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

[George-ananda]

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.

In my beliefs consciousness is fundamental and a mystery we can’t get our heads around. My intent in that post was not to claim an explanation for everything.

 

[Audie]

Deletrd

 

[Audie]

I see, we simply see different possible information to be gained from it (and the Fathers, etc). Entirely expected.

So you figure scrip is good for auto mechanics

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like many who don't tend to have any religious beliefs that might interfere, I voted for it as likely being the best explanation we have at the moment, so still a theory but one supported by much evidence. Expecting to find conclusive evidence, and such as to make the theory as fact, might not be possible, given the timescales for events and processes to occur. Hence all the 'missing link' babble, and where the evidence proving one step from a previous one might never be found. But there is enough evidence as is necessary it seems to me - from my understanding of the subject.

 

[Lain]

So you figure scrip is good for auto mechanics

Not sure how that follows from anything I've said.

 

[Heyo]

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

I voted yes (and if multiple votes were possible I'd have also voted "Best idea).
Evolution is a theory as well as a fact. Entities do evolve, that is the fact. The ToE explains how they do it and as a scientific theory it is always subject to revision.

 

[sealchan]

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

I vote yes.

I just watched this great video which is also very entertaining...its on how we are like a fish. I recommend it as a great example of the sort of work being done in evolutionary science presented by a researcher with enough of a personality to keep you entertained while being informed:

The greatest challenge for me to test evolution was to understand how evolution could operate to produce the results that it has in the time that is has. I think the greatest emerging principle I have for this is to realize that most of the work of evolution was done at the smallest level and that at the largest level of organism the innovation is less. This video shows just how prolific the re-purpose-ability of our various organs and structural parts are and i suspect this flexibility is baked in at a very early stage of development of organisms. The simpler and shorter lived our ancestors, the better a random lab they make for the generation of adaptable lines of species development.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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

Why do you not like that sort?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

How did the divine creation happen to you?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

Is the intent someone special?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

I'm sorry I don't understand, can you explain more maybe?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

Really detailed answer thank you for telling me

 

[Wildswanderer]

How did the divine creation happen to you?

God created me in my mother's womb. He used what call science but it was all him.

 

[Lain]

I'm sorry I don't understand, can you explain more maybe?

In short: Adam was placed above all creation beneath him, including the other animals and plants. Before he did wrong none of them died, due to him doing wrong they now die. When the righteous are raised from the dead and honored by God all the creatures that have died will be given life and never die again.

This idea (which has much support from what I can see) appears to be incompatible with most ideas of evolution I have looked into, because it connects death to the actions of mankind instead of saying that it is just a feature of the world, the normal state of things.

 

[George-ananda]

Is the intent someone special?

I see it more like a hierarchy of beings/angels in the universe with different roles working toward the goal of betterment of life.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

Uneducated theists feign scientific knowledge to fool other theists into believing in religion. They talk about quantum fields, but are completely wrong. Scientists, on the other hand, are smart, educated, and have done expensive research that has been peer reviewed.

In high school, future scientists were smart, while non-scientists sat on top of tables, chatted, talked about sports, and beat up nerds (aka future scientists).

Then fine universities took the finest minds who did the best on tests, and trained them rigorously. The ones who were big fish in high schools found that they were little fish in universities. The future scientists trained for years and years to get their PhDs (and many tried but failed). Then the scientists took jobs in science, some lectured in universities, some did research, and only after their research did they write research papers, based on sound logic, careful observation, a great deal of funding, and expensive equipment. Have you priced the large hadron supercollider lately? Have you priced the Super-Kamiokande lately? Have you priced rockets to Mars lately? These are expensive items and scientists use these things to study and write their research papers. Once their research papers are written, they are peer reviewed. Every scientist in the world with sufficient credentials in their field reviews their research papers, and they try to find flaws and fix them.

Along comes a evangelist, with no education, he was a jock in high school, and he was always proud that he was better (betterer) than nerds because he could beat them up. But, he has religion behind him. He asserts that DNA is a government conspiracy, and should not be used in courts (the girl he raped didn't really have proof that he raped her, because DNA don't prove nuthin'). Science, he says, is Satan's work, designed to get us to disbelieve God.

DNA is used as evidence in courtrooms, because it shows proof that someone is guilty. There is only a chance in a million billion of it being wrong, and more exact DNA tests are available.

DNA proves that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was correct. The similarities that past scientists noted between chimps and humans was more than a good guess. It was the absolute unvarnished truth. DNA proves that the evolution argument of the Scopes Monkey Trial was absolutely right. Sure people balked at the idea that an advanced being, like a human could ever have an ancestor that was a monkey....but it is true, and DNA proves it.

We can see that the missing chromosome in mankind is really a merger of two chimp chromosomes, and that is why humans and chimps can't mate (making us separate species). Some separate but closely related species somehow overcome that obstacle and mate anyway, though generally their offspring is sterile (but not always). Thus, mules exist (parented by a horse and a donkey).

It's very frustrating for scientists to explain that evolution is real, while theists say...nope, God made it all. "But what about dinosaur bones" ...."you dated them wrong, they're 6,000 years old, not 6.5 million years old, and God made them to fool you."

Religions were started all over the world. It was common, before television, for performers to travel from town to town telling tales. Was religion one such tale? There were tales of sea monsters, leprechauns, tooth fairies, etc. Even in modern times, there are cartoons of Fred Flintstone. Not everyone believes all of the tales, but religion is one tale that they believe. In the Dark Ages, one either believed (or feigned belief) or was tortured to death. Millions are spent on televangelists, who feel that they have to spread the word because God wants them to, and also they make a lot of money. Not all of them are pure of heart, and some actually do things attributed to the devil.

Which God is the right one? The volcano God that tangibly shows it force by erupting until placated with the burning death of a virgin and the finest foods? The God of voodoo? The God that will relegate your spirit to burning hell for all eternity (you know, the loving God)?

There is a clear and absolutely proven connection of all life on earth. Every bacteria, every animal, and every plant is related by DNA. Thus, the creation of life began only once on earth. Searching the septillion stars (mostly they have planets), SETI found no signs of life. At least they are not using radio signals.

Cancel culture prevents me from mentioning a certain health issue of late....so I won't mention it or every forum will ban me (thank goodness we live in America, land of free speech and free press). Such freedoms are central to the free practice of religion.

But, the fact that viruses mutate means that they evolve (and this is why we need yearly booster shots for flu).

 

[Clara Tea]

I see it more like a hierarchy of beings/angels in the universe with different roles working toward the goal of betterment of life.

I hope to get promoted now, before I go to heaven.

 

[Clara Tea]

In short: Adam was placed above all creation beneath him, including the other animals and plants. Before he did wrong none of them died, due to him doing wrong they now die. When the righteous are raised from the dead and honored by God all the creatures that have died will be given life and never die again.

This idea (which has much support from what I can see) appears to be incompatible with most ideas of evolution I have looked into, because it connects death to the actions of mankind instead of saying that it is just a feature of the world, the normal state of things.

Eternal life of mankind is not a pipe-dream. The cloning of animals made everyone aware of telemeres (that shorten as we age until cells no longer divide to keep us alive). Many cloned animals have shorter telemeres, but that doesn't seem to shorten their lifespan. Dolly (cloned from breast cells, hence named after actress Dolly Parton) died young of lung cancer, not related to her cloning.

President W. Bush, for religious reasons, froze research into stem cells (originally from aborted fetuses), and froze cloning research until we debated the consequences of growing new body parts. It might be okay to clone a spare liver in a petri dish, but not okay to clone a whole human and use him as a junk yard for spare parts. New advances in medicine allow scientists to use any cell with a nucleus (not red blood cells) to clone. By shutting down research on stem cells, severed spines cannot be mended (nerves naturally grow too slowly).

Thus, religion hampered scientific advancements in stem cells, cloning, and aging.

 

[rational experiences]

We returned healed back from a mutation. Not evolved.

Reason. Water oxygen and all the heavens gas is earths heavens. The same body.

Variation is the amount of heat it owned by gas mass burning.

Reason we live today. By human sex. Not by human theories. Sexual creation brings forth human mutations a changed human or healthy humans.

If a human told the truth no human present as the conscious theist before my life... no theory. Instead like a science agreement they would claim instant human only.

Reason. Variant bodies exist within the same heavenly conditions are all existing as variables instantly seen also.

 

[Clara Tea]

In my beliefs consciousness is fundamental and a mystery we can’t get our heads around. My intent in that post was not to claim an explanation for everything.

Consciousness will eventually be programmed (or computer learned) in computers (which could control android bodies or robot bodies, or remain without a body in computer form).