|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Key points of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: You saying that evolution is a fact, is the same as myself saying creation is a fact. Not really. Biological evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed, as I've pointed out to you on another thread. No-one has ever observed Allah or any other supernatural being creating anything. You seem to want to deceive yourself about this. Why? Surely being "antiLIE" implies a distaste for lying to yourself, as well as to others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: bluegenes writes:
This is decietful. Only Microevolution can be observed. I do not deny that. Biological evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed Microevolution is biological evolution. My statement was not "all biological evolution can be directly observed."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
seekingthetruth writes: bluegenes writes: Not really. Biological evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed, as I've pointed out to you on another thread. No-one has ever observed Allah or any other supernatural being creating anything. You seem to want to deceive yourself about this. Why? Surely being "antiLIE" implies a distaste for lying to yourself, as well as to others. Just as no one was there to witness the creation of the universe, or the first lifeforms on the planet. Just because something is not witnessed does not mean it is not there. I would cite gravity and oxygen as examples. We cannot see them but we know they are there. I seem to be having communication problems with, not one, but two lovers of truth from Austin, Texas, both on the same day. Let me try and clarify. My statement was that biological evolution can be observed. I did not specify "directly observed", but on a small scale, it can be directly observed. You give examples of two things, an element and a force, the existence of which can be indirectly observed. Historical happenings can also be indirectly observed, or, to put it another way, deduced from direct observations made in the present. None of the creation mythologies believed in around the world are supported by either direct or indirect observations. All this is rather off topic, I suppose, so if anyone wants to continue a discussion on what can be observed about biological evolution, I'd be happy to join in on a relevant thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Deftil writes: Telling people that the key points of evolution are not in conflict with the Bible is to tell them that a particular way of inerpreting the Bible is correct, namely, the way that doesn't directly conflict with the Bible. I think you might have meant "science" instead of "Bible" in that last word. If so, I'm inclined to agree. That there are interpretations of Christianity that don't conflict directly with scientific knowledge is true. But whether or not they have greater theological validity than anti-science interpretations is questionable. I don't actually think that any religions sit very well with the kind of thinking that drives science. The stronger an individual's respect for evidence is, the less likely they are to hold strong beliefs that require blind faith. Welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Wumpini writes: I believe that these numbers give us a clear indication of the division in the American population on this subject. Actually, they seem to indicate that many Americans don't even understand the questions. A 53% majority believe that the following is definitely or probably true:
quote: A 66% majority believe that the following is definitely or probably true:
quote: There's something wrong there! A considerable number of Americans seem to be able to believe two completely contradictory things at the same time. Embarrassingly for America, it appears that about 19% of its population must be either mad or complete idiots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RCS writes: platypus writes: Then ToE must have been twisted and distorted to fit into a 6000 year old universe. Then ToE must have been twisted and distorted to fit into a 6000 year old universe. Many (perhaps most) Christians do not take their scriptures very literally. They cherry-pick, so the age of the universe can be anything. There are plenty of them who accept all general scientific views, only making exceptions for some miracles in relation to Christ, particularly the resurrection.
RCS writes: Archer Opterix writes: No one has to present the theory of plate tectonics in a Hindu-friendly manner or the theory ofthe expanding universe in a Buddhist-friendly manner. The faith of so many professing Christians, though, seems to be made of more fragile stuff. No need. Both these faiths have ample space for plate tectonics and expanding universe. No need for Hindu friendly version of ToE-- ToE is in Hindu thought. No need so far as plate tectonics and an ancient, expanding universe are concerned, certainly. With biological evolution, there are some interpretations of Hinduism that object to aspects of it, though. What can certainly be said is that the eastern religions and philosophies in general should not produce the polarization on evolution that occurs in cultures based on the Abrahamic religions, because there is not the same direct contradiction of any core creation mythologies. However, search around the internet, and you'll easily find Hindus attacking "Darwinism", and even telling lies about Darwin, in true religious character. For example: Hinduism Today - Authentic resources for a billion-strong religion in renaissance Edited by bluegenes, : wrong word correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
alaninnont writes: Natural selection is not evolution. That's right. It's one of the mechanisms that drives it.
Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans. Not on its own, certainly.
Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity. Not on its own, certainly. Humans are made of single celled organisms, which is, when you think about it, very strong evidence that we evolved from them in itself. We are elaborate colonies of them. What's required is mutation, symbiosis, and natural selection; and lots of all three over a very long time. It is very common for single-celled organisms to form into colonies when they can gain advantage from it. So, in the future, think of yourself as a colony. One big happy family. And don't knock natural selection and the other mechanisms, because without them you wouldn't exist. Welcome to EvC.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024