Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2011, 05:20 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
I have some honest questions for someone that claims to be liberal politically and believes evolution (on a macro scale) to be true.

But, first I will get a few things out of the way.

I am a Bible believing Christian. I hold no political stance. I don't vote on anything merely because it is a very comforting thing to know that Gods will be done regardless of my emotions or biased beliefs about things.

I believe the natural world to be between 10k and 6k years old. I understand this belief is laughed at. The amount of time and investigation spent by me to come to this conclusion will not be altered by a post that is coming from some unknown person on the inter webs, so spare me.

Now for the questions.

Shouldn't there be millions of fossils that show the transition of a sea bound creature into the current form of man today?

I understand the whole world hasn't been dug up, but still assuming those fossils are there is a faith based belief.

The same could be said about human fossils not being found with dinosaur fossils. Maybe we just haven't found them yet.

Liberalism tends to be a humanist stance. Always claiming to want to further human rights. This is not a bad thing, but why when debating a liberal that believes in evolution they seem to attack the intelligence of anyone that believes in the God of the Bible? It seems the norm that anyone that believes in God is "stupid".

The thing is that a very large percent of the world believes in God, so wouldn't a liberal that believes in evolution want natural selection to do away with these humans that believe in such "fairy tales"? So why would you want laws to protect people when you yourself make jokes about the world being a better place with out them?

Thanks in advance!
First of all, there is no prerequisite that says one must be a liberal to subscribe to theory of biological evolution. Plenty of conservatives also understand it's merit as a scientific fact.

Secondly, if nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind on the subject, why are you bothering to post questions here about it? It seems to me that you are only doing so out of a need to troll. So if you want us to spare you, seems to me the thing for you to do would be to spare the rest of us as well.

Having said that, as geologist, I must say that if you have spent any amount of time at all in researching the geologic evidence (which, by the way, requires a working knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology to even begin to grasp the minute details of the evidence - you have done this, right?), and still subscribe to the long refuted notion of a young Earth, then all I can say is that you are ignoring a mountain of evidence, probably because not doing so would require you to abandon your delusions, and you evangelical Christians can't have that, can you?

Now to your questions:

'Transitional fossils' is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional.

No one has assumed anything with regard to the existence of fossils. There can be no question that they exist. Before I became disabled, I had a mountain of them on shelves in my basement. There are mountains of them in every significant museum on the planet.

It is true that human fossils haven't been found with dinosaurs. It is also true that no human fossils or any other scrap of human evidence have been found in any of the strata that exist between the earliest known human fossils and the youngest known dinosaurs, despite having searched such strata for well over 200 years.

As for attacking the intelligence of Young Earth Creationists, why shouldn't we? And I must say that liberals are not the only ones who believe that a stance such as young Earth creationism is based on ignorance. I know libertarians and conservatives who also think that Young Earth Creationism is stupid and based on ignorance. But let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you believe in a flat Earth? Do you believe in an Earth centered universe? If so, then no doubt many have attacked your position there as well. If you don't believe in those refuted theories, then certainly you can understand the scientific reasoning behind the arguments against them, and why so many people ridicule those who do believe them. And why shouldn't they be ridiculed? Few people believe in a flat Earth or a geocentric universe, and rightly so. For exactly the same reasons, no one should believe in a Young Earth. There is no controversy here to teach because there is no question that the Earth is VERY old.

As for attacking the God of the Bible, believe it or not, there are also Conservatives who don't believe in the God of the Bible, and many, be they conservative, libertarian, or liberal, who don't take it in a literal sense. I know that must come as a shock, but oh well, get over it. Furthermore, most people who subscribe to the biological theory of evolution don't attack the God of the Bible, and in fact, many Christians believe in evolution. Evolution, by and large, doesn't conflict with religion UNLESS you believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. And if you believe that, well, sir/madam, I think you will find that many Christians themselves disagree with you on that account.

Scientific theories are not in the same category as your run of the mill layman's 'theory'. Scientific theories are paradigms that often overturn and/or add significantly to previous scientific theories and principles. These theories are formulated based on mountains of evidence accumulated over many years, sometimes decades, sometimes, much longer. They are not accepted nilly willy, and certainly aren't accepted overnight.

It is true that a large percentage of the world's population hold to religious beliefs. It is also true that a large percentage of the world's population are vastly under educated, and many believe in more than one god.

Whether or not natural selection does away with those who believe that world is flat, that the Earth is the center of the Universe or that the Earth is young based on a bronze age holy book is irrelevant. Most people who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so because it is the best scientific theory that explains the facts. If there was some other theory that better explained the facts than evolution does, that would be the paradigm that people would subscribe to. The morale of the story is that we don't want natural selection to do away with people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution, and don't believe that it is necessary. The evidence and education can do that all by itself if people just take the time necessary to actually go into the field and see the evidence and it's consequences in the real world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2011, 05:33 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,593,980 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
First of all, there is no prerequisite that says one must be a liberal to subscribe to theory of biological evolution. Plenty of conservatives also understand it's merit as a scientific fact.

Secondly, if nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind on the subject, why are you bothering to post questions here about it? It seems to me that you are only doing so out of a need to troll. So if you want us to spare you, seems to me the thing for you to do would be to spare the rest of us as well.

Having said that, as geologist, I must say that if you have spent any amount of time at all in researching the geologic evidence (which, by the way, requires a working knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology to even begin to grasp the minute details of the evidence - you have done this, right?), and still subscribe to the long refuted notion of a young Earth, then all I can say is that you are ignoring a mountain of evidence, probably because not doing so would require you to abandon your delusions, and you evangelical Christians can't have that, can you?

Now to your questions:

'Transitional fossils' is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional.

No one has assumed anything with regard to the existence of fossils. There can be no question that they exist. Before I became disabled, I had a mountain of them on shelves in my basement. There are mountains of them in every significant museum on the planet.

It is true that human fossils haven't been found with dinosaurs. It is also true that no human fossils or any other scrap of human evidence have been found in any of the strata that exist between the earliest known human fossils and the youngest known dinosaurs, despite having searched such strata for well over 200 years.

As for attacking the intelligence of Young Earth Creationists, why shouldn't we? And I must say that liberals are not the only ones who believe that a stance such as young Earth creationism is based on ignorance. I know libertarians and conservatives who also think that Young Earth Creationism is stupid and based on ignorance. But let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you believe in a flat Earth? Do you believe in an Earth centered universe? If so, then no doubt many have attacked your position there as well. If you don't believe in those refuted theories, then certainly you can understand the scientific reasoning behind the arguments against them, and why so many people ridicule those who do believe them. And why shouldn't they be ridiculed? Few people believe in a flat Earth or a geocentric universe, and rightly so. For exactly the same reasons, no one should believe in a Young Earth. There is no controversy here to teach because there is no question that the Earth is VERY old.

As for attacking the God of the Bible, believe it or not, there are also Conservatives who don't believe in the God of the Bible, and many, be they conservative, libertarian, or liberal, who don't take it in a literal sense. I know that must come as a shock, but oh well, get over it. Furthermore, most people who subscribe to the biological theory of evolution don't attack the God of the Bible, and in fact, many Christians believe in evolution. Evolution, by and large, doesn't conflict with religion UNLESS you believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. And if you believe that, well, sir/madam, I think you will find that many Christians themselves disagree with you on that account.

Scientific theories are not in the same category as your run of the mill layman's 'theory'. Scientific theories are paradigms that often overturn and/or add significantly to previous scientific theories and principles. These theories are formulated based on mountains of evidence accumulated over many years, sometimes decades, sometimes, much longer. They are not accepted nilly willy, and certainly aren't accepted overnight.

It is true that a large percentage of the world's population hold to religious beliefs. It is also true that a large percentage of the world's population are vastly under educated, and many believe in more than one god.

Whether or not natural selection does away with those who believe that world is flat, that the Earth is the center of the Universe or that the Earth is young based on a bronze age holy book is irrelevant. Most people who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so because it is the best scientific theory that explains the facts. If there was some other theory that better explained the facts than evolution does, that would be the paradigm that people would subscribe to. The morale of the story is that we don't want natural selection to do away with people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution, and don't believe that it is necessary. The evidence and education can do that all by itself if people just take the time necessary to actually go into the field and see the evidence and it's consequences in the real world.
Thanks for your professional input geologist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 05:40 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
You are welcome. There are many books you can read that goes into any level of detail you might need in order to understand evolution, the age of the Earth, and Earth Science in general. If you have a library card, I highly recommend that you take some time to go to your local library and seek them out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 08:42 PM
 
17,183 posts, read 22,836,530 times
Reputation: 17473
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
God made man a full grown adult. Do you think it is beyond the creator of all things to make a mature universe. Time doesn't apply to God.

Whenever you say that science contains evidence about something, that doesn't make it an automatic fact. There is a wealth of science out there that can also refute macro evolution and an old universe.

You don't hear about it because the science community as a whole would be embarrassed to let the majority know how wrong they have been.

Science is limited.

God is obviously the maker of all things, and He made Himself known to us.

People will always close theirs eyes and ears when these truths are brought to them and make themselves a crutch called science to lean on whenever they don't like what Gods says.

The oral tradition surrounding the Bible is far superior to anything today.

Only the least informed people think it is not qualified to be a precise account of themes and history of that part of the world.
No, there is not a wealth of science that refutes macro evolution and in fact, there is a wealth of evidence that shows that evolution did happen.

Of course science is limited, but scientists make corrections to science all the time.

Your god is just one of many that people have believed in. There is no evidence that he is the single creator of the world. The Bible was written by fallible men and thus is just as flawed as the science you cannot accept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2011, 11:24 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,593,980 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
No, there is not a wealth of science that refutes macro evolution and in fact, there is a wealth of evidence that shows that evolution did happen.

Of course science is limited, but scientists make corrections to science all the time.

Your god is just one of many that people have believed in. There is no evidence that he is the single creator of the world. The Bible was written by fallible men and thus is just as flawed as the science you cannot accept.
If there was meant to be a way for God to communicate with us it is only obvious that it would have to be impervious to corruption.

This is claimed over and over through out scripture by various people over vast amounts of time, spanning multiple languages but yet it all has the same fingerprint.

No work in the history of literature has every kind of writing style besides the 66 books of the Bible. Close to all dialects have been translated.

The fallacy of saying that because there are many ways taught in the world that you can reach god doesn't mean that one option isn't the right option.

Now what glaring obvious relic cast down through the ages seems to never go away and never will go away but only gets stronger?

If evolution is true then you would think that people would want to get to the next level of the chain and stop thinking that the earth is flat, single dimensional and soulless but acknowledge that just because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean someone else hasn't. It is easy to see the false gods.

lastly, applying human emotions and terminology to an entity above space and time is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 01:18 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
If there was meant to be a way for God to communicate with us it is only obvious that it would have to be impervious to corruption.

This is claimed over and over through out scripture by various people over vast amounts of time, spanning multiple languages but yet it all has the same fingerprint.

No work in the history of literature has every kind of writing style besides the 66 books of the Bible. Close to all dialects have been translated.

The fallacy of saying that because there are many ways taught in the world that you can reach god doesn't mean that one option isn't the right option.

Now what glaring obvious relic cast down through the ages seems to never go away and never will go away but only gets stronger?

If evolution is true then you would think that people would want to get to the next level of the chain and stop thinking that the earth is flat, single dimensional and soulless but acknowledge that just because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean someone else hasn't. It is easy to see the false gods.

lastly, applying human emotions and terminology to an entity above space and time is irrelevant.
Before you make claims as to whether one or another or any religion is the way to go, shouldn't you argue whether it is even reasonable, given the utter lack of evidence, to believe in god in the first place? This seems to me to be the achilles heel of all religions, but particularly the Judeo-Christian religions. They assume from the start, sans evidence, that god exists, and then try to convince you as to why their brand of whorship is the right/only true one.

There is no if with respect to evolution. It is a fact. So perhaps you should rephrase that statement. Secondly, most people have, in fact, stopped thinking about the Earth as being flat. Perhaps you should consider that just because someone else believes in god or says that they've experienced a god doesn't mean that you must in turn believe it. Unlike evolution, where there are mountains of emperic data, the same cannot be said at all with regard to the existence of god. ALL of religion is based on first person, subjective revelation. And since it is, by definition, first person, anything other than that is second, third, etc, person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's first person revelation, much less someone's second person revelation, and so on and so forth.

And lastly, I agree that "applying human emotions and terminology to an entity above space and time is irrelevant" particularly given the utter lack of emperic evidence that such an entity even exists. But that is exactly what most religions do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 02:40 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 2,593,980 times
Reputation: 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Before you make claims as to whether one or another or any religion is the way to go, shouldn't you argue whether it is even reasonable, given the utter lack of evidence, to believe in god in the first place? This seems to me to be the achilles heel of all religions, but particularly the Judeo-Christian religions. They assume from the start, sans evidence, that god exists, and then try to convince you as to why their brand of whorship is the right/only true one.

There is no if with respect to evolution. It is a fact. So perhaps you should rephrase that statement. Secondly, most people have, in fact, stopped thinking about the Earth as being flat. Perhaps you should consider that just because someone else believes in god or says that they've experienced a god doesn't mean that you must in turn believe it. Unlike evolution, where there are mountains of emperic data, the same cannot be said at all with regard to the existence of god. ALL of religion is based on first person, subjective revelation. And since it is, by definition, first person, anything other than that is second, third, etc, person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's first person revelation, much less someone's second person revelation, and so on and so forth.

And lastly, I agree that "applying human emotions and terminology to an entity above space and time is irrelevant" particularly given the utter lack of emperic evidence that such an entity even exists. But that is exactly what most religions do.
I disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 05:06 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
I disagree.
This is your response? Forgive me for pointing out the utter lack of depth your response has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 05:12 PM
 
46,892 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
the amount of time and investigation spent by me to come to this conclusion will not be altered by a post that is coming from some unknown person on the inter webs, so spare me.
Okay, then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,611,102 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
If there was meant to be a way for God to communicate with us it is only obvious that it would have to be impervious to corruption.

This is claimed over and over through out scripture by various people over vast amounts of time, spanning multiple languages but yet it all has the same fingerprint.

No work in the history of literature has every kind of writing style besides the 66 books of the Bible. Close to all dialects have been translated.

The fallacy of saying that because there are many ways taught in the world that you can reach god doesn't mean that one option isn't the right option.

Now what glaring obvious relic cast down through the ages seems to never go away and never will go away but only gets stronger?

If evolution is true then you would think that people would want to get to the next level of the chain and stop thinking that the earth is flat, single dimensional and soulless but acknowledge that just because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean someone else hasn't. It is easy to see the false gods.

lastly, applying human emotions and terminology to an entity above space and time is irrelevant.
This is so incoherent it is almost impossible to respond.

You do, however, make one nearly valid point, although not in the best way.

You say:

Quote:
The fallacy of saying that because there are many ways taught in the world that you can reach god doesn't mean that one option isn't the right option.
There's a better way to put it:

Of all the religions in the world, a maximum of one is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:03 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top