1. 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!

Featured Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by sayak83, Oct 13, 2019.

  1. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,629
    Ratings:
    +6,891
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    By supporting the theory of evolution isn't the church also admitting that the Creator is not really necessary?
    Its not sending the right message is it?...especially to children.

    It gives us both.....what do you think a Creator is? He created the raw materials and fashioned them into all that he wanted them to be. How much of the "how" would we even comprehend?The way it is written in Genesis is enough to see that direct creation is what took place. It just didn't happen in 7 literal days.

    A possible explanation? Isn't God enough for a believer?
    Time proved that Galileo was right.....and a reasonable approach should have sent them on a search for the truth. Instead of looking to see if they had misinterpreted scripture they persecuted him as a heretic.

    If they had bothered to read Genesis more carefully, they would have seen room for the creative days to be long periods of time. They could also have seen that there was no timeframe between verse 1 and what followed. It could have been millions of years. Thankfully with advances in science, we have affirmed that Galileo was correct and that we can correlate the creation account with actual science, not the theoretical kind that has no substance.

    And you doubt that God could do this because.....? As the Creator of matter and all the laws that govern it, are you assuming that God cannot control or manipulate his own creation? Is it because science says its impossible?
    Who is the church putting their faith in?

    I'm afraid it looks exactly like its still sticking to its dogmatic thinking, rather than trying to see that direct creation answers all the big questions.....evolution answers none of them.

    Why would God use evolution to create the universe and everything in it, if he has the power to directly create everything just as he said he did? To suggest that all that exists is a product of directed evolution is just a fusion of man's ides with a bad interpretation of the Bible IMO.

    If you have faith in God, he will direct your thinking....if you don't, he won't. That is how I see it.
     
  2. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,785
    Ratings:
    +5,360
    1) The fact that you keep repeating things that have already been explained to you to be wrong, and 2) no.

    Monitor your tone.

    Because it's the very definition of evolution - change in allele frequency over time.

    Because it doesn't.

    This is like saying that we need to understand the origin of mass in order to observe how gravity occurs. I assume you accept the theory of gravity despite this?

    False. It's possible for both to be true.

    Conspiracy mongering nonsense.

    What difference does it make whether the selection is natural or artificial?

    And what you have just said makes no sense. You say that chihuahua and great danes were "produced", but then assert that all animals only produce "replicas of themselves". Not only is this demonstrably false, it is contradictory. Either there is enough variety for both great danes and chihuahuas to come from a common stock, or there is no variety and everything just produces replicas. Which is it?

    Because that's the way genes work. But it doesn't prevent one population of one species diversifying into two species who can no longer interbreed.

    That's not the assumption. The conclusion of common ancestry is drawn from far more than mere "similarity", as I have explained.

    Keep asserting that and ignoring the fossils, if you like.

    This is one of the silliest questions I've read you post, Deeje. You know that there are many different animals with different lines of ancestry, right?

    Eukaryotes.

    Within that taxa. Plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, humans, dogs, ants, etc. are all eukaryotes.

    I'm not indoctrinated. I was raised with no religion on any specific belief relating to God. I educated myself and came to my own conclusions in my own time.

    Don't project your indoctrination on to me.

    Sure. The difference being that some of us are forced to believe things by family, or threats of hell, or simple delusions or desperation. Others come to believe things for good reasons.

    I have no doubt that you have evaluated the question carefully. But I do doubt that you have honestly and openly considered the evidence.

    It is clear that you reject evolution because your religion tells you to, nothing more.

    Pregnancy and childbirth is a perfect example of single cells becoming unicellular organisms.

    Do you dispute this? Do you not understand how pregnancy occurs?

    There is a chain if we find evidence of it and it becomes the only reasonable conclusion.

    That makes no sense, even if your assumptions are true. If things only reproduce what they are, then they must also be reproducing what they were.

    (Emphasis mine)

    Right there. You've just done it.

    You've just demonstrated that you can't debate this honestly, Deeje.

    I took a look of trouble to explain to you, with no ambiguity, condescension or insult (in fact, I was EXTREMELY complimentary of you) to inform you that this statement you have made is something evolution has never claimed and would never claim, and yet you keep repeating it.

    And here you are, doing it again.

    You're finished Deeje. There is no point trying to reason with someone who refuses to learn.
     
    #142 ImmortalFlame, Oct 21, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 4
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,629
    Ratings:
    +6,891
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Well thank goodness for that! :facepalm: My sentiments exactly.

    Hashed and rehashed and you really didn't provide anything but unsubstantiated counter arguments.
    You gave your opinion...was that science?

    You keep right on believing in your theory and I will go right on believing in my God...OK?

    You can kid yourself that you don't have a 'belief' system......but I have provided all the evidence I need to show that your theory has no valid foundation. You have to 'believe' what you cannot prove.

    Read through your response here and then perhaps tell yourself to monitor your tone. o_O

    Time will tell...so lets just leave time to it...shall we? You are right...there is no point.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,785
    Ratings:
    +5,360
    You won't even acknowledge your obvious errors and the provable falsehoods you keep telling?

    No doubt you believe in a God. You believe you are one.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Ratings:
    +2,173
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Not at all as we understand the purpose of myth in relating a Truth. That God remains an incomprehensible Mystery.

    And why do you think it is stated that creation took place in six days and God rested on the seventh? Because by the time Gen was composed the work week and Sabbath rest was already common. God is not a puppeteer who pulls the strings and dictates the speech of the inspired sacred writers.

    Yes, and the Church has apologized for that. I find it interesting that you give credit to science which also gives us the theory of evolution. So its only some science you object to.

    You missed the point. Without God's direct intervention the sun would move across the sky, which is what Galileo objected to and got him in trouble with the Church.

    Only if you allow Him to! Without confining Him/Her to the pages of a Book written by humans.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,121
    Ratings:
    +4,836
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I don’t think Deeje understand, that the JW are committing the same folly with Evolution that Catholic have committed with Galileo’s heliocentric model.

    The creationists of JW are just as arrogant as Catholic leaders were. The Catholic Church rejected the evidences presented by Galileo that the geocentric model followed were wrong.

    Like, your example presented in Joshua’s passages, about god stopping the sun, which it indicated that the author of Joshua also believed in the geocentric model, the same model that Catholic Church believed in.

    The Catholic Church have learned their errant lessons, that they can’t simply dismiss the evidence presented for science.

    Just as the Catholic of the early 17th century had rejected Galileo’s discovery, today, the JW are wrong about the Evolutionary Biology, which the evidence empirically backed.

    The JW clearly haven't learned from the Catholic’s past mistakes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Ratings:
    +2,173
    Religion:
    Catholic

    Much has to do with the interpretation of Scripture. The Church does not interpret Scripture in a literalist sense as does the JW's. That the word of God in God's word is a human word, sense God does not speak words, only humans do. For the Church the literal truth is that truth which the author intended to convey, not the vehicle, narrative, used to convey that truth.
     
  8. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    11,538
    Ratings:
    +5,682
    Religion:
    atheist
    You mean your right message, don't you?

    Do you think the local Baptist church wants to send the same message as you do? Or the Catholic church? Or the Sunni Mosque? Or the Hindu Temple?
     
  9. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    11,538
    Ratings:
    +5,682
    Religion:
    atheist
    Deeje, that is patently untrue and you know it is patently untrue. So, the question you need to answer is why do you intentionally make untrue comments. There is a name for people who do that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    11,538
    Ratings:
    +5,682
    Religion:
    atheist
    Are you certain that Deeje and the JW have accepted heliocentricity?

    I'd ask, but I think she has chosen to ignore me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,629
    Ratings:
    +6,891
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I have noticed that a lot is kept covered over by the use of this expression.....the trinity for example.....they just have to say "it's an incomprehensible mystery" and no one has to give it another thought. They can't explain it so they gloss it over by saying we can't understand it. The alternative is that God is who He says he is. He is the "one God" that the Jews knew him to be. (Deuteronomy 4:6) Do you see a problem here?

    God tells us so much about *who* he is and what he expects from his human creation. The Bible tells us all we need to know about this amazing Creator, and what we need to do to stay in his good books. But if you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, and what to discount as "myth", then you risk trusting in the men who told you which is which. Do you trust them based on their track record?

    *What* God is, is irrelevant, because that is the only "incomprehensible mystery" there is. We simply don't need to know, and probably would never comprehend it anyway in our present intellectually infantile state.

    To assume that parts of God's word is "myth" because some humans (who assume to know) say it is, looks like and huge and convenient sell-out to me. How far can you move the goal posts before you are no longer in the park?

    How much of what is written in the Genesis creation account is accurate scientifically? All you have to do is get a better understanding of what was originally written in Hebrew. If the creative "days" were not literal 24 hour days, but millions of years long, and if the earth and the entire universe was one creative event (the Big Bang) millions of years before that, there you have an explanation that allows science and the Bible to agree without compromising either.

    The Hebrew word for "day" (yohm) can mean an undetermined period of time....it's meaning is not confined to just a literal day. Genesis 2:4 uses the word to describe all of creation.
    Even in English we use the word "day" in that way...."in my grandfather's day".....

    Science is divided into that which is provable, real and backed up by facts (and for which we are grateful to learn what they have uncovered *factually*)......but it also has its theoretical parts which are not based on facts at all. This is unproven science based on assumptions which are backed up by other assumptions. If the church wants to ditch God's word in favor of what men of science *assume* then I believe it demonstrates a gross lack of faith in the one they claim to worship....just my opinion.

    Concerning the church's obvious misunderstanding concerning the accounts where God directly intervened in the natural scheme of things, how would Galileo have envisioned those events, do you think? Did God stop the sun from crossing the sky, or did God slow down or stop the earth from spinning in its orbit momentarily (in his counting of time) to demonstrate his control of his own creation? Do you put limits on him that he simply does not have?

    "Him or Her".....really? This is current Catholic thinking?

    That "book" is the one from which Jesus preached and proved his identity. It was used to declare God's activities, his purpose, his requirements, his laws and his prophesies concerning the future....Jesus confirmed that God created humans...male and female. (Matthew 19:4-6) Did he lie? or is Jesus a myth too?......to dismiss parts of Gods word according to flawed human evaluation is to engender lack of faith in the rest.

    The book that was written by humans but inspired by God, can be relied upon to give us accurate understanding of our place in the big scheme of things. If we start dismissing parts of it as myth, then we risk misinterpreting the most important things that it teaches....one of those is trusting that God knows what he is doing and has given us a record of his creative acts, and his dealings with the human race after the fall in Eden, so that we know what happened, and how he implemented the way to get us back to his original purpose for our existence here on planet Earth.

    If I was to ask you what that purpose was....how would you answer?
     
  12. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,629
    Ratings:
    +6,891
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Concerning the highlighted section....God spoke on occasion to declare his approval of his son. (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5)
    God does speak when he wants to.

    Be careful about what you assume.....
     
  13. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,767
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Christian
    Then how come you didn’t point it out? You think presenting these skulls as similar in size, is honest?

    (I find similar discrepancies w/ what’s accepted as evidence all the time, glossed over and ignored like you just did.)
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    32,713
    Ratings:
    +19,201
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Who has ever done that? You merely misinterpreted papers. Size is not that important of a feature. Cetaceans today come in quite a few sizes. From roughly four feet long for the smallest dolphin to one hundred feet long for the largest whale. They alk trace their ancestry to Pakicetus.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    7,360
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    Religion:
    Atheist
    For the same reason that I wouldn't point out that a T-rex is much larger then a turkey.
    I consider it kind of mega-super-duper obvious. So obvious that I'ld assume that it doesn't need any explicit pointing out.

    Apparantly, I was wrong. And I'm still a bit shocked about that....


    Yes, as the line-up wasn't about a size comparision.

    You didn't find a discrepancy. You're just being illogical and ignorant again.
    I didn't ignore it. I just understand it.

    I wasn't aware that anyone actually believed that land dwelling whale ancestors, were the same size as actual whales.

    Although it shouldn't surprise me, considering the typical creationist ignorance about biology.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Ratings:
    +2,173
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It is men who wrote the Bible. If you think you have defined God it is not God, but human arrogance.

    The question is mute since science was not its purpose.

    Your attempt to twist the verse doesn't work, it says what is says, that Galileo was proven right it not the point.

    God is neither male or female, either is appropriate, Our Mother Who Art in Heaven.

    The purpose continues to unfold.

    There was faith in a creator God long before any 'book'.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Ratings:
    +2,173
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Those are the words of the evangelists who wrote 'after' D/R,
    it is the theology of those who wrote with the guidance of the promised Paraclete.
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    32,713
    Ratings:
    +19,201
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I gave you a winner, even if you did say "The question is mute". The more common mistake is "the point is mute". It reminded me of Joey Tribianni of Friends, it reminded the author of the following as well:

    Moot Point vs. Mute Point - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com
     
  19. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Ratings:
    +2,173
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Good catch. There's a few others I usually catch myself, role-roll, bear-bare etc. and 'moot' is one of them.
     
  20. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,629
    Ratings:
    +6,891
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    God chose his secretaries......it is God's word, not men's. If he inspired it, he can preserve it as he wishes.
    Jesus quoted from it often. He defined God as "our Father who art in heaven"....that pretty much sums him up.

    There is scientifically accurate knowledge in the Bible, even though it was not written as a science textbook, when it touches on matters of science, it is very accurate.
    It states that the earth is a circle or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) It also states that the earth "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7).....how could a Bible writer back then gain such knowledge when that was only visible from space? They knew nothing about gravity.

    What about the hygiene and quarantine laws given to Israel?
    Medical practitioners only learned about germs and the value of washing their hands at the beginning of last century.

    How could Moses know the order of creation or that the earth itself was a formless waste before God began to prepare it for habitation?

    There is so much if you just look.

    What was I twisting? I simply asked what do you believe that Galileo would have assumed about those events that seemed to defy the natural scheme of things? (Like the sun standing still or shadows going backwards?)

    God is a spirit and spirits do not have gender, but he always identifies as male....Jesus calls him our Father and he calls Jesus his son. It would be demeaning to call God something other than what he calls himself.

    God's purpose for the human race was clearly outlined in the beginning.....can you tell me what it was? Why did God put us here?

    You seem to have very little regard for God's word. It was God who inspired his servants to record their history. The history of mankind began in Eden. Who says it didn't?
    Only the fall explains why we had need of a saviour. If Adam didn't exist, then Jesus died for nothing. He paid the debt that Adam left for his children.

    I am not sure I understand Catholic theology.....it is certainly not based on scripture. Without scripture we would know nothing about God or Jesus Christ.

    What does that have to do with God speaking on those occasions when he affirmed his approval of his son. You said he never spoke.....yet the Bible says he did.
     
Loading...