Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then why does a large percentage of the general population in the US reject the ToE? And in the UK:

"A £140,000 advertising campaign aimed at persuading more people to “come out” as atheists was launched today with a plan to broadcast a message doubting God’s existence on the sides of buses, the tube and on screens in central London.

"Its slogan – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – can already be seen on buses in central London. A total of 200 bendy buses in London and 600 buses across England, Scotland and Wales will carry the slogan from today and tomorrow following a fundraising drive which raised more than £140,000.

“The money raised will also pay for 1,000 advertisements on London Underground from Monday. Organisers today unveiled a set of quotes from famous writers and thinkers who endorse the atheist message.”

Source: The Guardian
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Not true. Science does push secular values or rejects religion. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris come to mind.

Leading scientists still reject God | Nature
Click to expand...
This does not prove that science rejects religion. It only proves that a certain percentage of scientists reject or ignore God. It does not prove that they use science to do it, or to justify their position. One might just as well say that the presence of atheist architects or engineers proves that architecture and engineering reject God.
 
Well:

Roughly six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study. But only a little more than half of them (33% of all Americans) express the belief that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes. A quarter of U.S. adults (25%) say evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time…

For instance, majorities of those who affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention (58%) and the Seventh-day Adventist church (67%) reject the idea that human beings evolved over time. By contrast, much smaller minorities of mainline Protestants (30%), Catholics (29%), Jews (16%) and the religiously unaffiliated (15%) share this view…

More broadly, most Americans (59%) say that science and religion are often in conflict, but those who are more religiously observant are less likely than others to see this clash between faith and science, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center Survey. – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

Also, check the chart out at that site.
 
Last edited:
It has something to do with Richard Dawkins who was quoted Scripture about the creation of man and denied it with great energy on TV. And yet, no one calls him out. No one says, “Mr. Dawkins, you are using your title and position to engender bad feelings among the masses. Stop doing that.”
 
Yes, I knew that. My point is: science offers incomplete information about the creation of man. A skewed perspective that departs from the whole truth. Saying God dropped souls into two random almost-humans is fantasy-fiction. It is not scientific at all.
 
From the post by Metis1, above: “… 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely…” I have read much hand wringing from scientists who just can’t believe this is the case, especially in the U.S.
 
Metis1 said:
34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time…
Click to expand...
I reject evolution but would not say that this has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. I don’t see how even a young earth creationist would agree considering that there was a fall after the seventh day that changed everything. I have no idea how I would answer. Probably none of the above. I’m not sure the stats it presents are of any value; there are so many nuances, even among those who believe in evolution. Creation isn’t even mentioned. How about asking if God created the earth and heavens? If it were offered as the other choice, I wonder, how many would have favoured evolution. A dumb survey in my opinion, reflecting the tribalism in the USA.
 
Last edited:
Richard Dawkins fails to correctly interpret scripture and uses his faulty readings to employ his own arguments. I’d think you’d be all over that
 
goout said:
Take some basic science courses.
Click to expand...
I know you’re hurt but man up, boy. Your attempt to be clever is an inept as your pretense to be knowledgeable. Stay in school, study hard and troll in the shallows; you’re out of your depth in this thread.
 
Young science students are naïve and clueless enough to think that scientists are always objective.
 
Metis1 said:
Evolution is evolution, and there’s simply no indication that it stopped at any point in time.
Click to expand...
It never stopped, because it never started - macroevolution, I mean. What appears to be macroevolution in the fossil record is a process of progressive creation (imo) - hence all the gaps and all those inexplicable changes in morphology.
 
Last edited:
Like any culture, atheism has its origin’s folklore - evolution is it.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
And the Church says that accepting evolution, as long as it’s viewed that God caused it all, is quite acceptable.
Click to expand...
The Church ought to promote progressive creation instead, imo - it fits the fossil record much better than evolution and is theologically feasible (no need to deny the plain words of Genesis 2:7 (ie, the creation of Adam form inanimate matter), for example).
Plus, in accordance with Thomistic philosophy, creation - as opposed to modifying a pre-existing creature - much better reflects the power and glory of an omnipotent God.
 
Last edited:
Evolution has no mechanism to program genetic code. Mutations and death by natural selection are insufficient to explain.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
And yet, no one calls him out. No one says, “Mr. Dawkins, you are using your title and position to engender bad feelings among the masses. Stop doing that.
Click to expand...
But they do, frequently. And you’ve just done it yourself.

Much admire your description of “engender[ing] bad feelings among the masses”. Poor old masses, eh? Simple minded folk, no doubt.
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
edwest211:
And yet, no one calls him out. No one says, “Mr. Dawkins, you are using your title and position to engender bad feelings among the masses. Stop doing that.
Click to expand...
But they do, frequently. And you’ve just done it yourself.

Much admire your description of “engender[ing] bad feelings among the masses”. Poor old masses, eh? Simple minded folk, no doubt.
Click to expand...
The great lumpen mass of the ignorant proletariat being led astray and into a vortex of ungodly materialim. By a biologist. Have pity on them! (lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the background).

But look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? I can hear a whining noise so it could be a plane.

Nah, it’s a flock of IDers screetching something about 747s and junkyards. Or should that be a creation of IDers. What IS the collective noun for them?

Answers on a postcard to:
Bradski
Bondi
Sydney

Winner announced shortly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top