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 What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Leahpolitan_icecream, Nov 30, 2021.

Tags:
?
  1. Yes

    25 vote(s)
    51.0%
  2. No

    5 vote(s)
    10.2%
  3. Maybe so

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. New idea about it [explain]

    1 vote(s)
    2.0%
  5. Best idea right now but new information might come

    18 vote(s)
    36.7%
  1. Leahpolitan_icecream

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2021
    Messages:
    223
    Ratings:
    +103
    I think the question in title is enough :)
    But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

    People do not just see like that way and why?
    Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

    I vote yes
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    40,867
    Ratings:
    +36,801
    Religion:
    None
    Not answered the poll because it's not quite black and white. It's the best explanation there is but it may be modified if new evidence comes to light.

    Ok you edited the poll, i can answer now
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Leahpolitan_icecream

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2021
    Messages:
    223
    Ratings:
    +103
    I added that for you, thank you for your answer it makes better sense than me :)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,435
    Ratings:
    +17,576
    Religion:
    Sufism
    Nature is a living breathing entity and enteries can evolve, so can a created entity do too. So even God created everything there is nothing wrong with a form of evolution, I don't say i believe in the ape to human Darwinism
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    15,718
    Ratings:
    +6,464
    Religion:
    Pelagianism
    Evolution makes sense to me.
    Yes, I accept it as the truth.
    Because it is the most reliable and rational explanation on the origin of the Animalia, Plantae, etc...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    37,284
    Ratings:
    +18,359
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Even if one doesn't know a lick of biological science, the answer is logically yes. Our experiences clearly show us that all material objects change one way or another over time, and organisms are not an exception to these observations.

    And in no way does the above counter a belief in Divine creation, btw.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    15,645
    Ratings:
    +5,894
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    I voted 'Yes', but I also believe there is 'intelligence' also behind the processes. I do not believe the complexity we see occurred without conscious intelligent intent.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    I voted "no." I am still in the midst of studying creation (and Genesis in general) with few solid ideas but one of them is that death and corruption (and also life and incorruption) enters the cosmos through man alone, and prior to the Fall it was not so, and after the glorification of the Elect it will not be so. This is plainly incompatible. I also question to method of giving existence to an essence, which seems to also be incompatible.

    Over the course of my reading perhaps my opinions will change on the matter, although on that main thing about mankind I doubt it.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    20,469
    Ratings:
    +10,531
    Religion:
    None
    Not as Truth.
    As a theory with a very low probability of being disproved.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity ✔ a-OK RF member .99/lb
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    34,301
    Ratings:
    +14,792
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    Reply #1 is pop sci.
    Reply #5 is more scientific for those of us not directly involved: "Best idea right now but new information might come" Its not as easy as #1.

    I'm not a biologist or anthropologist. Its not scientific for me to say evolution is truth. I haven't got any idea what that means. I say its most likely truth. If a biologist feels like its truth: fine for them. They may actually know that. There isn't any way for me to know it.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    20,469
    Ratings:
    +10,531
    Religion:
    None
    You do know that you can no more examine scientific research through the bible than you
    can auto mechanics?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    13,521
    Ratings:
    +11,675
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Scientists rarely talk about "Truth"

    It is always "Best explanation" and in the case of evolution, it is a pretty darn good explanation which is only likely to be tweaked, not overturned
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. Aštra’el

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2019
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +528
    Yes, I believe in evolution, but this does not at all contradict the idea of a created or “simulated” universe.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,903
    Ratings:
    +8,127
    Religion:
    None
    I didn't vote (strike that).

    The theory is correct in the main, but it is not impossible that new ideas might be added later. For example, the theory says that the tree of life descended from a single last universal common ancestor. If were later shown that a second population gave rise to another tree of descendants not yet identified or recognized as such, does that make the present theory wrong, or just incomplete? I'd say the latter.

    But the basic idea that the life we see on earth developed over geological time through the process of applying natural selection to genetic variation isn't going anywhere. So while I see evolutionary theory like any other scientific theory - tentative and amenable to modification pending new discoveries rather than proven or the truth - I also consider the theory correct and having been demonstrated to be so by courtroom standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the theory is wrong, just an unreasonable one, that all that evidence doesn't represent the naturalistic process that Darwin described, but is a deception by a superhuman power and intelligent designer that went to that trouble to fool us. That only logically possible, but extremely unlikely, and can be dismissed as not a reasonable doubt. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation for these mountains of data suggesting naturalistic evolution beside superhuman deception, it's one of those.

    So what I don't like about the first choice is that I don't like the word truth any more than proof. The theory is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's how we identify correct ideas. They work. They are useful in the ways just outlined. And how we identify incorrect ideas as well. They don't work. They don't do these things. Think creationism or astrology, both founded on false premises, and neither useful for predicting or explaining anything.

    What I don't like about the last option is that it is wishy-washy about evolution, as if this ide is just a placeholder until a better theory comes along. That's not going to happen. That's no longer possible. The present theory will become more fleshed out over time, but not upended. Like the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease, though we don't like to use the word proven in science if it is to mean the same thing a proven in mathematics, still none of these theories is going anywhere.

    My answer would have been that the theory is correct and that it will likely be augmented over time.

    OK, having said all that, I will vote. And I will combine those categories in my mind, as I assume that most people who voted for either of those options mean approximately what I do, and could have chosen both of them like I did. Presently, its 11 yeses and best ideas, and 1 no.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +12,669
    Religion:
    None.
    I answered "yes" because, although new evidence may come to light, it will still be evidence of evolution happening. The mechanisms may be understood a little differently some day, but the fact of evolution will not change.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    40,867
    Ratings:
    +36,801
    Religion:
    None
    Very true, for a given value of true
     
  17. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    11,212
    Ratings:
    +12,669
    Religion:
    None.
    Which leaves you with the most unsatisfactory thing imaginable -- a question for which you can provide no satisfactory answer whatever: where did this "conscious intelligent intent" come from?

    By saying that the processes that made us cannot have happened without such "conscious intelligent intent," you lock yourself into the necessity for that "conscious intelligent intent" to have another such cause .... and then it's turtles all the way down.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    I have no idea what you mean by this. If you're trying to say that every truth is not explicit in Scripture then yes I do know that.
     
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    20,469
    Ratings:
    +10,531
    Religion:
    None
    The study of the bible will never inform you
    about anything relevant to evolution.
    A "no" vote so based in singularly uninformed.

    If the topic were theories in hydrolics or auto mechanics, scrip wont help there either.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Lain

    Lain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2021
    Messages:
    1,559
    Ratings:
    +1,080
    I see, we simply see different possible information to be gained from it (and the Fathers, etc). Entirely expected.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...