|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your reason for accepting evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Geologists had rejected the flood model long before Darwin published the theory of evolution. Not all only some - those that set us on the path to believing in evolution.There are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution. From: Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
quote: I guess you think 700 out of 480,000 is 'lots.' What this does mean is that 99.9% (to three significant figures) of all US scientists that actually study life or the earth reject 'creation science.' Maybe they know something you don't, namely geological or biological science. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Thats quite an impressive statistic! Even if we inflated it to as much as one out of ten, the ratio shows us that either 9 out of 10 are deluded in some way or, more likely, that 9 out of 10 have accepted the scientific method as the most logical way to study, analyze, and interpret data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Beretta: Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence Not true. Creo/ID apologists use a substantially different body of evidence than that used in science. The Creo/ID criteria for acceptable evidence differs from the criteria used in science. Science demands falsifiability, replication, and prediction. The faith-based criteria of Creo/ID apologists do not meet this standard. Creo/ID apologists dismiss or ignore much evidence that is scientifically compelling. At the same time they accept material as conclusive that lacks any scientific validity. For this reason, Creo/ID 'theories' are not science. _________________ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No I asked for your best evolutionary proof that would blow away any possibility that creation was feasible. Evolution or the Theory of Evolution are unrelated to whether or not GOD created everything seen and unseen. You continue to post false dichotomies even after they are pointed out to you. The reason that Evolution is accepted as fact (fact meaning a high degree of confidence) is the evidence of long dead critters as well as the evidence of things living today. We can see that at one time many forms of life living today did not exist, and that many forms of life that lived in the past do not live today, that there appears to be change over time. The reason that the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact (fact meaning a high degree of confidence) is that the mechanisms, the model, explains how those changes seen in the record could come about. So far your posts show a woeful ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution says. For example your mentioning of eyes in the back of the head implies that you think Evolution is directed, that traits which will help arise because of some need or usefulness. That is NOT at all what the TOE would predict. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Basically I accept evolution because evolution over 3.8 billion years makes much more sense that a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago You accept it most likely for the same reason so many do -it's standard fare, global belief system since God apparently died and is no longer relevant.Man has become so much cleverer than his creator it is no wonder his active imagination has invented an entire new story to replace HIS story. It all happened before we were around but we nonetheless know better.If the evidence fits HIS story, it's worth checking out lest you be on the wrong plane going nowhere. No I don't. I was "bombarded" with creationism, flood, Adam & Eve etc long before I was exposed to evolution, from age 5 thru grammar, middle & high school. There wasn't much evolution taught in schools back in the 50's. It wasn't until I stareted to study the Bible myself that I came to the conclusions that evolution made more sense than creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPaul Inactive Member |
Beretta, you seem to be mainly focussing on your religious objections to evolution, rather than addressing the evidence that you asked for. That is not appropriate behaviour in the science fora. If you wish to discuss religious issues please propose a new thread to do so.
Equally it is not reasonable to ask for an absolute disproof of creation since creation is unfalsifiable. For this thread, please focus on the question of whether the scientific evidence better supports evolution or creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
When I promoted this thread I viewed it as an opportunity for a creationist to gather evolutionist responses about why they accepted evolution. I never intended that this thread take up debate about the validity of the reasons provided. Anyone wishing to debate the validity or lack thereof of any the reasons for accepting evolution should propose a new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To summarise.
The reason that people accept evolution is that they know the relevant facts about biology and geology. And the reason we know these things is that we are interested in nature. It's endlessly fascinating, and we like learning about it. The reason that you reject evolution, besides not knowing what it actually entails, is that you are completely ignorant of even the simplest facts about nature. And this is because you've never been remotely interested in nature, and because everything you think you know about it has been gleaned by reading silly creationist lies about the subject and learning to repeat these lies without ever bothering to find out whether any of the stuff you're reciting is actually true. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
No where in the above statement by Bluecat did he imply that "God apparently died". Well no, not as such - but the real God, the one who got his scribes to write down what He did, said he made man in his image and animals separately in the same 6 day creation period. That means man could not have evolved from animals and since the Bible lays out the exact geneologies from Adam onwards, you count it up and 3,8 billion years cannot apply. So since what the real God said is not part of any picture here, I have to assume that in his mind, God died and has been replaced with an idol, another God made up in man's imagination (the god humans prefer to imagine, incompatible with the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.)
no where does Bluecat indicate that Man is cleverer than his creator. Nonetheless his belief is one which does not allow for the real God who told us what he did. Man's story has replaced God's story so man by implication is cleverer than God because even though man wasn't there, he has assumed his own belief system and his own image of God .
Trying being honest and fair I am being fair, I believe and have not so far lied about anything. You are setting yourself up as the local judge of character which character you have made up. In order to help your own cause of trying to make creationists look extremely shady and of dubious reputation. Remember evolutionists in general presuppose that to be the case and this is an evolutionists website, so it is not surprising to me that anything I say will be held against me.
Yes the evidence is there if you look. I have looked and once again I cannot agree with the conclusions. I'm still waiting for that at least one bit of evidence that puts creation as a possibility out the door.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well no, not as such - but the real God, the one who got his scribes to write down what He did, said he made man in his image and animals separately in the same 6 day creation period. That means man could not have evolved from animals and since the Bible lays out the exact geneologies from Adam onwards, you count it up and 3,8 billion years cannot apply. So since what the real God said is not part of any picture here, I have to assume that in his mind, God died and has been replaced with an idol, another God made up in man's imagination (the god humans prefer to imagine, incompatible with the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.) Why do you "have to assume" things that aren't true?
Nonetheless his belief is one which does not allow for the real God who told us what he did. By "the real God", you mean the one that you've chosen to believe in, yes?
I am being fair, I believe and have not so far lied about anything. You are setting yourself up as the local judge of character which character you have made up. As to your honesty, I refer you to post #45; and to your habit of reciting rubbish without bothering to find out if it's true.
I have looked ... Then how come you know damn-all about biology?
I'm still waiting for that at least one bit of evidence that puts creation as a possibility out the door. Then let me refer you to the entire natural world --- y'know, that thing that you know nothing about? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A banana appears to be grossly underprotected compared to its relative the tiger. What were you doing when the other kids were studying biology? The whole point of a fruit is to be eaten; it's a method of dispersing its seeds. Of course, in the case of the modern cultivated banana, it's undergone a chance mutation for seedlessness, which has been propagated by humans through vegetative cloning, 'cos we prefer them seedless. However, here, for your edification, is a picture of a wild banana.
Note the seeds. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't understand how we could have lost that tail -it would be so useful when your hands are full and you need to open the door and how did nature know that we needed to get two eyes rather than one and why didn't we naturally mutate a few more and those 4-eyed things get selected. These are all just plausible stories. I think we still need to run up trees to escape our enemies and a tail could be useful there. You don't think much of this "real God" of yours, do you? Not only did he give you the wrong number of eyes, but the great supernatural silly-billy was also stupid enough not to provide you with a tail. Perhaps next time you're praying, you could explain to him how you know better than him how humans should have been designed and how you could have done a much better job. --- Note for the biologically challenged: humans are descended from Old World monkeys, which don't have prehensile tails. Hence, if we had retained this feature, we could not use it to open doors. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Taking Admin's counsel (issued a few posts up) to address the title of the thread rather than the error-filled speech in the OP, here's why I accept evolution:
Note that I said evolutionary theory is solid science. It is indeed. And that's all it has to be. The theory does not have to be theology of any kind. Scientific theories are not theological ideas. They are scientific ideas, by definition. Certainly evolutionary theory--along with that of other prevailing theories (expanding universe, relativity, plate tectonics, etc)--has to be accounted for in any theological system one puts forward if that system is to claim any credibility for itself. But doing so is not the task of science. It is the task of theology. This is why you err, Beretta, when you say you 'have to assume' certain things about what scientists 'worship' and whatnot based on the professional work they do. It's a fallacy of false categories. You are called upon to assume nothing of the sort. It is a great mistake to expect religion to do the work of science, and science to do the work of religion. _____________ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Did 'nature' know that we needed something nice to eat or was the banana a series of fortuitous chance mutations? What did it evolve from and why?
Maybe God made it for us to eat and that is why bananas have only ever been bananas and that was the plan when they were created. Are there any known transitional types between the banana as we know it (seeded or unseeded) and something else that preceeded it? Are we waiting to find the fossilized precursors to the banana or have they already been found? The whole point of a fruit is to be eaten; it's a method of dispersing its seeds. So 'nature', the mindless inventor, knew we were going to eat the bananas and so put the seeds inside for dispersal? Just wondering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
(sigh)
Beretta: Did 'nature' know that we needed something nice to eat or was the banana a series of fortuitous chance mutations? What did it evolve from and why? Maybe God made it for us to eat and that is why bananas have only ever been bananas and that was the plan when they were created. Are there any known transitional types between the banana as we know it (seeded or unseeded) and something else that preceeded it? Are we waiting to find the fossilized precursors to the banana or have they already been found? Selective breeding, Beretta. Like seedless grapes. You could have Googled this, you know. It would have taken you less time than typing rhetorical questions. Some genuine curiosity about anything would serve you well at this point. _______________ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024