Religious Views On Evolution

[Devils' Advocate]

Don't worry about offending me. Conservative Christians who accept ID are always treated harshly. Your was not as bad as most.

emphasis added.

Thank you for that. In point of fact I despise people who are rude and crude to other people when they feel that other person's viewpoint is bogus. My disdain for most atheists is for this very reason. I have seen the vitriol flung around like it is a pleasant past time for too many of the people in that camp. I reject that as much as I reject the evangelical condemnation of everyone who don't think exactly as they do.

The bottom line for me is very simple. You have a belief structure that is so far beyond what I can accept (as mine is to you) that there seems little point to debate. Debate, at least in theory, is to try to come to a better understanding between the two of us. This will not happen. Nothing I say to you will affect you in the least, and nothing you say to me will affect me in the least. Which makes the point of debate a pointless exercise. I have no desire to reject you as a human being for it though. Yes I believe you are seriously misguided. I do. That is who you are and as long as you don't force your christian values on me, we will remain on friendly terms no matter our differences.

 

[wil]

Why is everyone so surprised when on a faith based forum they encounter someone who places God above human constructs? I think you guys are being incredibly rude here. Just because someone does not accept what you see as scientific fact is no reason to label their views ignorant. Especially on a faith based forum. That's not what we're here for. Shoot, I'd rather err on the side of God myself.

And you are saying he is erring on the side of god?

His statements....all of them... In your mind are erring on the side of god?

To me it is the guy caught in bed, having sex with another woman....who are you going to believe... Me or your lying eyes?

 

[wil]

That's the response I always get when the person can't back up what they say with evidence.

Have a nice day.

Lol....evidence is easy...and everywhere...getting your blinders off ....that is hard...and makes you not worth discussing with.

But damn nice try.... It is good for s laugh

 

[omega2xx]

Speaking of which, you said you'd provide evidence to refute Stephen Fry, but haven't ... ergo ...

If you gave me a link, I can't find it. If you give me one I will respond. Later today, if I have time, I will try to find what he says and get back to you.

 

[omega2xx]

I understand what you are saying. The issue, at least for me, is as I stated above. The chasm between his belief structure and mine is so far a divide that it is impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion. For example, it isn't what "I" see as scientific fact that is relevant. It is that the majority of 'reality'* based people accept that science's goal is to be as fact based as possible. Which Omega flatly rejects.

Not only do I not reject it, I insist on it. If science can't prove what it says, it is not a fact. Your problem is that you accept on faith alone whaterve science says is true. You are not even familiar with the problems inherent in thier dating methods. Maybe you should start there, if the truth wont bother you.

There is no conflict with accepting a fact based reality and also having a belief in a divinity. Thomas can do it. So can you. So do I for that matter. We all have very different views on what divinity is, and we do accept that there are differences. Some differences some of us will accept, some differences some of us will reject.

Since all of the differences can't be right, the differences become critical to find the truth.

To say that science is false, to say that only that which can be proved is relevant while defining 'what can be proved' as almost nothing factual - that is not a person for which debating is worth the effort. For me, any way. Any, and I mean ANY scientific proof I give to Omega, he will shred with pseudo-science.

Not true. You show me something evolution says is true and I will show you the science that make is a lie. Time mtrgo put up or shut up. I also don't meant that to be harsh.

It isn't, as he said to Wil, that a person who cannot give evidence proves they cannot back up what they say. That is not the issue here. It is the pointlessness of the exercise.

Of course providing evidence for what we say is the issue. Why should anyone believe what someone says without any evidence? You certainly don' t beleive what I say without it.

*Reality - I really dislike using that world. I have studied a great deal about what we know of what we call reality and much of it is very different from what we have been led to believe. Reality is far deeper and grander than anything we have the ability to understand. Sound like a theological statement, does it not? It isn't though. My study of reality is through science, not religion. Any how I dislike using that word, but I do not have a better one to use in its place.[/QUOTE]

Reality is a perfectly good word. It goes yo the heart of what we are discussion. The problem is that we have different view of what is real. However real science solves the problem much of the time---when it proves something, that no one can falsify.

 

[omega2xx]

Speaking of which, you said you'd provide evidence to refute Stephen Fry, but haven't ... ergo ...

I am a little disappointed in you Thomas. It seems that if any one wants to defend evolution they would not use a comedian with no science background. If I was going to show the foolishness of evolution, I would get a comedian with no science background to give his views. I couldn't find anything where he discussed evolution, but I doubt if what a comedian would say wold be scientifically credible.

IMO he is a pompous, know-it-all bigot.

If you will post something he said about evolution I will be glad to respond.

 

[Thomas]

I am a little disappointed in you Thomas. It seems that if any one wants to defend evolution they would not use a comedian with no science background.

You misconstrue ... Neither Stephen Fry nor myself is defending evolution, rather, my point was Stephen Fry dismantles the 'Intelligent Design' argument, and one doesn't have to be a scientist to do so.

IMO he is a pompous, know-it-all bigot.

Doesn't make him wrong though, does it?

One argument against ID?

Child mortality rates. An intelligent designer would have made humans with a more robust reproductive system, and better infant survival mechanisms.

 

[omega2xx]

emphasis added.

Thank you for that. In point of fact I despise people who are rude and crude to other people when they feel that other person's viewpoint is bogus. My disdain for most atheists is for this very reason. I have seen the vitriol flung around like it is a pleasant past time for too many of the people in that camp. I reject that as much as I reject the evangelical condemnation of everyone who don't think exactly as they do.

While I agree with most of what you say, let me add a few thoughts. I try never to be rue and crude, but I enjoy sarcasm, given and taken, which can be taken as rude. Also being a frail human being, I sometimes do cross the line or at least step on it.

Most evangelicals do not condemn anyone who does not think as we do. Actually I am not an evangelical. I am a hard-nosed, stubborn old goat, Bible thumber.

The bottom line for me is very simple. You have a belief structure that is so far beyond what I can accept (as mine is to you) that there seems little point to debate. Debate, at least in theory, is to try to come to a better understanding between the two of us. This will not happen.

The discussion is necessary, but when the same things keep being repeated, it is time to move on. Also consider that everyone in the forum does not have all their ideas set in cement and something someone may say might help the cement in their ideas set up a bit.

Nothing I say to you will affect you in the least, and nothing you say to me will affect me in the least.

Generally true but not 100% true. I was converted after attending church most of my adult life and finally concluded Christianity was not true and decided never to attend church again. Once I was converted, I began to see the truths the Bible taught. That was 45 years ago, when I was not a impressionable child, and I was not brought up in a Christians environment.

Which makes the point of debate a pointless exercise. I have no desire to reject you as a human being for it though. Yes I believe you are seriously misguided. I do. That is who you are and as long as you don't force your christian values on me, we will remain on friendly terms no matter our differences.

Saying what I believe and why I believe it is not trying to force my values on anyone. I learned a long time ago, I do not have that ability.

 

[omega2xx]

You misconstrue ... Neither Stephen Fry nor myself is defending evolution, rather, my point was Stephen Fry dismantles the 'Intelligent Design' argument, and one doesn't have to be a scientist to do so.

Actually one does need to be a scientist to disprove ID. It can't be done with non-scientific opinions. To dismantle it one must show a scientific possibility for the existence of matter and life. He didn't even come close of what I read of what he said. If I missed somemthng, feel free to offer the evidence he presented, which was nothing.

Doesn't make him wrong though, does it?

Not at all. From all indications is a very intelligent person. However his expertise is limited when it comes to science. That makes his opinions questionable. He is also limited in theology making him unable to understand God and His ways. Everyone needs to understand that if the Bible is right, our earthly life is not our final life. God has provided a simple way for paradise to be regained. It seems man's intellect is a barrier to accept anything they can't understand.

God has chosen the foolish things of he world to shame the wise and God has chose the weak things of he world to shame the things that are strong(I Cor 1:27). Some of God's truth He presents in a paradox---to save our lie, we must lose it---when Ia weak, then I am strong.

One argument against ID?

Child mortality rates. An intelligent designer would have made humans with a more robust reproductive system, and better infant survival mechanisms.

That is a bogus strawman argument. God did make man that way. We could have lived forever in paradise, but when Adam and Eves sinned, the paradise was lost. Now man must suffer the problems of tornadoes, cancer, crime, early death, wars, poverty and all the things that make life unpleasant.

 

[Thomas]

IMO ID means there is intelligence responsible for all designs, even bad ones.

Strike one: Bad designs = bad designer. Good designers don't produce bad designs, they scrap them before the go into production. If they let bad designs through, they're not good, they're at best average. You're imputing human characteristics to God.

They are not and when I am thru with this post, I will go to your link and show where he does not mention anything proven by real science.

Strike two: You consistently say you will disprove something, and fail to deliver.

It is a theory based on logic---

Strike three: Flawed logic. Logic refutes his theories ...

They do not. One basic scientifically, proven truth of genetics is that for the offspring to have a certain characteristic, that characteristic had to be in the gene pool of it s parents---no gene for bones, no bones, not gene for arms, no arms, no gene for fins, no fins.

Strike four: You're using evolution to try and disprove evolution?

Strike five: The evidence is abundant to trace the development of certain characteristics, wings, limbs, fins etc., all belong to the same developmental tree, and are there, clearly visible, in the fossil record. Read this. Then rather than simply say 'it's wrong', actually demonstrate it's wrong.

Again I will guarantee you they did not offer any real scientific evidence to prove that.

Strike seven: Flat wrong. They have offered real scientific evidence – Read the above to follow the evolution of the eye.

Strike eight: You consistently fail to offer any real scientific evidence ti support your claims.

It always amazes me that intelligent people are willing to accept things for which there is no real scientific evidence.

Strike nine: What amazes me is the degree of your wilful ignorance with regard to the evidence that's out there.

I am going to you link and show where he does not offer any real scientific proof for what he claims.

Strike out: And yet you don't. Actually you've offered no proof for any of your claims, all you do is shut your eyes to the proofs all around you.

If you have any evidence, bring it on.

 

[omega2xx]

Strike one: Bad designs = bad designer. Good designers don't produce bad designs, they scrap them before the go into production. If they let bad designs through, they're not good, they're at best average. You're imputing human characteristics to God.

Your comedian's example of what is a bad design is what to expect from a comedian ignorant of God---A JOKE. It isn't even original. You seem to forget that God imputed His characteristic to man. Strike 1 and 2

Strike two: You consistently say you will disprove something, and fail to deliver.

Wrong, I ask you to prove what you say. Strike 3. Next batter.

Strike three: Flawed logic. Logic refutes his theories ...

I haven't seen anything from you that qualifies you to determine what is logic. Referencing a comedian with no science background point to an illogical reason. Strike 1.

Strike four: You're using evolution to try and disprove evolution?

Wrong. I use real science to disprove evolution. Strike 2.

Strike five: The evidence is abundant to trace the development of certain characteristics, wings, limbs, fins etc., all belong to the same developmental tree, and are there, clearly visible, in the fossil record. Read this. Then rather than simply say 'it's wrong', actually demonstrate it's wrong.[/QUOTE]

It is impossible to demonstrate something that is wrong. Soo I will give you a lesson in Genetics 101: The laws, no the theory, of genetics say the offspring cannot have a characteristic for which the parents have no gene for. If the parents don't have the gene for fins, they will NEVER have a kid with fins. Strike 3, Next batter.

Strike seven: Flat wrong. They have offered real scientific evidence – Read the above to follow the evolution of the eye.

Then it should be easy for you to present the evidence that natural selection is a mechanism for a change of species. Rhetoric is not evidence for anything, especially for something as complex as he eyes. God back to generics 101---if the parents do not have the gene for eyes, they will NEVER have a kid with eyes. Strike 1

Strike eight: You consistently fail to offer any real scientific evidence ti support your claims.

I just did. Your turn strike 2

]Strike nine: What amazes me is the degree of your wilful ignorance with regard to the evidence that's out there.

What amazes me is your willful ignorance of evidence. You think opinions are evidence. Strike 3. Side out, 9th inning, you lose 1 to 0

Strike out: And yet you don't. Actually you've offered no proof for any of your claims, all you do is shut your eyes to the proofs all around you.

If you have any evidence, bring it on.

Plant some corn and in about 90 days the truth of "after its kind' will suddenly show you the truth. Not only will you ALWASY get corn, you will ALWASY get the exact same variety you planted. Time to get on the bus and try to win at your next game. You will need a better pitcher than a comedian who can only throw a hanging curve ball.

 

[omega2xx]

Why is everyone so surprised when on a faith based forum they encounter someone who places God above human constructs? I think you guys are being incredibly rude here. Just because someone does not accept what you see as scientific fact is no reason to label their views ignorant. Especially on a faith based forum. That's not what we're here for. Shoot, I'd rather err on the side of God myself.

Well said Aussie. Especially when their are scientist who reject evolution and on basic scientific principles

 

[omega2xx]

Lol....evidence is easy...and everywhere...getting your blinders off ....that is hard...and makes you not worth discussing with.

But damn nice try.... It is good for s laugh

What is laughable is you not being able to prove what you say. I will make it easy for you. Provide the evidence evolution uses to show natural selection is a mechanism for a change of species. That should be easy for one as smart as you are.

 

[omega2xx]

DA, wil, could you please stop engaging? He is only debating, he hasn't said anything of substance and he never will. You both know he can keep going for as long as you can.

If what I say annoys you, ignore me. When people don't understand the subject, it always seems to not be of substance. Evidently you don't know enough science to know what is of substance and what is not.

There is one what to shut me up and show everyone how smart you are is to proved the evidence for what you believe.

I have ask several to provide he evidence evolution uses to prove natural selection is a mechanism for a change of species. No one else can, be the first and be the hero of the Darwin worshipers.

Have a nice day.

 

[Thomas]

Time to get on the bus and try to win at your next game.

Oh, you may kid yourself, old chum, but inside you know I've won them all, and I'll not trouble you with your own goals.

By the way, are you Donald Trump?

 

[wil]

If the world is less than 6500 years old....how are we seeing light coming from stars more than 6500 years old?

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=jPGsG45ldzI

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Hey Steve, here's another thread needs locked. Playground posturing's getting out of hand!

 

[StevePame]

Hey Steve, here's another thread needs locked. Playground posturing's getting out of hand!

I had hoped something transformative would come out of this thread. Despite all the virtual ink spilled, it appears opinions are firmly set.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

By the way, are you Donald Trump?

Hey! You stole my line. Already asked him that in another thread!

 

[wil]

Great article thomas posted.omega...

Did you read it?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/11/evolution/zimmer-text