I know it hurts to see proof that proves evolution wrong, but is that science to ignore it to keep God out of the subject?
Chezz
04:17:45 PM
Post anything that you want - a story, a secret, a confession, a fear, a love - anything. Post twice if you'd like. And then share the site with your friends.
27 comments:
Umm...What evidence are you speaking of?
Apart from my personal beliefs on the subject, what proof is there against evolution?
And no, it is not science to ignore any relevant information, evidence or ideas when coming to a conclusion.
We could have a very long and involved discussion on this... but it boils down to this: Evolution theory maintains a solid basis in reality, with observable phenomenon, whilst Creationism (I'm guessing you are creationist, based on your post, but this really applies to any theory against evolutionism) serves merely to attempt poking holes into the evolution theory.
So, who's right? I am most obligated to side with the evolutionists due to the overwhelming base of facts and research behind it. All theories have pitfalls, and no system can be both consistent and complete at the same time; owed to Gödel's theorems. When the proof presents itself that God in all of his/her/whatever glory has created the cosmos, or had some hand in it, or speaks to me directly, that science is all a cock and bull story formulated by humans... THEN, I will submit myself to the "greater" teachings of whichever religion this enlightened being owes itself to.
You get my point. I hope.
You say that as if evolution were proven first then evidence is used to disprove it. There is no proof for evolution to be proven first, how do you know he is religious? is this information in the public domain? Why is it foolish to believe the bible, a book that has been proven right time after time and never proven wrong once? yep you believe in evolution with not one piece of evidence and 100's of pieces that disprove it 100%?
^I think someone has their theories confused.
:P
Chezz doesn't speak english as a first language, I think, so be nice, guys.
There are actually some parts of Evolutionary Theory that don't hold up, but science needs to refine the theory or make a new one.
Creationist or Intelligent Design Philosophies require faith in unseen forces which by their nature can't be tested. Some people like to believe in empirical evidence.
As for me, I don't give a rip about how we got here.
^Nothing in science is ever "proven." Things are disproven and holes are shot into theories until only crazies believe them, but nothing is ever proven.
personally, i walk a line between all the popular beliefs.
there are many flaws with creationism, intelligent design, evolutionary thoery, and/or whatever else people may believe, but if you stop to consider the best points of them all, each is uniquely creative in explaining the origins of the world.
my personal favorite blend of the theories is a mix of creationism and evolutionary theory. it goes like this:
the seven days of judao-christian creation are symbolic of millenia of evolution and development of the earth, as proposed by evolutionism, but begun by a supreme being (god, if you will). over the millions of years, organic life evolved to a point where intelligence could be support, at which point god tipped the scales of genetic evolution and created a mutated anomaly that resulted in modern man. this particular theory relies on god as a referee or manager who steps in only when necessary to push a cosmic agenda.
that was simply one example. it's not necessarily what i believe as my core faith, but it's certainly my most favorite conglomeration of the theories due to its creative nature.
where i was going with all of this: no theory can be perfectly correct until proven entirely factual. this will never happen for the origin and development of the world, because it is impossible to step back and examine the "big picture" and test variables independently.
each time this discussion comes up, it is almost always propelled by a group championing their particular sect of faith and filling the opposition with as many holes as possible before they have a chance to make a counterattack. it's pretty ridiculous, and a fair waste of time for all involved.
creationism opperates on the same relative time line as evolution the two theories are not excluding of the other. In creationism the order goes sun, sea, earth,sea life, land animals birds and such and finally humans. the same order is thought with evolution the earth was coverd largly with water then land emerged sea life emerged land life evolved from the sea humans evolved from the land life. The time units are diffrent but the bible was translate quite a few times before english.
What people don't understand is that creationism and intelligent design are NOT the same thing. Creationism says flat out that God created the world and that none of this evolution crap ever happened. The dinosaurs didn't exist because they weren't mentioned in the bible.
Intelligent design (at least, what it is supposed to be, although it has been perverted) says that God had a hand in evolution - that evolution is such a grand and amazing system that there must have been some sort of higher power involved. That is the method I subscribe to. I get the best of both worlds.
Personally, I'm not religous at all so I don't have this "inner conflict" between creationism and evolutionism - but I used to be. Still though, I never felt the need to take the Bible literally and to struggle with what the 7 days really meant, etc.
Chezz - Proof of evolution? We have TAIL bones - that right there's enough for me. Not to mention the existence of hominids. To say the Bible of all documents has the answers is ridiculous. It hasn't been proven right "time after time"...the only thing that's been proven is that people who take it word for word are willing to judge others unnecesarily and adhere to norms written by a sexist society. The Bible contradicts itself over and over again, I mean, the story of Chist's birth isn't even set in stone. The Bible also degrades menstruating women, because they are unclean, and advises against eating birds and fish. Even if I believed in "God", he/she sure as hell didn't write the Bible.
Umm...the bible doesn't advise against eating birds and fish. It advises against eating any land mammal without cloven hooves and four stomachs, birds of prey, sea creatures without fins and scales, etc.
Wow, this is a stupid discussion.
right, what Rashi said - sorry I'm not Bible savy enough to remember the quote exactly, although I suppose I had better get it right before I post on this thing next time. Anyway, my POINT was that things the Bible says are not neccesarily applicable 2000 years later, and so its a little ridiculous to try and take it literally.
If you're going to trust that your God isn't a retarted, arbitrary one who buries evidence of human evolution in the strata just to screw with people's heads, then you have to accept that the linage link from humans to our undeveloped ape ancestors is a clear one.
http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions/htree.jpg
If you are willing to accept the laws of cause and effect and reason whatsoever then you have to admit that a literal interpretation of the bible creation story is impossible. Why the heck would God create a planet and universe that are billions of years old but actually create it all in a poof a few thousand ago for the edification of one tiny, insignificant species?
Even if you believe that the forces of evolution occured over billions of years to create the biodiversity on this planet, but were constantly being tweaked by the hand of God, you must ask why He would change something that was already "Good", something that in His infinite wisdom and prescience he was be able to map out moment by moment in the very first second of creation without bothering with any further intervention. Does God change his mind? Does he have tantrums and decide that dinosaurs are no longer interesting or giant pandas have had it too good for too long? But then he would have already known before that first moment of creation that his mind would have changed and acted accordingly before it all began, right? You get my point.
*Waits for the tried and true cop-out of "God works in mysterious ways*
Deism, my friend. God set the world in motion, created its natural laws, and then watched the world unfold.
^Yep, it makes perfect logical sense, but you'll only have me and a couple of dead enlightenment philosophers to agree with you. The rest of the world just keeps on praying to deaf ears.
Ah, I nearly forgot the final step:
And if you're willing to create a vision of how we got here completely free of physical evidence and based on faith alone (like the majority of us) then you have to admit that your faith is as good as anyone else's. God creating the universe in 7 days is just as likely Zarathustra or Thor or Zuzu the Infected Elf making it for their own myriad, pointless reasons in their own arbitrary periods of time.
Pshaw, guys. You all have it wrong.
But that's okay, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves all His creatures.
thats just ridiculous Evolution has no real evidence neither does creationism or intelligent design . I think we all know that i create the universe. And I created me too duh.
My mum hasnt had a cold for about 5 yrs, she takes vitamin c and eats oranges alot.
woaa....dyou really think i'm gonna read that all?
in response to chezz's first post:
What do you mean, the Bible has been proven right time after time? Nothing in the Bible has been conclusively proven, ever. In fact, there is a part in the Bible where Jesus tells the people gathered with him that they will live to see his second coming. That didn't happen, obviously. So, I side with evolution, especially in light of the recent discovery of a "bridge species", the missing link in the chain from water- to land-based organisms, which has long been a point of contention between evolutionists and creationists. (for those of you out there uneducated, scientists recently discovered a fossilized fish that had characteristics of both land and water animals, including toes and fins. this could possibly show the basis of land-based animal evolution)
In relation to the poster after rashi, mentioning deism.. it doesn't actually make perfect "logical" sense since there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of a god(s); however, since we live in a world where concrete things are what formulate fact (I say fact, not truth, purposefully), the belief in a god is not actually logical.
Believe what you like, but of course there is always room for argument.
"it doesn't actually make perfect "logical" sense since there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of a god(s)"
Deism actually agrees that there -was- a God and repudiates the idea that he's still constantly meddling with our everyday lives. For deists their God is the clock maker of the universe who set things going and then let them run their course.
I think you missed my point... Deism stops being logical in the natural world BECAUSE of its assertion that there is/was a great "clockmaker".
"the bible was translate quite a few times before english." - (this is chezz) This is wrong, the KJV version is a dirct translation from Hebrew to English. The Old testament Greek has a few problems (these are so small, just about worth mentioning).
You assume Creationism has no predictions of what will be found in the world, it does. You assume that evolution is part of science, you are wrong (only micro evolution is science) A fish turning into a land animal has never been observed, tested or proven (i know you say nothing is proven in science) WHY IS IT TAUGHT AS FACT IN SCHOOLS??? if nothing is proven WHY ISNT CREATION TAUGHT ALONG SIDE EVOLUTION? wouldnt this be fair? and so called "science" searching for truth? not thinking "evolution" is true and trying to prove it for 150 years. The theory (unproven theory as is creation) is pushed onto children from the age of 5 upwards in school books, story books and is the only side talked about in schools.
I read a biology text book in the library which said .... "This theory can be interperated to be against the bible. The bible's account is called "Special Creation" but fossil evidence has disproved this." <<<<<< WHERE? Where is the evidence that disproves creation story? I would really love to see it, cos everyhthing so far has not dont anything of the sort, there has been fakes, or misinterpretation of fossils, time after time. IS this not called Propaganda? What are they trying to push on kids? why would they try to teach one sided views? the list of questions goes on and on.
The simple answer is "control", a government can not control people who believe in God. First agenda, take God out of peoples minds, second, make people doubt the bible enough to think its a "ok" book, Thirdly, put in place a theory (proven or not) which would make it seem as humans are in control of everything on earth and make it seem as though we can become "God like".
i wish you well with your mental-health problems chezz, i really do.
Post a Comment