|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof | |||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You keep saying
This is what they believe and it requires faith. It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it still is not true. Simply, not true. Science is not built on FAITH. It is built on observation. If you get nothing else out of your sojourn here, let it be that SCIENCE does not require FAITH. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is no such thing as Historical Science except in the minds of the AIG folks. That is straight from Cliff. Even Coach won't buy that one.
By the way, have you ever been down into a deep canyon? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
almeyda writes: If God says there was a flood. The scientist can test for it. Okay. Resonable statement. Unfortunately there is NO evidence of a Great Flood. But we are getting off topic again. Almeyda. You claim the Evolution has a religious nature. To try to keep this from spreading like wildfire, can you give us ONE reason that you believe there is a religious nature to TOE? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
almeyda writes: Whereas evolutionists have nothing but their own opinions that will always continue to change, this is blind faith. Where is there a single example in the TOE of Bilnd Faith? The fact that the theory changes as new information and observation come along shows that it is NOT blind faith but rather based on reality. If it were Blind Faith it would not change. You have simply proven that the TOE is NOT religious in nature. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You're changing subject again. How life first began is not part of the TOE and we can return to that in a different thread.
But there is no FAITH involved in any of it. Of course the theories will change as new observations are made. That is why it is NOT religious in nature. Religious explanations for what is observed are a Dead End. They do not change, even when the facts out there for all to see show they are incorrect. That is the difference between Science and Religion. And it is a major difference. Science is not concerned with WHY. It is concerned with What and How. You ask a good question...
how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever? They trust ideas that explain what is observed, and that can be used to make predictions about what will be discovered. And so far, Evolution has performed very well for many, many years and from many, many different areas of exploration. You also mention...
Since they say it happened by chance over billions of yrs then they must rely on a accident through chance. And that is a very important part. That is exactly what happens. Part of the problem is that the English language is very slippery. Often, a word can have two or more very different meanings depending on the context. Evolution is just such a word. When an astronomer speaks about evolution of a galaxy or solar system, he is speaking about something that progresses from one state to another following fairly well known and understood rules. When an engineer speaks of a design evolving he means that the design is changing from some less efficient model to some more efficient version. But Evolutution when used to describe the life we see around us is entirely different. It is simply a statement of what happened. The TOE is not a progression from less efficient to more efficient. The only real answer is, "Did the species survive". Consider the Wolly Mammoth. Long, long ago, there were elephants living over most of the world. Some were living in what today is Siberia, Canada and Northern Europe. As conditions changed, and the Ice grew, the ones that had longer hair did better in the cold. That doesn't mean that only those with long hair did well or that those with long hair didn't fall, break a leg and so starve to death. But looking at the population as a whole, the long haired ones did better, reproduced and passed the genetic traits for long hair onto thier offspring. Gradually, they changed from a population of Elephants to Wolly Mammoths. There was no plan, only chance. edited to fix spelling This message has been edited by jar, 05-22-2004 11:53 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
many, many years ago, and article by Ron Hubbard talking about creating a religion for pure financial reasons. IIRC, it was in the old Analog or F&SF. This was before he created Scientology. In the article he descibed just how easy it would be to create such a critter and what would be needed to make it work.
Mayhaps he succeeded. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, I listened to it. There was nothing there except Hamm's assertions as to motive and dealt only with a very small segment of the general population.
It still has NOTHING to do with Evolution being a religion or even having a religious nature. In addition, since the vast majority of Christians, not to mention all other religions, also support TOE, it is patently false. If what he said was true then it should be difficult to find a supporter of Evolution that also believes in GOD, even using the limited definition of GOD espoused by Hamm. But the fact is there are quite a few right here on the board that see no conflict between Evolution and a belief in GOD. So nice try, but once again, no proof only unsupported allegations. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, the thread is on the religious nature of Evolution.
The fact is that every Christian sect I know of has no problems with the TOE. It is not of religious nature and certainly does not deal with those things religion deals with. I probably should not have said the Vast Majority, perhaps a simple majority might have been better. But so far no one has been shown either any religious nature to the TOE or for that matter anything that might invalidate the TOE. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I realize this is slightly off topic but since I think it has been pretty well established that there is NO religious nature to the TOE or any science for that matter, I thought we might return to some questions asked of you several times to see if we can get answers.
When you go out at night, do you see stars in the sky? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Very good, we are making progess.
Now where do you think those stars happen to be? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So far, so good.
Have you ever been to a Planetarium or Observatory or even looked at the sky through a telescope? Even if you only use binoculars you will find that there are many more stars than are visible to the naked eye. Do those stars exist, you think? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How far away do you think they might be?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Hmm well i guess in a evolutionary framework they must have taken millions/billions of yrs. That is not an answer. I ask how far away do YOU think they are? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay, let's use your figure of millions of light years (actually the furtherest we've been able to see is a little over 13 billion light years away but let's stick right now to your millions).
If you can see the light from them then they had to be created at least millions of years ago. Right? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Once again they are just trying slight of hand and you need to watch the magician.
First, the Big Bang has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you and I are talking about. If GOD placed the stars in their present locations and if they are simply sitting there instead of rushing away or towards us, the distances would still be the same. Sorry Almeyda, but Mr. Newton is way off in left field. Let me ask you yet another question. If, regardless of which mechanism you choose to use to create your Universe, when you can look at stars that are more than 6000 light years away, then how can the Universe be younger? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024