The assumption of evolution can cause problems

[ImmortalFlame]

Like with the adipose fin in fish. Biologists don’t know what they are for so they assume they are vestigial. If they are vestigial then that would mean they aren't used or needed and a leftover from evolution.

Wrong. Vestigial doesn't mean, nor has it ever meant, "not used or needed". It simply means something that is used less or has a different use now than it did when our ancestors possessed similar parts.

 

[Krok]

Why?

To point out a logical fallacy called Special Pleading.

Logical arguments can't be built around fallacies. Logical fallacies are illogical from the word "go".

 

[rusra02]

And some of the greatest scientists didn't believe in creation. And Newton died before evolution was discovered. He was a genius but was also a little crazy. He was an alchemist.

Pasteur died in 1895, the origin of species was published in 1859. However, at that time, the evidence of evolution was still weak.

What is important to note is that some of the most brilliant scientists, past and present, didn't find their faith in God the slightest impediment to their scientific research, as was claimed in the original post to which I was responding. Your attempt to explain away the faith these famous men displayed is unconvincing. A commonly used ploy of evolutionists is to attempt to discredit anyone who dares disagree with their theory. I see this applies even to famous scientists.

 

[Krok]

What is important to note is that some of the most brilliant scientists, past and present, didn't find their faith in God the slightest impediment to their scientific research, as was claimed in the original post to which I was responding. Your attempt to explain away the faith these famous men displayed is unconvincing. A commonly used ploy of evolutionists is to attempt to discredit anyone who dares disagree with their theory. I see this applies even to famous scientists.

Rusra02, stop telling untruths. We're not as stupid as you think we are or your fellow creationists are.

Newton was not a "creation" scientist, he was a scientist who happened to be Christian. His religion did not influence his work on universal gravitation or the laws of motion. In fact, he demonstrated that the motions of objects on earth and of celestrial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws. No god involved.

 

[rusra02]

faith has a long history of slowing the growth of knowledge.


This statement is severe ignorance in history, nothing more.

I agree that credulity and following the propaganda of powerful institutions (religious OR scientific) slows the growth of knowledge. Your mistake is in equating the false religions that have filled the earth with darkness and credulity with the true faith that brings light and truth. The true religion does not fear scientific truth, but it does warn against the "contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge"." (1 Timothy 6:20)

​

​

 

[Krok]

I agree that credulity and following the propaganda of powerful institutions (religious OR scientific) slows the growth of knowledge. Your mistake is in equating the false religions that have filled the earth with darkness and credulity with the true faith that brings light and truth. The true religion does not fear scientific truth, but it does warn against the "contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge"." (1 Timothy 6:20)

The only one and true religion does indeed accept all scientific knowledge. Especially when it concerns pirates.

The Holy FSM warned that his followers would be laughed at and prosecuted, especially from false religions who filled the earth with darkness and credubility. These false religions were even named: Christianity, Islamists, Buddhism, etc. All predicted years before it happened.

Read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be saved. That's the only true God and only true religion. All the others are false. They only bring darkness to the world.

 

[jasonwill2]

What a long story. With no empirical, verifiable evidence. Just a long word salad.

One part of a sentence stood out, though. ...if the sun were made out of cheese, we could call it the cheese god.

What's your point?

Theistic evolution is compatible with science as a religious view, that was my point. I think... idk it's been a weird day for me. (like most days)

 

[rusra02]

Rusra02, stop telling untruths. We're not as stupid as you think we are or your fellow creationists are.

Newton was not a "creation" scientist, he was a scientist who happened to be Christian. His religion did not influence his work on universal gravitation or the laws of motion. In fact, he demonstrated that the motions of objects on earth and of celestrial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws. No god involved.

Newton was a Christian who believed God created the natural laws governing the universe. To quote Sir Isaac Newton: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Doesn't sound like "no god involved" to me. You speak about "natural laws". Laws demand a Lawgiver. "Objects", whether in heaven or on earth, didn't just poof into existence. A house demands a housebuilder. The orderly universe demands a Creator. (Hebrews 3:4) Newton accepted the evidence he saw as proof that God created all things. So do millions today, people you call "stupid".

 

[jasonwill2]

Newton was a Christian who believed God created the natural laws governing the universe. To quote Sir Isaac Newton: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Doesn't sound like "no god involved" to me. You speak about "natural laws". Laws demand a Lawgiver. "Objects", whether in heaven or on earth, didn't just poof into existence. A house demands a housebuilder. The orderly universe demands a Creator. (Hebrews 3:4) Newton accepted the evidence he saw as proof that God created all things. So do millions today, people you call "stupid".

But Newton wasn't a creationist by the modern definition of the word.

 

[Krok]

Theistic evolution is compatible with science as a religious view, that was my point. I think... idk it's been a weird day for me. (like most days)

Don't worry, me too. The new year was just conceived and is barely an embrio. I need leave.

Is theistic evolution really compatable with science? I doubt it, as there's no empirical, verifiable evidence for any kind of god or gods or fairies or spooks or ghosts or whatever you want to call it. The supernatural does not feature in science at all.

Claims made by people about the supernatural influencing our natural world can and have been be scientifically investigated. The claims have been found lacking, to put it mildly.

Science certainly does not have anything to do with 'science as a religious view'. Science (whether physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.) has no religious view at all. It "views" the empirical, verifiable evidence and follows a specific method to draw conclusions from that evidence. That's it. If something leaves no evidence for it's existence at all, it can't be investigated. It's the same as not existing.

 

[Krok]

..."Objects", whether in heaven or on earth, didn't just poof into existence....

Why's that? Christians claim their god did. And they claim that god "poofed" everything around us, including matter and us, into existence.

 

[Krok]

But Newton wasn't a creationist by the modern definition of the word.

No, he certainly wasn't at all. Rusra02 had to tell untruths about Newton. That's all creationists have.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Why's that? Christians claim their god did. And they claim that god "poofed" everything around us, including matter and us, into existence.

Aside that, he cannot make any kind of statement about 'objects in Heaven,' as he cannot have any data about them.

 

[jasonwill2]

Why's that? Christians claim their god did. And they claim that god "poofed" everything around us, including matter and us, into existence.

And he took 6 days at that. I don't see why 6 days though, why not instantly, or over a long time of 15 billion years? Why such an odd amount?

Aside that, he cannot make any kind of statement about 'objects in Heaven,' as he cannot have any data about them.

According to the Bible, the only "truth", it has streets of solid gold so shiny you can see your reflection. It also doesn't seem to be very big by modern standards. We don't need to prove it because The Bible says so, and it's unfailing and always right on everything, even science!

edit: I suddenly feel like we are being overly cruel. Is it really Man of Faith's fault? This will only strengthen his resolve. Now I feel like a jerk when I try to imagine being in his shoes. I feel like a jerk now...

Maybe we should let up some and not make it so personal. Man of Faith hasn't ever wronged me, and he did raise a point, however the weight of the blame should be on the people raising the fish, not biologists who were not raising them. It was the fish people's misunderstanding that caused all this fuss, not the scientists'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hearsay!

Or is it 'heresy?'

 

[jasonwill2]

Don't worry, me too. The new year was just conceived and is barely an embrio. I need leave.

Is theistic evolution really compatable with science? I doubt it, as there's no empirical, verifiable evidence for any kind of god or gods or fairies or spooks or ghosts or whatever you want to call it. The supernatural does not feature in science at all.

Claims made by people about the supernatural influencing our natural world can and have been be scientifically investigated. The claims have been found lacking, to put it mildly.

Science certainly does not have anything to do with 'science as a religious view'. Science (whether physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.) has no religious view at all. It "views" the empirical, verifiable evidence and follows a specific method to draw conclusions from that evidence. That's it. If something leaves no evidence for it's existence at all, it can't be investigated. It's the same as not existing.

What I was saying was that theistic evolution doesn't conflict with science. If you want to call me an ignorant and uneducated person and "worry" for me because of my beliefs, then that says more about you then me.

Why can't there be a real entity that is invested in mankind, an incorporeal entity that has guided all of the natural laws of the Universe to a very exact and specific nature to ensure it's continuance (or rather, is the Universe in my view)? How you can you prove a Universal negative and say there are not gods or faeries? You can't.

Does it even matter if a god is responsible? The end result, in my mind, is the same. Weather or not a god did it is only a mere detail.

 

[McBell]

Hearsay!

Or is it 'heresy?'

I would ask the great all knowing Autocorrect.

 

[jasonwill2]

I should probably apologize for snapping like that; sorry, just don't "worry" about me.

 

[camanintx]

Could that creator be the Universe itself? (sorry I'm a pantheist, hehe).

But really guys, think about it, if the Universe had a kind of rudimentary consciousness, couldn't it calibrate the laws of physics right before it kicked off the big bang?

Has anyone ever produced any evidence that consciousness can exist independant of a complex organic being?

 

[camanintx]

Why? God is the ultimate Source of life. He has supplied ample evidence of his existence, his almighty power, and unfathomable wisdom, both in the things he created and in his written communication to mankind. As Romans 1:20 says: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
Men claim to follow the 'scientific' method, and yet choose to ignore the evidence for God that a child can discern. (Hebrews 11:1) For example, the precise physical laws governing the universe are the effect that begs a Cause. (Psalm 19:1)
So what do these men and women do? They resort to mental bullying, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is (fill in the word from the uncomplimentary list evolutionists use). Unfortunately, with many people such propaganda tactics work.

Circular reasoning like this will make you dizzy.