Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter darknes
- Start date
darknes
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
I have some in my office - I'll pm you tomorrow with some possibilities.
Ok, thanks!
If you are interested in reading about a different theory on evolution, I suggest getting "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. It's written by a scientist who tries to show that both science and religion aren't conflicting, but rather complement one another on the basis of evolution. It highly reflects my belief that we evolved; However, I believe evolution was not random but instead planned and very rapid (it also seems to better fit the Cambrian explosion).
I have some in my office - I'll pm you tomorrow with some possibilities.
Ok, thanks!
If you are interested in reading about a different theory on evolution, I suggest getting "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. It's written by a scientist who tries to show that both science and religion aren't conflicting, but rather complement one another on the basis of evolution. It highly reflects my belief that we evolved; However, I believe evolution was not random but instead planned and very rapid (it also seems to better fit the Cambrian explosion).
jonfletch01
Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
I'm still not sure what "it" is that you want explained. It almost seems as if you want me to explain (in the words of Adams) "life, the universe, and everything else".
He/she was not meaning "life, the universe, and everything else"... I sure they meant, when asked a question.. u refered to a book.. you didn't answer.. meaning you couldn't explain the question they asked...
I'm still not sure what "it" is that you want explained. It almost seems as if you want me to explain (in the words of Adams) "life, the universe, and everything else".
He/she was not meaning "life, the universe, and everything else"... I sure they meant, when asked a question.. u refered to a book.. you didn't answer.. meaning you couldn't explain the question they asked...
darknes
Active Member
Originally Posted by jonfletch01
He/she was not meaning "life, the universe, and everything else"... I sure they meant, when asked a question.. u refered to a book.. you didn't answer.. meaning you couldn't explain the question they asked...
Probably because the answer is too long and complicated to type out on a forum. If reeffreak really wants to know, he/she should do some research on his/her own.
He/she was not meaning "life, the universe, and everything else"... I sure they meant, when asked a question.. u refered to a book.. you didn't answer.. meaning you couldn't explain the question they asked...
Probably because the answer is too long and complicated to type out on a forum. If reeffreak really wants to know, he/she should do some research on his/her own.
jonfletch01
Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Probably because the answer is too long and complicated to type out on a forum. If reeffreak really wants to know, he/she should do some research on his/her own.
Understandable.. But GeriDoc seems to have a good grasp on his thoughts.. and seems to want to share them.. but only gives book refs. and round about answers.. nothing of real substance...
Probably because the answer is too long and complicated to type out on a forum. If reeffreak really wants to know, he/she should do some research on his/her own.
Understandable.. But GeriDoc seems to have a good grasp on his thoughts.. and seems to want to share them.. but only gives book refs. and round about answers.. nothing of real substance...
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by rbaldino
And "educated Romans" made up what percentage of the world's population at the time? And during the Dark Ages, how many people were running around reading books? The fact is, it's only been in the last 200 or so years that a majority of the population has learned to read and write. Before that, many of them were too busy farming or hunting to get a proper education, and they depended on clergymen to recite and interpret the Bible for them.
The dark ages is irrelevant. As I said, the first and second century church started under the Roman Empire. The bulk fo the NT was written to Romans.
You stated that the Bible was "written by men to control and manipulate an ignorant and superstitious populace". That is incorrect.
You can argue with the validity of the Bible if you wish, but you'll be expected to use facts not opinion and false info.
And "educated Romans" made up what percentage of the world's population at the time? And during the Dark Ages, how many people were running around reading books? The fact is, it's only been in the last 200 or so years that a majority of the population has learned to read and write. Before that, many of them were too busy farming or hunting to get a proper education, and they depended on clergymen to recite and interpret the Bible for them.
The dark ages is irrelevant. As I said, the first and second century church started under the Roman Empire. The bulk fo the NT was written to Romans.
You stated that the Bible was "written by men to control and manipulate an ignorant and superstitious populace". That is incorrect.
You can argue with the validity of the Bible if you wish, but you'll be expected to use facts not opinion and false info.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by rbaldino
Evolution is a theory that can be observed, studied through the fossil record, analyzed with DNA, etc. God's existence can be proven by...? Having a "relationship" with him?
Really?
I've done a bit of traveling.I've hiked the rain forests of Australia, dove the GBR, dove the Caribbean, wandered through Mayan ruins in rain forests, traveled through much of America's National Parks.... I never observed evolution. As a enducated Biologist you would think I would have known what to look for.
I've collected a good deal of fossils. My family's ranch used to be a prehistoric ocean. I have many fossils of early sea creatures. They tell me nothing about my aquarium inhabitants.
DNA? We've been discussing that here on this thread.
Lastly, if evolution could be observed as you pointed out it would no longer be a "theory". It would have become a "Law".
Evolution is a theory that can be observed, studied through the fossil record, analyzed with DNA, etc. God's existence can be proven by...? Having a "relationship" with him?
Really?
I've done a bit of traveling.I've hiked the rain forests of Australia, dove the GBR, dove the Caribbean, wandered through Mayan ruins in rain forests, traveled through much of America's National Parks.... I never observed evolution. As a enducated Biologist you would think I would have known what to look for.
I've collected a good deal of fossils. My family's ranch used to be a prehistoric ocean. I have many fossils of early sea creatures. They tell me nothing about my aquarium inhabitants.
DNA? We've been discussing that here on this thread.
Lastly, if evolution could be observed as you pointed out it would no longer be a "theory". It would have become a "Law".
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
The incorrectness of this statement is exactly at the core of the creationist-evolutionist debate. Belief in God does require faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, few evolutionary biologists "believe in" evolution through faith. They simply find that the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, explains the observed facts better than any other theory. Faith is specifically not involved in this, and evolutionary biologists, like all scientists (place the word "good" before evolutionary and scientists) are pleased to see their theory modified or even overturned, because this brings us closer to the objective truth.
And few of the proponents of evolution are evolutionary biologists.
I stand by my statement that both require faith.
To believe, and in many cases to teach, argue for, accept, etc., evolution you have made a decision that it is the best theory without the proof needed to know for sure. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
The incorrectness of this statement is exactly at the core of the creationist-evolutionist debate. Belief in God does require faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, few evolutionary biologists "believe in" evolution through faith. They simply find that the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, explains the observed facts better than any other theory. Faith is specifically not involved in this, and evolutionary biologists, like all scientists (place the word "good" before evolutionary and scientists) are pleased to see their theory modified or even overturned, because this brings us closer to the objective truth.
And few of the proponents of evolution are evolutionary biologists.
I stand by my statement that both require faith.
To believe, and in many cases to teach, argue for, accept, etc., evolution you have made a decision that it is the best theory without the proof needed to know for sure. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
If it were only a matter of individual beliefs, then you are right - people should be permitted to believe what they want. However (you knew there had to be a "however"), these belief and approach differences have practical consequences, since individuals with a religious agenda continually attempt to lever their belief systems into science classrooms. Since such beliefs are not science, there is a very real threat of training a generation whose world view is rooted in the first century. Where, then, is there room for modern medicine, much of which is based on modern biological concepts, such as evolution? Where does modern physics fit into such a world view, and its efforts to find alternative energy sources (in the first century the alternative energy source to fire was slavery)? It is a matter not only of philosophy of life and the universe, but of how one acts on those beliefs. So it does matter, and it is worth debating in every venue.
Not true. The arguments I've seen from religious classrooms is that Evolution should be taught as a theory, and that other theories should be taught as well.
After all, isn't science supposed to be about exploring, looking at new ideas, discussing all possibilities?
Today, in classrooms all across America, evolution is taught as though it was a scientific "Law". It is not, and the fact that preponents try to teach it as such is to their shame.
I'd never argue that a literal creation should be taught as law in the classroom. I'd also never argue that a literal evolution should be taught in the classroom. One of the two is being taught however. So who is really stifling modern science?
If it were only a matter of individual beliefs, then you are right - people should be permitted to believe what they want. However (you knew there had to be a "however"), these belief and approach differences have practical consequences, since individuals with a religious agenda continually attempt to lever their belief systems into science classrooms. Since such beliefs are not science, there is a very real threat of training a generation whose world view is rooted in the first century. Where, then, is there room for modern medicine, much of which is based on modern biological concepts, such as evolution? Where does modern physics fit into such a world view, and its efforts to find alternative energy sources (in the first century the alternative energy source to fire was slavery)? It is a matter not only of philosophy of life and the universe, but of how one acts on those beliefs. So it does matter, and it is worth debating in every venue.
Not true. The arguments I've seen from religious classrooms is that Evolution should be taught as a theory, and that other theories should be taught as well.
After all, isn't science supposed to be about exploring, looking at new ideas, discussing all possibilities?
Today, in classrooms all across America, evolution is taught as though it was a scientific "Law". It is not, and the fact that preponents try to teach it as such is to their shame.
I'd never argue that a literal creation should be taught as law in the classroom. I'd also never argue that a literal evolution should be taught in the classroom. One of the two is being taught however. So who is really stifling modern science?
1journeyman
Active Member
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). ....
Wow... any chance of you retracting that silly statement?
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). ....
Wow... any chance of you retracting that silly statement?
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
yes the four corners are north ,south,east and west
Wow, that is funny. I have been as far north on the earth as possible and did not see a corner. I haven't gotten to go to the south pole yet but I am going to wager there is no corner there either. As far as a west corner or an east corner, I have yet to find where west or east ends so I cannot speak for a lack of corner there.
If there is no literal corner then the bible must have been speaking with symbolism and if it uses symbolism in one place why would you insist that it be taken literally, word for word in another?
yes the four corners are north ,south,east and west
Wow, that is funny. I have been as far north on the earth as possible and did not see a corner. I haven't gotten to go to the south pole yet but I am going to wager there is no corner there either. As far as a west corner or an east corner, I have yet to find where west or east ends so I cannot speak for a lack of corner there.
If there is no literal corner then the bible must have been speaking with symbolism and if it uses symbolism in one place why would you insist that it be taken literally, word for word in another?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not true. The arguments I've seen from religious classrooms is that Evolution should be taught as a theory, and that other theories should be taught as well.
After all, isn't science supposed to be about exploring, looking at new ideas, discussing all possibilities?
Today, in classrooms all across America, evolution is taught as though it was a scientific "Law". It is not, and the fact that preponents try to teach it as such is to their shame.
I'd never argue that a literal creation should be taught as law in the classroom. I'd also never argue that a literal evolution should be taught in the classroom. One of the two is being taught however. So who is really stifling modern science?
To answer your last question first - creationists are stifling modern science. In a courtroom the defense attorney is not permitted to float just any theory of the case in order to put doubt into the jury's mind - the "Martians did it" defense is not permitted. There must be some shred of objective evidence to justify a claim. That is essentially what happens in a science classroom - there has to be evidence. The courts have held over and over again that creationism is not a scientific concept, but a religious position, best taught in theology (or less charitably, as was proposed by a misguided college professor in the midwest, in mythology) classes. It is fine to teach the controversy - we do that all the time in college classes. When I teach about the possible role of folic acid in the development of heart disease, I teach the controversy, which reflects interpretation of data. the creationist position does not rise to the level of being a controversy - it is a religious position, unsupported by data. Bring on the science, and it won't be stifled.
Not true. The arguments I've seen from religious classrooms is that Evolution should be taught as a theory, and that other theories should be taught as well.
After all, isn't science supposed to be about exploring, looking at new ideas, discussing all possibilities?
Today, in classrooms all across America, evolution is taught as though it was a scientific "Law". It is not, and the fact that preponents try to teach it as such is to their shame.
I'd never argue that a literal creation should be taught as law in the classroom. I'd also never argue that a literal evolution should be taught in the classroom. One of the two is being taught however. So who is really stifling modern science?
To answer your last question first - creationists are stifling modern science. In a courtroom the defense attorney is not permitted to float just any theory of the case in order to put doubt into the jury's mind - the "Martians did it" defense is not permitted. There must be some shred of objective evidence to justify a claim. That is essentially what happens in a science classroom - there has to be evidence. The courts have held over and over again that creationism is not a scientific concept, but a religious position, best taught in theology (or less charitably, as was proposed by a misguided college professor in the midwest, in mythology) classes. It is fine to teach the controversy - we do that all the time in college classes. When I teach about the possible role of folic acid in the development of heart disease, I teach the controversy, which reflects interpretation of data. the creationist position does not rise to the level of being a controversy - it is a religious position, unsupported by data. Bring on the science, and it won't be stifled.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Wow, that is funny. I have been as far north on the earth as possible and did not see a corner. I haven't gotten to go to the south pole yet but I am going to wager there is no corner there either. As far as a west corner or an east corner, I have yet to find where west or east ends so I cannot speak for a lack of corner there.
If there is no literal corner then the bible must have been speaking with symbolism and if it uses symbolism in one place why would you insist that it be taken literally, word for word in another?
No one who studies the Bible can argue every word is literal. The Bible is actually written using a variety of literary types. symbolism is used in certain books of the Bible.
Revelation is one type of writing, the Pentateuch another.
Wow, that is funny. I have been as far north on the earth as possible and did not see a corner. I haven't gotten to go to the south pole yet but I am going to wager there is no corner there either. As far as a west corner or an east corner, I have yet to find where west or east ends so I cannot speak for a lack of corner there.
If there is no literal corner then the bible must have been speaking with symbolism and if it uses symbolism in one place why would you insist that it be taken literally, word for word in another?
No one who studies the Bible can argue every word is literal. The Bible is actually written using a variety of literary types. symbolism is used in certain books of the Bible.
Revelation is one type of writing, the Pentateuch another.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
No one who studies the Bible can argue every word is literal. The Bible is actually written using a variety of literary types. symbolism is used in certain books of the Bible.
Revelation is one type of writing, the Pentateuch another.
Unfortunately many people in this thread insist that the bible's words must be taken literally. I am attempting to see how they decide what must be literal and what is symbolism.
No one who studies the Bible can argue every word is literal. The Bible is actually written using a variety of literary types. symbolism is used in certain books of the Bible.
Revelation is one type of writing, the Pentateuch another.
Unfortunately many people in this thread insist that the bible's words must be taken literally. I am attempting to see how they decide what must be literal and what is symbolism.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wow... any chance of you retracting that silly statement?
No chance at all - I meant what I said - that if you take it too literally, then you have to acknowledge that the earth is flat. Just how literally you take it is up to you, but that implies that many of the statements in the Bible are open to literal, or less than literal, interpretation, depending on the mood of the moment. Some groups are comfortable with this, others not.
Wow... any chance of you retracting that silly statement?
No chance at all - I meant what I said - that if you take it too literally, then you have to acknowledge that the earth is flat. Just how literally you take it is up to you, but that implies that many of the statements in the Bible are open to literal, or less than literal, interpretation, depending on the mood of the moment. Some groups are comfortable with this, others not.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Unfortunately many people in this thread insist that the bible's words must be taken literally. I am attempting to see how they decide what must be literal and what is symbolism.
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
Unfortunately many people in this thread insist that the bible's words must be taken literally. I am attempting to see how they decide what must be literal and what is symbolism.
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
Journeyman - you seem to be doing what many scientists I know do. They are religious, and scientists by separating their spirituality from their science. They take whatever bible they believe in through culture and custom to be a guide to how they live their lives, not as literally true in every respect. And in another part of their brains lives science, objective, demanding, and questioning things that are questionable, while the spiritual side acknowledges that there are unanswerable questions. Aren't we a great species!
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
Journeyman - you seem to be doing what many scientists I know do. They are religious, and scientists by separating their spirituality from their science. They take whatever bible they believe in through culture and custom to be a guide to how they live their lives, not as literally true in every respect. And in another part of their brains lives science, objective, demanding, and questioning things that are questionable, while the spiritual side acknowledges that there are unanswerable questions. Aren't we a great species!
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
Perhaps that is how you determine the difference, however many people in this thread have insisted that there is no room for interpretation. I wish to hear from them because I want to know their logic.
To answer both of you;
You determine "literal" versus "symbolism" by taking the context of the writing. Just like you would in any other historic writing. Geri took 1 scripture clearly out of context, and tried to say the Bible taught the earth was flat...
Interpreting Genesis creation account literally (which I don't btw), in no way means you must take book of Revelation literally. For one thing they were written by different authors, for another they were written over 1,000 years a part.
Perhaps that is how you determine the difference, however many people in this thread have insisted that there is no room for interpretation. I wish to hear from them because I want to know their logic.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Ok, thanks!
If you are interested in reading about a different theory on evolution, I suggest getting "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. It's written by a scientist who tries to show that both science and religion aren't conflicting, but rather complement one another on the basis of evolution. It highly reflects my belief that we evolved; However, I believe evolution was not random but instead planned and very rapid (it also seems to better fit the Cambrian explosion).
I am familiar with Schroeder's work. It reflects a popular compromise, that God created the rules, and evolution is one of the rules. I have no problem with that, although I don't believe it personally (notice I said believe, it is a personal view of belief, in the absence of compelling evidence). Evolutionary theory has no problem with that - science just tries to understand the rules of the game, and you don't have to know how the game came into existence to understand the rules. The problem comes with people who insist on a set of rules that don't explain the game.
Ok, thanks!
If you are interested in reading about a different theory on evolution, I suggest getting "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. It's written by a scientist who tries to show that both science and religion aren't conflicting, but rather complement one another on the basis of evolution. It highly reflects my belief that we evolved; However, I believe evolution was not random but instead planned and very rapid (it also seems to better fit the Cambrian explosion).
I am familiar with Schroeder's work. It reflects a popular compromise, that God created the rules, and evolution is one of the rules. I have no problem with that, although I don't believe it personally (notice I said believe, it is a personal view of belief, in the absence of compelling evidence). Evolutionary theory has no problem with that - science just tries to understand the rules of the game, and you don't have to know how the game came into existence to understand the rules. The problem comes with people who insist on a set of rules that don't explain the game.
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by ROYAL GANG
58.51% said yes??? I am ashamed of being a human, knowing that 58 1/2% don't know......... where they even come from, I know I do!
How dare you!! Honestly!! Such high and mightiness! Well let's all just bow down to the superiority! Oh! And there is an emoticon for it
These are the sorts of statements that, sorry, have no place here. They are demeaning, and don't advance any discussion.
58.51% said yes??? I am ashamed of being a human, knowing that 58 1/2% don't know......... where they even come from, I know I do!
How dare you!! Honestly!! Such high and mightiness! Well let's all just bow down to the superiority! Oh! And there is an emoticon for it
These are the sorts of statements that, sorry, have no place here. They are demeaning, and don't advance any discussion.