TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Humans are apes, just like humans are mammals.
It's not strange - it's wrong.
You don't need "faith" when you have evidence.
-
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!
Why the theory of evolution is so important
- Thread starter Bear Wild
- Start date
Humans are apes, just like humans are mammals.
It's not strange - it's wrong.
You don't need "faith" when you have evidence.
Lol!
Evolution proposes no explanation as to how life arose. (Don't you know what your science gods teach?)
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Between the two of us talking whether we are apes or not is nothing really
compared with the scientists who are dissenting against Darwinism
https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/02/A-Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-020419.pdf
https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/tag/dissent-from-darwin/
He had it all recorded before any of us were born. If you know what the Bible says, then what is happening today is exactly what the Bible said would happen....man demanded his independence from his Creator, so he was granted this independence to see for himself how clever he really was at making his own decisions independently.
After trying every sort of rulership, here we are witnessing the death of democracy. How many democratic nation on earth are a seething mess. Actually Daniel wrote about this 2,500 years ago. He said that it would be like iron and clay trying to mix. The weakness of the clay destroys the strength of the iron at this period of time. The will of the people undermines the strength of the government so that nothing works.The people are demanding better and they are not getting it.
The Revelation is also about the time we are living in now......so 2,000 years ago the Bible predicted that humans would have the capacity to ruin the earth.....how did the Bible writer know this? (Revelation 11:18)
Nothing compared with the scientific dissent against Darwin? Those represent about 0,03 % of all scientists. That is about 3 in 10,000. Which is, even if they truely dissent, rididolous even to mention, and just shows the level of desperation of today’s creationists.
Do you know the % of theists who dissent against your brand of God, whatever that is?
Ciao
- viole
Even if we limit 'scientists' to scientists expert in evolution, which frequently it doesn't suit your team to do, yes, of course there's dissent here and there ─ even the dingbats from the Institution for Creation Research have a couple of science degrees between them.
But please explain this to me. Modern creationism starts in 1961 with Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood. It declares what creos have declared since Darwin, that EVOLUTIONISM MUST BE DESTROYED.
So how is it that in the 58 years since then, creationism has laid not one, not a single, not any, not even a teensy weensy, scientific scratch on the theory of evolution? I mean in real terms, not in creo parish magazines, of course.
Because 'creation science' doesn't know beans about real science, for instance?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Being a creationist is nothing.
These scientists are just using their common sense.
Can nothing transform nothing to something?
Can non life elements create living things?
And did anyone witness an animal evolve into another animal?
A fish into a cat?
A pen to a pineapple?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Yesterday, I was watching this at YouTube.
I don't know which beans evolution has and what he got
Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[1][2][3] Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.[4]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia
The assumption that the science of abiogenesis and evolution is more than just an assumption it is supported and consistently demonstrated as the only hypothesis that is supported by the objective verifiable evidence for the source and history of life on earth.
The video makes a misleading statement that this is a unanimous view, and scrolls a list of PhDs that oppose evolution. I would like to see the list in more detail. Just being a PhD does not make on qualified to be an expert on evolution. The rapidly scrolled list may include engineers, philosophers and medical doctors. Extensive surveys of those scientists in the sciences directly related to the science of abiogenesis and evolution overwhelmingly support these sciences, and ALL the polls indicate that 95%+ of these scientist support abiogenesis and evolution.
I smell blue smoke and mirrors, some Elmer Gantry shinanigans, and blatant misrepresentation and dishonest science..
No they are using a blind faith religious agenda to manipulate and dishonestly misrepresent and slander science.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One point that needs to be made is, most people who believe in evolution, believe in evolution by faith. Most use faith, simply because they do not fully understand all the complexities of the theory. Instead, most people follow the herd, via faith in science and scientists, who they believe understand the complexities than make it correct. This is why we quote Darwin and other biologists. Leadership uses is a prestige affect to drive the collective faith, simple because the masses do not all have phD's in evolutionary biology.
This faith based foundation for evolution is the main reason there is so much insecurity about teaching Creationism is school. If everyone had a phD in evolutionary biology, including the leadership, then the leadership would feel less threatened by competing faith. But the fact remains, the average educational speciality level is not high enough to factor out faith playing a role, through a prestige induction affect.
A second point is when Genesis was written; say 6000 years ago, humans were already engaging in artificial selection, via farming and animal breeding. This is based on science evidence. Farmers and herders already knew the gists of modern evolutionary theory, through their efforts to improve the plant and animal stock. They saw how more the robust animals could come from certain members of the previous generations of animals. They also witnessed how some animals, like the lion, had selective advantages; king of the jungle. The gist of evolutionary theory is not new and began long before Darwin. Both are in agreement. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts evolution other then prediction of eternal life as another aspect of evolution.
Where Creationism and Evolution differ, is not on how life changes with time, through breeding, environment, and extinction, but rather how did life first begin? Science does not have a consensus answer for this. This is treated separately from evolution by a science called abiogenesis. The name is a derivative of Genesis.
Darwin did not address abiogenesis but only what herders and farmers long knew. Creationism provides an answer for abiogenesis connected to God. Science explains this space aliens planting seeds, or using a casino jackpot assumption. What these all have in common is none have direct evidence. Science has yet to create life in the lab to narrow down the origins premiss of abiogenesis or genesis.
Creationism deals with the original formation of life. After that, it says to breed and multiply after their kind, which is not to far off from Evolution. Interestingly, modern culture and science have already made a Noah's Ark provision, where species gathered, as a back up, less there is world wide disaster. What we have a faith based debate, formed out of misunderstanding, of what the ancients believed; Divine abiogenesis, and what they knew from experience; real time evolution through breeding.
This faith based foundation for evolution is the main reason there is so much insecurity about teaching Creationism is school. If everyone had a phD in evolutionary biology, including the leadership, then the leadership would feel less threatened by competing faith. But the fact remains, the average educational speciality level is not high enough to factor out faith playing a role, through a prestige induction affect.
A second point is when Genesis was written; say 6000 years ago, humans were already engaging in artificial selection, via farming and animal breeding. This is based on science evidence. Farmers and herders already knew the gists of modern evolutionary theory, through their efforts to improve the plant and animal stock. They saw how more the robust animals could come from certain members of the previous generations of animals. They also witnessed how some animals, like the lion, had selective advantages; king of the jungle. The gist of evolutionary theory is not new and began long before Darwin. Both are in agreement. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts evolution other then prediction of eternal life as another aspect of evolution.
Where Creationism and Evolution differ, is not on how life changes with time, through breeding, environment, and extinction, but rather how did life first begin? Science does not have a consensus answer for this. This is treated separately from evolution by a science called abiogenesis. The name is a derivative of Genesis.
Darwin did not address abiogenesis but only what herders and farmers long knew. Creationism provides an answer for abiogenesis connected to God. Science explains this space aliens planting seeds, or using a casino jackpot assumption. What these all have in common is none have direct evidence. Science has yet to create life in the lab to narrow down the origins premiss of abiogenesis or genesis.
Creationism deals with the original formation of life. After that, it says to breed and multiply after their kind, which is not to far off from Evolution. Interestingly, modern culture and science have already made a Noah's Ark provision, where species gathered, as a back up, less there is world wide disaster. What we have a faith based debate, formed out of misunderstanding, of what the ancients believed; Divine abiogenesis, and what they knew from experience; real time evolution through breeding.
I seriously question how this list was generated, and even whether some referenced actually signed it (?)
Many of the PhDs(?) on this list are not remotely qualified in the sciences related to abiogenesis and evolution such as PhDs in Kinesiology, architecture, computer science, philosophy, and engineering. They can of course express opinions based on their religious agenda.
One thing is true of the list is 99% of those on the list have a fundamentalist Christian agenda against the science of evolution. I detected a very few maybe exceptions.
Some have very questionable education qualifications based on the list for example:
Eugene Buff - Innovation Guru. Technology Scouting. Commercialization Assistance. Coaching. Mentoring. General Business • Sales/Bus Dev. His website does not describe him as having a PhD.
Eugene Buff
Stanley Salthe does not oppose evolution as described. In Stanley N. Salthe – The Evolution Institute he questions how evolution can be described as a conscious process, but other than that does not question evolution.
Last edited:
I disagree with the bold above. Yes the average person cannot understand the complexities of any science even the science behind what makes airplanes fly and computers work, but their reliance on science goes deeper than just faith. Actually the geologic history of the earth and evolution is easier to understand than the science of computers and the engineering behind aircraft and space craft. The basics of the science of time (billions of years), the layers of rocks, periods of time, the genetics of DNA and the relationships of different species and within life itself is well within the level of high school science IF people are simply wiling to read and understand science.
The cope out of 'faith based evolution and the rejection of evolution is simply those based on those who are not willing to take the effort to read the evidence on their education level.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's go over a few points. It may be true that some accept the theory of evolution on faith. That would be their fault. It is not the fault of scientists or even of those that teach it. That does not harm the theory of evolution. Creationism is only accepted by faith. There is no scientific evidence at all for the idea. It is a mythical idea that has been refuted.
Next Genesis was most likely written about 3,500 years ago. The evidence indicates it was written shortly after the Babylonian captivity. Many of the myths of the early Hebrews were affected by their conquerors.
Next the Noah's Ark myth was largely borrowed from those captors. And it would be wise to learn how we know that it did not happen.
And as to abiogenesis, of course Darwin did not address it. He could not. There was no way to know then what was needed. Scientist solve what they can today. He could and did explain the origin of species. Darwinian evolution explains the development of life once it existed. It does not matter what that source was. In fact that is one of the fastest ways for a creationist to noise an evolution debate. That is called moving the goalposts and is a tacit admission that one cannot refute an idea.
Well, I am a mathematician and their calculation is bunk. Pure and simple.
The biggest problem is that they assume the protein forms all at once with no interaction between the amino acids in the protein. This is the whole basis of multiplying the probabilities of the individual amino acids. Also, it assumes that only one protein can do the job of this one and ignores that, typically, there are multiple ways to do the same job, let alone related jobs.
This calculation is so bad there isn't even a good way to fix it.
Typically, when you find a creationist multiplying a lot of small numbers together, they are ignoring the fact that things interact and that they don't form all at once by random chance.
Creationist ENRON book keeping
"Life coming about" is abiogenesis. How life types developed is evolution.
Why not tell @Wild Fox to get it right?
The study of how life itself came about is about abiogenesis and that has not been explained sufficiently yet.
Life had to happen before evolution ever did.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
It isn’t especially. It’s not totally unimportant but it’s no more significant that countless other fundamental scientific theories, ideas and principles, some of which will be much more significant in continuing to develop our understanding of the universe we live in.
Whatever the celebrities would have us believe, popular isn’t the same as important.
I thought I would add an interesting problem with this unfortunate corruption of science. Yes, natural selection is central part of the theory of evolution, because changing environment is one of the major driving forces behind evolution, but, ah . . . the concept of 'random mutations' is no longer considered how the role of mutations develop the diversity in DNA that is the basis of evolution. This view has faded long ago. Like in all cause and effect outcomes in our world the timing of individual event may be random, but the process of the chain of events involving mutations is not random. The laws of nature and the environment are determination of the outcomes of the process of mutation that creates the genetic diversity in populations. The pattern of the events is described as fractal by Chaos Theory.
Careful this is 'arguing from ignorance' and smells of duck, bob and weave of the science behind abiogenesis. The present body of evidence concerning the origins of life have at present only one viable explanation, and that is abiogenesis. Of course there are many unknowns, but that is true of many disciplines in the frontiers of science.
What other alternative explanation than abiogenesis for the origins of life is there based on the evidence?