• 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!

corynski

Reality First!
Premium Member
Berkeley.edu/evolibrary is a favorite site of mine when it comes to teaching the basics about evolution.
Its simplified explanations strip science of its jargon and attempt to explain things in plain English. :)

Welcome to Evolution 101!

I quote from it quite a bit.

Here is a small example about macro-evolution....

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


macroequation.gif
"

Reading through that the average science student would assume that this is all based on real evidence for "macro" changes in species that lead to the transformation, over millions of years, and billions of living things, into completely new organisms....but read the following portions from an ID perspective and you will see what I mean....

"Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life."

Use of the word "generally" is not a substitute for the word "specifically", is it?
And what do evolutionists "see" when they "look at the large-scale history of life."? They see only what they are trained to see. The "large scale history of life" is actually shrouded in the mists of time.

Because there are "no firsthand accounts to read", what do scientists do? They "reconstruct" the history of life as they believe it happened. All "the available evidence" is really only dependent on how science interprets that evidence. ID can give it a completely different interpretation that to us is just as valid. Who says science HAS to be correct? Who put science on that pedestal? Wasn't it humans?

"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

So, do you see the problem here? They have a scenario into which all things must fit. They can, by their interpretation, MAKE them fit...very conveniently. Their diagrams and illustrations are all the "proof" they need.

Using the mechanisms that make adaptation possible, they conflate the data to make it appear as if macro-evolution is just a continuation of adaptation....(they even call adaptation "microevolution" so that the suggestion about it carrying on to bigger and better things is more believable) The problem is, they do not have a single substantive piece of evidence that such a continuation is even possible. Its pure educated guesswork.....nothing more.

"The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."


They cannot say that honestly because they are only assuming that this "can" happen. This is based on the assumption that if a little can do this...then a lot must do more....and yet there is no real evidence to substantiate this assumption.....no matter how much time elapses. No creature is seen to step out of its own taxonomic family.



The world of science is not quite as knowledgeable as it makes itself out to be. And realities are completely dependent upon what "reality" one subscribes to. If there can be only one, then a lot of people are going to be very disappointed.
sad0013.gif




I guess this is my biggest gripe. Absolute proof of either scenario is missing. So how does science take the high ground and commandeer the topic like it is somehow superior? How do they teach "facts" to students that they do not have? Assumptions are not facts. "Might have" or "could have" is not the language of science, but the language of conjecture....which is what a "theory" really is.

Destroying God and stifling spirituality without just cause is not beneficial to anyone IMO.
Has godless evolution enhanced the lives of today's youth? Has it created awareness of the more moral concepts that kept us from degrading into what former civilizations fell into...like the Canaanites or the Romans? Where is the moral climate of the world of today headed? It looks like its is on a serious downward spiral to me.
sad0089.gif




By all means teach kids what science knows for a "fact".....but don't teach them things that science "assumes" as if it is beyond question. Its an unsubstantiated theory...unproven and unprovable. Teach them that.



And that in itself is another problem. Corroboration can sometimes come about because of peer pressure, rather than what specific findings indicate. Scientists belong to the same club by and large, so don't expect anyone to break ranks who still wants any credibility....or a job.

And don't get me started about peer review.....what a joke.

"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/



False religion is just as bad as false science. Neither will prove vindicated in the end IMO.

But for those who have never had the one true God of the Bible in their lives, it is a waste of time trying to explain. Yet once you have experienced his hand in your life.....there is no one who can convince a true believer that he is a figment of their imagination.
love0078.gif
He and his creation are our reality.

Deeje...... I'll try to just express a few ideas, since you've covered a lot more territory than I can handle......
"I guess this is my biggest gripe. Absolute proof of either scenario is missing. So how does science take the high ground and commandeer the topic like it is somehow superior? How do they teach "facts" to students that they do not have? Assumptions are not facts. "Might have" or "could have" is not the language of science, but the language of conjecture....which is what a "theory" really is.

Destroying God and stifling spirituality without just cause is not beneficial to anyone IMO.
Has godless evolution enhanced the lives of today's youth? Has it created awareness of the more moral concepts that kept us from degrading into what former civilizations fell into...like the Canaanites or the Romans? Where is the moral climate of the world of today headed? It looks like its is on a serious downward spiral to me.
sad0089.gif


To my mind, it looks like you've reduced it to a choice between reality and non-reality. Yes, non-reality is exciting and fun, but evolution is the only game in town for those who are concerned with reality, otherwise there are no limits or bounds. And I would suggest that you likely have little idea what the Canaanites did or didn't do to deserve an alleged genocide. Wasn't it a Christian god who created humans and then had to kill them all in a flood because he created all misfits? I think it's all about finding out what it is that all people can agree upon, and not kill each other over. Something such as reality......
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Regarding this: Atheism robs people of any hope for a better future...especially if they have messed up the past. God doesn't do that.
Rubbish. Atheism doesn't do anything. All it means is that the atheists are free to choose to live a life as they see fit without expecting some divine presence to be constantly tapping them on the shoulder and making them feel guilty. They can lead just as moral and as good a life as any of the religious (probably better) - and the same goes for any agnostics (like me).
Yes, rubbish rubbish double and triple rubbish. I strongly disagree that Atheism is such a horrible viewpoint, that it robs your very soul of the capacity to live a good life.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
To my mind, it looks like you've reduced it to a choice between reality and non-reality.

Actually, what I have endeavored to do is show that there are in fact, two "unrealities" that are believed by two entirely opposed groups of people. ("Unrealities", meaning that neither of us can substantiate our position with actual proof) Where there are no proofs, there can be no facts...just beliefs. Spiritual people are at least humble enough to admit to having beliefs....science devotees deny that they exist in their worldview.

In the two camps there are the materialists, who deny that the supernatural exists in any form and everything must have a 'natural' cause....and there are the spiritual people who don't deny the supernatural and see the hand of an intelligent and purposeful Creator in nature and in the Universe and in its laws and complexities.

Yes, non-reality is exciting and fun, but evolution is the only game in town for those who are concerned with reality, otherwise there are no limits or bounds.

It seems to me that the teaching of evolution as a 'reality' has fallen victim to having no bounds itself.
Its 'unreality' is so exciting for scientists that they have invented a scenario from their own collective imagination that expects its supporters to believe that life began as a single celled organism and over a vast period of time transformed itself into many creatures....all the way up to dinosaurs.

main-qimg-7543676f474fcf13669e28ec52df8229-c


You believe that something this size can evolve from something that can't be seen with the naked eye? And you don't think that stretches reality?
confused0088.gif


Where are the boundaries when there is no real evidence that this is even possible, let alone probable?

And I would suggest that you likely have little idea what the Canaanites did or didn't do to deserve an alleged genocide.

As the people of that land committed everything that was an offense against Israelite Law, God's nation were warned NOT to adopt their practices under penalty of death.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12....
When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. 10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, 11 anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you. "

Suffice it to say, the Israelites did not obey their God and ended up committing the same atrocities as the Canaanite people did.

The Canaanites were also idol worshippers and highly immoral...things also abhorrent to Israel's God. The Israelites ended up sacrificing their children to the Canaanite God, Molech.

Deuteronomy 7:25-26...
"You should burn the graven images of their gods in the fire. Do not desire the silver and the gold on them or take it for yourself, so that you are not ensnared by it, for it is something detestable to Jehovah your God. 26 You must not bring a detestable thing into your house and thereby become something devoted to destruction like it. You should utterly loathe it and absolutely detest it, because it is something devoted to destruction."

Israel paid a high price for their breaches of Jehovah's commands. (Ezekiel 33:29)
It was not genocide that God committed, but the carrying out of his justice upon both the Canaanites and those of his own people who imitated their conduct. They had no excuse.

Wasn't it a Christian god who created humans and then had to kill them all in a flood because he created all misfits?
Is that what you think?
confused0036.gif


If you read the account, it was because of the actions of rebel angels (spirit creatures with the ability to materialize flesh and blood bodies for themselves) who left their proper place to pursue the desires of the flesh. This resulted in an unnatural coupling with human women, producing a hybrid half-human monstrosity that came to be called the "Nephilim" (meaning those who caused others to fall) These gigantic, violent bullies wreaked havoc on the earth, forcing the Creator to take drastic measures. God did not create these misfits.....rebel angels did. And because they had no right to live on God's earth, he dispatched them and all who had been corrupted by them.

This was another situation where God's justice was carried out. There was no defect in the humans that God created...he had endowed them with free will and they abused it, bringing the stated penalty upon themselves. They caused their own defect.

I think it's all about finding out what it is that all people can agree upon, and not kill each other over. Something such as reality......

It would certainly be nice if all humans could come together peacefully, in agreement about many things, but because there is so much diversity of thought and such passionately held beliefs, humans have never been able to accomplish it.

It is why God allowed us to take the rope he gave us, to see if we could use it to save ourselves and others.....or to hang ourselves. To date I cannot see any intentions on the part of humanity to use the rope to accomplish good things for all. We have the resources and the ability to change the world for the better, but it just never happens. Humans are too selfish, and way too concerned about their own neck of the woods to worry about anyone else's. Are we on the brink of WW3 now? :shrug: I guess time will tell.

I believe the lesson is nearly over.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
It is why God allowed us to take the rope he gave us, to see if we could use it to save ourselves and others.....or to hang ourselves. To date I cannot see any intentions on the part of humanity to use the rope to accomplish good things for all. We have the resources and the ability to change the world for the better, but it just never happens. Humans are too selfish, and way too concerned about their own neck of the woods to worry about anyone else's. Are we on the brink of WW3 now? :shrug: I guess time will tell.

I believe the lesson is nearly over.


Interesting that many on this forum wish to ignore these severe facts.....

Read the 2018 Doomsday Clock Statement

(Who's really in fantasy land, eh?)
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
A religious one that dictated one's life over reason and common sense?

Believing that something comes from nothing; that 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' is wrong; that life, with its diverse elegant functionality revealing digitally encoded information systems that maintain and repair itself, arose by itself.....that's "reason and common sense"?

Actually, that fails what science has discovered through observation and experience.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Believing that something comes from nothing; that 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' is wrong; that life, with its diverse elegant functionality revealing digitally encoded information systems that maintain and repair itself, arose by itself.....that's "reason and common sense"?

Actually, that fails what science has discovered through observation and experience.

I'm not a physicist or biologist but I can accept that some things I will not be able to fully understand. Hardly makes me then believe in another thing I can't understand either - the existence or not of some creator - which is why I am agnostic on this. The problem is, unlike many, this just doesn't really bother me that much since I am not in a position to do anything about it. Why would I take a leap into the dark guided by someone else's word when I have my own brain to guide me? Especially when there are so many others all shouting for my attention.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I'm not a physicist or biologist but I can accept that some things I will not be able to fully understand. Hardly makes me then believe in another thing I can't understand either - the existence or not of some creator - which is why I am agnostic on this. The problem is, unlike many, this just doesn't really bother me that much since I am not in a position to do anything about it. Why would I take a leap into the dark guided by someone else's word when I have my own brain to guide me? Especially when there are so many others all shouting for my attention.

Yeah, I can appreciate that, to some extent. I’m glad you have an open mind.

Take care.
 
Top