Evolution and Jesus

[Piscean]

it is not 100% ... nor is it 0%. The whole point of developing theories is to approach the truth in the most sensible way possWell, off the top of my head, your example of the theory of the shape of the earth serves as a good starting point. Einstein's theory about the gravitational affect on light was proven. Theories about the function of internal organs were proven by the development of better imaging devices. Theories as to the chemical makeup of celestial bodies have been either verified or disproved by probes visiting them. There are countless examples of theories proven true or false over time. I have no idea what % of theories get proven true. The critical thing is that ible.

Fair enough.

This is in the realm of intelligent design (ID) and creation by God. If you want to limit your knowledge to superstition and magic, sure. Why not invent magical beings for which there is no evidence?

So a person mentions intelligent design and your comeback is to say they believe in magic? That's a pretty stupid response. Is it too much for you to admit that the wonders that science has discovered about the way things work do reflect a VERY intelligent design? I'm not suggesting to you who or what to believe designed things I'm simply asking you, is it that hard to admit that things do seem to have a very intelligent design to them?

[obvious child]

Quote by: Piscean So a person mentions intelligent design and your comeback is to say they believe in magic? That's a pretty stupid response.

Not at all. Intelligent design can be summed up in one sentence:

"If too complex to explain now, Goddidit"

That's magic.

Is it too much for you to admit that the wonders that science has discovered about the way things work do reflect a VERY intelligent design? I'm not suggesting to you who or what to believe designed things I'm simply asking you, is it that hard to admit that things do seem to have a very intelligent design to them?

Not anywhere near in the same fashion. The design that organisms have as based upon millions of years of allele frequencies and climate influence. Natural geological formations are result if millions of years of climate influence. None of this is overtly intelligent. Merely because things appear to work does not equate to intelligent design. Many of the products we use to day came about as accidents or screw ups. Nothing intelligent there.

[Magnus]

Quote by: Piscean So a person mentions intelligent design and your comeback is to say they believe in magic? That's a pretty stupid response

Actually, if your reply to anyone who mentioned intelligent design is something other than "you believe in magic?" would be stupid.

This is just so utterly bizzare, this intelligent design nonsense was made up only recently because of the absolute destruction of christianity by evolution, by some measures atheism in the US is growing as quickly as it is in Europe.

We wouldnt even be having this discussion if we were born in any other post-renasance time period.

This is an attempt to save god, plain and simple. its just too bad people born around this time that are christian are alive to see their god being annihilated by science.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Shamelessly snatched from another forum:

Admitting you're spamming at the get-go? That's certainly unique... LOL

Assuming the veracity of evolution, doesn't the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus become superfluous? If evolution is true, then the Fall of Man is allegorical and no atonement is necessary. The need for a literal resurrection to save mankind from an allegorical fall makes little sense.

That might be the case, however, the purpose of the resurrection was not merely for the "allegorical fall" but for all personal sins.

As usual, the atheist's argument depends on the atheist's [mis]interpretation of religion.

Consequently, what is the significance of Jesus for liberal Christians who accept evolution?

To forgive our sin. How has that changed?

If God used death and "sin" to guide the creation process, then man never consciously chose to separate himself from God by sinning. According to current evolutionary theory, there was never a single pair of humans faced with a moral decision that could affect all human descendants.

And that means people don't sin? What reality are you... excuse me, the forum poster you took this from... living in? Even if you don't accept that the Biblical God exists, it's pretty easy to take his rules as written and see that humans violate them on a pretty regular basis.

Does Jesus hold any supernatural significance in the beliefs of theistic evolutionists, or is he merely a good person who taught important moral lessons

Both of those. His teachings are important, but his death and resurrection are obviously the main accomplishment.

[Piscean]

Actually, if your reply to anyone who mentioned intelligent design is something other than "you believe in magic?" would be stupid. This is just so utterly bizzare, this intelligent design nonsense was made up only recently because of the absolute destruction of christianity by evolution, by some measures atheism in the US is growing as quickly as it is in Europe. We wouldnt even be having this discussion if we were born in any other post-renasance time period. This is an attempt to save god, plain and simple. its just too bad people born around this time that are christian are alive to see their god being annihilated by science.

Once again, I don't believe in Christianity, so STOP shoving me in that category because you think you win if you do. Yes science may have devastated alot of peoples religions but that has nothing to do with my belief in intelligent design. Just like Einstein I see in science every reason to believe in a creator. If you can't see any intelligent design in science,maybe it's because your afraid there is a God. Or maybe you are blind to the intelligence of the design and you actually believe all the things it takes working in precise formulas for life to exist just floated into existence randomly which for me is more of a stretch than magic. Whatever you believe is fine with me just stop assuming I'm a christian, you haven't devastated anything of mine with science,. And I couldn't care less how many sheep in Europe are believing what these days. People all over the world will jump from one foolish belief to another as time goes on, always have, always will, it wont change what I see because I'm not a follower of the tide.

[Piscean]

Not at all. Intelligent design can be summed up in one sentence: "If too complex to explain now, Goddidit" That's magic.

Clearly you have zero understanding of what intelligent design means. The more science discovery about the way things are designed, the more intelligent the design we are looking at, no magic in that equation wizard.

[Piscean]

Not anywhere near in the same fashion. The design that organisms have as based upon millions of years of allele frequencies and climate influence. Natural geological formations are result if millions of years of climate influence. None of this is overtly intelligent. Merely because things appear to work does not equate to intelligent design. Many of the products we use to day came about as accidents or screw ups. Nothing intelligent there.

You are still just looking at the surface. Say you are right and these things are formed by millions of years of climate changes etc. Climate was used in the design process, and under climate there are deeper factors that causes the climate to do what it's done etc. The further science digs the more intelligent design is revealed. And these products people have invented accidentally, so what? Wow we've invented some artificial products that in large enough quantities could end all life on the planet. Big deal, so our own slightly intelligent design of artificial products proved what?

[Jack]

The further science digs the more intelligent design is revealed.

Odd, that's not what climatologists indicate.
Where can I read about this?

If you can't see any intelligent design in science,maybe it's because your afraid there is a God. Or maybe you are blind to the intelligence of the design and you actually believe all the things it takes working in precise formulas for life to exist just floated into existence randomly which for me is more of a stretch than magic.

May I suggest your seeing design is a result of a misunderstanding both of science and design. What is the absolute standard for design, so I'll know it when I see it?

[Piscean]

May I suggest your seeing design is a result of a misunderstanding both of science and design. What is the absolute standard for design, so I'll know it when I see it?

Everything you've ever seen has design.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: leegao Theistic evolutionists can't be true evolutionists since they would rather toy with stagnant supernatural beliefs then think through rationalism. A true evolutionist would not accept evolution without empirical evidence. Therefore a true evolutionist can not accept his/her theistic religion without empirical proof.

Just what is "empirical" about the "idea" of evolution? Empirical by definition is evidence based on "observation" and experiment RATHER THAN THEORY. If evolution was indeed based upon empirical evidence, we would have the LAW OF EVOLUTION. For any evidence to be considered empirical it must be observed and reproducible in experimentation. Where has anything ever been observed "evolving" from one species into another in nature? Environmental adaptation contained and confined within any single species is not evolution. And what experiment is found to be reproducible that in fact concludes one species has evolved into another? Evolution is not based upon empirical evidence. It is based upon theory and interpretation of fossil remains and wrongly applied factors of individual species having the ability to adapt to their environment. If micro adaptation were not valid, the first virus that man was exposed to would have automatically made extinct mankind. Thus adaptation is not an evolutionary trait but an inherent fact of all life.

A theory, no matter what kind of spin one wishes to place upon it is still only an idea and not a fact. How can anyone define the origins of life when life itself has never been successfully defined? Life has never been successfully reproduced in experimentation, as no one can explain the force that indeed produces life. Just what force can take a group of organic cells that are inert and animate such? And once animation ceases, just where indeed does this force go? It must be energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only altered. 'when man has the capacity to explain this, the origin of this force would be self defined. As of today, there is no substance known to exist in the universe that can create life, thus it must be gestated on the subatomic level....a field indeed that man knows very little about. But, we are expected to accept some theory as to how man's life has evolved without any consideration whatsoever about the gestation of that life? There are in fact just to many gaps left unbridged along the evolutionary trial based upon theory for it to be actually considered as even based upon empirical evidence. Logan

[Jack]

Where has anything ever been observed "evolving" from one species into another in nature? Environmental adaptation contained and confined within any single species is not evolution. And what experiment is found to be reproducible that in fact concludes one species has evolved into another?...A theory, no matter what kind of spin one wishes to place upon it is still only an idea and not a fact...life itself has never been successfully defined...once animation ceases, just where indeed does this force go? It must be energy...we are expected to accept some theory

This reply indicates a complete lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, the meaning of theory as used in science, biology, physics, how science works and what its results are and an inability to accept any knowledge that doesn't declare itself complete and absolute.

It's nonsensical to expect anyone to debate such a collection of misstatement and misunderstanding.

[Jack]

Quote by: Piscean Everything you've ever seen has design.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Christopher Hitchens

No, it doesn't.

So again I ask, what is the absolute standard for design? What constitutes design that is consistent in all cases?

[Piscean]

Ok either everything has design or nothing does. If you choose to believe that you are a meaningless random blip of chance destined for nothing for whatever reason that's ok with me but I believe you are a whole lot more than that. I can't even imagine how hard a person would have to try to convince themselves they are just a glorified ape on a random life supporting ecosystem of chance, meaningless, hopeless, pointless, but somehow many take comfort in thinking this way. To me it's sticking your head in the sand because something about the greatness of your very being must scare you. I'm probably wrong but that's how it looks from here. I don't know why else you'd be so determined to believe you are random and pointless.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Piscean Ok either everything has design or nothing does. If you choose to believe that you are a meaningless random blip of chance destined for nothing for whatever reason...

... then you're a moron. No one believes that. It's certainly not the atheist argument. Please take the time to educate yourself on your opponent's stance before you make some asinine straw man.

I can't even imagine how hard a person would have to try to convince themselves they are just a glorified ape on a random life supporting ecosystem of chance, meaningless, hopeless, pointless, but somehow many take comfort in thinking this way. To me it's sticking your head in the sand because something about the greatness of your very being must scare you. I'm probably wrong...

... no probably about it. You are 100% tried and true real mccoy wrong. Sadly, I can imagine how easy it is for a person to be tricked (at an age before they're old enough to know better) that there's a loving & vengeful alpha ape who's constantly judging their every move... and who will inflict the ultimate harm (beyond molestation... beyond being raped) for the smallest and meaningless of transgressions. If it weren't institutionalized, we'd be institutionalizing you.

[gallo]

Quote by: LOGAN Just what is "empirical" about the "idea" of evolution? Empirical by definition is evidence based on "observation" and experiment RATHER THAN THEORY.

Obviously you haven't bothered to make any effort to learn what you are talking about before you speak. The theories of evolution are, in fact, explanations for empirical observations. If you don't believe it, just read "On The Origin Of Species". You will find that Darwin goes to great length to explain the empirical observations upon which he based his theories.

If evolution was indeed based upon empirical evidence, we would have the LAW OF EVOLUTION.

If you had bothered to learn what science is and how it works, you would know that scientific laws are part of the empirical observations upon which the theories are built. In science, theories do not grow up to become laws. A scientific theory is not in the slightest a guess. Scientific theories are statements the express those things about our universe of which we are most sure.

There are, by the way, several scientific laws that are part of the evidence from which the theories of evolution have been formulated. For example, the law of independent assortment and the laws of dominance in genetics. In population genetics there is the Hardy-Weinberg law.

For any evidence to be considered empirical it must be observed and reproducible in experimentation.

Not quite. Empirical means that it can be observed by the senses, not that it is either reproducible by experiment. The repeating and experiment are part of the philosophy of science but are not part of empiricism.

Where has anything ever been observed "evolving" from one species into another in nature?

Strains of Drosophila that were obtained from a single source cannot interbreed, either with each other or with the source population. New species. European herring gulls interbreed with Icelandic, Greenland, and North American herring gulls. North American herring gulls are a single population from east coast to Alaska, where they interbreed with Vega's herring gull from Siberia. That gull interbreeds with Birula's gull than interbreeds with Heuglin's gull that interbreeds with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull that interbreeds with the lesser black-backed gull in Europe. The European herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull are the extremes of a single, huge, continuously interbreeding population that encircles the North Pole. European herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls do not interbreed even though they share a common range and a common food source. They are separate species.

Environmental adaptation contained and confined within any single species is not evolution.

Actually, that depends on what you mean by environmental adaptation. Usually, creationists have no real idea of what they are talking about and just sling about words that they have picked up from some preacher. The point is that evolution is, in fact, by the definition used by evolutionary biologists, adaptive changes in the genetic makeup of a population.

And what experiment is found to be reproducible that in fact concludes one species has evolved into another?

The breeding of domestic animals. Happens all the time.

Evolution is not based upon empirical evidence. It is based upon theory and interpretation of fossil remains and wrongly applied factors of individual species having the ability to adapt to their environment.

And you learned this how? Since I have spent so many years studying evolutionary biology, I wonder how it is that you have come to know that. I never had a clue that what you say was true. Surely you can give me some evidence or direct me to some published science that makes that clear. I was had the understanding that the theories of evolution were built from the evidence through hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation. That's how I've always seen it done. And if evolutionary theory is based on the interpretation of fossils (i.e., observation), isn't that exactly the opposite of saying that it is based on a theory? And what does it mean to say that "evolution" is based on a theory? Do you mean that the observations of evolution wouldn't happen if we didn't have a theory about them? Wouldn't it be nice if you made an effort to learn the basics of what you claim to oppose before you spoke? You make yourself look foolish when you speak without knowledge, i.e., from ignorance.

If micro adaptation were not valid, the first virus that man was exposed to would have automatically made extinct mankind. Thus adaptation is not an evolutionary trait but an inherent fact of all life.

And you learned this how? What is "micro adaptation?" Does that mean that there is something called "pico adaptation?" or "nano adaptation?" or "mega adaptation?" or "macro adaptation?" Please define the types of "adaptation" and tell us specifically the difference between them, and why that difference is not merely one of perception or religiously motivated nonsense. Further, are you asserting that the common cold could have made mankind extinct? Please present the evidence for that strange claim. Also, is there no difference between changes acquired by an individual organism over a life time and the heritable changes that populations undergo over generations? Please explain the difference and why or why not.

A theory, no matter what kind of spin one wishes to place upon it is still only an idea and not a fact.

But we are talking about science. Don't you think you should learn what scientists mean by the word before you make such pronouncements and reveal your ignorance? In science, a theory is a set of statements and principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. In science, theories have been repeatedly tested by experimentation and are used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Scientific theories have wide acceptance among scientists. For example, over 99% of biologists and geologists accept the theories of evolution as the best explanations for the observations. About 97% of all scientists (i.e., people who actually have degrees in a field of science from accredited universities) also accept the theories of evolution.

How can anyone define the origins of life when life itself has never been successfully defined?

That's nonsense. It has been successfully defined several times. The problem is that there are so many different opinions about what is important. Besides, I thought you were talking about evolution. Are you so uneducated about the topic that you don't even know that evolution does not deal with the origin of life?

Life has never been successfully reproduced in experimentation, as no one can explain the force that indeed produces life.

Correction. Two viruses have been constructed by assembling sequences of bases, sugars and phosphates. The viruses worked. Also, an artificial bacteria has also been constructed by similar sequencing. The bacteria was alive and reproduced.

Just what force can take a group of organic cells that are inert and animate such?

Chemistry?

And once animation ceases, just where indeed does this force go?

You haven't shown that any such force exists.

It must be energy, and energy cannot be destroyed only altered.

OK. So what is your point?

'when man has the capacity to explain this, the origin of this force would be self defined.

But you haven't demonstrated the existance of this force yet.

As of today, there is no substance known to exist in the universe that can create life, thus it must be gestated on the subatomic level....a field indeed that man knows very little about.

Was that bit of gobbly-gook meaningful to you? See about about the artificial construction of a living organism.

But, we are expected to accept some theory as to how man's life has evolved without any consideration whatsoever about the gestation of that life?

What? What does this have to do with what you were talking about before. What makes you think that we don't know anything about human gestation? Again, we were talking about evolution and not the origin of life, human or other wise.

There are in fact just to many gaps left unbridged along the evolutionary trial based upon theory for it to be actually considered as even based upon empirical evidence.

And you have an answer that actually explains anything? I bet not. Is you answer that a magical, invisible being poofed some dirt into existance from nothing and them made some mud that came alive?

Please tell us about some of these gaps and why they are a problem for the 150 years of accumulated scientific knowledge. Please explain why any single gap would be so important that it would invalidate all of the accumulated empirical evidence upon which the theories of biological evolution are based.

Go and learn something first. I can suggest some books for you to read.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Zhavric ... then you're a moron. No one believes that. It's certainly not the atheist argument. Please take the time to educate yourself on your opponent's stance before you make some asinine straw man.

Zhav, you know the rules regarding insults; so please abide by them.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Piscean]

no probably about it. You are 100% tried and true real mccoy wrong. Sadly, I can imagine how easy it is for a person to be tricked (at an age before they're old enough to know better) that there's a loving & vengeful alpha ape who's constantly judging their every move... and who will inflict the ultimate harm (beyond molestation... beyond being raped) for the smallest and meaningless of transgressions. If it weren't institutionalized, we'd be institutionalizing you

Enough of your immature insults and assumptions about how I was brainwashed while young. Tell me what the athiest does believe then, What are you destined for according to your "stance", then I will know and we can have a debate instead of your insults.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: Jack This reply indicates a complete lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, the meaning of theory as used in science, biology, physics, how science works and what its results are and an inability to accept any knowledge that doesn't declare itself complete and absolute. It's nonsensical to expect anyone to debate such a collection of misstatement and misunderstanding.

What is nonsensical is to declare any theory as having validity in the physical world. An "IDEA" is still only and idea, paint it, white wash it, declare it truth, tell us that this idea was arrived at through the scientific method, still it is nothing but a speculation based upon a few known facts, nothing more, nothing less, and it certainly is not valid as the TRUTH. If indeed it were "empirical", as was suggested....we would empirically have a physical law and not a speculation. The semantics used to describe this theory is an indoctrination into secular humanism on a play of words to take advantage of the gullible. What we are lead to do is to accept this "idea" as truth until a better truth comes along. The truth does not evolve, what was true yesterday is true today. An example would be the speculated age of the universe, the "so called truth" has evolved from being declared as 4 billion years to 13.7 billion years in just one generation, showing the absurdity in accepting anyones idea as a truth. Thus, the first theory/idea was proven to be a lie, why should we blindly accept this next theory/idea as truth, when the last has fallen as a scientific LIE.? Instead of declaring the real truth of "we have reached an impasse of human comprehension", we merely speculate as to what that truth "might" be, until science and technology advances to add more speculation on top of an already unfounded speculation of truth. It's a house of cards waiting to be toppled by the next best idea. Always learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. AND YES, THE "TRUTH" IS OFTEN FOUND TO BE "UNDEBATABLE", for the truth allows no room for human speculation. Logan

[Zhavric]

Quote by: LOGAN What is nonsensical is to declare any theory as having validity in the physical world. An "IDEA" is still only and idea, paint it, white wash it, declare it truth, tell us that this idea was arrived at through the scientific method, still it is nothing but a speculation based upon a few known facts, nothing more, nothing less, and it certainly is not valid as the TRUTH. If indeed it were "empirical", as was suggested....we would empirically have a physical law and not a speculation. The semantics used to describe this theory is an indoctrination into secular humanism on a play of words to take advantage of the gullible. What we are lead to do is to accept this "idea" as truth until a better truth comes along. The truth does not evolve, what was true yesterday is true today. An example would be the speculated age of the universe, the "so called truth" has evolved from being declared as 4 billion years to 13.7 billion years in just one generation, showing the absurdity in accepting anyones idea as a truth. Thus, the first theory/idea was proven to be a lie, why should we blindly accept this next theory/idea as truth, when the last has fallen as a scientific LIE.? Instead of declaring the real truth of "we have reached an impasse of human comprehension", we merely speculate as to what that truth "might" be, until science and technology advances to add more speculation on top of an already unfounded speculation of truth. It's a house of cards waiting to be toppled by the next best idea. Always learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. AND YES, THE "TRUTH" IS OFTEN FOUND TO BE "UNDEBATABLE", for the truth allows no room for human speculation. Logan

Thank you for boldly declaring that you're woefully unaware of the facts surrounding science and evolution. Please take the time to educate yourself. You can begin here. The University of Berkley has put together an excellent walkthrough of the common misconceptions of evolution. Amongst them...

Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”

Response: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.



Misconception: “Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.”

Response: Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.

[Jack]

Tell me what the athiest does believe then

Atheism only represents the disbelief in gods. Atheists believe in many things, but there is no dogma for them to follow. That means there's no commonality in what atheists do believe. We only share a single disbelief.

What we are lead to do is to accept this "idea" as truth until a better truth comes along.

Science doesn't produce "truth", only the best conclusions we can reach looking at the available evidence. New evidence may cause them to update the explanation.

"Truth" is the province of religion and philosophy, not science.