|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Paul
I'd just like to add something to the discussion. The religion is called Christianity. Note that it is Christianity not Bibleianiity. What you are doing IMHO is making an idol out of the Bible. The Bible is not God, and the Bible does not image God. The Bible is a collection of books that tells the narrative of God reaching out to mankind through the ages and culminating in Jesus who actually is the "Word" of God. The Bible is a tool of God used to reach out and inform. I suggest that the Bible should be used in the following manner. First off realize that the Bible is a book written by fallible men to record their histories and understanding of God. As Christians the place to start is with the resurrection of Jesus. As Paul says, without that we aren't just wasting our time but that we are actually to be pitied. We can read what others have written, (try NT Wright), and as far as I am concerned the arguments in support of the resurrection being historical are far superior to those against assuming that one is a theist to start with. (If one isn't a theist then it does matter how strong the argument is it would have to be assumed to be wrong.) On the assumption that the bodily resurrection is historical we then can look at what Jesus tells us in the Gospel to understand what His message and life means to us, and in many cases, particularly in the sermon on the mount he corrects much of what is taught in the OT. In that we can see that He came to establish a Kingdom of followers that are brought into a form of fellowship with Him and are called to reflect God's love, mercy, justice etc into the world including our fellow humans, all living creatures and the entire planet. We are called to servant-hood by the one who washed the feet of His disciples. We then read the Epistles as a means of understanding how the first Christian theologians understood the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Let's look at the OT. Jesus was a first century Jew speaking to other first century Jews. If you get a good Bible that is well annotated you can see that a tremendous amount of what we have recorded from the words of Jesus refer directly back to the OT. To actually understand the mission of Jesus we need the OT. However, that is not to say that it was dictated by God. It isn't necessary to turn it into a science text or a newspaper. The creation stories if read properly give us all sorts of Christian insights. However, if you try and turn it into something it was never intended to be then the actual message gets all tangled up in numerous rationalizations. Evolution as it stands is the best efforts of science to explain the mechanics of how life has arrived at this point. I have very little understanding of it but from what I do know, it is a beautiful system that has in effect created a life form that in the end creates itself and is self correcting. What a marvelous creation it depicts. It is far more creative than the idea, for which there is zero evidence that humans were created complete. JMHOHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Our level of cognitive capacity and tool use. That's about it as far as I can see. There seems to be no evidence of a soul or spirit.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
What if God used evolution to create man?
Then that would make God far more intelligent than the dumb idiot God that creationists insist upon.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Our level of cognitive capacity and tool use. That's about it as far as I can see. There are other animals that exhibit these abilities, and the difference is more a difference in degree of ability than a different kind\type of ability. The one characteristic that differentiates man from other species is the same characteristic that differentiates any other species from all other species -- reproductive isolation of the breeding population. But destruction of habitat is coming in a close second ... (and that isn't very intelligent imho) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Yeah, I didn't mean to say animals did not have cogntion but that our level of it was greater.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What if "what ifs" are pointless?
.
What if huge copy-&-pastes are against the forum guidelines?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
You like lots of Gish Gallop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Well not actually Evolution does not explain the origin of life (see the NCSE definition, first paragraph). it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began Evolution | National Center for Science Education
quote: Well not actually Evolutions champion is death. Organisms can not advance without a price.
quote: Well not actually Survival of the fittest, reproductive dominance, selfish DNA.
quote: Well not actually Evidence in our DNA denies common descent in general and exhibits a young genome not hundreds of thousands of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
zaius137 writes:
Agreed
Well not actually Evolution does not explain the origin of life zaius137 writes:
We live in an entropic world. Death allows for new life.
Well not actually Evolutions champion is death. Organisms can not advance without a price. zaius137 writes: Well not actually Survival of the fittest, reproductive dominance, selfish DNA. Can't be entirely true. I exist.
zaius137 writes: Well not actually Evidence in our DNA denies common descent in general and exhibits a young genome not hundreds of thousands of years old. I'll go with the experts and there are a few of those around here. (I am definitely not one of them.)He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Case in point
quote: How do you know I am not an expert?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Evidence in our DNA denies common descent in general and exhibits a young genome not hundreds of thousands of years old. Would you care to share this evidence of (a) a young genome, and (b) evidence in our DNA that denies common descent? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
How do you know I am not an expert?
Because you are spouting crap.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Speaking of the human genome. The "effective population (Ne)" is approximately 10,000 in the current population of ~ 7 billion. This could not be if there was not a recent origin or a recent bottleneck in human ancestry. Large populations of organisms drift by polymorphisms over large timespans, increasing the "effective population" unless they have experienced the above mentioned. Since the acceptance of indels as percentage divergence between humans and chimps, evolution can not maintain a 5.6 million year split between humans and chimps. Paleoanthropology can not accommodate the new similarity percentage of 95%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I will endeavor to discuss only facts with you, unless your only arguments are ad hominem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The "effective population (Ne)" is approximately 10,000 in the current population of ~ 7 billion. You got a source for that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024