O
o_mlly
Guest
But I don’t believe that is what PickyPicky meant about African men improving the structure of their homes over time. But I could be wrong.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
I do know that. Evolution has no scientific usefulness. These sorts of threads are just continuations of threads covering years. All with the same purpose: evolution as given in textbooks is the whole answer. Religion? Not required. The textbook has all you need. So the average person can easily be led to believe that “natural” non-God forces created me (a little chemistry and physics) and I’m just a biological robot who reproduces, or not, and dies, to nothing. I don’t think the atheist-Christian crossover is going to happen here. Divine revelation is a must. It’s being left out.
New International Version
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
New Living Translation
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
He raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers - all without science. He is God. And those are things God can do.
New International Version
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
New Living Translation
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
He raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers - all without science. He is God. And those are things God can do.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The stuff about improved houses is a red herring — one of Techno’s fishy points that I was weak enough to follow up. The evolution of human intelligence is a fish of a different colour.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Well you did use great restraint and decorum.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Absolute and utter bulldust. You mention textbooks and then say that religion is being left out of them. Well strike me sideways. Whodda thunk, eh? Books dealing with science don’t contain religious tracts and don’t mention divine revelation! Personally speaking you’d have to be three shades of a moron to expect it.
This is just your excuse for railing against evolution which contradicts your fundamentalist views. And you know FULL well you don’t have a leg to stand on in regard to scientific matters (not that you give any indication that you understand them anyway) so you invent this charade that evolution denies God. When the vast majority of those who do their best to explain what evolution actually is are Christians.
You act like you are on an atheist forum with morons who think that evolution disproves God.
You fool no-one.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Evolution is a primary tenet of atheism. And why does the United States still have the highest (or second highest, depending on source) belief that man has always existed in his present form? I go to atheist forums and I’ve read more than a few scientific articles. The US is the laughing stock of the world (O…Kayy). Or scientists talking between themselves about teaching Christians about science but making it a point to not mention they think their beliefs are bulldust.
Nice dodge.
Nice dodge.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is an important philosophical point to make here. When scientists exclude supernatural explanations from scientific theories, they are not saying that there is no God, or that God is not needed in a larger sense. They are just saying that God is not a valid assumption in the scientific method. I have compared science to baseball before and will do so now again. Baseball has rules. They are somewhat arbitrary: 9 innings, 3 strikes, 4 balls, etc. But they are the agreed rules when playing baseball. The rules of baseball make no reference to a role for God in playing the game. That does not mean that the players are all atheists. Many of them go home after the game and pray with their families and go to Church. But when they are playing baseball, the only rules that count are the rules of baseball.
Similarly with science, we have the scientific method which specifies that scientific theories must be based on observable and repeatable phenomena. As you said, we cannot bring God into a room and test Him. In fact He has strictly ordered us believers “You will not put the Lord your God to the test.” We cannot construct an experiment in which God is guaranteed to respond the same way every time. And so scientists do not make God part of any scientific theory. That does not mean they are all atheists (although many are). Many scientists, when they are done working in the lab and writing their papers, go home and pray with their families and attend Church. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is not an ideology. It is based on the same rules of the scientific method that forms the foundation of all scientific theories. In which other scientific theory (besides the origin of species) does science explicitly say “this happened because God made it happen that way?”
R
rossum
Guest
… or Synagogue or Mosque or Gurdwara or Temple or …
If someone wants to include God in science then they will need scientific evidence that their version of god (or goddess) is the correct one and not an incorrect. Science would not want to include an incorrect deity, obviously.
rossum
B
Bradskii
Guest
You’re darn tootin’ that you’re a laughing stock. And it would come as no surprise to the rest of the world that you are the problem. Not part of the problem. But the very problem itself. Which is that you are a fundamentalist.
Most people could care less about that fact. But when you treat the rest of us like idiots, not because we understand basic scientific principles that contradict your beliefs, but when you claim that these principles undermine the very existence of God, then you better be prepared for some push back.
It’s not only that most reasonable people, be they Christians or atheists, think you are being less than honest in that claim, I am as certain as I can be that you KNOW you are being less than honest in that claim. Because you don’t want to be one of those who are being laughed at.
Not only do you not understand that which you rail against, not only do you belittle the beliefs of fellow Christians, not only do you deny that God is omnipotent and could form you in whatever manner He chooses and not only do you deny basic common sense and overwhelming evidence, but worst of all you do not have the courage of your convictions.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Actually there was a good study done years ago that demonstrated that in spite of the benefits of overall better nutrition and public health measures, the average IQ of humanity is dropping about one point per decade, that is fourteen points since Darwin’s time. This actually supports an evolution since the intelligence of mankind according to that view, is totally serendipitous, random mutations would naturally bring it back to the baseline of most animals, no matter what selective pressures may keep us temporarily afloat. I don’t buy it of course.rossum:
If you mean by “our ancestors” our human progenitors then I’d like to see evidence. For instance, evidence that the intelligence of the ancient Egyptians (assuming 4M years is sufficient time) were less intelligent than modern man.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Of course. Because you don’t understand it. Animals would only become more stupid if there was an evolutionary benefit.
See if you can think of one.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Half of evolutionary theory has to do with random mutations, and with no animals getting any smarter, the only direction would be down.
Since we are becoming stupider according to the evidence, evolutionary thinking would have it that you had to be a lot smarter to survive in earlier times.
The fear of this eventuality is the sort of stuff that pushed the eugenics movement, but it may actually be inevitable, especially given the direction of society.
The other half is what we see in the Galapagos today, the gradual decline in the number of species due to natural selection.
All this said, I see it a bit differently.
Since we are becoming stupider according to the evidence, evolutionary thinking would have it that you had to be a lot smarter to survive in earlier times.
The fear of this eventuality is the sort of stuff that pushed the eugenics movement, but it may actually be inevitable, especially given the direction of society.
The other half is what we see in the Galapagos today, the gradual decline in the number of species due to natural selection.
All this said, I see it a bit differently.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Mutations are random, so some will be for dumber, some for the same intelligence and some for smarter. Natural selection will select which mutations spread and which do not.
Avoiding a sabre-toothed tiger used to be an advantage; these days it is not. As the environment changes, so does the relative value of different genetic variants.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
There is freakingly huge difference between simian and human brains. To suggest that the information that coded for one changed to that which produces the other in what is an extremely short period on the geological time scale, is to make an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary proof. But, all that I will ask is to be shown another creature, just one, where this has happened.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Evidence which is by no means universally understood as conclusive. In other words, I don’t believe it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is only your intuitive assessment about the magnitude of the change and the shortness with which it took place that says it is extraordinary.
U
Unnamed
Guest
Has anyone seen a transitional fossil in real life? If so please let me know when and where. I have never seen one,.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It depends on how transitional you need it to be. A transitional form shares “some” of the characteristics of the ancestor species and “some” of the characteristics of the descendent species. But you are probably looking for a very specific transitional form - one that has not been found yet. And if we find that one, you will ask for a transitional form between that one and its descendants. It never ends.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
No, that’s because evolution happens so fast sometimes that the bones are soft and they leave no fossil… or something like that.
B
Bradskii
Guest
All fossils are transitional.
- Status