Do you believe in evolution?

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
sorry but this is just false. to believe that we evolved from an ape takes much more faith then to believe we were created by God . theres at least proof of Gods exsistance. ive never seen any evidence that we evolved from an ape just theory
Then you need to take a look at post 675 - this is the point. Your concept of "proof" is firmly rooted in the first century, and has not changed in more than 2000 years. If it works for you, then fine. But proof has a very different meaning then "I believe, therefore it is". Proof, in the modern usage, refers to objective, measurable events. By that standard, the theory of evolution is the best fit to the observations, short of "then a miracle happened". BTW, if you are going to debate about evolution, you should at least understand evolutionary theory, which does not say that mankind evolved from apes, but that mankind and apes evolved from some common ancestor.

 

[geridoc]

I personally know quit a few doctors that are religious.. do you believe that means they are not looking for better cures.. advancements.. no..
Not at all. Many scientists (including myself) are religious. However, belief in a higher power is not the same as believing that words written 2000 years ago by primitives to explain the universe they saw are necessarily objectively true and valid explanations. And those religious doctors - they implicitly accept evolution by using its tools, such as antibiotics, which evolved as protective mechanisms in microorganisms.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Then you need to take a look at post 675 - this is the point. Your concept of "proof" is firmly rooted in the first century, and has not changed in more than 2000 years. If it works for you, then fine. But proof has a very different meaning then "I believe, therefore it is". Proof, in the modern usage, refers to objective, measurable events. By that standard, the theory of evolution is the best fit to the observations, short of "then a miracle happened". BTW, if you are going to debate about evolution, you should at least understand evolutionary theory, which does not say that mankind evolved from apes, but that mankind and apes evolved from some common ancestor.
ok so we came from a common ancestor where did this common ancestor come from and i would like facts and not theory

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Not at all. Many scientists (including myself) are religious. However, belief in a higher power is not the same as believing that words written 2000 years ago by primitives to explain the universe they saw are necessarily objectively true and valid explanations. And those religious doctors - they implicitly accept evolution by using its tools, such as antibiotics, which evolved as protective mechanisms in microorganisms.
I would much rather put my trust in words that have stood the test of time than to jump on the evolutionary bandwagon that is riddled with bullet holes.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Not at all. Many scientists (including myself) are religious. However, belief in a higher power is not the same as believing that words written 2000 years ago by primitives to explain the universe they saw are necessarily objectively true and valid explanations. And those religious doctors - they implicitly accept evolution by using its tools, such as antibiotics, which evolved as protective mechanisms in microorganisms.
and there has been proof in our time , skelital reefs on top of mountains prooving the flood. remenants of the ark . dead see scrolls, the remains of the egyptian and there chariots in the red sea, and im not denying that micro evolution exsists, it has nothing to do with a common ancestor becoming a man

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
I would much rather put my trust in words that have stood the test of time than to jump on the evolutionary bandwagon that is riddled with bullet holes.
That is fine, that is your view. However, if you do that too literally, then you are forced to acknowledge that the earth is flat (Revelation 7:1). It isn't fruitful to list the manifold other contradictions and incorrect statements in the Christian Bible (most religious texts share this problem). If a given religious text leads an individual to a good life, then all the more power to it, but it isn't objectively true. BTW - what does shooting at evolution have to do with it being a valid theory? Sure, it has gaps in it, but it is the best explanation other than "a miracle happened" (as I have said before). All of the creationist arguments require that things like atomic decay, universal red shift, etc. have to be miraculously determined, and not subject to natural law. Occam's razor says not, so does common sense.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
and there has been proof in our time , skelital reefs on top of mountains prooving the flood. remenants of the ark . dead see scrolls, the remains of the egyptian and there chariots in the red sea, and im not denying that micro evolution exsists, it has nothing to do with a common ancestor becoming a man
Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing other than the Bible has been around for many years and hasn't changed over time.
There has never been evidence found of an ark, or chariots in the Red Sea.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
That is fine, that is your view. However, if you do that too literally, then you are forced to acknowledge that the earth is flat (Revelation 7:1). It isn't fruitful to list the manifold other contradictions and incorrect statements in the Christian Bible (most religious texts share this problem). If a given religious text leads an individual to a good life, then all the more power to it, but it isn't objectively true. BTW - what does shooting at evolution have to do with it being a valid theory? Sure, it has gaps in it, but it is the best explanation other than "a miracle happened" (as I have said before). All of the creationist arguments require that things like atomic decay, universal red shift, etc. have to be miraculously determined, and not subject to natural law. Occam's razor says not, so does common sense.
yes i love discusing bible contradiction because well there are non. revelations 7:1 does nor say the earth is flat is states that 4 angels stood at the 4 corners of the earth so you are takeing it way out of context. in fact the /7bible says the earth is round way before colombus

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing other than the Bible has been around for many years and hasn't changed over time.
There has never been evidence found of an ark, or chariots in the Red Sea.
never say never

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
ok so we came from a common ancestor where did this common ancestor come from and i would like facts and not theory
For the answer to that, you will have to pay about $2500, which is the approximate tuition that my university charges for a course. And then, I wouldn't be able to answer you to your satisfaction, since there are many (acknowledged) gaps which you will focus on at the expense of seeing an overall picture. Really, today biologists take the theory of evolution as a given, and the debate is about specific mechanisms (mutation vs epigenetics vs gene repeat; punctate vs gradual, etc), but it is clear to people who study the question even a little that organisms did evolve.
I received a book the other day in the mail- a magnificently produced text, "Atlas of Creation" that purports to show that evolution did not occur. In order to demonstrate this, the author compares fossils to modern day skeletons to show that there are no differences. Unfortunately, he really falls into the "I believe, so it is true" trap. Many of the so called identical structures are clearly different. He shows a fossilized spider and a modern one, maintaining that they are the same. However, the photos show that one has a segmented body plan, the other radial - exactly what all of the evolutionary theory and findings predict. And on, and on and...

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
yes i love discusing bible contradiction because well there are non. revelations 7:1 does nor say the earth is flat is states that 4 angels stood at the 4 corners of the earth so you are takeing it way out of context. in fact the /7bible says the earth is round way before colombus
The speaker in Revelations 7 says he can see the angels at the 4 corners - [possible only if the earth is flat. If it is round, then there are no corners, and if there were, they would be below the curved horizon.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
yes i love discusing bible contradiction because well there are non. revelations 7:1 does nor say the earth is flat is states that 4 angels stood at the 4 corners of the earth so you are takeing it way out of context. in fact the /7bible says the earth is round way before colombus
We actually still use the phrase "the four corners of the earth" to mean all-encompassing. It's a weak attack on the Bible.
A better quote: Isaiah 40:22 says "he sitteth upon the circle of the Earth".

 

[darknes]

Hey GeriDoc, I bought that book by Zimmer you mentioned about 6 or 7 pages ago. Sounds like a very interesting read.

 

[jerthunter]

One thing that I find interesting is people insist the creation as literal but when confronted with 'the four corners of the earth' claim it to be metaphor.
Another thing I find interesting is that people claim that the amount of time the Bible has been around gives it validity however books like the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas have been around for much longer than the bible and are still here today.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
The speaker in Revelations 7 says he can see the angels at the 4 corners - [possible only if the earth is flat. If it is round, then there are no corners, and if there were, they would be below the curved horizon.
Revelations is steeped in symbolism. Nobody really knows what most of it means, and so quoting anything from it is a weak argument, imo.

 

[geridoc]

BTW - I would really rather not get into a religious debate here. Darwin's Rottweiler, Richard Dawkins has championed an anti-religious, anti-creationist, pro evolution agenda, and has done a great disservice to the field, IMHO. While he makes great arguments, and is an amazing biologist, I don't think it is necessary to diminish other's religious views in order to understand the theory of evolution and to attempt to understand life on this planet. Whether God put us here (let's bypass whose God), or whether she preordained what we do isn't important to this discussion. But creationists, if they wish to be considered scientists, have to play the game, and produce scientific data, not arguments stemming from an irrefutable authority like one religious text or another.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Revelations is steeped in symbolism. Nobody really knows what most of it means, and so quoting anything from it is a weak argument, imo.
See post 691

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
For the answer to that, you will have to pay about $2500, which is the approximate tuition that my university charges for a course. And then, I wouldn't be able to answer you to your satisfaction, since there are many (acknowledged) gaps which you will focus on at the expense of seeing an overall picture. Really, today biologists take the theory of evolution as a given, and the debate is about specific mechanisms (mutation vs epigenetics vs gene repeat; punctate vs gradual, etc), but it is clear to people who study the question even a little that organisms did evolve.
I received a book the other day in the mail- a magnificently produced text, "Atlas of Creation" that purports to show that evolution did not occur. In order to demonstrate this, the author compares fossils to modern day skeletons to show that there are no differences. Unfortunately, he really falls into the "I believe, so it is true" trap. Many of the so called identical structures are clearly different. He shows a fossilized spider and a modern one, maintaining that they are the same. However, the photos show that one has a segmented body plan, the other radial - exactly what all of the evolutionary theory and findings predict. And on, and on and...
well that was week , im asking for proof but you deny to give me any why should i take anything you say seriously

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
One thing that I find interesting is people insist the creation as literal but when confronted with 'the four corners of the earth' claim it to be metaphor.
Another thing I find interesting is that people claim that the amount of time the Bible has been around gives it validity however books like the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas have been around for much longer than the bible and are still here today.
its not a metaphor at all its people trying to deny the exsistance of God that take the bible out of context

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
See post 691
I think all of Genesis is highly steeped in symbolism as well. Earlier on, I stated that you can't take it literally.
I'm Catholic, I am not a fundamentalist and I don't put 100% of my faith in the bible. Most christians are sola scriptura, but Catholics believe in authority of both scripture and tradition.