Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
Whatever example you have is just that...one example. It does not, nor ever will invalidate the fact that the scientific methodology is the best and only reliable system we have.
Human frailties also obviously can and have played a part, but as usual and as history has shown, science proceeds and advances, as our observational and experimental knowledge grows.
Of course the fact that it has driven any need for any deity back to near oblivion, has people like yourself, jumping up and down, making baseless allegations, to try and regain some of that enormous lost ground.
I thought I answered you before by simply stating that no one is making you come here, it is your choice.
So in a Religion Sub-Forum, are you actually saying that you don’t want anyone who has faith in God here?
Who would be left to represent the other side?
I think you would get bored, wouldn’t you?
I don’t feel like I am preaching. I am expressing my view which can be, and probably is wrong in places.
You all help me figure out the problems and errors with my own thinking that I am totally blind to.
And I don’t want to think of you as being intolerant of other views, because I really don’t think you are.
And I'm sure I also told you that the religious sub forum, like all the other sub forums, are still run under the auspices of the scientific method.
The problem is the occasional stretching the truth and obtuseness displayed by people, and the rejection of the scientific method. I prefer as one genuine religious person did do around 6 months or so ago, that he still accepts his god and afterlife, despite the science and scientific facts.
Seti, I'm simply intolerant of the rejection of the evidenced backed science and the scientific method shown by some.
Why not comment on some of the scientific threads for a change?
How about the most recent I posted today, about why all the planets all orbit in the same plane, and the discovery in another system, that didn't adhere to that...and of course the scientific reasons why it did not....all awesome, incredible stuff!
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
And many of those theist scientists have no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling their religious beliefs with the overwhelming evidence for evolution. They see evolution as the means by which God created man and all the life of the biosphere. Why is it, I wonder, that you consider your inexpert views to be better than the well informed, practically founded views of such scientists?
And yet you have a problem with those theists who are fully supportive of evolutionary theory. It seems that there are two kinds of theists in your book and those who support evolution are on the wrong side of the fence, as you see it. How do you justify that?
Which is wrong. Just as it was wrong that my courteously presented views on evolution on a Christian site that purported to welcome such views resulted in my being bullied, insulted and summarily ejected. Certainly not as bad as losing ones job, but it illustrates that bad things can happen when people are involved, regardless of their declared beliefs.
Nonsense. Science currently follows the principle of Methodological Naturalism. Methodological naturalism declares that the most practical and effective way of investigating the natural character of the universe is to explore that natural character, setting to one side any supernatural aspects. It is taken that the scientific method is not well suited to the investigation of the supernatural.
Thus there is nothing to prove. The Naturalism is part of the method and does not exclude the possibility os the supernatural - science simply disregards it for the purposes of the investigation.
Since there is no Religion of Naturalism it cannot be imposed on anyone. Evolution is supported by a wealth of data from dozens of sciences. It is recognised as valid by most major Christian denominations. To call its teaching in schools "atheisitic brainwashing" is simultaneously offensive and ignorant.
And yet those theistic scientists who follow the scientific method and make contributions to the development of evolutionary theory you ignore and implicitly disrespect. Just as you disrespect the body of evidence for evolution derived through empirical observation.
The usual suspects would condemn, ridicule, seek to undermine, or ignore, avoid, discount. The serious scientists would say, "Now that's interesting. I wonder." And we would be on another wonderful journey of discovery.
Based upon how science has dealt with controversial evidence in the past expecting eventual acceptance is the only rational expectation.
This is the only thing we can likely agree on. You would expect that to happen.
You don't have a view, you have a dogma in which you subscribe deeply causing you to deny the views of science. It is you who are intolerant to evidence, facts and observations, not blind. The evidence, facts and observations are right in front of you, but unfortunately, the sick and twisted dogma you've swallowed hook line and sinker won't let you even look at it.
Of course, no one here expects you to understand that there is no valid opposition to evolution. If there was, scientists would be all over it considering that's what scientists do. You and your faith based ilk are not opposing evolution in an intelligent way, you're just denying/rejecting anything that you believe would jeopardize your faith based creationism dogma. Ridicule is all you deserve.
Yes. It has happened before. Google the Copernican Revolution.
?? It would not, of course. It would be rejected on the basis of a better theory being created, then supported by hundreds of experiments, tests and studies. It would take years.
Then you don't know any scientists.
Let's ask you the same question. Let's say God was conclusively proven not to exist. Would you accept that?
This might be a contradiction in logic.
Would you please explain?
How is the Scientific Method set up to allow for any Supernatural events, evidence, eye witness accounts, or miracles ever?
My point is that any supposed ID, supernatural and/or paranormal claims, do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and the scientific method. We don't just thrown them out the door because someone decides to preach/crusade in the religious subform.
Check out the ghosts UFO's Goblins sub forum...same applies.
I really don’t think that Science allows the Supernatural to exist at all, especially within it’s own Method of inquiry.
And yes, it really is just thrown out the window before it is ever evaluated, because according to the Method, it does not exist in the first place.
Why attempt to fairly evaluate something that is not even supposed to exist?
I really think this is correct.
Darwinian evolutionary theory predicts the genetic similarities between different organisms at different taxonomic levels of biological classification - all levels, from subvariety to phylum - much better than chance; better by several orders of magnitude than chance allows.
For example, it predicts that the genome of an African rock hyrax will resemble more closely that of a Siberian wooly mammoth than that of a Canadian yellow bellied marmot. And that is turning out to be the case, as the genome of the woolly mammoth becomes better and better described. You can follow the reasoning and see the data for yourself in public sources.
The same kind of prediction, less spectacularly made between living beings, can be made for millions of different comparisons among the animals whose taxonomy was sufficiently well understood before the discovery of DNA, and Darwinian theory has proved itself so reliable and informative a predictor of the results (and with such a clear and rigorously described mechanism) that we now reverse the direction of argument - we use the DNA resemblances to classify the organisms taxonomically. So far not one discrepancy or impossibility or serious anomaly has been found at any level of taxonomic classification.
I read some some scientific journals, and have often noticed how well amplified and enthusiastically described any discovery - or even rigorously defended allegation - of a problem with Darwinian theory has been. The declaration of problem, difficulty, contradiction, whatever, is in the headlines, often, on the cover, and in the short list of significant summaries. It's the opposite of suppressed, occasionally to a degree that makes one suspect political influence at a disturbing level. No American need fear a lack of influence from fundamentalist Christians and their views on anything.
Last edited:
We know what you're trying to say, that science doesn't allow for your God. Period. That's why you hate science and have never bothered to understand it in any way, but still have no problem coming onto internet forums to bitch and complain about it. Typical creationist, willful ignorance controls your worldview.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
I see you haven't bothered to read my post on this matter (#65), or have failed to understand it, or have chosen to ignore it. Your faulty thinking in this matter is addressed there. Feel free to ask me to clarify any points you don't understand after you have read it. Or continue to ignore the facts when they are staring you in the face. (Or should I say staring you in the faith?)
I apologize!
I loved your post!
I agreed with you in some aspects, and disagreed with you regarding other aspects.
I have already addressed the things I disagree with in this thread, and for your benefit I do not think I should repeat myself. Though I am regrettably doing that some.
Thank you so much for sharing you insights!!!
If I may ask your opinion on a specific item...
What is your opinion on the following?
https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissues-preserved-polymers
The initial response from the Scientific Community included Character Assassinations of the Team of Scientists who first discovered it.
And even now you can still see how the research on it is being manipulated and controlled to fit within previous assumptions.
They are not exactly celebrating and throwing parties, hoping they can throw out previous assumptions.
Peer Pressure will not allow that.
At least that is how it has appeared to me over the years.
Again, Thank You!!!
Last edited:
Right, by definition.
Let's say we could prove that some cosmic intelligence exists and can act here on Earth. As soon as we could demonstrate it, it would not be supernatural any more. The same thing has happened to lightning, tides, earthquakes and eclipses. We used to think they were supernatural. Then we learned they weren't and they moved into the realm of "phenomena we can explain."
Not sure what you're talking about, but your belief system has been evaluated and criticized ad nauseum by a great deal of folks. It has this cause and effect that forms a vicious circle, it causes people to shun knowledge and embrace ignorance so that their version of reality grows increasingly further away from reality to the point of denying/rejecting it. You are a very good example of this vicious circle that is clearly destroying your mind. It's not too late to start thinking, but that decision is entirely up to you.
Provide that response or admit you made it up. Of course, we can actually find facts about that discovery:
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/