Bigotry and Human Evolution

@kellyjay said
You think I am wrong? An assumption is all that is taking place when we assume evolution is the answer when so much is unknown. So it is exactly like someone saying God did it with out having all the details! An information directed system preforming complex tasks in what world other than evolution springs up completely without agency directing it?

Indeed so much is unknown, the point and intention of science is to know (by scientific method) what is unknown, and to deny such knowledge as we have is to return us to the intellectual and academic dark ages. Religion negates knowledge, since it negates the need for it, all you need is faith, and belief, and belief by definition is the antithesis of knowledge. If you knew that your god existed then you would have no need of faith.

@vivify said
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcqbdxs/revision/7

While this is one of endless resources that prove you wrong, I'm well aware that you're not looking for evidence. You're simply trying to defend your faith, evidence be damned.

"We walk by faith, not by sight". In other words, beliefs are more important to you than evidence.

Evolution---no, all science---i ...[text shortened]... t willing and proud ignorance. That is a monumental task.

You may all resume your discussions.

Well said.

I understand clearly what you mean, and it does sound logical and reasonable. Your faith is in the science as you know it. And that's your right. And I wouldn't insult your intelligence for being confident about what you believe is true based on the science you know.

But if you're going to believe that God doesn't exist based on the science you know, then I believe that what you know is misinforming you.

But that's ok because you have the right to believe as you will.

If you're right, then I guess I'll be relegated to the ash heap of the most ignorant of all time considering the science of today.

BTW, the "walk by faith, not by sight" reference is a misapplication. Although it may not sound that way to you. It doesn't mean we walk blindly ignorant.

What that verse means is that we are "confident" and "knowing" that we will be with the Lord Jesus Christ when this body dies no matter what evidence there may be contrary to that.

It ain't easy being a Christian. Seems the "evidence" is stacked up against what the Bible says, and growing.

@indonesia-phil said
Indeed so much is unknown, the point and intention of science is to know (by scientific method) what is unknown, and to deny such knowledge as we have is to return us to the intellectual and academic dark ages. Religion negates knowledge, since it negates the need for it, all you need is faith, and belief, and belief by definition is the antithesis of knowledge. If you knew that your god existed then you would have no need of faith.

Nonsense there is nothing about religion that denies science or any inquiries at least in the Christian faith, I would say an attitude that would put up blocks to avoid possible religious answers hinder more investigation than not. People can lose their jobs offering the wrong point of view today.

@indonesia-phil said
Indeed so much is unknown, the point and intention of science is to know (by scientific method) what is unknown, and to deny such knowledge as we have is to return us to the intellectual and academic dark ages. Religion negates knowledge, since it negates the need for it, all you need is faith, and belief, and belief by definition is the antithesis of knowledge. If you knew that your god existed then you would have no need of faith.

You don't know what faith is because if you did you wouldn't have said "If you knew that your god existed then you would have no need of faith."

Faith isn't believing in something you don't know exists. Believing in something you don't know exists is called dumb.

We know God exists. Faith is believing in, and acting upon what God has said. Faith is knowing God is true to His word.

"...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is evidential of that which is the ultimate reality unperceived by the physical senses or science.

If you don't have faith in God, then you don't know what faith is, so please refrain from defining it to those who do.

@josephw said
Your faith is in the science as you know it.

To say that means you clearly have not understood what I said.

Unlike you and religion, I have no personal attachment to evolution. If a more scientifically sound explanation for life comes along, I'll go with that. That decision would be based on verifiable, tangible evidence, unlike being a Christian.

Evidence. Not "faith".

What that verse means is that we are "confident" and "knowing" that we will be with the Lord Jesus Christ when this body dies no matter what evidence there may be contrary to that.


"No matter what evidence may be contrary to that." You've proven my point.

@vivify said
To say that means you clearly have not understood what I said.

Unlike you and religion, I have no personal attachment to evolution. If a more scientifically sound explanation for life comes along, I'll go with that. That decision would be based on verifiable, tangible evidence, unlike being a Christian.

What that verse means is that we are "confident" and "knowing" ...[text shortened]... ntrary to that.


"No matter what evidence may be contrary to that." You've proven my point.

I'd like to know what exactly you think the theory of evolution has going for it concerning an explanation for life; it has nothing to do with an explanation for life. Evolution requires biology; abiogenesis is just chemical reactions; there was no biology in the beginning even if everyone here accepts evolution as a biological fact.

@kellyjay said
it has nothing to do with an explanation for life.

I mean the life of organisms; the diversity of living things, how and why they do what they do, how they came to be what they are...that sort of thing. I don't mean the general concept life of what first created it.

@vivify said
I mean the life of organisms; the diversity of living things, how and why they do what they do, how they came to be what they are...that sort of thing. I don't mean the general concept life of what first created it.

I don't even think you are even standing on solid ground there either since, as I have pointed out here before, life is an information-driven system. Not just information as in this is the letter, "A," even more than these letters mean you, "vivify" here. The type of information directs complex functional operations that run in systems within systems that keep the whole going. Now you can say evolution doesn't require an agent to put life together and keep it improving, but to say that is true is an act of faith far beyond one that says God did it, in my opinion.

@kellyjay said
Now you can say evolution doesn't require an agent to put life together and keep it improving, but to say that is true is an act of faith far beyond one that says God did it, in my opinion.

You're making another mistake: evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a god. It may contradict the Bible, but it doesn't contradict the idea of god.

*If* a god exists, that god could've simply created live in a way that they adapt to their surroundings and evolve over time.

@vivify said
You're making another mistake: evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a god. It may contradict the Bible, but it doesn't contradict the idea of god.

*If* a god exists, that god could've simply created live in a way that they adapt to their surroundings and evolve over time.

No, not making that mistake; if evolution is true, I pointed out that it was either by agency or nothing. So evolution is meaningless towards God; true or not doesn't change anything. He could be genuine either way; therefore, that also makes science meaningless towards God's existence when you apply evolution against the possibility of God.

@kellyjay said
that also makes science meaningless towards God's existence when you apply evolution against the possibility of God.

That's a false statement. If a god created nature, he also set in motion the laws governing the universe, which can be studied by science.

Doesn't matter anyway. The validity of evolution doesn't change with existence or non-existence of a god.

@kellyjay said
I don't even think you are even standing on solid ground there either since, as I have pointed out here before, life is an information-driven system. Not just information as in this is the letter, "A," even more than these letters mean you, "vivify" here. The type of information directs complex functional operations that run in systems within systems that keep the whole goin ...[text shortened]... ving, but to say that is true is an act of faith far beyond one that says God did it, in my opinion.

If all human knowledge were deleted today, every book and every memory, your religion would be lost forever. Evolution would be deduced from the same evidence that it sprang from before.

@avalanchethecat said
If all human knowledge were deleted today, every book and every memory, your religion would be lost forever. Evolution would be deduced from the same evidence that it sprang from before.

You conveniently leave out that God could do whatever God wanted to make Himself known. The thing implied was that religion and God could not mix, which is not valid, as has been pointed out. The only difference between the two is one while looking at reasons things occur the way they do; the other is who is responsible; those are not competing explanations; they are just answering questions differently.

With the two prominent worldviews, Atheism and Theism is the real struggle. It isn't between science and religion; with Theism, we have a reason we have complex systems acting in concert. The reason the universe works as a watch is understandable. Then there is Atheism; the big nothing did it, the reason why we can even do science is undermined because if all of this is due to no intelligent, transcendent cause, there is no reason we should trust something like our brains for answers; it would just be a product of a mindless process.

@kellyjay said
You conveniently leave out that God could do whatever God wanted to make Himself known. The thing implied was that religion and God could not mix, which is not valid, as has been pointed out. The only difference between the two is one while looking at reasons things occur the way they do; the other is who is responsible; those are not competing explanations; they are just an ...[text shortened]... hould trust something like our brains for answers; it would just be a product of a mindless process.

I didn't 'conveniently' leave anything out. The process of evolution is deduced from the evidence of fossils, from the evidence of the morphology and genetics of living creatures. It's there in front of us. Your religion is different. It is given to you by other people. If they didn't give it to you, you couldn't work it out.

@avalanchethecat said
I didn't 'conveniently' leave anything out. The process of evolution is deduced from the evidence of fossils, from the evidence of the morphology and genetics of living creatures. It's there in front of us. Your religion is different. It is given to you by other people. If they didn't give it to you, you couldn't work it out.

It isn't other people who called me out by name, and it isn't other people who promised to be with me and never leave me through the good times and the bad. Other people have shared yes, but if God were nothing but a story, what you may claim about Him would be true, but God being real changes everything.