Do You Believe In Evolution?

[Bill]

No problem; just take a look at Genesis 6:3...

Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years." (The Message)

At that time in history, mankind had become consumed by evil, so God limited our lifespan to 120 years at maximum. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: with less time to live, individuals wouldn't be able to spread evil so rapidly upon the Earth. Slowly, humanity's longevit shortened, until it settled off right where God said it would. The oldest person in recent history died a couple years ago at the age of 119.

So what if someone lived longer than 120 years?

 

[psychocheeseman]

So what if someone lived longer than 120 years?

I guess Jeanne Calment, Elizabeth Ma Pampo Isreal, and Shigechiyo Izumi must have been the devil in disguise, or as usual a hoax perpetrated by Atheists.

Also, someone should really tell Edna Parker that she's got less than 5 years left... Cause god won't let her live any longer than that.

 

[Oddzball]

You sir are a true Christian... if only others could understand.

An example of a true Christian may be in order here. John Henslow, Regius Professor of Botany at St. Johns, Cambridge, was a practicing minister and by all accounts an active and professing Christian. He tutored members of the Royal Family, but is best known as Darwin's teacher. He had a hand in getting Darwin appointed as Ship's Naturalist on the HMS Beagle, was the person Darwin sent his samples to back in England.

He was the first of the foremost mem of science in England to see Darwin's work. one of the few who'd seen Darwin develop his conclusions.

He also believed in the bible as literal truth, but did not deny the accuracy of Darwin's findings.

How? He had real faith. He could not reconcile the evidence Darwin amassed. He had faith that God could and would explain it in His own time and manner. He saw truth as the road to God. He saw the scientific method as a means to truth. So, somehow what Darwin had trailblazed had to eventually lead to God.

And that was good enough for him.

Now what I see in Christians of MovieFan's sort is a lack of faith. If they accept the facts of evolution, they fear they lack the strength to hold on to what they believe. So they do whatever they can do to eliminate evolution's place in science including lying, misreprentation, bullying of school officials, even, as Kansans found out, trashing the chances of Kansas graduates getting into colleges in other states.

 

[Oddzball]

How did the Mesopotamians (Epic of Gilgamesh) know the details of creation, the fall and the flood long before they were given to Moses(before he was even born) and before they actually happened?

I know why, do you?

Bill and Ted had an excellent adventure there and told them, of course. We can't see the movie version of this real time travel story because Kennau wants way too much money.

 

[squeekness]

An example of a true Christian may be in order here. John Henslow, Regius Professor of Botany at St. Johns, Cambridge, was a practicing minister and by all accounts an active and professing Christian. He tutored members of the Royal Family, but is best known as Darwin's teacher. He had a hand in getting Darwin appointed as Ship's Naturalist on the HMS Beagle, was the person Darwin sent his samples to back in England.

He was the first of the foremost mem of science in England to see Darwin's work. one of the few who'd seen Darwin develop his conclusions.

He also believed in the bible as literal truth, but did not deny the accuracy of Darwin's findings.

How? He had real faith. He could not reconcile the evidence Darwin amassed. He had faith that God could and would explain it in His own time and manner. He saw truth as the road to God. He saw the scientific method as a means to truth. So, somehow what Darwin had trailblazed had to eventually lead to God.

And that was good enough for him.

Now what I see in Christians of MovieFan's sort is a lack of faith. If they accept the facts of evolution, they fear they lack the strength to hold on to what they believe. So they do whatever they can do to eliminate evolution's place in science including lying, misreprentation, bullying of school officials, even, as Kansans found out, trashing the chances of Kansas graduates getting into colleges in other states.

I am not a Biblical literalist so I don't have to work as hard, but this still makes a kind of sense I can agree with. We don't know everything yet and so it it may be unwise to make hard and absolute decisions about both science and God. As we learn more, our opinions will evolve. I think it is important to accept the idea that what we know now can and will change as we learn more. Sticking to one position in spite of changing evidence isn't a good way to go. For me, I believe what I do now based on what I know now. My opinions on things now will no doubt change as I learn more in the future. It just makes sense.

 

[bunk]

This guy doesn't believe in evolution lol.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

From Treehouse of Horror XIX

 

[chaseter]

What about the fish that can walk on land and has a set of lungs, what about snakes having bone spurs, what about man and chimp sharing 98% of their DNA, what about dinosaurs having hollow bones like the birds of today, what about humans having a bacterial like mitochondria, etc. etc. Does that not support evolution through many facets like adapting and symbiosis?

Creationsists think the Earth is 6000 years old say carbon dating, ice core sampling, astrology, mathematics, etc. are faulty because they can accurately measure the age of the Earth. I still stand by my statement that the majority of people that are Creationists come from home schooling, are not concerned with a field in life sciences, and likely do not have a degree from an accredited unversity or anything above that.

 

[Bill]

I guess Jeanne Calment, Elizabeth Ma Pampo Isreal, and Shigechiyo Izumi must have been the devil in disguise, or as usual a hoax perpetrated by Atheists.

Also, someone should really tell Edna Parker that she's got less than 5 years left... Cause god won't let her live any longer than that.

Of the three, only Calment has been positively verified according to the sources I've read, but one is all it takes.

 

[dark_b]

What about the fish that can walk on land and has a set of lungs, what about snakes having bone spurs, what about man and chimp sharing 98% of their DNA, what about dinosaurs having hollow bones like the birds of today, what about humans having a bacterial like mitochondria, etc. etc. Does that not support evolution through many facets like adapting and symbiosis?

Creationsists think the Earth is 6000 years old say carbon dating, ice core sampling, astrology, mathematics, etc. are faulty because they can accurately measure the age of the Earth. I still stand by my statement that the majority of people that are Creationists come from home schooling, are not concerned with a field in life sciences, and likely do not have a degree from an accredited unversity or anything above that.

similar questions were already asked.
i think the answer was ''god is perfect so he obvioulsy knows why he did it. we dont question him''
i think something like that.

 

[Superfreak]

Technically speaking, no, because I did not traditionally graduate high school. I did however, take my GED exam in 2000, and I went to college for a year (2002-2003) as well. I've also learned many things through reading both books and various Web articles, watching historical documentaries, that sort of thing. I'm certainly no Einstein, but I think my knowledge is pretty well rounded.

really? I finished highschool, just about finish my second of 2 double major BAH's and am now onto a Masters, and still think I'm only scratching the surface of confirmed intelligence. You scare me Moviefan.

Evolution, and the concept of advantageous recessive genetic traits for survival, slowly becoming dominant traits, and over a long long term period, via Darwin's process of Natural Selection (those who survive in their environment the best, will dominate), resulting in a new species is undeniable.

Creationism on the other hand, is not deniable either. No where is it defined that the 7 days of creation occured in consecutive order. These seven days could be assumed to have been spread out over sever thousand, million, if not billion years. This actually allows both concepts to coexist in the same framework of thought.

That being said: evolution is the process by which creation occurs


(this though excludes the idea of how much our human evolutionary 'intelligence' and 'social behavior' has allowed us to screw with this process today. Ie. in the past, children born with deadly genetic disease would die at a young age before being able to pass on their deadly genetic trait to their offspring. Today, our 'intelligence' has allowed us to treat and keep these people alive, so that they can pass on their deadly trait, and therefore interfere with the evolutionary process. Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing?)

 

[Carcharodon]

This actually allows both concepts to coexist in the same framework of thought.

Not for a literalist.

 

[chaseter]

Not for a literalist.

Nothing good comes from the extremes of either sides. Intelligent design could be behind evolution...no one knows until we bite the dust.

 

[Carcharodon]

Nothing good comes from the extremes of either sides. Intelligent design could be behind evolution...no one knows until we bite the dust.

That's why I'm an agnostic. I only have faith in probability.

 

[Electrix]

The title 'Do You Believe In Evolution?' is a bit off in my opinion. Evolution is not something you can 'believe in', like religion.

There is evidence of evolution. It is just whether people choose to acknowledge it, or whether their religion clouds their judgement for rational thinking and looking at reality.

 

[lou2099]

double post

 

[lou2099]

evolution exists, it's a part of natural selection. There are too many animals similar yet different.

 

[chaseter]

That's why I'm an agnostic. I only have faith in probability.

Who are you, Two-Facet:

 

[Lemon]

The title 'Do You Believe In Evolution?' is a bit off in my opinion. Evolution is not something you can 'believe in', like religion.

There is evidence of evolution. It is just whether people choose to acknowledge it, or whether their religion clouds their judgement for rational thinking and looking at reality.

Indeed

 

[Carcharodon]

Who are you, Two-Facet:

I can't describe it entirely, but it makes sense to me. Every single event that has happened or ever will happen has a basis in probability. Even our understanding of the world around us which has been largely provided by science has a solid basis in probability, no matter how complex.

Science itself deals less with "fact" than it does with the nature of probability and outcomes. Even fact has its basis in probability.

If the probability of a higher power is not zero (that is to say that there is not evidence that proves beyond all probability (100%) that said higher power does not exist), then there is no way to say with certainty that it doesn't exist.

It seems simple, but when you apply this philosophy to the entire universe and everything within it, it can get pretty profound. It makes sense, though.

What REALLY makes my head spin, though, is this question:

If, according to this outlook, there is a probability that this higher power does exist, then WITHIN this probable reality where a higher power exists, does this entire philosophy break down?

 

[chaseter]

It was a joke...I know that science deals with probabilities in the rejection or acceptance of a theory. Creationists are more like a sith...they only deal in absolutes.

 

[Danalys]

i look at it this way. there are more metaphysical probabilities than physical ones so any physical out come is more likely. hense to me the maths suggests to be atheist rather than agnostic.

 

[The Battousai]

It was a joke...I know that science deals with probabilities in the rejection or acceptance of a theory. Creationists are more like a sith...they only deal in absolutes.

I love the irony of that statement

 

[chaseter]

i look at it this way. there are more metaphysical probabilities than physical ones so any physical out come is more likely. hense to me the maths suggests to be atheist rather than agnostic.

But then there is the argument that if by the chance that there is an afterlife, a calculating atheist would be wise to just pick a religion in the probability that said religion could be right because you statistically have nothing to lose.

 

[Danalys]

not really. aswell as there being many afterlifes with different requirements there could be after lifes you only get into not believing. so we've got as much chance as anyone else.