Scientific objections to Evolution (marriage, purpose, hell, church)

[badlander]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Not exctly.

Scientific knowledge is an extremely powerful tool that should be explored more and more to benefit humanity; however, faith and science CAN get along if we want to live in harmony with each other.

We really don't HAVE to prove each other right or wrong in this particular debate. Perhaps Evolutionism can coexist with creationism?.

And here is how Abdul Raheem Green stated it, and I don't have much against it

I did not watch the whole video but there really isn't much different between his views and the official one of the Catholic Church. Also he presented the fact that other Muslims have different takes on evolution and that he personally believed that humans were created by god. He did state that it was his religious view for this.

What he did not do was to misrepresent the theory of evolution or claim that because of his faith in a creator evolution must be wrong. He is a person that I would not totally agree with but if I met him personally I would ask him to explain a few details in greater detail. I would not argue because for one we are more similar than different and secondly he made it clear that s9me of it was his own opinion based on his faith.

Mr Green is totally different from yourself and sounds much more knowledgeable as well. You would do better obtaining both the scientific knowledge and the confidence that evolution is not a threat to your god nor your religion. It is only a threat if your are a fundamentalist believing in the literal holy book and refusing to incorporate new knowledge into your understanding of your faith. Instead of mocking evolution spend more time listening to him.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by badlander

Yes I believe there is a possibility for there being a god. I have never said otherwise. An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Only some atheist belive that there can be no gods. I would hazard a guess that you do not believe in any gods but your own. If for any reason I did come to believe in a god it would not affect my trust in science and in evolution. What would change my view on evolution would be scientific proof of it not being true. Millions 9f religious people also accept evolution as the most plausible way that life got to be the way it is today.

You are wrong in thinking that I believe my knowledge of science is superior to your knowledge of hod. I do not think that wsy. I do think that my knowledge of evolution is far superior to your knowledge of evolution but at least you admit to not knowing much about the subject you mock. I strongly feel that creationist view is wrong and very poor in the form of any support other than genesis and I got this not from reading Web dies that support my views but from reading books and articles by creationist and finding fault in their logic and their misrepresention of the evidence. When I wish to attack the I will do so by using their errors against them not by making up something they never said and attacking thst. Much like this monkey to man notion which is not part of evolution.

But seeing as you neither know much about evolution and stated you have no desire to learn anything about it I will no longer take your posts as serious. Learning is not a threat and learning about something does not mean you have to like it or even agree with it.

The gist of my ramblings is yes a god could exist but no that does not affect evolution nor what science and evidence sre.

Why would you go to a doctor if you are not sick?

Ask yourself, how can you go out search for a God when you don't feel the * NEED * of God in your life?

Why should I try to know about evolution when I don't need to? You see it all starts with "need"

And by the way, scienctific knowledge as powerful and beneficial as it is to humanity, has the tendency of proving itself wrong. Look at a post above - science PROVED and all believed that chimp and man share 98% of common DNA - but then the PROOF goes out of the window as now it claims that its not 98 but 93. Funny thing is, NONE of us actually saw and verified the proof in both cases - we blindly put our faith into it.

Scientific knowledge must be respected and appreciated but it's als an evolving knowledge - it keeps on changing and keeps proving itself wrong while religious word ALWAYS remain the same. So whenever science collides with religion, I respect science but stay with religion as I believe scientific knowledge has a lot of catching up to do with my faith.

So far as scientific knowledge of human evolution goes, I am sure it will change several times over the next hundred, thousand, ten thousand, million, ten millions years from now to finally fine tune itself and come in agreement with faith that man did NOT come from an ape.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

If you believe sign Language is the same as the scholarly skill of using a pen, then I gladly concede.
You win the argument. We don't have to talk about it anymore

In principle, yes. Exactly the same. Just as a chimp using a bit of flint to dig up roots is no different to us using an axe to cut down a tree.

It is - if anything - evidence for evolution, rather than against it.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

...

And by the way, scienctific knowledge as powerful and beneficial as it is to humanity, has the tendency of proving itself wrong. Look at a post above - science PROVED and all believed that chimp and man share 98% of common DNA - but then the PROOF goes out of the window as now it claims that its not 98 but 93. Funny thing is, NONE of us actually saw and verified the proof in both cases - we blindly put our faith into it.

....

Good grief. Because there is a revision by a couple of percent that is a reason to say it is all wrong? Just as the revision of the age of the earth or the universe is used as an argument that it is All wrong.

Don't you know that Christians argue about whether Jesus was crucified in 30, 32 or 33 of the 1st c? Does that mean it's all untrue?

Get a grip, man.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

In principle, yes. Exactly the same. Just as a chimp using a bit of flint to dig up roots is no different to us using an axe to cut down a tree.

It is - if anything - evidence for evolution, rather than against it.

You also win the argument if you believe the scholarly use of a pen is the same as sign language. Enjoy the victory

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

For the first part - I can pretty easily make comments on your mental state as well but I refrain from doing so since it's not civilized and perhaps also against the terms of forum use.

For the second part - "monkey" is only a metaphor - you can replace it with chimp, ape or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, or whatever, if that pleases you.

Yes. I agree there. 'Monkey' is a metaphor (though a rahthr well -poisoning bit of deprecation) for whatever primate we are supposed to have descended from.

In any case, all the evidence indicates that we did evolve from a primate. Deny or ignore the evidence if you must but at least conceded that your position is not based on the evidence, but on lack of understanding and denial of it.

That is absolutely common thinking in Creationist thought. Matadora's 'wrecked mind' might be a bit personal, but she hits the nail on the head. That kind of thinking is reasoning processes dumped in the bin (metaphor) and replaced with faith -based denial.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Why would you go to a doctor if you are not sick?

Ask yourself, how can you go out search for a God when you don't feel the * NEED * of God in your life?

Why should I try to know about evolution when I don't need to? You see it all starts with "need"

And by the way, scienctific knowledge as powerful and beneficial as it is to humanity, has the tendency of proving itself wrong. Look at a post above - science PROVED and all believed that chimp and man share 98% of common DNA - but then the PROOF goes out of the window as now it claims that its not 98 but 93. Funny thing is, NONE of us actually saw and verified the proof in both cases - we blindly put our faith into it.

Scientific knowledge must be respected and appreciated but it's als an evolving knowledge - it keeps on changing and keeps proving itself wrong while religious word ALWAYS remain the same. So whenever science collides with religion, I respect science but stay with religion as I believe scientific knowledge has a lot of catching up to do with my faith.

So far as scientific knowledge of human evolution goes, I am sure it will change several times over the next hundred, thousand, ten thousand, million, ten millions years from now to finally fine tune itself and come in agreement with faith that man did NOT come from an ape.

If you feel you do not need to learn what evolution is why do you have the need to attack it with your false statements. Why not simply say you believe in creation and leave it at that?

Science never proved that we were 98% and now 93% similar. The first was an estimate and the later when we developed the tools for accurate measurements. Science changes as new evidence comes forth.

But I think the evidence is that all you want to do is argue as evident by throwing new statements without addressing the old. You want to argue against evolution but claim you have no interest in knowing what it is about, you don't know what evidence is and have no clue what science is or how it works. I think either you are here just to rile people up or you are a person with weak faith. End OD story.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Why should I try to know about evolution when I don't need to? You see it all starts with "need"

It's not a need. It's a desire to understand the world that we live in and understand all about us and the other creatures that exist here with us. It's not a need. It's simply a natural inquisitiveness. I prefer to be educated about the world I live in and science does a better job than anyone in providing this knowledge.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

And by the way, scienctific knowledge as powerful and beneficial as it is to humanity, has the tendency of proving itself wrong. Look at a post above - science PROVED and all believed that chimp and man share 98% of common DNA - but then the PROOF goes out of the window as now it claims that its not 98 but 93. Funny thing is, NONE of us actually saw and verified the proof in both cases - we blindly put our faith into it.

The real issue with this logic is first it's very inaccurate.

Science is not proving itself wrong...it simply updates information as newer and more accurate testing methodologies are employed. So no they were not wrong in making the claim that humans share approximately 90% + of the same exact genes as the chimpanzee. One study showed 98% while another showed 95%. Do you really think that a 3% difference proves that the over all knowledge was wrong? No not in the least!

Do you realize that science is always evolving and observations will change when newer and more advanced testing methodologies are employed? It's one of the most admirable things about science...it is always testing and retesting when newer methods become available. It only tweaks the knowledge a bit...in no way does it override or completely cancel out previous findings.

Read up since you need all the help you can get. Modern science: What's changing?

This is how your logic follows: I don't believe in the automobile because the model-T has changed from what it was in 1908.

See how silly that type of thinking is? The model-T was transformed in to the knowledge and understanding of today's automobile.

All science works this way. All of it.

Nothing about Evolution has involved as a dramatic of a change as the model-T.

In fact nothing about the basic facts has ever changed in Evolution. So what the heck are you taking about?

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Scientific knowledge must be respected and appreciated but it's als an evolving knowledge - it keeps on changing and keeps proving itself wrong while religious word ALWAYS remain the same.

Again you are incorrect. The great thing about science vs. religion is that your willing to change your beliefs…you are not assuming the answers before you ask the question. You are not assuming that you know it’s divinely right just because you interpret a certain book to mean a certain thing and someone else determines it to mean something else…which you see when people interpret the Bible. To presume that you know divine truth before you have checked out the Universe is simply not sensible.

The religious word is not ALWAYS the same. What do theologians do?…they try to find ways to resolve apparent inconsistencies and find ethical solutions that validate their belief…this is what is wrong with Christianity.

The point of science and the reason it works is because you don’t try and prove something that you like to be true…you also try and prove it to be false…and that is what is really important. You don’t just find a way to say the rainbows are caused by this or that…you actually try and see if your ideas are wrong and ask what is more plausible based on evidence and inquiry. This is what is problematic with theologians trying to fill in the gaps that science has made…the effort theologians make to find a rational excuse for something can work… but this does not make it right.

All disciplines of science have evolved over the course of time as newer and more advanced testing methodologies are employed which give a new perspective or shines a different light on what was previously thought. This is how it is supposed to work...all things evolve as technology improves.

The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor.

The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right...which is what religion has been doing for centuries...without any experimentation to give us credible verifiable evidence. It just touts beleive what we tell you and if you don't you will be shunned or punished. What kind of a warped system is this?

As more scientific evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain.

Get it?

Science would never have gotten to where it is now if it just stopped investigating and pushing the envelope for better discoveries.

We would still be traveling by ship and driving the old model-T if the world worked according to your logic.

We would still be using the iron lung if the world of science followed your logic.

Let's use something that perhaps you can relate to. Your holy text has changed how many times since it was first compiled? Which version of the holy text to do worship. The OT or the many new versions of the NT?

The only difference with these examples is that science changes based on new discoveries.

Your holy text changed without experimentation or new discoveries. It just magically changed.

[303Guy]

Good post, Matadora!

That 93% common DNA has come about from looking deeper into the DNA. It is still not cast in stone. And yes, science does update as it makes new discoveries and improves it's interpretations of the data available.

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

You also win the argument if you believe the scholarly use of a pen is the same as sign language. Enjoy the victory

You've just shifted the goal post! No one mentioned using the pen for scholarly use. No way can a chimp do that. In fact, most humans cannot do that either.

The funny thing about all these arguments on creation and evolution is that I have been learning quite a bit of new and interesting stuff, what with being challenged to 'prove it' all the time. So no one's been wasting my time.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

Good post, Matadora!

That 93% common DNA has come about from looking deeper into the DNA. It is still not cast in stone. And yes, science does update as it makes new discoveries and improves it's interpretations of the data available.

Thank you and what boggles my mind is how those fundies don't get that it's a good thing that science is always pushing the envelope in testing and retesting as newer discoveries are made using newer methodologies. If science did not do this we would still be driving the Model-T, we would have never been able to explore the Universe as we now do. How can anyone not get that as technology progresses...so will the knowledge we have in science. This is just pure common sense.