Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 212 (108544)
05-16-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


To extend on what sidelined has to say....
from the meriam webster online
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
)
quote:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (
2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Can we agree that we are not talking about definition 1 at all?
If all it takes to say that one has faith is to believe with stong convitions then faith is easy isn't it? So maybe, in this context we are not talking about 3 in the general way.
It comes down to definition 2 then.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof and
complete trust
Since we have "proof" in the sense of evidence for evolution we aren't just taking it on faith and since it is examined, changed and reexamined over and over it is obviously not taken on complete trust. It is just trusted very highly.
What is it about science which is taken on faith?
Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists.
For the bejillionth time there is {bNO SUCH PRESUPPOSITION[/b]. Try reading that sentence very slowly to see if you get it. Science can not deal with the supernatural because the supernatural is by definition not something you can touch with any of the tools of science. Science only deals with the natural. It has no assumptions about things it doesn't deal with.
This is what they believe.
Who is this "they"? Haven't you already been told more than once that many scientists are believers?
Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?.
"They", whoever the heck they are, don't proclaim any such thing. Some individuals who happen to be scientists may but then they aren't doing science.
As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance.
You don't know what the origin of the universe involves. You have no clue about any of the physics. You never will have. You have nothing to say on the topic that makes any sense at all.
Besides the topic is the religious nature of evolution not cosmology. Stay on topic.
They have a presupposition and framework.
Oh, do "they"? Care to spell out what the presupposition and framework is?
Likewise creationists base there evidnce upon another religion which derives from the Bible therefore the evidence must be built upon that
No it isn't "likewise". The conclusions have to take in all the evidence available. When some of the evidence demonstrates that your ideas are wrong you can give up on the evidence that is in support. Once it's thouroughly wrong it is wrong.
Creationists don't do that.
It does not matter how much evidence there is it is still a belief because they werent there when it happened and the past cannot be repeated just the present observed.
And who was there for the flood? How will that be repeated? This also has been gone over before. We make decisions without haveing "been there" all the time. To suggest otherwise is silly and makes the person using that argument look both foolish and desparate.
When something happens for which there were no direct eyewitnesses it is perfectly normal, natural and accepted to use the evidence left to draw conclusions about what happened. There is evidence it is not simply taken on faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 212 (108545)
05-16-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


To extend on what sidelined has to say....
(deleted duplicate post -- even if it was worth saying twice )
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-16-2004 12:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 212 (109196)
05-19-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by almeyda
05-19-2004 12:02 AM


There is no alternative. It is either evolution or design by a creator.
Why is that? Design my space aliens is a possiblity with updates downloaded into the genome as needed. We just haven't seen an update yet.
[qs]Evolution does rely on the big bang or any other origins theory at it is the only way the universe could have came into existence hence making it possible for life to evolve./qs
No, as has been pointed out to you this is wrong. If God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago it makes not a bit of difference at all to evolutionary theory. In fact this is what a lot of scientists believe.
creation scientist give us evidence for a literal Genesis.
BS, almeyda, you have yet to give any of this evidence. You have given NOTHING! In fact, the literal Genesis has been shown to be false. It no longer matters what bits and pieces of evidence you point out you have to first handle the falsification of the creationist view. It doesn't matter if you prove biology wrong about evolution the literal Genesis is still toast.
Creation geologists throughout the world have shown clearly that the fossil record is more consistent with the castastrophic proccesses of the flood.
No, they have not! And you have done nothing to support your assertions on this. NOTHING! Stop making unsupported assertions. Back up what you say.
You may start by explaining the sorting of the fossil record in ths thread:
Fossil sorting for simple
But evolution is not fact. Why? Because its based on the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientist.
At this point an honest debator would show ehre the interpretations are wrong. You always fail to do that.
You aren't getting any better at this. You still think that assertions count. It just doesn't work that way. Back up what you say with reasoned steps of logic and facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 05-19-2004 12:02 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by almeyda, posted 05-19-2004 3:19 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 212 (109204)
05-19-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by almeyda
05-19-2004 3:19 AM


Correct
The thread is starting to get off topic. Some of that wouldn't be appropriate here.
However, the request for evidence does demonstrate the difference between a science and a religion. In a science you don't get away with making assertions without support.
You claim to have been an "evolutionist". You've supplied quite enough information in your posts to demonstrate that you've never understood a bit about it. And now you demonstrate that you don't even understand how the scientific process might be used to arrive at the answer to a question.
You have sciences and religions so totally muddled in your mind that you see knowledge as dangerous to faith. This is one of the deep dangers that the more sophisticated faithful see in the simple minded world view of the creationists.
The reason for the very existance of this forum is because of the dark danger to reason, clear thinking and a willingness to learn that creationism is.
You've argued that "evolution" is a religion. I'd argue that creationism isn't. At least it certainly isn't on the plane that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddaism and Hinduism and others are. It is the simple minded worship of the thunder god that a primitive tribesman might have held too. It is the dancer in the dust trying to make rain. You are not religious in the deep, purely spiritual sense that a true, sophisticated Christian is. You hide from the truth. The light of knowledge is more than your flimsy excuse for a deep faith can stand. It turns to dust like the villian in a bad hollywood movie.
It is the shallow view of the universe and the Christian God that the creationists have that has destroyed the faith of many, some of them here. If there is a God you and yours have some answering to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by almeyda, posted 05-19-2004 3:19 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2004 9:14 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 50 of 212 (109786)
05-21-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object
05-21-2004 9:14 PM


Another line of discussion
Does this include the claims of quantum mechanics in the past, lets say, 10 years ?
Since QM is well off this topic you might propose one to allow you to put forward such claims and have them discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2004 9:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 212 (109898)
05-22-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by almeyda
05-22-2004 12:26 PM


Do you try to get it wrong?
What about the origins of evolution on how non-life became life?. Are you saying theres no faith involved in this theory?. Since they say it happened by chance over billions of yrs then they must rely on a accident through chance. Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever?.
You seem to have a talent for cramming a lot of errors into a small post. Let's look at this in little pieces, simplest first.
"over billions of years"
Where did you get the idea that any one think that the origin of life took billions of years? This is simply wrong.
"Since they say it happened by chance"
Who is 'they'? Please offer some evidence that anyone is claiming it happened by chance. In fact, there isn't a "theory" of how life arose yet. There are now a lot of pieces of how it might have but the final synthesis of these hasn't been completed. Individual steps can happen by chance but no one suggests that a complex life form arose in one step by chance.
"What about the origins of evolution on how non-life became life?.
"
Once more time: Evolution deals with the changes in living things. It works very well if God created the first life. It works if life arose through natural processes. It just doesn't matter. If you wish to show how ideas about abiogenesis are like a religion then start thread on that. This is about the evolution of living things.
Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever?.
Yes and no. The ideas will be trusted to the degree that they have and continue to be supported by the evidence and to explain what we see has happened. The really important ideas will never be simply "trusted" and never reconsidered again. As an example the Gravity Probe B is in orbit now to check, yet again, Einstein's general theory of relativity (his theory of gravity).
If, at any time, a new way to test an important theory is devised then the theory will be subject to that test and modified or discarded if it fails the test. That is why these theories are "the best we have right now". They will always be only the best we have. If you don't like any one of them then suggest a better one that can stand up to the tests that the current idea has passed.
You managed to get this all wrong and confused. You have a talent there.
However, there is something here that you haven't explicitly mentioned. It is the part that you haven't been able to articulate that is probably nagging at you and making you think the "evolution" is a religion. It is off topic here (sort of) so if you want further discussion just ask me to propose a topic and I will.
[off topic]There are researchers working on the origin of life topic ([b]not/b evolution and so really not on topic in this thread.} They are working looking for natural mechanisms that would allow for life to arise from non-living matter. Why are they looking for natural mechanisms? You might suggest that this is "religious" and "having faith" that there isn't a god involved.
OK, let's say, just for a moment, that there is a natural way for life to arise. What happens if we decide, in advance, that 'god did it'? Nothing happens, we never learn what really happened. No new knowledge is gained.
On the other hand let's say we do keep looking for the natural mechanisms. Then we do have some chance of increasing our knowledge of the world.
Now, let's say that there are no natural ways for life to arise. God did, in fact, 'do' it. If we keep trying to find a natural mechanism we may learn a lot but we will never be successful. At least we didn't give up too soon and at some point the exercise will be given less and less attention as it stops makeing any progress. Currently lots of progress is being made so there is no reason to give up yet.
Can we tell which is the case yet? NO! we can not.
The idea that 'god did it' has been tried a number of times in history. So far it has proven to be an un-useful explanation for the weather, disease, mental illness and the development of life on earth. It may also prove to be un-useful for the origin of life. We may never know the ultimate start to the whole universe. But we sure as heck won't if we give up too soon.
The choice is:
"If you think you can, you are right. If you think you can't you are also right."
If we think we can never explain something then that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems there are those in the world who are not afraid of learning new things and those who are terrified of the light that reason can shine on our small peek under the covers of the universes workings. I choose the light. What do you choose, almeyda?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 12:26 PM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Peter, posted 05-25-2004 5:39 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 212 (110407)
05-25-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Peter
05-25-2004 5:39 AM


Off topic
And probably wrong (but not fully settled)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Peter, posted 05-25-2004 5:39 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Peter, posted 01-26-2011 7:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 97 of 212 (110927)
05-27-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Loudmouth
05-27-2004 2:53 PM


Transcript?
Is there a written transcript of this information?
Why bother? It has no content of any value. If anyone thinks it does they can quote the parts that are supposed to be important. They should note that they will have to hunt down what Hamm is referring to since there isn't anyway on the clip to find references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Loudmouth, posted 05-27-2004 2:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 184 of 212 (117568)
06-22-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 4:17 PM


What does the fossil record suggest?
I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the fossil record shows this in any conceivable sense outside of microevolution
Just what do you think the fossil records suggests to us?
Is this true? ---
At one time there were no complex, multicellurlar organisms on earth.
At a later time there were animals like fish but no amphibians, reptiles etc.
At a still later time there were amphibians and then reptiles but no mammals or birds
And still later there were mammals and birds and primate within the mammals.
Still later there were humans as well.
Do you agree or disagree? WHat parts do you disagree with and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 4:17 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 195 of 212 (117801)
06-23-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 8:37 PM


Gee were there too many words for you?
That wasn't the whole post. Will you finish the reply and answer the questions?
quote:
Is this true? ---
At one time there were no complex, multicellurlar organisms on earth.
At a later time there were animals like fish but no amphibians, reptiles etc.
At a still later time there were amphibians and then reptiles but no mammals or birds
And still later there were mammals and birds and primate within the mammals.
Still later there were humans as well.
Do you agree or disagree? What parts do you disagree with and why?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-23-2004 03:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 8:37 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024