Skip to comments.Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)
Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I am deeply interested in reality; in fact, that’s the only thing that interests me. I never read novels, watch movies, have no interest in fiction, games, have no TV. Reality is all that interests me. You think “science” is the only way to know reality.
And I say you’re wrong. Whether transcendant reality beyond the confines of this universe, or temporaly reality. Science is a flickering penlight, that’s all.
You may well be interested in the fantasies about reincarnation that you THINK are reality. That is not reality.
You may well be interested in things “beyond” and “above” actual reality.
But the best way of gaining reliable and useful information about physical reality is science.
Nothing else even comes close.
Science is a searching floodlight compared to the dull fading sparks of theological musings about the afterlife in terms of gaining ACTUAL information that is of use in the ACTUAL world.
I would have to disagree with you right there, spunkets. And thus with your following conclusion.
I do not have "faith" because of something I've read, or because someone told me what to "believe" and I, credulous fool that I am, simply believed it, without doing any work on my part. Duh!!!
My faith was acquired "the hard way" by experience, by meditating on the world and its contents, including man and especially including me, and how it all fits together. In suffering and joyfulness. In good times and bad, over the course of some seven decades (I'll be 62 in May). Gradually, increasingly with the passage of time, by opening my soul to the illumination of the Holy Spirit; by trusting in Jesus Christ.
Along the way, I have found the Holy Scriptures to have been an inerrant guide to making sense of the world in which I live. I have discovered no finding in natural science that has ever contradicted anything in the Bible. These two "revelations" the Book of Holy Scripture and the Book of Nature correspond and work together astonishingly well.
And finally, I have faith because the Presence of God has been directly revealed to me on several occasions in my life, mainly at critical times when I've sensed myself to be in real imminent danger in most cases physical danger, but on one occasion spiritual. (The latter was actually the most frightening.) I believe in angels, for I have actually met a couple of them.... I could go on, but at a certain point, such matters become very personal.
God got me through these ordeals (in most cases, without me even asking for His help). So of course I trust Him! He has already "saved me from myself" so many times by now, that I have no doubt that He'll continue to be my Savior. And Judge. Now and forever.
If God did not exist, neither would the world. For His Logos is the beginning, end, and guide to everything in-between in the natural world which points to the world to come.
In short, Christians have reasons for being Christians: We're not just dumb, passive ventriloquist dummies!
That is merely your opinion. You think that natural sciences - that which can be seen under a microscope, or through a telescope, or discerned through mechanical devices invented by human beings, and understood via imperfect human intelligence and reason, is the only way to know truth.
I disagree entirely.
There is no point of reference that we agree upon, so further discussion is useless.
No other method has even come close.
Speculating about reincarnation doesn't gain one any useful or reliable information about the physical world, but it has the advantage that there is no actual knowledge needed to pontificate about the subject and nobody can ever prove you are right or wrong.
There must be some comfort in that.
Science, on the other hand, is difficult to know and understand and to keep up with all the accumulating knowledge. Far better for some to ignore it and feel satisfied that they know the answers to the questions that they think are important, like just how much I have to think about Tigers before I get reincarnated as one.
So what? It doesn't mean we ARE apes. Looks can be deceiving and science has yet to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt the link between man and the rest of the bipedal mammals. They haven't found it yet, in spite of their efforts and repeated attempts at fraud.
If you want to think of yourself as an animal, then that's your prerogative. If you believe that God created man in His image, then you must believe that God is a monkey.
And who worships the lessor or inferior God?
Not me. The God I worship isn't a liar. I don't think He lied in the Genesis account of how He created man, and it was not through evolution, but from the dust of the earth in a separate act of creation.
What fact helps you to explain WHY we are more similar to a chimp and a chimp is more similar to us, than either is to a gorilla?
Looks are not what this is based upon, but a rigorous examination and comparison of DNA sequences. But yes, morphologically we “look” like a species of ape, and for non-deceptive reasons.
The link between man and bipedal apes is well established, and the thousands of autralopithocene and Homo fossils are not fraudulent, despite your repeated fraudulent efforts to characterize them as such.
Biologically we are animals. Spiritually we are made in the image of God.
If you think God looks like a hairless bipedal ape, than yes, God would look like us. We look exactly like a hairless bipedal ape.
A monkey is not an ape. How ignorant you must be to confuse the two terms.
Still our dear kosta persists in arguing with you about the ins and outs of electromagnetic radiation.
As if that were what you were talking about in the above italics. [It seems kosta resists all appeals to actual experience such as an explosion in a microwave oven, which potentially causes some other really bad stuff to happen.]
Jeepers, dear shibumi, I've reached the point where I would hazard to say the above italics indicate precisely what our dear brother kosta needs to do, in order to "prove" his own point to his own satisfaction.
So sigh let us all just stand back, so to view the coming auto-da-fe....
Personally, I wouldn't wish this sort of thing on my worst enemy, which surely kosta is not. (Truly, I pray for his soul daily whether he wants me to or not.)
The amount of work, or examination one does is irrelevant. Faith is fundamentally based on what someone has heard, read, or has been told. Nothing that you've posted contradicts that. What might be considered your strongest evidence can amount to no more than testimony. IOWs, it is fundamentally no more than a claim.
"If God did not exist, neither would the world."
That's a claim based on what you have heard and read. Where's your evidence for such a claim, that anyone can examine at will by the scientific method?
Especially when that road does not lead to truth. It can't: It has no principle and so terminates in Nowhere.
A doubter needs to understand that; and then ask himself whether he really wants to risk walking down that road....
There are far better ways to "relieve doubt."
A lot of people have faith in airplanes, boats, brakes, steering wheels, elevators, overpasses, bridges, bolts, food, without ever even thinking about how they are placing their lives in their faith that what they are doing at the time is somehow safe.
Faith is an experience, the evidence of things not seen. It is not a conclusion based on what we see or have heard, or have read. It goes to our very soul, of who we are and how we view the universe.
We have faith in a lot of things because to have doubts in those things would result in a disruption of our lives. People have phobias because they have a loss of faith and with that loss of faith comes an irrational belief (i.e., that the elevator is going to fall, the airplane is going to crash, the food is going to kill them, the brakes are going to fail.)
Hey Quix, have I got this right?
Thank you, Betty.
As I said, there are many ways to find truth. Some are partial, some are mostly or totally hallucinatory, and only one giver pure, complete knowledge.
You have faith only in science, and scorn all other methods of knowing truth. I could discuss with you if you were not steeped in arrogance, harshness, conceit and ignorance. Also deceit, since anyone who is an actual Christian would acknowledge that God can reveal truth to the sincere and surrendered soul.
So, I cannot dicuss with you. Sorry.
The Bible never says that God took one species and imparted a soul to it resulting in man. It says that God took the dust of the earth and created man separate from the rest of the creation of life.
So what if man happens to be similar? Just because there is some general resemblance, doesn't mean they are the same thing or that they even have to be related.
A monkey is not an ape. How ignorant you must be to confuse the two terms.
Evos are so easy......
Cretards are so ignorant....
If you persist in that understanding, spunkets, then you have not understood a single word I wrote.
Rather, you simply declare: "You are WRONG!" (I'm still waiting to see your evidence in support of that conclusion.) Then you suggest I am "WRONG" on the grounds that what I have offered is "fundamentally no more than a claim."
Here we are, back again, scratching our heads, wondering what on earth could possibly qualify as "evidence" in the minds of certain people nowadays?
Spunkets, P-Marlowe and I have been pleading with kosta50 to pul-eeeeeze tell us what passes for legit evidence in his mind? It's a humble request really. If he says we're "wrong," and he hates our evidence then what sort of evidence would satisfy him, such that we might test whether his verdict of "wrong" is, er, actually wrong, in a way HE can understand???
So, same question to you, spunkets: What sort of evidence satisfies your discriminating taste? FYI, kosta, too, dissed witness testimony....
Might I just humbly note that "witness testimony" is testimony of direct human experience? From the most "up-close and personal" aspect?
You wanted "evidence" for my "claim" that: If God did not exist, neither would the world. All I have is witness testimony and the fact that I can see and appreciate that this world in which we live is not a "garbage heap strewn at random." But to say as much is still "only" witness testimony.
Well, that sweeps away a ton of philosophers and scientists right there, not to mention the rest of the human race of anybody who knows or can know anything about anything.
Can the scientific method even DEAL with questions like this?
Short answer: No.
Would you like to discuss that point further?
Science cannot lead to truth. It can lead to data and facts, some more accurate than others, some closer to reality than others. It can lead to technological advances that have resulted in the improvement of the lot of mankind (for the most part, but not always) in numerous ways through its application in technology.
But truth is a philosophical consideration, which those who call themselves scientists in this modern age, reject as being *not science*.
What they continue to forget, and ignore, is that modern science is based on philosophy, and that philosophy is that science can lead one to the *truth*, so it’s a false philosophy. Science itself cannot prove that it itself can lead to truth.
Truth is outside scientific endeavor.
Science is a useful tool and that’s the extent of it. Those who elevate it to the status of *truth* and demean and disparage those who don’t believe as they do, have lost sight of what its purpose is and have elevated it to the status of a religion and treat it and respond to it as such.
Those who make science the measure of all things, have been deluded and abandoned the real truth.
Compared to mental giants like you who stoop to name calling?
I don’t think so.....
I find it interesting that those who reject witness testimony as evidence of something they disagree with, instead depend on the witness testimony of someone's interpretation of the fossil record, something they DO agree with.
I do not have “faith only in science”. I am a man of faith and my faith is in God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I do have confidence in the scientific method. And I do not scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Science doesn’t lead to TRUTH, it leads to an accurate model with predictable results.
The model of an atom may or may not be “true”, but it IS useful. And thus the model persists until scientists find a more useful model.
It was you who scorned a methodology that allows people to live in a non-primitive fashion and gains them useful and predictive knowledge of the physical world we inhabit as “primitive” and “ignorant”. I am sorry if I was harsh or conceited in striking down such a preposterous notion.
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
No, I said that you have offered no more than what the type of belief called faith is fundamentally based on. If you have something else, it's up to you to present it, because it's impossible for me to otherwise know what it is.
I also said that effort, work and the degree of examination of what is fundamentally just testimony is irrelevant. That's because effort and the results of any examination of testimony can not change the nature of what testimony is. Effort and the nature of any examination can only effect the testimony itself.
"You wanted "evidence" for my "claim" that: If God did not exist, neither would the world. All I have is witness testimony and the fact that I can see and appreciate that this world in which we live is not a "garbage heap strewn at random." But to say as much is still "only" witness testimony. "
Yes, it is only witness testimony. What's wrong with that? That's all Jesus had and He was pleased with it. Matt 11:25-26 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."
"What sort of evidence satisfies your discriminating taste?
It depends on what the claim is that one is presenting evidence for. If it's a claim regarding some element of reality, I expect real evidence that can be examined by the scientific method and logical coherence of any testimony with that evidence and the total picture the real world presents itself as. I also expect perfect logical coherence with that rational picture of the world in any testimonial claims.
"Can the scientific method even DEAL with questions like this?"
Yes. The rationality and scientific method allows the nature of the real world, the universe to be seen and understood. It allows man to be known and understood. Any testimony can be weighed against that knowledge and understanding of reality for rational/logical coherence.
[ “If God did not exist, neither would the world.”- BB
That’s a claim based on what you have heard and read. Where’s your evidence for such a claim, that anyone can examine at will by the scientific method? -spunkets ]
Because things do not just happen except in Paris Hiltons world..
There is literally no way to determine exactly what caused it all to begin..
Why not God?.. the big bang is, of course, a theory..
as would be any other form of logical “if’n”...
Science fiction MUST be logical else whats the point.. who would entertain it?..
Science fact need not be logical at all.. nothing to prove... i.e. no agenda
I am wondering why you quoted William Blake, who I don’t think would see eye to eye with you very much.
I do not scorn all science as useless, talking about straw men.
You are slithery and not an honest debater.
Sciencer is merely a mundane set of tools and theories, created by human imperfect minds, and can see with a flickering penlight, as I mentioned above. And can only see some - very little - of the wonders of this universe, and can see nothing of transcendence.
I do have confidence in the scientific method. And I do not scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Science doesnt lead to TRUTH, it leads to an accurate model with predictable results.
You're really stretching your credibility with that statement considering that you make science the measure of all things, and that with which you measure the Bible by.
When you reject the Word of God and adjust and manipulate it to fit your evolutionary worldview, you ARE putting your faith in science and putting it over your faith in God.
You are trusting that science is capable of giving you a more correct and accurate picture or account of what happened in the past than what God told us in His Word. That is choosing the god you want to follow.
You certainly do scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Your pejoratives against anyone who rejects current scientific consensus demonstrates that beyond any doubt. Your posting history on crevo threads, and other threads for that matter, bears it out.
Fiction never is logically consistent with reality. That's just the nature of fiction.
"Science fact need not be logical at all."
facts must be true. That relationship of facts and reality itself must be perfectly logical, or reality could not exist.
"There is literally no way to determine exactly what caused it all to begin.
Reality can be examined. The universe can be seen to arise as a phase transition from what already existed. There's no logical reason needed to know that there was no beginnig for what always existed. In fact the law of conservation of energy insists that what exists has no beginning.
" the big bang is, of course, a theory."
Nevertheless, it is a theory, because there's plenty of evidence for it. It's the beginning that is logically consistent with Genesis and John.
"Why not God?"
God's concern is with eternal life. He provided no evidence that He created the universe, because He had reason to not to. What He did provide is the sign of Jonah, the Holy Spirit. Matt 12:39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. If one is concerned with providing scientific evidence that God created the universe, they are simply attempting to provide a miracle that God said He would never provide.
If one is concerned with the testimony of the Holy Spirit and holds the same values, then the logical consistency of Genesis and the NT with the results compiled by science is sufficent for sound belief by the Epicurus Priciple- keep all theories consistent with the evidence.
On the contrary..... He tells us He did.
The first and foremost reason is that He tells us in Genesis that He did. And there are a multitude of other verses that support it, in addition to the teachings of Jesus.
Piety is not measured by how out of whack your cosmology is from reality. I don't believe that the Bible means the same preposterous things you have convinced yourself it means. That doesn't mean I am less of a believer.
After all, by that standard our resident Geocentric creationists would be the most pious of all, and they think it is YOU who are putting evidence above the Word of God.
//You are slithery and not an honest debater.//
Evos never are, deception is at their core along with hatred of truth.
Thanks for the insight into the psyche of the evolutionist. Its always the same, a dead place. Our journey through this mystery is ultimately a solo one and thank heaven for that. The evolutionist cannot force a man to accept his ideology any more than the taliban can force a man to accept Islam
Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them
That's all testimony and some is parable.
AND ACCURATE, imho.
Well put . . .
though . . . with natural crystals . . .
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I have rarely felt that pseudo-super-rationalists were
SERIOUSLY interest in any authentic
QUEST FOR THE TRUTH.
Instead, they seem to have a burr in their saddle for a variety of reasons—all of them fostering some level of bitterness or hostility toward God and/or other authority figures—usually for some kind of degree or type of Reactive Attachment Disorder or for some tragedy in their lives for which they blame God whom they deny the existence of.
Really rational, that.
IF they were really authentically on a QUEST FOR TRUTH,
THEN their perspectives and attitudes would be more broadly based and more reality based instead of the rigid narrow fantasy world of their own creation.
The faith comes from what they've been told, or heard, else they believe, because they actually know and understand the things to some extent.
"Faith is an experience, the evidence of things not seen. It is not a conclusion based on what we see or have heard, or have read."
Just what is this evidence of things unseen? If faith is an experience, then it can not be a belief, because a belief is not an experience. A belief is something held in the mind after some decision processes have occurred. A belief requires conclusions to be drawn. Conclusions regarding value, such as truth, worth, what to do with the new knowledge, how it fits in to ones understanding, ect...
"It goes to our very soul, of who we are and how we view the universe."
Nevertheless it is fundamentally based on testimony.
"We have faith in a lot of things because to have doubts in those things would result in a disruption of our lives."
Faith is based on testimony. One's trust in objects is based on probability, guess, or testimony.
"People have phobias because they have a loss of faith and with that loss of faith comes an irrational belief (i.e., that the elevator is going to fall, the airplane is going to crash, the food is going to kill them, the brakes are going to fail.)"
Phobias are simply irrational fear. Most often, their was only ignorance to begin with.
Reminded of the old joke . . .
. . . so . . . who told you that you were Napoleon?
GOD TOLD ME.
When a voice from the next bed said:
“I DID NOT!”
INDEED. WELL PUT.
Someone with a thirst for truth will be humble.
Though, in my experience, I don’t think such pseudo-super-rationalists
are all that INTERESTED IN
I think they are more interested in throwing rocks at God or sand in His eyes or at least in throwing rocks at
‘those stupid, losers, ignorant, rabid faith walking Believers who are toooooooo crazy to be seen in public with in broad daylight.’
There’s a rot in the soul somewhere that is typically driving such urges to cast aside everything truly rational and life giving for chaff, hollowness, nihilism etc.
And I am the greatest seeker of truth of all time!
PLENTY RIGHT, TO ME, BRO.
God insists . . . accurately to my experience . . .
that HE HAS GIVEN TO EVERY MAN
A MEASURE OF
Some seem to throw that measure in the sewer and then are incredulous that they have insufficient faith with which to apprehend the God of Scripture.
Yet, even those poor pseudo-super-rationalists
CANNOT LIVE AS THOUGH THEIR CONSTRUCTION ON REALITY WAS THE ONLY VIABLE ONE—PARTLY BECAUSE IT’S NOT VERY PRACTICALLY VIABLE AT ALL.
They could not live or have enduring relationships
IF THEY HAD TO LEARN EVERYTHING THE HARD WAY instead of taking what others have learned on faith
. . . instead of going on green lights trusting that others will stop on their red.
. . . instead of drinking the milk from the carton confident that Jihad’s had not poisoned it between the cow and their lips.
. . . instead of trusting, by faith, that their brakes will work on the long down hill side of the mountain.
Thanks for your excellent and well put posts. I quite agree virtually all the time with your posts. Thanks.
I find it interesting that those who reject witness testimony as evidence of something they disagree with, instead depend on the witness testimony of someone’s interpretation of the fossil record, something they DO agree with.
SOMEONE THEY AGREE WITH . . .
BASED, QUITE HYPOCRITICALLY, ON FAITH—
FAITH IN THE REPORT,
FAITH IN THE PERSON’S DEGREE,
FAITH IN THE PERSON’S INTEGRITY,
FAITH IN THE PERSON’S LOGIC,
FAITH IN THE VETTING OF THE PERSON’S DISSERTATION AND DEGREE,
FAITH IN THE PERSON’S FAITHFULNESS TO WHAT HE OBSERVED IN THE FOSSILE RECORD VS WHAT HE REPORTED THAT HE OBSERVED TO GET PUBLISHED TO GET TENURE.
. . .
Though I’m willing to extend Grace . . . most of the time . . . when folks even CLAIM to be Christian and to cling to Jesus.