Originally posted by amannionFrom the posts that I have read, it seems that there are people who do not understand evolution. Evolution IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT a belief. It is a theory which has supportive data. The data comes from genetics, which is the only real way we have of connecting different life forms. Now, one post I read said something to the effect of (paraphrased) small changes are acceptable in a small amount of time but large changes over large amount of time are not. If a small change can happen in 100 years, why can't a large change happen over 100 billion years?
Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
But to answer your original post, amannion, science did not cause the rift between science and religion. It was religious zealots who claimed that Darwin said man came from apes (which he never stated, he stated that organims with desirable traits for their niche have a better chance of survival than organisms with undesirable traits [Survival of the Fitess] also organisms change over time to suit their enivronment) that caused the split. In fact, evolution scared them so bad that the matter had to be settled by the US Supreme Court. Evolution won, by the way. Many scientists have faith in a higher power but this is never brought to attention because it causes a dent in the oppositions side.
I'll get off my soap box now.
Originally posted by slappy115You're quite right, to an extent.
From the posts that I have read, it seems that there are people who do not understand evolution. Evolution IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT a belief. It is a theory which has supportive data. The data comes from genetics, which is the only real way we have of connecting different life forms. Now, one post I read said something to the effect of (paraphrased) sm ...[text shortened]... o attention because it causes a dent in the oppositions side.
I'll get off my soap box now.
First of all I'll answer your question. We cannot have large scale evolutionary change over a few 100 billion years, because the universe is only 18 billion years old!!!
I do agree with you about the religion / science split. It is wrong, as the christian church stated, that man dveloped from apes. Man IS an ape! (Hominidae)
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was just trying to make a point. Is 2 billion years better? (=))
You're quite right, to an extent.
First of all I'll answer your question. We cannot have large scale evolutionary change over a few 100 billion years, because the universe is only 18 billion years old!!! (Shortened)
Originally posted by slappy115Yeah, much! I know your point, but I've likewise learned with DHC (Die-Hard-Christians) that if you give them an inch, they'll take the proverbial mile.
I was just trying to make a point. Is 2 billion years better? (=))
The earth formed around 4.53 billion years ago (bya), got cool enough to become a bit more solid after a half billion years of bollide bombardment, around 4bya. Chemical signatures of life are evident at 3.8 bya, and there is possible fossil cells from 3.95 bya. There are definite fossil stromatolites from 3.5 bya.
It was a good post otherwise, though! 🙂
Yeah, much! I know your point, but I've likewise learned with DHC (Die-Hard-Christians) that if you give them an inch, they'll take the proverbial mile.Thanks. I was just trying to make a well argued point. And trust me, any zealot will take that inch and twist and convolute it into an unrecognizable creature.
The earth formed around 4.53 billion years ago (bya), got cool enough to become a bit more solid after a half billion years of bollide bombardment, around 4bya. Chemical signatures of life are evident at 3.8 bya, and there is [i]possible[/ ...[text shortened]... e are definite fossil stromatolites from 3.5 bya.
It was a good post otherwise, though! 🙂
The Bible is supposed to be taken LITERALLY.
It is something that is very overwhelming to a lot of people.
When I first read the KJV (King James Version) I said, "What????"
So then I read the NIV (New International Version), and I said,
"Oh, that's what King Jimmy meant."
You cannot compromise the Bible.
Darwin? Origin of the Species????
Yeah, his book, I've read it.
But the only book that makes sense, when taken literally, is the Bible.
God created all of us.
God is the Beginning and the End.
If your beliefs aren't rooted in the Bible then you might want to
read the Bible more closely, and very slowly.
Think of your own children.
I'll get off of my soap box
1 edit
Originally posted by NosracTurn around, look at what you see,
The Bible is supposed to be taken LITERALLY.
It is something that is very overwhelming to a lot of people.
When I first read the KJV (King James Version) I said, "What????"
So then I read the NIV (New International Version), and I said,
"Oh, that's what King Jimmy meant."
You cannot compromise the Bible.
Darwin? Origin of the Species????
Yeah, his boo re closely, and very slowly.
Think of your own children.
I'll get off of my soap box
In her face, the mirror of your dreams,
Make believe I'm everywhere, living in your eyes,
Written on the pages is the answer to our never-ending story.
Reach the stars, fly a fantasy,
Dream a dream, and what you see will be,
Lives that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds,
And there upon the rainbow is the answer to our never-ending story.
Show no fear, for she may fade away,
In your hand, the birth of a new day,
Lives that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds,
And there upon the rainbow is the answer to our never-ending story.
(Seriously how the hell else can you respond to such idiocy?)
Originally posted by NosracTaken LITERALLY?
The Bible is supposed to be taken LITERALLY.
It is something that is very overwhelming to a lot of people.
When I first read the KJV (King James Version) I said, "What????"
So then I read the NIV (New International Version), and I said,
"Oh, that's what King Jimmy meant."
You cannot compromise the Bible.
Darwin? Origin of the Species????
Yeah, his boo ...[text shortened]... re closely, and very slowly.
Think of your own children.
I'll get off of my soap box
Okay, it's literally wrong then.
Originally posted by no1marauderRead it, didn't notice anything outside of what I have been saying
The problem is you deliberately choose to be ignorant of facts that are known to someone taking a 7th Grade Biology course. You're akin to someone who wants somebody else to "prove" the sky is blue because they refuse to go outside and look.
Here's a link to an article describing some (by no means ALL)specific observed speciation events in the scientific literature: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
all along. You care to point out a specific line that does, because
it seems to me that like the saying, you start with dogs, you end
with dogs still seems true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat's your definition of a species Kelly?
Read it, didn't notice anything outside of what I have been saying
all along. You care to point out a specific line that does, because
it seems to me that like the saying, you start with dogs, you end
with dogs still seems true.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzBaseless assertions?
Why don't you go and read a good book instead of blathering on with your baseless assertions. Evolution only works because of stats and probability. That's the entire point. You can feel free to go round and round in circles in your own head, but you only debase your own arguments.
Staph a. is an excellent example of evolution in action. A y Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
You are connecting dots and have no way of being proved wrong!
That is my main point, nothing you have said has changed that,
you believe evolution through time has changed a simple life
form into the the vast variety we see today. So, this another
question, how do you know? It could have just as easily all
started with several different lifeforms changing within kind,
instead of all coming from just one. Your connecting the dots on
how it could have happened is a theory, like many things about
evolution it must be believed in as it cannot be shown in the
present to that degree.
Kelly