It is an interpretation of evidence. But noting that does not falsify the interpretation. Especially given that no reasonable alternative interpretation has ever been offered and I don't anticipate one to be forthcoming.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Existence
- Thread starter King Phenomenon
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
No I can't because I don't see much of a difference.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your words. What did you mean?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I hope you are not offended with people who disagree with what you believe.
Offended no.
Disappointed in rampant anti-intellectualism yes.
But like I said. Whatever socks your hands.
He asked if we could explain the difference. I said I couldn't. Because i dont see them as contradictory notions. My writing may not have been clear.
nPeace
Veteran Member
So you ask what's wrong with the ToE... Why did you ask?
Figured I might get a coherent explanation.
I was disappointed.
Edit: and I was more interested in @Jimmy s explanation.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Definitely not clearly expressing what you just said. Quite opposite... but our hand gets ahead of our brain sometimes.
Edit. Not opposite. Just not the same @The Hammer.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What was not coherent?
Calling toe a hypothesis as opposed theory for one. (Wrong).
Calling phylogenetic trees hypotheses (also wrong).
Just because you don't understand the evidence. Doesn't make it "taken on faith" or a hypothesis.
But honestly, this is a dead horse that I'm tired of beating. It's bed time here.
Notifications are going off.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I filled in for Jimmy. It doesn't matter.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_build_02
They don't understand?
Where exactly should I look to find those who understand.
You seem annoyed. I think you were looking for an easy "catch", but didn't get one. Sorry. You can always try another time.
Take care Hammer.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
As any gambler will tell you, anything rejected by the majority is certainly worth a closer look.
Colt
Well-Known Member
I believe agents of God created the Earth and life through the process of evolution. This is revealed in the layers of the old earth and fossil record.
I believe that the Israelites created the creation story of Genesis by adopting ancient Mesopotamian lore.
A primitive African or South American tribe might believe in tree Gods and Gods in animals. Do we trust their knowledge of astronomy, physics, biology, archeology, etc? They might vociferously argue science with real scientists who studied science throughout their whole lives. To them, their own scientific beliefs seem just as reasonable and just as justified.
Theists will go to any length to prove their point, even to the point of telling lies (perhaps not intentionally). They have an agenda. They want to prove that it is possible that the world flooded (Noah), that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and that the shroud of Turin really did cover Jesus (though it has been scientifically proven that it is not that old and that there is no proof that it was ever around Jesus).
Scientists do not have an agenda....or at least they should not. They are not trying to prove that the world was made 13.8 billion years ago, but they are trying to find the truth, and if this is the truth, this is what they determine. They might change their minds as their knowledge, facts, or reasoning changes. Not all scientists believe in the science of other scientists. For example, many scientists might be theists and believe that the world was created, though in their field of specialization (which they have studied in universities and got degrees) they have studied and proven scientifically various facts. Thus, an archaeologist might not agree with a biologist because they lack sufficient knowledge of biology.
Creationists want creationism taught in schools, and perhaps want to stop teaching about evolution and DNA. Lacking sufficient knowledge about evolution and DNA, they make arguments against it. To the knowledgeable, their arguments appear to be lies. To the uneducated, their arguments seem sound.
Science seems weird to non-scientists. The concepts of relativity and time dilation seem ridiculous. To them, it seems that time should not change in intense gravitational fields or at high speeds. The idea that whales used to be land animals seems strange to them. They try to picture a blue whale walking past them, and the notion seems ridiculous. Yet, whale ancestors were much smaller then. It seems weird to think of matter as trapped light, and that it is governed by randomness (probabilities)--even Einstein balked at that "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
It seems to me that one should not question scientists until one has sufficient education to do so, and has performed sufficient analysis of the work of other scientists. Perhaps, they should do their own research, as well.
Ancient man used to have story tellers who went town to town to amuse others (for pay). This was before the days of television and radio. They would tell amazing stories. Some spoke of leprechauns, dragons, UFOs, etc. Should we put our faith in the storytellers and conspiracy theorists, or should we put our faith in the truth from people with real knowledge?
The bible was written in ancient times, before scientific knowledge was as advanced. It was written over 100 years after the death of Jesus, and all of the apostles were dead by then. Were their individual statements passed on by word of mouth? Or did someone (who knows who) write the bible as if each apostle contributed? We know that the bible contains contradictions (though some theists say that the bible is free of contradictions or mistakes).
For hundreds of years, heretics were burned at the stake. So, if some scientist said that the earth is round, or that the sun is the center of the solar system, he might be burned at the stake for his beliefs. This practice certainly dampened enthusiasm for science, and held it back (the Dark Ages). People were held in fear.
Does religion promote peace? "Thou shalt not kill" "turn the other cheek" treat they neighbor as you would have yourself treated, don't tell lies about your neighbor. Yet, look around you at the mess that the world is in today. President George W. Bush was elected by the Religious Right, as were his father and Reagan. Yet, the world today is a mess, with wars, homelessness, debt, Global Warming. Apparently the Christians are not following the teachings of Jesus. Does this mean that the bible instructions are wrong, just because modern Christians choose to ignore them?
Last edited:
A couple of recent popes professed belief in evolution an DNA. I respect that they don't continue to lie for Jesus. A lie is a lie. But, these popes believe that God guided evolution.
Science is not the bitter enemy of religion, it merely seeks truth. I suppose that some science might be false, but eventually, I hope, they will alter their beliefs (as they have done in the past) and science will improve. It is this "mind changing" that convinces some theists that all of science is wrong.
Some psychics predict future events with amazing accuracy. They must believe in ESP because they have proven their insight over and over again. If ESP exists, there is knowledge of the future out there and accessible. The knowledge is somehow stored. Doesn't that open the possibility that some creature (God) can use that knowledge storage for a brain? Perhaps belief in ESP and belief in God are related?
Many scientists assert that science isn't based on proof, but based on current theories. They are willing to change their theories if facts and reasoning change.
It is possible that everyone is wrong. It is possible that no one is wrong. It is possible that some (or all or none) are partially right.
Lets take an argument about the age of the earth. Theists might claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. Astrophysicists might claim that the earth is 13.4 billion years old. Both might be right because the theory of relativity says that time changes in intense gravitational fields and at very high speeds. So, our time is not necessarily God's time. Also, the definition of the time span might have meant epochs, not years (translation error?).
I'll keep riding my horse, ignoring the fact that he's dead.