sovietchild
Well-Known Member
If you throw a paper into the air. What will happen?
-
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!
What is wrong with believing in evolution?
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
If you throw a paper into the air. What will happen?
Shad
Veteran Member
One of two things.
1. If there is no wind thus low or no air pressure it will fall to the ground.
2. If there is wind, thus higher air pressure this will catch the flat surface of the paper. It make float or even gain bit of height. Once the paper can no longer maintain it's flat plane (paper isn't rigid) it will fall to the ground
This is basic aerodynamics taught in grade school....
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
How can fish fly without air? Don't they need air to fly on?
Shad
Veteran Member
Those fish do not fly. They use momentum generated by swimming and the flat surfaces of fins and body to glide for a short time on air pressure. No flat surfaces means you are just falling.
Again air does not something fly. That something must have the structural capability in order to use air pressure. Hence why planes, gliders and birds have wings which are flat surfaces in different ways. For birds the wing structure and feathers provide a surface the ability to generate lift from air pressure.
Again I never said without air. I said air does not making something fly. I already told you how to test this. Jump into the air. Are you flying? No. Why is it that if air makes something fly? What do these somethings which can fly have which you do not? Think about those differences.
Good God......
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The archaic humans have been dated up to 150-200,000 years ago. The modern humans about 50,000 years ago.
What's interesting is that the archaic sapiens do have different bone and skull structures, but only so slightly. They would have looked caveman like, but not as much as neanderthals. Also, what's really interesting is that they have partial neanderthal DNA, and have compared it to modern humans, and a fraction of humanity actually do share unique neanderthal genes, but not all humans have it.
interminable
منتظر
They weren't human
I mean they weren't descendants of Adam and Eva as we have in our traditions
interminable
منتظر
And who has created those aliens????
This question will lead to infinite regress
It must terminate at one point.
Shad
Veteran Member
That wasn't my point.
Nice script you run. Too bad it doesn't work as you need to have an actually have an argument presented in order to counter it.
.
Irrelevant to my comment and does not apply to a designer parameter. If you had read your script it should say something about contingent and necessary beings. A designer can be a contingent being aka humans.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Horseshoe crab
It's not only the rapid- instantaneous in the fossil record- appearance of certain highly evolved designs that are problematic for Darwinism. It's also the stasis, complete lack of evolution that follows. It's difficult to imagine how the fossil record could run any more counter to Darwin's predictions. Predictions he considered vital to the theory
rahmeeklovessatan
New Member
I didn't read the entire thread - sorry if this has been discussed:
Anyone who values logic and critical thinking who also "believes in evolution", doesn't take evolution as an absolute, unalterable truth. Instead we take it as the theory that best describes the evidence we have and best allows us to make accurate predictions. If a better theory comes along, that does a better job of fitting the evidence, and of helping us make predictions, we will happily abandon evolution.
This seems to be a characteristic where critical thinkers differ from religious hard-liners. Religious hard-liners are often completely invested in defending the claims of their faith, regardless of evidence and/or logic to the contrary. They accept dogma.
Anyone who values logic and critical thinking who also "believes in evolution", doesn't take evolution as an absolute, unalterable truth. Instead we take it as the theory that best describes the evidence we have and best allows us to make accurate predictions. If a better theory comes along, that does a better job of fitting the evidence, and of helping us make predictions, we will happily abandon evolution.
This seems to be a characteristic where critical thinkers differ from religious hard-liners. Religious hard-liners are often completely invested in defending the claims of their faith, regardless of evidence and/or logic to the contrary. They accept dogma.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
@interminable Bacteria grow in water. What will happen if you leave water for many years inside of a 55 gallon barrel?
What does Darwin have to do with this? Darwin knew practically nothing about evolution. Why do people keep citing him?
People aren't constantly bringing up Copernicus in astronomy discussions, or Galen in medical discussions.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Because Copernicus turned out to be right, his predictions, math, and general theory were scientifically validated- so he is no longer controversial. Darwin's were not, they never progressed much past philosophical speculation, so they are still debatable.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
There has never been a time when Creationism was all there was.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
For some of us it's the exact opposite, born and raised a staunch atheist believing in evolution. I had a crisis of faith when I looked into evolution more critically, that is - I realized that my faith had been blind. Faith which did not recognize itself as such.
So I do not disparage atheists, or muslims or pantheists or anyone else here as intellectually inferior for their beliefs, I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, At the very least it makes for a more interesting debate than assuming intellectual superiority
The wise man knows himself to be a fool Icehorse.
My point exactly. The critical thinker does not pretend to have answers he doesn't have. In general, the premise of religion is to pretend to have answers it does not have. So if a religious person acknowledges that his faith is without evidence, I find him easier to converse with.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Agreed, and likewise with atheists, nobody gets a waiver on this
But people of faith usually acknowledge that faith. in contrast, and by definition, atheists usually refuse to recognize their faith.
Faith is acknowledging our beliefs as such, we all believe in something, whether we recognize it or not.
As my original response to the OP, there is nothing wrong with believing in evolution or creationism or global warming or natural climate change, as long as we don't claim our own beliefs represent inherent intellectual superiority. That's where the trouble always begins!
Many times on this forum I have acknowledged my axioms and my values. I would be willing to say that I have faith in my axioms and values. AND, I am happy to learn better axioms and values and abandon inferior ones.
Many theists have great difficulty abandoning any article of faith.
I think Kiran has made an observation which is true enough and the explanation for this is in the link below which comes from an highly acknowledged Shia site.
The Causes Responsible for Materialist tendencies in the West Part 2 of 4
A reconciliation between Quran and Theory of Evolution could be made according to this Shia scholar.