evolved from single cell

[The_Genius]

Quote by: rez Refute science all you want, I will just keep posting links that discuss successful experiments and tests that show how evolution is currently a great explanation for predicting how life works. Again, what the hell is the big deal about evolution anyway?

...and I'll be waiting for them to create a living organism. :)

[Gods_Mercenary]

We are talking about a process that supposedly took millions of years, you expect a scientist to live that long and recreate the extreme conditions of the early earth? They have shown that the chemicals required to make life can become present in extreme conditions and that nonliving things can show a high se of organisation that could possibly give rise to life.

[Jack]

Replacing religious descriptions of creation with the theory evolution isn't really progressive

Nor would it be logical, as evolution does not address origins, as creationism does.

So let's just wait for them to try (...and fail).

Saying you're willing to wait for further experimentation while indicating your mind is already made up as to the answer is nonsensical. Obviously you wouldn't give any heed to any new discoveries unless they somehow supported the opinion you already have formed. That's not the way scientists do science.
It's interesting to me that no one has commented on Praxius' post or the quote in it. That our bodies are host to many unique creatures is both falsifiable and impossible to explain in a theological context.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We are talking about a process that supposedly took millions of years, you expect a scientist to live that long and recreate the extreme conditions of the early earth? They have shown that the chemicals required to make life can become present in extreme conditions and that nonliving things can show a high se of organisation that could possibly give rise to life.

I have been arguing about evolution with theists for awhile now. I don't think I ever once learned why theists have a problem with the theory of evolution besides the fact that it has holes in it. Usually the debate starts out with a number of listed holes, but then someone would respond with the fact that all scientific theories have holes. Somehow the debate would move forward from there even though the most basic and simplest part of the disagreement was not understood.


Why do theists have a problem with the Theory of evolution?

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood It's interesting to me that no one has commented on Praxius' post or the quote in it. That our bodies are host to many unique creatures is both falsifiable and impossible to explain in a theological context.

Could you explain this more?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, theists is kinda broad. As far as I know, both catholic churches have accepted it, as well as many protestants. It's actually closer to heresy in the RCC to claim the genesis stories are the literal, absolute truth than to claim that evolution is the truth.

[Jack]

Anyone with a microscope can discover that our bodies are host to "alien" creatures, mitochondria, that are not a part of us. They are what power our cells, and we'd die without them. Yet nothing in theology can account for this.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why not, God put them in our cells to help us, right?

[Jack]

That would be a contention made in an effort to account for a reality not explained in the Bible or other theistic texts. In other words, theists can say that, but can they back it up with scripture?

[Gods_Mercenary]

They don't have to, if like catholics, they believe that scripture is only part of the guidance we recieve from God.

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood That would be a contention made in an effort to account for a reality not explained in the Bible or other theistic texts. In other words, theists can say that, but can they back it up with scripture?

So would I be right in saying that is why some theists disagree with evolution? I have not gotten any answer from The_Genius other then that evolution is not science.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: rez So would I be right in saying that is why some theists disagree with evolution? I have not gotten any answer from The_Genius other then that evolution is not science.

Theists that disagree with evolution have a immature understanding of the scripture, interpreting it literalistically when, at least as far as the bible, it often was not intended to be read as such.

[Jack]

The acquiescence of the Catholic church in relation to certain findings in science is similar to the Mormon's having suddenly decided that Blacks were humans after all. A bit late and unconvincing.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not really, catholicism has always been more ready to part with a literalistic reading of the bible than protestants. It is a bit late, but not unconvincing, considering a catholic priest discovered modern genetics.

[phoenix_fire]

I take the stance that...meh: I really don't care. I think evolution is invalid on scientific and logical grounds and I am bothered by how sacrosanct it has become to many (I don't think science should be unassailable, but everyone acts as if your disagreement in general terms with the theory means you're a caveman). But if they could absolutely prove it tomorrow, I still wouldn't care. It would not turn me into an atheist. I will admit that I know of no exact mechanism, as far as chemically and physically, to explain the first formation of life. In the end, it's not that vital to me...no pun intended.

[Jack]

I don't think science should be unassailable, but everyone acts as if your disagreement in general terms with the theory means you're a caveman

I agree. Nothing in science is set in stone. What you might be referring to is that some of us object when someone attempts to refute evolution (which is only our best explanation to date, not an absolute answer) without offering a better, falsifiable explanation. Just bad mouthing a theory is easy. To come up with a better theory isn't.

It would not turn me into an atheist.

I wouldn't expect it to. Many theists are comfortable with evolution and science in general.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood I agree. Nothing in science is set in stone. What you might be referring to is that some of us object when someone attempts to refute evolution (which is only our best explanation to date, not an absolute answer) without offering a better, falsifiable explanation. Just bad mouthing a theory is easy. To come up with a better theory isn't. I wouldn't expect it to. Many theists are comfortable with evolution and science in general.

Sure. But badmouthing with no alternate plan CAN get you control of Congress.

But seriously. I don't have to know how something works to be able to say a way that it doesn't. I can have some pieces that are able to refute one idea, even if they are not enough to formulate another. Science isn't like politics: the world won't end if we don't immediately come up with an answer.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire But if they could absolutely prove it tomorrow, I still wouldn't care. It would not turn me into an atheist.

Why should it? Atheism and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Why would the proof of Evolution even give anyone the idea of becoming an atheist?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Again, Some people look at scripture as an all or nothing thing, all of a sudden science explains something that the authors were just musing about and people feel lied to.

[Jack]

I can have some pieces that are able to refute one idea, even if they are not enough to formulate another.

OK, I see what you're saying. And yes, you can find fault with a hypothesis or theory without pointing toward another one. I was thinking of those who presume to understand all the flaws of one theory without knowing the subject well enough to be able to even suppose an alternative. Still, I agree with your point.