Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 27 2007,14:19)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 26 2007,00:46) Hi t8 ++”Or you could just continue with the religion that says that houses build themselves, which is what I suspect you will do. But I don't mind if you prove me wrong on that. Now come on t8, you were the one talking about houses building themselves.  I said that I didn't think houses built themselves.  Why do you say that I do?  Are you telling another parable?  The Parable of the House that Built Itself? You missed the point completely.

t8
I think it is more the case that you have avoided the point. I ask again: are you trying to link the design we see in designed and manufactured objects like watches with what you claim to be design in living things that are not manufactured but are the products of self-replication by descent with (possible) genetic modification?

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi t8

++”Scientists are always right. This is true…until they are wrong. How many times in history have scientists been right until proven wrong?

Correct, correct, and many times.
I believe Edison made 10,000 versions of his light bulb before settling on one that he patented.

++”Take the age of the universe for example. It changes all the time. Yet if you argue with any of them when they believed they had the right date, then they would dismiss your opinion based on their superior knowledge.

Unlike religious fundamentalists who always leave a little room for uncertainty in everything they preach…

++”But history is a good teacher. Not many learn the lessons of history however. Looking at the big picture, it is a bit daft to say the universe is exactly this age. Or monkeys and humans share a common ancestor as opposed to common code. Or the earth is flat until it is proven to be otherwise.

Is it a bit daft to say that a man was born of a virgin, without sexual intercourse as we know it, was able to walk on water, and survived his own death? Is it at all nutty to claim that all land animals crammed onto a boat during a flood (which by all reasonable interpretations of geology, never happened) and then afterwards ran away fast enough to avoid instant extinction by predation?

++”It is also daft to say that everything came from nothing. That is pure stupidity and no amount of mathematical equations, theories, and fossils will change it from being stupidity and ignorance.

I’m afraid there is no argument in the “stupidity” business. This is the argument from personal incredulity. “I can’t conceive of how it happened, therefore it didn’t.” I can make the same argument about special creation. I can’t imagine how it could have happened, therefore that didn’t”, either. The difference is that scientists have the rigours of peer review and presentation of evidence to go through. The religious do not suffer this requirement. Also, there is no Theory of Special Creation as far as I know, unless you are willing to give us the details?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (charity @ Aug. 27 2007,15:12)

Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the world do not blindly accept Darwin’s THEORY of evolution? Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance? Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?

Hi Charity

About 5% of scientists in the US don't accept evolution by natural selection. In other parts of the world the figure drops slightly. Very few of these are involved in biological sciences – most creationist scientists (as opposed to “creation scientists”) are engineers or physical chemists. I know that some have studied science with the express purpose of “debating” from a creationist standpoint.

Please tell me what the “Theory of Intelligent Design” says about how the variety of extant species came into being.

Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god (read what you posted earlier!) and his “God does not play dice” is of a kind of metaphorical or Spinozian thing. “Cosmic religious feeling” was the thing that all scientists needed in order to succeed, he said – a kind of awe of the universe and its property of holding amazing things secret, able to be worked out by someone who could appreciate such beauty.
The “…science without religion is blind” quote fits in this context. It is not an endorsement or admission of a belief in god.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 27 2007,17:11)

Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 27 2007,16:16) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 23 2007,17:03) Hi acertainchap, faith and a false hope It's the same thing, isn't it? Stuart:D All belief is based on faith whether in scripture or in science, both have had their share of errors through misinterpreting of facts. I believe with full knowledge of both they would be in perfect harmony. My opinion – Wm Seeking – what you have said is deep! I have told my friend who believes in evolution that it takes just as much faith to believe we came from a Big Bang as it takes to believe we were created! Faith is not false hope.  Without faith there would be no hope.

Wow! Lets read that again: “both [scripture and science] have had their share of errors through misinterpreting of facts”

Is this a tiny chink of light eminating from a medieval behemoth? Is scripture fallible after all?

That really is deep, I agree.

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

Stu,
Personally I do not believe scripture to be any more flawed then true science, truth can be misinterpreted any number of different ways. Religion over the years has distorted peoples “understanding” of God and caused many to reject Him (despite His warnings that there would be false teachers). One could only hope that with both God and science, that preconceptions would give way to truth.

It always amazes me that people will insist that that despite previous errors everything they now believe is correct (at least until proven wrong once again… but for sure this time…).

Wm

[Stu]

Hi seekingtruth

++”One could only hope that with both God and science, that preconceptions would give way to truth.
It always amazes me that people will insist that that despite previous errors everything they now believe is correct (at least until proven wrong once again… but for sure this time…).

I think you make a valid point against fundamentalism. The very nature of science is that there is grey between the black and white. Science is the means to gain the best quality of information about anything but the results of investigation don't suit lawyers in court or preachers in the pulpit, both situations requiring neat cut-and-dried “truth”. Scientific theories are always provisional and are constantly begging to be shot down by someone with a better explanation. It is a mistake to make the body of scientific knowledge into a dogma, and as you say some make this error. Having said this, of course you can be almost 100% sure of the atomic theory of matter, or evolution or Einsteinian physics. The grey area on the basic truth of these ideas is almost invisible. Will these theories be exactly the same in 100 years? No… Will they be broadly the same? Yes.

Fundamentalism in religion immediately disposes of the grey area around the existence of a god. In the absence of evidence for such a thing the view is almost entirely grey, yet few believers seem willing to concede any possibility at all that scripture could be wrong at all or that there might not be supernatural beings at all.

As I posted before, it is astonishing how humans can believe with great conviction things for which there is no evidence while denying other things when the evidence is shown to them.

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

Quote

I think you make a valid point against fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is defined as “a movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles (this would include evolution).” I believe there is a higher percentage of “fundamentalists” within the scientific world then there is within the religious world.

Quote

Having said this, of course you can be almost 100% sure of the atomic theory of matter, or evolution or Einsteinian physics.

You may want to refer to the principals of establishing a scientific fact. Some items can be observed and reproduced these are facts but theories are possibilities (some more possible then others). The facts at hand do more to disprove evolution then to support it.

Wm

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 29 2007,16:12)

Quote I think you make a valid point against fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is defined as “a movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles (this would include evolution).” I believe there is a higher percentage of “fundamentalists” within the scientific world then there is within the religious world. Quote Having said this, of course you can be almost 100% sure of the atomic theory of matter, or evolution or Einsteinian physics. You may want to refer to the principals of establishing a scientific fact. Some items can be observed and reproduced these are facts but theories are possibilities (some more possible then others). The facts at hand do more to disprove evolution then to support it. Wm

Hi seekingtruth

The fact of evolution is something about which the idea of “rigid adherence” is really irrelevant. The fossil record has no reasonable alternative explanation (just read back over the last 50 pages to satisfy yourself of this). You may as well be rigidly a believer that popes are catholic.

I think most who you would call “fundamentalist” about evolutionary origins are jaded from all the trite and unscientific nonsense spouted by “creation scientists” and have just adopted an inflexible position to match that taken by religious zealots.

I think your definition of Theory, in the scientific sense is wrong. A theory is the best explanation for the observations that we have. It is superceded when new observations come to light that are not explained, or if the theory can be simplified with no loss of explanatory power.

Please give me one fact that disproves evolution by natural selection.

Stuart

[charity]

Evolution takes as much faith as believing in God the creator of all men

Evolution is not even two centers old?

They teach it to our children in schools as a mere faith theory
And children often don't hear they have a choice of what they May beleive.

God has been around for as far back as men can record words?

And frankly the moment they showed me the bent over ape men standing up story diagram at school; I thought this is scary stuff; Iv come from an  animal?  I just new and felt within; No this is not so;
Then I cried is it lunch Time yet; and no I don't think I feel like that banana today; no thanks i can't face it; how long until the bell rings;
I need a meat pie?
I’m oppressed and shattered; what will  we look like in another few million years time???

But no care is taken about; how sensitive children will respond to this theory pressure tatic; that manifest the same identity in its force; as the religious pressure to believe a theory; and that all they are doing it molding the universe as a peice of clay; to carry on the passed on things throught the generations.

I know God can’t be taught and found as a theory; as einsten has said; he is found and seen within the creation; and just because he has been taught as theroy and it prevailed; it seems some others have copied and used the same way of force; thinking their reward is the nations honor and worship to their own theory’s to be remembered form hence forth and after they die?

Good night Stuart;
The attitudes and manner of force is the problem; science is all good; and has its purpose in this earth; with you on that

[Stu]

Hi Charity

++”Evolution takes as much faith as believing in God the creator of all men

Maybe it does for you. If you don’t actually know what evolution is, or what evidence it explains, then I suppose you reject is on faith alone.

++”They teach it to our children in schools as a mere faith theory And children often don't hear they have a choice of what they May beleive.

Why do children need to be told what to believe at all?
Teenagers have evolution by natural selection explained to them as a scientific theory that explains the fossil record and speciation as we see it. It is not a belief system (despite what you might read here). The creation myth is a belief that they “may believe” , and if that is to be taught at all, it should be done along with all the other creation myths.

++”And frankly the moment they showed me the bent over ape men standing up story diagram at school; I thought this is scary stuff; Iv come from an animal? I just new and felt within; No this is not so;
Then I cried is it lunch Time yet; and no I don't think I feel like that banana today; no thanks i can't face it; how long until the bell rings; I need a meat pie? I’m oppressed and shattered; what will we look like in another few million years time???

Charity, biologically, you and I are both animals. Are you running from this fact?

++”But no care is taken about; how sensitive children will respond to this theory pressure tatic; that manifest the same identity in its force; as the religious pressure to believe a theory; and that all they are doing it molding the universe as a peice of clay; to carry on the passed on things throught the generations.

And no care is taken when a minister of religion tells a young child the lie that their little innocent but “unsaved” friend who was killed in an accident will go to hell.

++”I know God can’t be taught and found as a theory; as einsten has said; he is found and seen within the creation; and just because he has been taught as theroy and it prevailed; it seems some others have copied and used the same way of force; thinking their reward is the nations honor and worship to their own theory’s to be remembered form hence forth and after they die?

Einstein did not say that “[god] is found and seen within the creation”, or anything like it.
What on earth does the rest of this paragraph mean??

Stuart

[charity]

Stuart what about the fact that evolution is less than two century’s old? You forgot to answer?

And yes I have read and seen how people just write their opinion of what Einstein said and meant; right underneath his words; nice and fresh; for the final force of what they want you to finish up believing?

[Stu]

++”Stuart what about the fact that evolution is less than two century’s old? You forgot to answer?

What about the fact that quantum mechanics is only one century old, or that the modern theory of genetics is a bit over 50 years old, or that tunnelling electron microscopes have provided “images” of atoms for only the past 30 years?
What point are you trying to make?

++”And yes I have read and seen how people just write their opinion of what Einstein said and meant; right underneath his words; nice and fresh; for the final force of what they want you to finish up believing?

Well, you can read for yourself what Einstein said. You don't have to take someone else's word for it.
I think you will find that Einstein did not believe in any actual kind of god. He used the word god as a metaphor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views

Stuart

[charity]

Einstein said “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

I think the man Einstein was great because he new of a higher authority; that of an invisible nature; NOT SEEN; his own faith; which is seen holding in the few words written above; which as far as I can tell; Einstein being a Jew living in Germany at the time of Hitler’s assault; to even then acknowledge his faith or if a religion as Hitler was setting out to destroy every Jew living on earth; would he surely tame anyone’s mouth; and also he was able to see the wrong that had come from religion forces of power; from his own people; being a Jews was matter of life and death?

ONE CAN REALY ONLY ANSWER YES OR NO TO A DESIGNER
No in between; religion is when it becomes personal;funtions of his nature; Of his intervening on earth; and denominations are all personal ideas of the function and nature of God, therefore one Devine becomes many personal gods; to supply and demand.

Anyway THANKS stuart

[seekingtruth]

Stu,

Quote

The fact of evolution is something about which the idea of “rigid adherence” is really irrelevant.

“The fact of evolution”! your statement exceeds even the claims from all but a fringe of the scientific world.  

Quote

Please give me one fact that disproves evolution by natural selection.

Give me one fact that proves evolution by natural selection. There are facts which may seem to support the evolutionary theory as it has been woven throughout with “facts” that support it while leaving the ones that conflict with it as unknown., but neither evolution nor creation can be proven using scientific methodology (it is neither observable or reproducible).

Everyone is a fundamentalist to some extent on various issues, we are on different ends of the spectrum on this issue.

Wm

[Stu]

Hi Charity

++”I think the man Einstein was great because he new of a higher authority; that of an invisible nature; NOT SEEN; his own faith;

I think you should read the link again, and follow the one to Spinoza. You are wrong about Einstein. It actually doesn't matter that he was agnostic, whether he believed or not is irrelevant to the truth of existence of gods. The fact remains that Einstein didn't believe in god.

++”ONE CAN REALY ONLY ANSWER YES OR NO TO A DESIGNER
No in between; religion is when it becomes personal;funtions of his nature; Of his intervening on earth; and denominations are all personal ideas of the function and nature of God, therefore one Devine becomes many personal gods; to supply and demand.

So I answer NO, and that applies until you can demonstrate otherwise. (The rest of your paragraph is gibberish, I'm sorry to say).:(

Stuart

[Stu]

Hi seekingtruth

++””The fact of evolution”! your statement exceeds even the claims from all but a fringe of the scientific world.

Evolution has happened. That is so obvious from the fossil record, the genetic record and the cases of evolution that we see happening today that it would perverse to deny it. 5% of US scientists deny evolution. Almost all of that 5% are fundamentalist christians.

++’Give me one fact that proves evolution by natural selection.

You can only “prove “ things in mathematics. You would be asking for evidence. I have given lots of evidence for natural selection as the best explanation for the fact of evolution, in the previous 55 pages.

++”There are facts which may seem to support the evolutionary theory as it has been woven throughout with “facts” that support it while leaving the ones that conflict with it as unknown., but neither evolution nor creation can be proven using scientific methodology (it is neither observable or reproducible).

Evolution is observable and on-going. That you give no examples is quite telling. I don’t think you understand the strategies of those who call themselves “creation scientists”.

++”Everyone is a fundamentalist to some extent on various issues, we are on different ends of the spectrum on this issue.

Which is a shame, really, because on every other aspect of the stunning achievements of modern science we would be on the “same end of the spectrum”. The same scinetific process that gave you a refrigerator and antibiotics has given you evolutionary theory. These other products of modern science are “right”, and work fine. Why do you single out evolution by natural selection for denial?

Stuart

[charity]

No matter what they tell us
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach us
What we believe is true
I can't deny what I believe
I can't be what I'm not
From the bottom, the only way is up
Faith and hope Garments of joy
Love that pass Knowledge is the only way

hey david where are you??

[Stu]

++”hey david where are you??

…Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king

Are these two things related??

Stuart

[charity]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2007,18:44)

++”hey david where are you?? …Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king Are these two things related?? Stuart

sorry stuart, that was a bit confusing for you

david with the small d is the member david whom you have spoken to on this thread!

And the scripture set as my signature is King David, and concerns prophecy on his resurrection from the dead!

how you doing anyway?

[IM4Truth]

Hi Charity
Like your Poem. Wonder if Stuart going to receive it and believe it. Love that pass knowledge is the only way. Love for God that is. I wonder why He is still sticks around. It is almost like He wants to learn of God. We should set a good example to love each other.

Peace and Love Mrs.:D

[Author]

Posts