I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

iterationzero
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I am not against science, I am against the men who would deify science at the expense of human truth.

How are people deifying science?

that should be obvious...

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I haven't met or discussed evolution with a theist who disbelieves evolution

ok then...

so back to the discussion of how evolution is being used by a minority group of narcissistic individuals to further their belief that they are the only ones correct on the planet when it comes to beliefs.

See this is what I'm talking about. You snipped most of my quote out of your response. It's not like I had a particularly long post either, so this just makes it look like you are misrepresenting what I said.

Here more links for you to read (which you won't):
God and Evolution Can Co-exist, Scientist Says
The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

These people understand that evolution and God acceptable and can coexist. It's only the hardset dogmatic Christians who disbelieve evolution. Which is strange, if you disbelieve evolution on religious grounds then you also have to disbelieve that the world is round and other scientific theories that contradict what is said in the Bible. But for some reason only evolution comes under fire, selective reasoning is what that is.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

oh I am not offended... science one day may eventually prove darwinian evolution, but it is unlikely our textbooks will reflect this until another half a million years.

"Darwinian Evolution" hasn't been the model for the theory of evolution for over a century now. Even by the end of the 1800's, people understood that Mendel's work in genetics (or something similar) would have to be incorporated. Over time, evolution has come to incorporate cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology as well. It's hardly what Darwin outlined in his work a century and a half ago. So why would science even be interested in proving something that hasn't been in common use for over a hundred years? You may as well say that "science one day may eventually prove the existence of phlogistan".

And to SisyphusRide:

You seem hell bent on associating acceptance in the theory of evolution with atheism. Which is yet another common fallacy. Most theists in the educated west agree on evolution.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

have you ever met a theist who was taught evolution and basically thought nothing of it until someone came along and said "God does not exist because of evolution" ?

There is one theist I have met who is a highly intelligent individual who does not invest in the traditional creationism account. His beliefs are more in line with deism. He has reached that conclusion because of his studies in physics and biology. In other words, his scientific education has eliminated the possibility of traditional creationism. And as I said, he's highly intelligent. His conclusions were not reached as a means of sparing his emotional security.

I have a lot of respect for him, not because of his opinions, but because of how he reached them and why.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

have you ever met a theist who was taught evolution and basically thought nothing of it until someone came along and said "God does not exist because of evolution" ?

have you ever met a theist who is losing faith in evolution because of the way it is being used?

This is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true. It doesn't matter if evolution is being pushed with an agenda, if the facts line up to say that it is correct, it is correct. You can disprove of the agenda being pushed all day, but you need to keep in mind that the existence of an agenda doesn't disprove it.

I mean, by letting the existence of an agenda tell you that it is untrue and to therefore default to the Creationism stance, what evidence are you using to say that Creationism is more true? I always see this claim made by Creationists, "evolution requires more faith then creationism." Yet these people never produce the evidence to make this statement true. All they have to go on is a dusty old book written by men that may or may not be the word of God.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


You didn't answer the question. How are people deifying science?

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.

how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.

iterationzero
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I am not against science, I am against the men who would deify science at the expense of human truth.

How are people deifying science?

It would be more interesting to see what 'human truth' means.

gotta run fellas... I'll be back later... it should give you folks time to synthesize something from nothing.

I somehow sadistically enjoy getting jumped by a bunch of people sitting in a circle jerk and trying to convince me to join.

possibly in the back of my mind anyway

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I find it interesting that you choose to withdraw just when the most interesting questions are being asked. Are you sure your weak argument has nothing to do with your departure from this thread?

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.

how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.

There you go! See this is what I was talking about. What you JUST did right there is misrepresent Evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how something can come from nothing. The Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis talk to those points depending on which something from nothing you are referring to (living or inanimate). They are NOT part of the theory of evolution though.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Evolution does not cover origins of life.

You should know that by now.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

watch videos much?

I watched the video in your OP long before you ever posted it here.

there is a video in the OP.

Indeed, there is. Let me insert something from the T&C of this site:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

You provided no discussion points or evidence outside of the video. Videos are meant to be supplementary to the argument you're crafting, not the other way around. So please, by all means, feel free to expound upon how modern evolutionary synthesis is "being used by atheists to attack Christians, being used by the Establishment that be to remove moral balances and checks, and the effects that has had upon society and civility".

character assassination of the guy who made the video is one thing, it can not be denied the questions raised are interesting.

They're only interesting to someone who isn't aware of what quote mining is, and someone who doesn't really have a firm grasp on what modern evolutionary synthesis claims and the evidence to support those claims.

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.

how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.

And yet you cannot explain to us where your god comes from? Interesting.

SisyphusRide
"denial of evolution is unique to the United States"

really? what about Islam...?

the very first words out of his mouth caused my not to watch the video... Muslims are "radical" yes radical against science's belief in evolution, they will pretty much publicly execute you.

so I have to accept his fallacy in order for his train of thought to convince me it is truth correct?

He should reword it, something like...\

"the United States is the only place where atheists use evolution as a weapon against others beliefs"

The chap in the video is simply telling the truth. The US is way out on its own among first world nations in both it's religious fundamentalism and its rejection of science. There is a cost that comes with this. It's well known by now amongst sociologists that the level of societal dysfunction and ill health in nations is directly proportional to the level of religiosity (in modern industrial nations that have been studied anyway). Look at the studies. The US basically has third world societal conditions/standards, despite its 1st world materialism and affluence. There are studies that break it down more to a regional level and find the same thing. Quite a shame really.

moses.creighton.edu...

www.epjournal.net...

kyviecaldges
Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

Hold on a second. You find it hard to believe that nature can create complex life from single-celled organisms, but you believe in an invisible "force" that created everything we see today, out of order by the way, and that YOU were created from dirt? DIRT... and a rib.

novastrike81

kyviecaldges
Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

Hold on a second. You find it hard to believe that nature can create complex life from single-celled organisms, but you believe in an invisible "force" that created everything we see today, out of order by the way, and that YOU were created from dirt? DIRT... and a rib.

Lol.

Yeah, apparently it requires no belief at all to accept that an unimaginably complex magic man just happened to already exist for reasons unknown.....and then just decide to spontaneously generate everything into existence in it's present form......which then happened to fossilize in the correct layers......

I'd like to see some of these creationist claims explained a bit. For instance an explanation of what the relevant law of thermodynamics actually says, followed by why evolution would be incongruent with it. It might be worth a listen, I suppose it is possible that the entirety of scientists on the planet have overlooked it, yet that seems unlikely lol. I have only seen it attempted once, it didn't last long or end well.

reply to post by SuperFrog


I like the panspermia theory.

novastrike81

kyviecaldges
Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

Hold on a second. You find it hard to believe that nature can create complex life from single-celled organisms, but you believe in an invisible "force" that created everything we see today, out of order by the way, and that YOU were created from dirt? DIRT... and a rib.

First... WHEN DID I EVER EVER STATE, "(I) believe in an invisible "force" that created everything we see today, out of order by the way, and that YOU were created from dirt... DIRT... and a rib."

You have very poor reading comprehension skill.


Second... The only Goddess is Eris...and good luck with that one, literally, or whatever religious semantic writing or spoken expression symbolizes that.
I would put a winky if I was a girl and/or I didn't think that you were quick enough to understand that joke and worship it. And I am a man and men do not emoticon. And now to the girl part.

Thirdly... I guess it might seem stupid of me to wonder this, but you do seem to vividly recall me stating that I was make from dirt... DIRT... so then why would, if I came from dirt (as you propose I said), how would you know, or wish without implied Chrisitian assumption, that I might be a girl?
Why would a rib need to be involved in this matter?
I know that we are in fact speaking metaphorically and metaphorically actually means that something doesn't
mean what it usually does, but yet it makes sense when understood from a similar but yet different perspective.


But nearly all metaphors are scientifically impossible to apply and empirically not only improbable, but imposssible if tested to reach end appropriated symbolically by the metaphor. Literally.

Evolution according to Darwin may not be impossible, but it is darn sure improbable.

What were we talking about?

Oh... The fact that you are wrong.