient human fossils had been discovered, most notably from Africa, China and Indonesia, but also from Asia and Europe.

None of these discoveries showed the large brain and ape-like jaw of Piltdown Man. Instead they suggested that the jaws and teeth became human-like before the evolution of a large brain.

As the discrepancies became too many to ignore and as new dating technology emerged, investigations on the Piltdown fossils began again.

Re-testing Piltdown fossils

At the Natural History Museum in the late 1940s, Kenneth Oakley ran a series of fluorine tests that made use of fluorine's tendency to accumulate in calcium-containing organic matter such as bones and teeth. Oakley discovered the fossils were probably less than 50,000 years old, not nearly old enough to be from a species with such ape-like features.

Following this, the biological anthropologist Joseph Weiner and human anatomist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, both from Oxford University, worked with Oakley to test the Piltdown fossils even more stringently.

Evidence of fraud

Their results proved that the skull and jaw fragments actually came from 2 different species, a human and an ape, probably an orangutan. Scratches on the surfaces of the teeth, visible under the microscope, revealed that the teeth had been filed down to make them look human. They also discovered that most of the finds from the Piltdown site had been artificially stained to match the local gravels.

The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and a sophisticated scientific fraud.

From here: Piltdown hoax revealed | Natural History Museum

Piltdown was just an example on why I won't trust what I hear.

You shouldn't. It's a good thing that you don't. That's why you need to get more information. If you only stick to one source, you will be lost. Pick up information and knowledge from many places and over time. That's better.

If something contradicts with what Allah tells us, than I am sure I know who is the one at fault. After all there was a time when the brightest minds on earth thought that the earth was flat.

Allah didn't tell you these things. Allah supposedly told Mohammad, but can you be sure Mohammad hear everything correctly? Are you sure he didn't try to explain it in simplified terms for ancient people who didn't have science?

Can you imagine if you would travel in time back to that time and explain to anyone what a Black Hole in space is? Or how big the universe is? Or even how fractions, integrals, limits works in math? You would have to explain in a simple way. Perhaps Mohammad hear from Allah, but he had to make it simple and easy to understand and speak in figurative language? If Mohammad got scientific information from Allah, then why wasn't modern medicine invented until recently? It shouldn't have taken that long. All things considered, if God told any prophet anything, it would never be possible to understand it or take it literal. You have to read it and interpret it in the time it was made in.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree that nature points to what God did and how God is all knowing and can do things just like that but where I come from is believing in the Quraan.

Quraan is not an ancient book. It is the word of Allah. so I am not limiting myself to an ancient book. I am limiting myself to Allah, the All knowledgeable passed down to us through his prophet. Therefore, I am not limiting myself at all and I am sure you understand what I mean by that.

Sure. It's your right to believe that.

But I think that any prophet would have to write according to his contemporary audience, which means the wordings, phrasing, sentences, symbolics, etc would be non-literal and not scientific. A religious text is to guide your soul and spirit, not your intellect or mind. Its purpose is to educate you in spiritual things, so to take it as a literal scientific material is to mistake it for something it's not made for.

Of course if that is true or not is a different matter.

Sure.

 

[adi2d]

Well apologies and thank you guys for explaining to me the term "theory". I guess I had it wrong.

But as I said there are more reasons behind why I don't believe in evolution

Congratulations to you One Answer.

Its a rare poster that admits they were wrong. When you do that it shows you have an open mind. Listen to these guys and maybe you'll see why you don't have to" believe" in evolution. Learning the facts behind the theory can lead to understanding

 

[Parsimony]

I don't subscribe to the idea that it was scientists that showed it was a fraud. I would say they couldn't hide it anymore.

Piltdown was just an example on why I won't trust what I hear.

If something contradicts with what Allah tells us, than I am sure I know who is the one at fault. After all there was a time when the brightest minds on earth thought that the earth was flat.

So you chalk evolutionary evidence up to a conspiracy within the science community? That's definitely what it sounds like when you imply that they were trying to hide the fact that they knew it was a hoax. I'd actually like to see some references that scientists knowingly suppressed the truth on Piltdown Man (as opposed to simply being fooled by it themselves).

 

[Viker]

I don't subscribe to the idea that it was scientists that showed it was a fraud. I would say they couldn't hide it anymore.

Piltdown was just an example on why I won't trust what I hear.

If something contradicts with what Allah tells us, than I am sure I know who is the one at fault. After all there was a time when the brightest minds on earth thought that the earth was flat.

I don't see how scientific knowledge contradicts Allah at all. Btw, most ancient scholars didn't think the world was flat. Oh, it was scientists that exposed piltdown as a hoax.