Originally posted by lemon limeEvolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
I agree. Evolution and information theory belong here in the Spirituality forum, not in the science forum. Everyone knows evolution is not a real science, it's only held up to be one to justify the spiritually corrupt non-beliefs of atheists.
[b]Edit: This deserves clarification, because I wasn't just being a smartgluteusmaximus*. I am suggesting a ...[text shortened]... where it can automatically enjoy freedom from any real (scientific) examination and criticism.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell, that all depends on what you define as evolution. If you don't include what I call evilution, then I think most Christians are probably fine with it. I think most of us would prefer to just call it variations within species, which is more clear and does not contradict our Holy Bible.
Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
I don't believe that people spend years of training to get a Phd in a science and work in the science just so they can pose as a scientist for the purpose of putting forth the theory of Intelligent Design or to promote creationism. That does not seem logical to me.
Intelligent Design explains why some things look like they are designed. 😏
The Instructor
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitThat pretty much sums up the present day atheist position, except for the part where you say it's not controversial to any religion. The only religions that do not dispute it either have no doctrine to explain beginnings or will ignore the doctrines they have that do. It's also not true that most atheists think evolution has nothing to do with what they believe.
Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
Evolution supporting atheism was openly acknowledged by atheists when I was a young man, and it wasn't uncommon to hear someone joyfully proclaiming God is dead. I believe the only thing that has changed since then is most atheists today will deny that, and I honestly can't say why that is. There appears to more animosity toward religion today than there was then, so I don't understand why atheists today would take more of a passive position in regard to evolution. I was an atheist long enough to understand how evolution worked to strengthen my position as an atheist, so I don't understand why so few of them today will acknowledge that.
I know you did not specifically say atheism does not depend on evolution, nor did you definine atheism as a relilgion. However, atheism can be defined as anti-religion, which pretty much places it in the same ball park. Some people here get a little touchy when you read between the lines but sometimes it can't be avoided:
Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion.
Originally posted by lemon limeEvolution only allows for rejection of a specific version of a god (the young-earth creationist's god). It does not even get you to full rejection of one god.
That pretty much sums up the present day atheist position, except for the part where you say it's not controversial to any religion. The only religions that do not dispute it either have no doctrine to explain beginnings or ignore the doctrines they have that do. It's also not true that most atheists think evolution has nothing to do with what they believ ...[text shortened]... no relationship between evolution and atheism... so I guess there is nothing more to say.
A Christian can easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. This is not ignoring the doctrine of their religion. It's interpreting it differently.
Originally posted by SwissGambitA Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?
Evolution only allows for rejection of a specific version of a god (the young-earth creationist's god). It does not even get you to full rejection of one god.
A Christian can easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. This is not ignoring the doctrine of their religion. It's interpreting it differently.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen the whole story was just made up by men, sure, it's VERY easy to call your man made god a liar.
A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsI thought your god could do anything and work in
A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?
The Instructor
mysterious and illogical ways? Surely lying would be easy!
Originally posted by RJHindsSo if God says something, you must take it literally, or else God is a liar.
A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?
The Instructor
So Jesus is a liar, as his parables are not literally true.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsSee now this is why nobody who knows anything whatsoever at all about science
The problem with that is that evolution, including, evilution, is taught as science in the science textbooks. If it is an hypothesis or theory and not established as a scientific law, then there should be no reason that another hypothesis or theory, like Intellegent Design, should not be allowed to be taught. Neither one of these theories have been estab ...[text shortened]... on, including evilution, is a scientific belief called a theory and not a law.
The Instructor
is prepared to take you even slightly seriously.
THEORIES DO NOT GET PROMOTED UP TO BEING LAWS.
THEORIES CONTAIN LAWS.
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, THERE IS NOTHING ABOVE IT.
And you have been told this over and over and over and over and over again.
ID is NOT a theory as it has not been confirmed and verified to be true.
It also fails to make accurate predictions.
Unlike evolution, which IS a scientific theory, does make accurate predictions, and
is supported and proven by masses and masses of evidence, and is contradicted by none.
Laws are observations (and may not actually be true).
Newtons LAW of gravity is known to be inaccurate, and was replaced by the THEORY of
General Relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Newtons LAW of gravity is so called because it states that "every point mass in the
universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the
product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
them" ...
In other words it applies everywhere to everything (with mass) without exception in all situations.
It doesn't say why, or how, it just says that it does.
And it's based on empirical observation.
And it's false.
General Relativity is a THEORY.
It not only provides equations for calculating gravitational fields (incredibly accurately)...
But it also gives an explanation for how and why these fields are generated.
A theory is an explanation of WHY and HOW something works.
A law is simply a rule, with no explanation for how or why it exists. And it may not even be true.
A theory on the other-hand MUST have BEEN proven, or it is known as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory.
Originally posted by googlefudgeFor Evilution, a theory is as good as it gets. However, a law is as good as it gets for real science.
See now this is why nobody who knows anything whatsoever at all about science
is prepared to take you even slightly seriously.
THEORIES DO NOT GET PROMOTED UP TO BEING LAWS.
THEORIES CONTAIN LAWS.
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, THERE IS NOTHING ABOVE IT.
And you have been told this over and over and over and over and over agai ...[text shortened]... r-hand MUST have BEEN proven, or it is known as a hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then, your god must be actively pruning the human population, introducing tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and so forth and sowing the seeds of Aids, Ebola, tuberculosis, Cystic fibrosis and so on. Nice god you have there. Nothing else explains it.
How do you know that the parables of Jesus are not literally true?
The Instructor