Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[White_widow]

Let me start by saying that I believe in both God and science. That being said, I see no contradiction in the two accepted ideas. The theory of evolution has evidence. Every instinct that we have that has nothing to do with morality is programmed by the need for survival. How else do you explain the reactions we have to getting hurt or scared to things that we can easily survive? Spiders scare infants despite the fact that they are much smaller. It's an innate fear. Why else will animals of the same species grow different appendages or minor tweaks to anatomy when the only thing that changes is location? why do bacteria resist anti-biotics and create new strains. It's all there.

However, there is evidence to support God as well. The promises laid out in scriptures that have been fulfilled. Healings, and miracles with no medical explanation. History culminating from multiple cultures to support singular events, like the great flood, the creation, etc.

So my question, is why not accept both? If God is mighty enough to create the heaven and earth, why is it so hard to believe that he directed the big bang, and everything resulting from it. He gave all of his creations a will to live and thrive. Science, under His guidance has the capacity to be logical.

This is only meant to suggest a thought. I don't expect anyone to change their view because of it, but I would like to say that if you don't believe in evolution (which you don't have to. It's your opinion.) please don't make the excuse that you don't believe it because you believe in God. With God, anything is possible, including science. Now base your opinion on evidence instead.

 

[Marvolo]

Well for me personally God has no place in the science lab. It causes laziness and stifles thought when you can just say " I don't understand it so God did it." It particular causes laziness in children in science class when most are already slacking to some degree. A thousand years ago the gods controlled the tides today we understand that isn't so. Things we don't understand today should not be attributed to god or gods but instead they should be attributed to undiscovered processes and then set out to discover those processes.

You can believe in God all you want but don't bring it into science. This is just my take on it. Nothing personal.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let me start by saying that I believe in both God and science. That being said, I see no contradiction in the two accepted ideas. The theory of evolution has evidence. Every instinct that we have that has nothing to do with morality is programmed by the need for survival. How else do you explain the reactions we have to getting hurt or scared to things that we can easily survive? Spiders scare infants despite the fact that they are much smaller. It's an innate fear. Why else will animals of the same species grow different appendages or minor tweaks to anatomy when the only thing that changes is location? why do bacteria resist anti-biotics and create new strains. It's all there.

However, there is evidence to support God as well. The promises laid out in scriptures that have been fulfilled. Healings, and miracles with no medical explanation. History culminating from multiple cultures to support singular events, like the great flood, the creation, etc.

So my question, is why not accept both? If God is mighty enough to create the heaven and earth, why is it so hard to believe that he directed the big bang, and everything resulting from it. He gave all of his creations a will to live and thrive. Science, under His guidance has the capacity to be logical.

This is only meant to suggest a thought. I don't expect anyone to change their view because of it, but I would like to say that if you don't believe in evolution (which you don't have to. It's your opinion.) please don't make the excuse that you don't believe it because you believe in God. With God, anything is possible, including science. Now base your opinion on evidence instead.

Well, if your prophecies are vague enough, they're bound to come true

But really, science and religion are incompatible.

And if evolution is God's plan... it's rather horrible. Just ask 99% of all the species that are extinct.

 

[EML420]

Evoultion is not gods plan just go one step further take god away.

Despite what science can answer people still cling to the fact that it cant answer every thing.
Science has explained so much and just saying well what about this it must be god is wrong imo.

 

[Bill]

Yes it does. We can do this all day.

You could, but you'd be just as wrong at the end of the day as you are right now.

Exactly- so all species should be dead before adaptation occurs. Only via the design of an intelligent mind could the species be able to thrive in their natural environments.

You misunderstood what he's telling you. Once a species has been selected for extinction, it takes 2-5 generations depending on the severity of the event causing the extinction. Adaptation to a change in environment can take longer, if the organism has the ability to do so. Speciation, which is the culmination of many adaptations and genetic changes until the organism can longer have viable offspring with the originating species.

But I'm sure that I just wasted time explaining that to you.

A theory is a guess. Hopefully an educated guess, but a guess. I've seen the back-and-forth in this thread about what a theory is, and it's still a guess. It sure as hell isn't proven fact. Then it would be a proven fact.

You've seen that back and forth, but you still don't understand what theory means. Theories will never be proven facts. All the evidence in the world will not make them so. They're not part of a hierarchy that ends with fact. They are either supported by evidence or not. Theories are a framework, or a model, into which evidence and data are placed to support a fact or observed phenomena. They are not facts themselves.

You seem determined, at any cost, to discount all data except that which supports your thesis. It's an intellectually dishonest method of argumentation. If you can't enter into a discussion with a least enough humility to admit when you're wrong, and you've been wrong about a great many things since this discussion started, then why bother at all? It becomes fruitless.

And in his perfection, he loves us and wants us to be happy. He just knows that we have to work to be truly happy. If it's merely given to us, as with Adam and Eve, we won't appreciate it.

A perfect being has no wants. It has no need for love or any human emotion such as anger, desire, jealousy or happiness. A being of such magnitude who exists in a state of perfection has no need nor desire to add anything to its existence if it exists in a state of perfection. After all, any addition to that existence would mean that it was lacking and that it must be fulfilled with the addition of whatever was created.

 

[8wid]

According to Richard Dawkins there is nothing blasphemous about being Greek/Russian Orthodox Christian or Catholic and believing in evolution as the way God created mankind for anyone whose interested.

 

[Sentinel X]

There is a fundamental difference. Let me phrase it this way, where did Gawd come from? Well, religious people generally tell us that he's always been. He has magical qualities. Aliens do not (if they do, then they become gods, and it becomes a religious thing, like Raelism). They like us, evolved on some planet. And going with the extraterrestrial UFO theory, presumably, over thousands of years, they developed technology that we see today. Technology we will probably have one day.

I don't know why you keep going back to the existence of aliens as a whole. That is not what I am questioning. AT ALL. There is plenty of scientific proof supporting that theory. The existence of aliens is a completely different aspect then talking about advanced alien technology. One is all but confirmed by science, the other is used to explain strange phenomena when in fact nothing is understood about it at all.
You're making an inherently faulty argument here. You're just inherently making an assumption that UFO phenomena are real first and foremost and that they are science based without any merit whatsoever. By definition, that is called faith. True science is not about assumptions, its about facts and proof.

Now is that speculation? Of course. But that's what science tells us to expect.

Actually no, science doesn't tell us to expect the laws of science to be broken and thrown out the window.We assume our discoveries and knowledge of science to remain consistent until PROVEN otherwise. If you don't have the proof to explain a phenomena that contradicts scientific knowledge then it is the same category as any other supernatural phenomena.

As for evidence, I don't know what more you want. You've got the accounts of hundreds of pilots, military, private and commercial. Public officials. Ground traces, radar confirmation. Skeptics will be skeptics until you show them a crashed flying saucer and some alien bodies. Of course, if we had those lying around, we wouldn't have the conversation to begin with.

Really? Thats anecdotal evidence. Something that has little to no bearings at all in the scientific community. Anecdotal evidence is used all the time in religion. Plenty of people have testified and/or witnessed miracles through prayer and meditation too. Big whoop. You're saying ghost, Gods, and what not are all 'magic' automatically by definition because they don't exists and they don't exist to you because you don't have proof they exist. Completely reasonable, and I respect that. But then you turn around and say that strange UFO related events are not magic, you assume they are real when you don't have any proof that they exist either (besides anecdotal, which you can find a plethora of those supporting deities, ghost, etc as well)

Which is especially strange, when most of humanity believes in deities without a shred of proof. Get me Apollo and his chariot on multiple radar systems, with independent visual confirmation on the ground and in the air a dozen times, and I'd consider paying his temple a visit.

If 'without a shred of proof' is synonymous with anecdotal evidence then its not just people who believe in God and ghosts who believe in things without a "shred of proof".

 

[Dragon]

Watch this video please.

Seen it. That was the reason for my post.

Also read this post please.

Read it. Since I know I don't suffer from schizophrenia, that would make your post basically pointless. You ASSUME that God can only be "quantified" by your standards. Very small minded and unscientific of you.

That's not arrogance. That's just good reasoning. You try to use good reasoning (or at least I'd like to think so) for every aspect of your life. EXCEPT for the most important question of all. You don't stop for the car that isn't there.

No, it's arrogance. If God is the creator of all things- why exacty would he have to prove anything to you? What does he owe you? What does he need from you? Why should he/would he humble himself to you?

You have NOTHING, no knowledge at all from which to work from, to claim to know anything about the character of god.

Your arrogance is laughable. God bless you.

But you keep on doing it. You keep on asserting knowledge claims for something that you can't demonstrate.

So do you. Yoiur THEORIES are unproven, and unprovable. You may hold out hope that SOMEDAY they'll be proven, but you can't say when. Only in my case, I don't need to prove anything. I'm only offering you something to consider. It means nothing to me if you choose not to.

How can you know that?

It's simple logic. The simplest. If God created nature, then he is the very definition of what is natural.

You know an awful lot about a being who's existence you can't demonstrate to anyone other than to yourself. It's ridiculous. We have no reason to believe anything that you're claiming.

Again, I couldn't care less if you believe me. I gain nothing from you believing me. I'm offering you an option, because my conscience dictates that I do. Consider it, don't consider it. It means nothing to me either way.

Although, considering the anger in your post, I believe you might need to open your mind a bit.

 

[Dragon]

You could, but you'd be just as wrong at the end of the day as you are right now.

Oh. Thanks for that

You misunderstood what he's telling you. Once a species has been selected for extinction, it takes 2-5 generations depending on the severity of the event causing the extinction.

Selected by whom? Why didn't this mindless evolution, which somehow granted the ability to adapt not give instantaneous adaptive traits? It's outlined in DNA, isn't it?

Adaptation to a change in environment can take longer, if the organism has the ability to do so.

Which means they would be extinct before they could adapt.

Adaptation to a change in environment can take longer

Speciation, which is the culmination of many adaptations and genetic changes until the organism can longer have viable offspring with the originating species.

Which means they'd have to hope for adaptation before extinction. So, a species moving from a water environment to a land environment would have to adapt before it was extinct. But since adaptation takes longer, it couldn't adapt. Your words, your standards, disproving your THEORY.

But I'm sure that I just wasted time explaining that to you.

Maybe you should try explaining it to yourself. It appears you missed something.

You've seen that back and forth, but you still don't understand what theory means. Theories will never be proven facts. All the evidence in the world will not make them so. They're not part of a hierarchy that ends with fact. They are either supported by evidence or not. Theories are a framework, or a model, into which evidence and data are placed to support a fact or observed phenomena. They are not facts themselves.

Which means theories are a guess. Thanks.

You seem determined, at any cost, to discount all data except that which supports your thesis.

So do you.

It's an intellectually dishonest method of argumentation. If you can't enter into a discussion with a least enough humility to admit when you're wrong, and you've been wrong about a great many things since this discussion started, then why bother at all? It becomes fruitless.

I can ask many of you the same question.

A perfect being has no wants. It has no need for love or any human emotion such as anger, desire, jealousy or happiness.

Who says? You? And I didn't say anything about anger, desire or jealousy. God in his perfection would naturally be happy.

A being of such magnitude who exists in a state of perfection has no need nor desire to add anything to its existence if it exists in a state of perfection.

God has no need. But he can certainly have ambition.

After all, any addition to that existence would mean that it was lacking and that it must be fulfilled with the addition of whatever was created.

Not in the least. Such an existence can certainly make use of his limitless imagination. He can be creative, generous and loving. The fact that you, in your very limited wisdom can't see that means nothing other than you are seeing this perfect being from the perspective of your own imperfection.

 

[DBryan]

Dragon

NO ONE in this thread should continue discussion with you as you are making it patently obvious that you are intellectually dishonest.

Go back through this thread. Read what a theory is. A theory is not a guess. You are wrong.

 

[DBryan]

Read it. Since I know I don't suffer from schizophrenia, that would make your post basically pointless.

Funny, 'cause that's what the guy with schizophrenia says.

You really don't understand anything that I took the time to detail out for you at all, do you? What you claim has no value if you cannot demonstrate it to anyone other than to yourself.

You ASSUME that God can only be "quantified" by your standards. Very small minded and unscientific of you.

I make no such assumption. It could very well be the case that if god exists, that he has qualities that we currently cannot measure.

It could also very well be the case that out in the Universe, 1 billion unicorns exist. And we lack the ability to measure their existence.

But I am not taking on face value alone that 1 billion unicorns exist and I won't be told that I am arrogant for disbelieving unicorns, I won't believe that god exists, simply because you assert that god exists. Doing so is irrational. Stating that anyone who disagrees with you is arrogant does nothing to prove the truth of your claims. And in fact, asserting knowledge while being unable to or unwilling to demonstrate evidence of that knowledge is the very definition of arrogance.

If god has no measurable or quantifiable traits, we cannot distinguish god from nothing.

What is it about that that you cannot understand?

No, it's arrogance. If God is the creator of all things- why exacty would he have to prove anything to you? What does he owe you? What does he need from you? Why should he/would he humble himself to you?

I think if you stepped back and looked at it objectively, the more arrogant position is the claim that God exists without providing any proof of it at all. Do you really think the Universe, with its billions of stars and planets, and billions of years of existence, was created solely for the benefit of humanity? And that this being chose to reveal himself to you and not the rest of us? You're in no position to call anyone else arrogant if you believe that.

So do you. Yoiur THEORIES are unproven, and unprovable. You may hold out hope that SOMEDAY they'll be proven, but you can't say when. Only in my case, I don't need to prove anything. I'm only offering you something to consider. It means nothing to me if you choose not to.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Theories are supported by large bodies of empirical data. Theories are confirmed by observation or experiment. They are not guesses.

Are you willing to admit that you've been mistaken on your definition of theory as the word is understood in science?

It's simple logic. The simplest. If God created nature, then he is the very definition of what is natural.

If you assert that god works through scientific naturalism, then you can simply go one step further and remove god from the equation altogether. We don't need a god claim to explain nature.


Watch this video.

[YT]Kvftq2ystmY[/YT]


This is my last post to you. I have a feeling that even this final post has been a waste of my time. When a person makes it abundantly clear that they won't accept logical arguments, you can't use logic to debate with them.

 

[jmc]

Evolution all the way. Nothing wrong with believing in a higher power guiding you if it gets you through the day, but lets look at the evidence and think logically, pointing to a book that has been written to suit the opinions of false authors and has been altered, misinterpreted and manipulated over the centuries as evidence is kinda silly.

 

[DBryan]

Here is the Oxford definition of arrogant, for anyone who is curious.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arrogant

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities:
he’s arrogant and opinionated
a typically arrogant assumption

 

[Bill]

Oh. Thanks for that

You're welcome. It doesn't change the facts, however.

Selected by whom? Why didn't this mindless evolution, which somehow granted the ability to adapt not give instantaneous adaptive traits? It's outlined in DNA, isn't it?

No, it isn't. This is where you keep misunderstanding.

Which means they would be extinct before they could adapt.

No, because you're assuming that every species evolves at the same rate in the same conditions. That is not reality.

Adaptation to a change in environment can take longer

Which means they'd have to hope for adaptation before extinction. So, a species moving from a water environment to a land environment would have to adapt before it was extinct. But since adaptation takes longer, it couldn't adapt. Your words, your standards, disproving your THEORY.

Again, you are not taking into account that individual species have different adaptation rates and whether individual organisms within that pool can have mutations that give them the ability to adapt. If I take a species in a water borne environment, and let's say there is a change in the local environment which starts to dry up the water and it eventually leaves these on land. This can take many generations or it can take a few, but the ability of the each organism to change is directly correlated with its fitness(reproductive rate).

The more prolific species gives natural selection more to work with and the organism can develop traits to handle the new environment. A less prolific species cannot handle the changes and will die out within a few generations. Extinction occurs when the species is dying out faster than it can reproduce. Reproduction rate plays a large part in giving a species a reprieve on extinction. Mutation also plays a role. If mutation works in its favor, then it will adapt. After enough mutations, the organism will no longer be able to mate with the originating species and speciation has occurred.

The rates for each given are dependent upon whether any change through mutation is being wrought on the individuals within the gene pool. If no mutations occur within the pool, the species will die out and go extinct within a few generations. If mutation occurs and the reproductive rate(fitness) allows that organism to pass those traits on, then the organism will outrun the timetable for extinction and eventually adapt to live within it's new environment. Thus adaptation taking longer.

Now, I hope I explained that correctly and clearly. There are a host of good references for mutation, adaptation and speciation in the internet and in book form for you to peruse, or perhaps a more knowledgeable poster than correct me or more clearly explain it.

Maybe you should try explaining it to yourself. It appears you missed something.

I'd get some education on the subject. You're like a host of others who entered into this discussion a little light on intellectual armory for the subject at hand, and determined not to arm themselves with enough knowledge to properly retaliate.

You've demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of every single concept of Evolution. I used to think people were playing a game to troll when they've entered into discussions and post like you, but I've seen that there are people indeed that ignorant, and I can no longer make that assumption.

Which means theories are a guess. Thanks.

You're being obtuse. Is it deliberate?

So do you.

Oh? Provides examples of verifiable data then...

I can ask many of you the same question.

You haven't been able, or willing, to provide data that supports your position. But you have been able to demonstrate an unwillingness to learn from errors in your understanding of various terminology.

Who says? You? And I didn't say anything about anger, desire or jealousy. God in his perfection would naturally be happy.

The Bible describes all of these emotions.

God would have no need for emotion at all. He would simply exist in His perfect state.

God has no need. But he can certainly have ambition.

Ambition is a desire or drive to achieve. If God is perfect, then what would He need to achieve that is more than what He is at any given time in his existence. He is the ultimate. Ambition is the need for more. God would have no need for ambition.

Not in the least. Such an existence can certainly make use of his limitless imagination. He can be creative, generous and loving. The fact that you, in your very limited wisdom can't see that means nothing other than you are seeing this perfect being from the perspective of your own imperfection.

No, I see perfection for what it is, not what I want it to be to allow myth to become reality and the illogical to become logical. Perfection for such a being is what it is, and you are limiting that perfection to allow for your existence when a perfect God would have no need for you to exist at all. Creativity, generosity, loving; these are all terms that mere humans use to humanize a being with no need for such things.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't know why you keep going back to the existence of aliens as a whole. That is not what I am questioning. AT ALL. There is plenty of scientific proof supporting that theory. The existence of aliens is a completely different aspect then talking about advanced alien technology. One is all but confirmed by science, the other is used to explain strange phenomena when in fact nothing is understood about it at all.
You're making an inherently faulty argument here. You're just inherently making an assumption that UFO phenomena are real first and foremost and that they are science based without any merit whatsoever. By definition, that is called faith. True science is not about assumptions, its about facts and proof.

Actually no, science doesn't tell us to expect the laws of science to be broken and thrown out the window.We assume our discoveries and knowledge of science to remain consistent until PROVEN otherwise. If you don't have the proof to explain a phenomena that contradicts scientific knowledge then it is the same category as any other supernatural phenomena.

Really? Thats anecdotal evidence. Something that has little to no bearings at all in the scientific community. Anecdotal evidence is used all the time in religion. Plenty of people have testified and/or witnessed miracles through prayer and meditation too. Big whoop. You're saying ghost, Gods, and what not are all 'magic' automatically by definition because they don't exists and they don't exist to you because you don't have proof they exist. Completely reasonable, and I respect that. But then you turn around and say that strange UFO related events are not magic, you assume they are real when you don't have any proof that they exist either (besides anecdotal, which you can find a plethora of those supporting deities, ghost, etc as well)

If 'without a shred of proof' is synonymous with anecdotal evidence then its not just people who believe in God and ghosts who believe in things without a "shred of proof".

Alright, since this is clearly going nowhere, I'm dropping this "discussion". Though for the record, radar data (especially when you have multiple cases of it, being independently confirmed in the air) is not anecdotal. But, believe what you want.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

I'm not getting into this discussion, because people will never agree with eachother and will go on and on in the well-known visual circle.

I just want to say:

Why can't people just accept that people have different opinions and respect that? Why it is always necessary to impose your opinion on people who think differently? Can't we just voice our opinion on this subject, take in what others think of it and move on?

*sigh*

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not getting into this discussion, because people will never agree with eachother and will go on and on in the well-known visual circle.

I just want to say:

Why can't people just accept that people have different opinions and respect that? Why it is always necessary to impose your opinion on people who think differently? Can't we just voice our opinion on this subject, take in what others think of it and move on?

*sigh*

If you're referring to evolution, it's simple. Evolution is not an opinion. It's fact. Creationism is not.

 

[jmc]

Look, it doesn't matter how thoroughly and well written you write a response or how many facts and scientific evidence you use to show in favour of evolution some people are just never going to accept it. If they want to believe in fantasy they're are more than welcome to do it, if it helps them get through the day thinking someone is watching over them then more power to them, but they've lost the argument when they start pointing to a book that contains people walking on water and turning water into wine as a counter argument. Is science always correct? No, truth is science does get stuff wrong sometimes and in some respect it is guess work, but it's educated guess work and is backed up by hard evidence and data to support it's claims. No-one knows for sure 100% if the universe is in fact 13.7 billion years old but the evidence from imagery taken from various deep space satellites strongly suggests it to be the case. Basically it's like CSI, there evidence is there, it's just a matter of interpreting what happened. When people start pointing to the Bible as a counter argument they're only going off what they've been told to believe and read. It doesn't matter how you try to explain to them that much of what was written in that book was written by false authors or that many of the stories are exaggerations they're just never going to look outside the realms of possibility that God is a concept created by man and that logical explanation with the evidence to back it up is probably the correct one.

 

[echostation]

Evolution is the mechanism that God provided for us to evolve. There is still so much to evolve from the physical to the mental in ourselves. There are deeply spiritual individuals who are already far more advanced living here right on Earth with proven powers that it's amazing and there's living proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So this should settle the question, it's not matter of this versus that... an overall unified theory of God having created the process of evolution and how all of us evolve over time and grow and how we will progessively become more advanced like individuals in the video below... this is spectacular display of how we're evolving through HIS work...

[YT]mmNhO71q1MQ[/YT]

 

[Dr.]

... an overall unified theory of God having created the process of evolution and how all of us evolve over time and grow and how we will progessively become more advanced like individuals in the video below... this is spectacular display of how we're evolving through HIS work...

Hmm. I'm still skeptical. I suspect there may be some sort of movie trickery going on in that clip.

 

[Anita18]

Evolution is the mechanism that God provided for us to evolve. There is still so much to evolve from the physical to the mental in ourselves. There are deeply spiritual individuals who are already far more advanced living here right on Earth with proven powers that it's amazing and there's living proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So this should settle the question, it's not matter of this versus that... an overall unified theory of God having created the process of evolution and how all of us evolve over time and grow and how we will progessively become more advanced like individuals in the video below... this is spectacular display of how we're evolving through HIS work...

[YT]mmNhO71q1MQ[/YT]

As for the OP...I'm a scientist, so yeah, I believe that the the mechanism of evolution is accurate.

I do know some scientists who are creationists, though. I'm not entirely sure how they manage to sort that out. I think it's one of those "God made the mechanism possible" things, not that we were put on this earth exactly the way we are now.

 

[DIRECTOR]

Evolution is the mechanism that God provided for us to evolve. There is still so much to evolve from the physical to the mental in ourselves. There are deeply spiritual individuals who are already far more advanced living here right on Earth with proven powers that it's amazing and there's living proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So this should settle the question, it's not matter of this versus that... an overall unified theory of God having created the process of evolution and how all of us evolve over time and grow and how we will progessively become more advanced like individuals in the video below... this is spectacular display of how we're evolving through HIS work...

[YT]mmNhO71q1MQ[/YT]

why are you embarrassing your fellow desi brothers............ LIKE MYSELF.........

Show them this.....

The best bollywood movie ever made.... make sure to turn on the CC

 

[Nevaratoiel]

If you're referring to evolution, it's simple. Evolution is not an opinion. It's fact. Creationism is not.

Being for or against either is an opinion.

 

[DBryan]

That doesn't even make sense.

I can't be for or against 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[bunk]

I'm not getting into this discussion,

Oops.

Can't we just voice our opinion on this subject, take in what others think of it and move on?

That's what happens, unless the thread gets locked. Who cares how long it takes?