No. Science works in a certain way. To ignore something out of bias is to reject the scientific method.
-
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!
The Mystery Thread
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You can accept as much as you know, can't demand more than that.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's "okay" as far as your right to believe such, but is it "okay" as far as being rational, consistent, and honest? No.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Sure, what is your alternative?
I've never believed that Evolution was a flawless explanation for the advancement of life. I think it is mainly a reaction to the dogma and foolishness of the 6000 year folk.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
well....I've been posting about evolution as God's handiwork since I got here
but I grew up thinking as much anyway
over the years I have become certain that my postings are an influence
that I am making a difference
it was never ....either/or..... with me
that God manipulates on the grand scale as per evolution
or that He can influence with an event......garden or flood
it's just God doing what He does
sealchan
Well-Known Member
It should be rare to reject a consensus which utilizes a proven methodology.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Is it "okay"? Sure, you can believe what you want.
Is it consistent? Not really. If you accept scientific conclusions, you must be willing to accept the credibility and reliability of the scientific method (insofar as we can say that such a thing is singular - if you prefer, "scientific methods"). To therefore reject a conclusion that is reached via that method is to necessarily imply that you reject the method.
Science relies on making a repeating process predictable in order to confirm a truth. In that sense, evolution is not a science.
Humans demand an explanation of everything, they don't tolerate something "they don't know" to exist. They thus need a "science" to explain "what it is". It's a market value instead of a science.
To be more specific. Science provides a way to predictably explain how a human brain is formed. Evolution on the other hand comes to the conclusion that "human brain is formed by evolution" because "we speculate that cells can replicate themselves". Because "cells can replicate by themselves" such that "a human brain must have been evolved from cells". This is not science, this is a joke. How human brain is formed is never explained nor evidenced. However the "science" of evolution leads you to the conclusion that "it is a result of evolution". It's not only a joke but a deception.
It is because evolution is so deceptive that we suspect that it's a masterpiece from someone called Satan.
Last edited:
Yes, you can. You don't even need an alternative to explain anything. You have an option to accept that "we don't know" what they are.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But evolutionary theory does produce repeatable, predictable outcomes.
Is it okay to be inconsistent in the use of reason? I'd say no,it's not okay if the intent is to show integrity. I say yes, if the goal is self-deception, and you don't care if others see this double-standard as obviously hypocritical.
This is a deceptive statement. We can only replicate in the cell level. Science is about I give you a cell then you can predictably tell how a human is formed from it if you try to conclude that humans are resulted from evolution!
To be more specific. Science provides a way to predictably explain how a human brain is formed. Evolution on the other hand comes to the conclusion that "human brain is formed by evolution" because "we speculate that cells can replicate themselves". Because "cells can replicate by themselves" such that "a human brain must have been evolved from cells". This is not science, this is a joke. How human brain is formed is never explained nor evidenced. However the "science" of evolution leads you to the conclusion that "it is a result of evolution". It's not only a joke but a deception.
It is because evolution is so deceptive that we suspect that it's a masterpiece from someone called Satan.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, we can successfully predict ring species, the exact locations and physiology of ancestral fossils and the evolutionary pathways of viruses an pathogens over a period of a year.
By this logic, geology isn't a science, because we can only test the rocks we have and can't use those tests to form any conclusions about the behaviour of rocks in the past.
Evolutionary theory does produce tangible, repeatable results, and we can use those results to draw reasonable, tentative conclusions about the past. Just like how literally every other scientific field works.
But not in the higher level to come to the conclusion that human are evolve! However it's a common belief that it is so. That's why it's a deception as you admit here!
Scientifically whatever you put here won't justify the the conclusion that humans are a result of evolution! However it is strongly and implicitly hinted that it is so that "humans are a result of evolution". That's the work of deception!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Not at RF, unless you wish to experience true religious persecution!
Not logically, since evolution is true. Small changes occur over time in species. But, like most thinking people who aren't brainwashed, you CAN reject the non-biblical concepts like abiogenesis.
I don't understand why you're asking the question given how obvious the answer is, especially after you clarified that by "okay" you mean "acceptable." Why do you ask this question?
Jollybear
Hey
I think going by consensus is the appeal to popularity. Its also appeal to authority when refering to scientists.
I believe in questioning everything i dont agree with. I will not agree with something if i dont understand the why behind the consensus.
Basically, i dont give a hoot about consensus, only understanding the data/evidence/logic.
Also to add further, most people, if not all, have biases, also, alot of people can be stupid. So when you mix bias, with stupid, plus the need to understand the evidence/data/logic, then consensus is utterly worthless.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But it's not deceptive. Taken as a whole, what we directly observe continuously happening today, what we observe in the fossil record, what is uncovered in genetics, biology, archaeology and palaeontology, leads only to the logical conclusion of common ancestry.
See above. There currently exists no other sensible, viable, much less testable explanation.
No, it's just the truth. It's what every single piece of available evidence indicates.
thank you; good link!
I think there are still a couple of ontological assumptions that all scientists make, assumptions about the nature of the universe and the nature of ourselves, that aren't clearly laid out on the site you link.
First is that there is indeed a 'reality' that includes ourselves that we can observe with our senses.
Second is that this reality behaves the same way everywhere and everywhen.
An epistemological outgrowth of this is that if we observe reality NOT behaving the same way at every time and place, we should be able, through careful observation and testing (and using that imagination), to determine how and why we observe the differences.
That is, we are capable of coming up with an understanding of our observations of reality, an understanding that allows us to make predictions.