A discussion on evolution...

[Fruity Insanity]

You said you took AP Chemistry, right? Well, think about quantum theory. Mind boggling stuff. No sane person would believe that except that it has been demonstrated over and over again to work. Evolution is much the same way- we believe it happened because it works, and nothing else does while also explaining the evidence for evolution. And, given how incredibly vast the universe is, it's really not that unlikely that life like humans would appear somewhere. Us having this discussion is dependent on that happening.

I personally find that a very freeing view, myself. You can be nihilistic or look at it as "I get to be my own person." The way I see it, what I think matters is what matters. I don't have to live my life according to some predetermined course. Of course, as SlayerX said, that has to do with atheism and not evolutionism. Evolution does mean that there is no god, it just means that one is not necessary.

Quantum theory is mind-boggling stuff. o_O

It's passed me, personally.

But...

Evolution has been proved over and over again that it works... yet is still a theory. Oh, the irony.

I thought theories that have been proved over and over again became scientific method.

The universe may contain life, yes... perhaps even intelligent life... I really don't know.

(Although, as a Christian, I find that... crazy. Possible, but crazy. Humans are supposed to be "God's people.")

And, evolution may or may not need a god.

Who's to say that a god didn't want to make humans through evolution? In that case, a god would be the governing factor.

It's just personal opinions, not scientific facts. The theory of evolution is still a theory at best. And while it has "piles of evidence," scientists have to find piles more if they want to prove that evolution is the way humans came about.

Plus, if evolution mixes with a certain religion... it's not Christianity.

I explained earlier why... sort of.

Edit:

@Constable Reggie

That doesn't contradict Christianity.

But you just picked out that one part.

It's the first part that contradicts evolution.

Why'd you pick out the second part only?

No need to be selective.

Edit 2:

Also, Adam and Eve felt shame.

They lived without clothes in the Garden of Eden.

After eating out of the Tree, they realized that they were naked.

Monkeys (or chimpanzees, or gorillas, or baboons, or any primates) aren't ashamed to be without clothes... because they have hair from head-to-toe. At least as far as I know...

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

Humans feeling ashamed naked is probably a cultural imprint more than anything else.

Say, do you believe that the Neanderthals existed?

[Constable Reggie]

Edit:

@Constable Reggie

That doesn't contradict Christianity.

But you just picked out that one part.

It's the first part that contradicts evolution.

Why'd you pick out the second part only?

No need to be selective.

Because it's the most (and arguably only) important part of Christian religion. Again, there's a reason why there's so many Christians accept all the God/Jesus stuff but also accept evolution and reject creationism.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Rewjeo]

But...

Evolution has been proved over and over again that it works... yet is still a theory. Oh, the irony.

I thought theories that have been proved over and over again became scientific method.

You're confusing theory with hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that, as of yet, is unproven. A theory is a substantiated idea. Or maybe a collection of ideas. In any case, it's an articulation of a human understanding of a process. Theory doesn't mean it's not true, it just means that we cannot say a+b*c=evolution. That would be a law, and, by its nature of being a process, evolution cannot be more than a theory. And, unless we actually figure out time travel, we cannot prove how humans came into existence since we are humans. We would have to exist before we existed in order to do that. But we can look at the evidence we have to figure it out, just like we do with evidence around us constantly.

On top of the Neanderthals thing, what about dinosaurs? Terror birds? Archeopteryx?

[Fruity Insanity]

Humans feeling ashamed naked is probably a cultural imprint more than anything else.

Say, do you believe that the Neanderthals existed?

No, they didn't feel the shame until they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Maybe now it's culture...

But that fact that they felt shame means that they weren't some primates, right?

Which shows that evolution conflicts with Christianity.

And about Neanderthals...

Yes... no... sort of... I don't know.

It's hard to say.

(I think this is a trick question...)

Neanderthals did exist...?

If I said "yes," you'd be all like, "They're an example of natural selection and evolution."

If I said "no," they'd be too much evidence against that...

(I've read about them, you know.)

So... I really can't say.

Yes, I guess...?

Because it's the only important part of Christian religion. Again, there's a reason why there's so many Christians accept all the God/Jesus stuff but also accept evolution.

Seriously?

Christianity states that Jesus is God; God is Jesus.

The Old Testament is God's Word, too, you know.

Disregarding that as "unimportant" is disregarding what Jesus says.

Those who disagree deny the existence of the Trinity. (How could you ignore what God says without ignoring what Jesus says if they're the same?)

Being a Christian is more than just believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

The Bible is our rule book. Our guide. All of it.

Not just the Jesus part.

We must continually strive to be like Jesus... That means following (and believing) God's Word.

Okay, I don't know as much about science as you all, but I haven't been listening to my Dad's one-hour sermons every week learning nothing.

(If someone knows more about the Bible... it's probably me.)

I'm not saying that eating pork is bad... (I eat pork.)

But disregarding one part of the Bible, while regarding another part as "more significant" is... not right.

The whole text of the Bible is there for a reason. If God thought that Genesis was unnecessary, he wouldn't have put it in.

Besides, if you're not a Christian, how come you know so much about what they do or don't believe?

Why do you think that it's more important?

It's like me saying I know what I'm saying when I talk about evolution. (And according to you guys, I don't.)

Edit:

You're confusing theory with hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that, as of yet, is unproven. A theory is a substantiated idea. Or maybe a collection of ideas. In any case, it's an articulation of a human understanding of a process. Theory doesn't mean it's not true, it just means that we cannot say a+b*c=evolution. That would be a law, and, by its nature of being a process, evolution cannot be more than a theory. And, unless we actually figure out time travel, we cannot prove how humans came into existence since we are humans. We would have to exist before we existed in order to do that. But we can look at the evidence we have to figure it out, just like we do with evidence around us constantly.

On top of the Neanderthals thing, what about dinosaurs? Terror birds? Archeopteryx?

"A theory is a substantiated idea." It's not a fact, either, is it?

"It's an articulation of human understanding of a process." Humans have been wrong before. They're not gods.

And since we can't time travel (yet :P), we don't know.

Even the best assumption is an assumption.

Dinosaurs - definitely.

Don't ask me why they're gone, though. I have no clue. o_O

Archaeopteryx - yes. I don't believe that it's a link for evolution, though. (Obviously. You know me enough to know that I don't believe that. :P)

And terror birds? What are those? Never heard of them. (Sorry.)

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

Are there Jewish folk who follow the Old testament who refuse evolution to be real?

A genuine question. We mostly see the opposition come from Christians, but do some jews oppose it as well?

No, they didn't feel the shame until they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Maybe now it's culture...

But that fact that they felt shame means that they weren't some primates, right?

Which shows that evolution conflicts with Christianity.

And about Neanderthals...

Yes... no... sort of... I don't know.

It's hard to say.

I'm sorry, man. I'm not referring to Adam and Eve.

I'm referring to human society in general. We wore clothes because those who did not, were subject to the harsh elements and died.

This eventually turned clothes-wearing into a social/cultural norm, making it so that those who did not wear it become an out-group.

Sociology, my man.

Where are the Neanderthals in the Bible? Did Adam and Eve name them, too?

Quite odd that so similar a creature to us, who had some kind of intellect beyond that of a primate (though we are all primates, but you get the idea), existed.

[Fruity Insanity]

Are there Jewish folk who follow the Old testament who refuse evolution to be real?

A genuine question. We mostly see the opposition come from Christians, but do some jews oppose it as well?

I'm sorry, man. I'm not referring to Adam and Eve.

I'm referring to human society in general. We wore clothes because those who did not, were subject to the harsh elements and died.

This eventually turned clothes-wearing into a social/cultural norm, making it so that those who did not wear it become an out-group.

Sociology, my man.

Where are the Neanderthals in the Bible? Did Adam and Eve name them, too?

Quite odd that so similar a creature to us, who had some kind of intellect beyond that of a primate (though we are all primates, but you get the idea), existed.

Jews oppose the idea, too, naturally. (Ignore the first part.)

After all, both Christians and Jews worship the same God.

They just don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Their view on the topic is similar to that of Christians...

Some endorse evolution, some don't.

Another conflict. :P

There's the Christian view. There's the atheistic view.

Religion. Sociology.

I believe on thing; you, another.

Okay~

And, uh... the Bible isn't the guide to everything.

But still, you're right. It really is intriguing.

Anthropology's cool~ although I'd prefer a more practical science.

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Constable Reggie]

Seriously?

Christianity states that Jesus is God; God is Jesus.

The Old Testament is God's Word, too, you know.

Disregarding that as "unimportant" is disregarding what Jesus says.

Those who disagree deny the existence of the Trinity. (How could you ignore what God says without ignoring what Jesus says if they're the same?)

Then, again, why are there so many Christians who accept evolution? Do all of them deny the existence of the Trinity?

I say that God's influence on our current life is the most important because it's something we can see. It's something people truly experience and has helped them. The idea of Heaven and Hell help shape people's life and gives them satisfaction in their life and eventual death. The stories of the Old Testament and lessons of the New teach people life lessons and how to be and embrace being a good person. How does creationism do that in any way?

Being a Christian is more than just believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

The Bible is our rule book. Our guide. All of it.

Not just the Jesus part.

We must continually strive to be like Jesus... That means following (and believing) God's Word.

Okay, I don't know as much about science as you all, but I haven't been listening to my Dad's one-hour sermons every week learning nothing.

(If someone knows more about the Bible... it's probably me.)

Well, there are many different branches of Christianity. You can't speak for all of them. You can believe in all the stories in the Bible, some literally, some figuratively, and still agree with evolution. Religion is something that's supposed to help your personal life. Creationism doesn't do that, which is why I bet is the reason a significant majority of Christians don't accept it (compounded on to the lackluster evidence for it and vice versa for evolution).

I'm not saying that eating pork is bad... (I eat pork.)

But disregarding one part of the Bible, while regarding another part as "more significant" is... not right.

The whole text of the Bible is there for a reason. If God thought that Genesis was unnecessary, he wouldn't have put it in.

You said yourself that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, while the rest of the Bible should. Why the disparity?

Besides, if you're not a Christian, how come you know so much about what they do or don't believe?

Why do you think that it's more important?

It's like me saying I know what I'm saying when I talk about evolution. (And according to you guys, I don't.)

Because I was raised as a Christian. I base my opinions and idealogy of Christianity based on what I experienced from it and what my family did. That, and the fact that again, (and again), supports my idea, most Christians worldwide and a good percentage in the states don't believe in creationism.

Do you mind if I ask you what kind of Christian you are?

Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Doga]

Jews oppose the idea, too, naturally. (Ignore the first part.)

After all, both Christians and Jews worship the same God.

They just don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Their view on the topic is similar to that of Christians...

Some endorse evolution, some don't.

Another conflict. :P

There's the Christian view. There's the atheistic view.

Religion. Sociology.

I believe on thing; you, another.

Okay~

And, uh... the Bible isn't the guide to everything.

But still, you're right. It really is intriguing.

Anthropology's cool~ although I'd prefer a more practical science.

We've been throwing practical science at you this entire discussion.

A little delve into the social sciences won't hurt anyone.

[Fruity Insanity]

Then, again, why are there so many Christians who accept evolution? Do all of them deny the existence of the Trinity?

I say that God's influence on our current life is the most important because it's something we can see. It's something people truly experience and has helped them. The idea of Heaven and Hell help shape people's life and gives them satisfaction in their life and eventual death. How does creationism do that in any way?

My thoughts exactly. o_O

I don't see how they can accept both? They just don't mix.

Creationism doesn't do that.

But as a Christian, it seems sensible to believe that God made the world, since the Bible says so.

The Bible has always been a prominent in all Christian sects. To what degree differs, but important to all of them, nevertheless.

And, like I said, believing in evolution is contradictory to Christianity... which has its base on the Bible.

Well, there's a reason why there's so many different branches of Christianity. You can't speak for all of them. You can believe in all the stories in the Bible, some literally, some figuratively, and still agree with evolution. Religion is something that's supposed to help your personal life. Creationism doesn't do that, which is why I bet is the reason a significant majority of Christians don't accept it.

I can't speak for all of them. But I can speak for many of them.

All these branches split because of minor issues (more or less).

Believing in evolution/not in the Bible is not a minor issue. (Not in my book, at least.)

You said yourself that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, while the rest of the Bible should. Why the disparity?

The time intervals shouldn't be taken literally. They can mean anything.

But the rules should be taken literally. Well, most of them.

Because I was raised as a Christian. I base my opinions and idealogy of Christianity based on what I experienced from it and what my family did. That, and the fact that again, (and again), supports my idea, most Christians worldwide and a good percentage in the states don't believe in creationism.

Really? That's... interesting.

All the Christians I know don't believe in evolution...

Well, that makes sense.

In today's society, people push evolution so much.

Disagreeing with it can lead to discrimination. (Thank you all for not doing that... sort of. :P)

Many Christians just drift over to the "evolution" side to avoid persecution.

That often shows how weak their faith is.

If you are a true Christian (I hope I am...), you'll stick with God no matter what.

Through trial... your faith is tempered.

Through trial... you learn the truth.

Through trial... during those down times... That's when you can see God the best. When you have nowhere to go, nothing to do... no comfort... no love...

I have yet to go through that.

But when I do... I hope I can truly stay strong to what I believe... and not join the mainstream (for that particular thing).

We'll see.

I'll be terribly sad if I betray my Father... but it happens.

Do you mind if I ask you what kind of Christian you are?

Yes you certainly can. ^^

...

I don't know, actually.

My family was never part of a particular sect.

We were just "Christians."

My mom and dad are first-gen Christians.

My siblings and I are second-gen Christians... we don't truly understand the idea. I'll admit that.

Take my sister. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if she decided to not be a Christian. I hope it doesn't happen... but I wouldn't be surprised.

I, on the other hand, have every intention to believe. I do.

Anyway, yeah. I'm not really part of any group...

But if you had to pick one... Presbyterian? (I'm not sure. I really don't know much, fine, anything about what sects believe what... I just have vague ideas.)

Edit:

We've been throwing practical science at you this entire discussion.

A little delve into the social sciences won't hurt anyone.

You're right. ^^

But the practical science I have in mind is not related to religion in the least.

When (and if) I study science, which I intend on doing, I'll study one that won't conflict with my religion... like anatomy or astronomy or whatever.

Especially astronomy. <3

But yeah. Social science... never really interested me much.

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

Too bad medical schools require you take at least a year of biology classes.

In which you most likely touch evolution.

In which your professors will be biologists.

Good luck.

[Rehab]

I had (well, almost had) a sociology teacher who said, after having spent many difficult years becoming a professor, with a specialty in biological anthropology (a field that she said kinda barely exists widely atm), she has come to the personal conclusion that there is "no such thing as a fact." IE that things people in one place take to be true in all other places can be found, if you look hard enough in some places, to not be true at all.

That might've been a nice enough way to start out a sociology class, which the professor seemed to very much theme around stepping back to break down and examine our assumptions, but boy did it seem weird for somebody with a heavy focus in biology.

While I can at least try to appreciate her point, even if our (current science's, that is) understanding of everything ever is imperfect and/or occasionally makes faulty predictions or has holes (see dark matter + the odd paths taken by (some of?) the probe(s?) we've sent out into the furthest regions of space yet reached, which defy some of our current understandings of some physics concepts, from what little I've heard), we've made so many technological advances (including creating artificial life!) that we only dared to attempt because of our advances in scientific understanding as we knew it.

If our understandings are just flat-out wrong, how the hell do nuclear weapons really work? What the hell actually is this thing I'm typing on doing? Airplanes and rockets, what the fuck is going on there? What in the hell is a radio

Basically, even if hypothetical errors or holes in current scientific understanding do exist, I have a hard time rattling around in my head just what the hell that means for us, because it's not as if all the advances beyond number in how we live/our quality of life made possible by science just. stop working when we find out shit don't quite be how we thought it do.

I guess this kinda veered off of being a response to anything particular than a rant, sorry about that, thread

Edited January 27, 2013 by Rehab

[Fruity Insanity]

Too bad medical schools require you take at least a year of biology classes.

In which you most likely touch evolution.

In which your professors will be biologists.

Good luck.

I don't mind~

I'll learn evolution.

Who says I have objections learning it?

I mentioned before that the topic is actually very interesting.

It's the idea that I disagree with, as it conflicts with my religion.

But, like I said, as for learning it, I don't care. ^^

I'm not a religion freak... even though I may sound like that now.

It's just because of the topic...

If we talked about something else, I wouldn't be like this.

Just saying~

[Constable Reggie]

My thoughts exactly. o_O

I don't see how they can accept both? They just don't mix.

Creationism doesn't do that.

But as a Christian, it seems sensible to believe that God made the world, since the Bible says so.

The Bible has always been a prominent in all Christian sects. To what degree differs, but important to all of them, nevertheless.

And, like I said, believing in evolution is contradictory to Christianity... which has its base on the Bible.

Believing in creationism requires putting completely blind faith in something that yields no good benefit, unlike the rest of the Bible. Do you see the problem with this?

The time intervals shouldn't be taken literally. They can mean anything.

But the rules should be taken literally. Well, most of them.

You just contradicted yourself. Which rules? Since this is apparently the guide to the creation of life, you can't just say "well, most of them are true". Specify.

Really? That's... interesting.

All the Christians I know don't believe in evolution...

Well, that makes sense.

In today's society, people push evolution so much.

Disagreeing with it can lead to discrimination. (Thank you all for not doing that... sort of. :P)

Many Christians just drift over to the "evolution" side to avoid persecution.

That often shows how weak their faith is.

Er, no. Trying to refute evolution facts and whatnot with wishwashy arguments is what is mocked. You're literally ignoring all the evidence for evolution for "well, the Bible says otherwise". You can believe in what you want, but when you try to argue that evolution is wrong and ignore all the facts for otherwise, that's gonna get you some scrutiny. Faith isn't a good thing in itself, and shouldn't just be measured by how much you have of it. Faith in a way that supports your life is a good thing. Blind faith is not.

But if you had to pick one... Presbyterian? (I'm not sure. I really don't know much, fine, anything about what sects believe what... I just have vague ideas.)

So you're Protestant. It's generally viewed that Catholic members are more willing to deny evolution/accept creationism compared to other branches. It's not like evolution/creationism is the dividing point between the branches or anything, just a known correlation.

This topic really re-perked my interest in religion. I should talk about it more with my dad when I visit him.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Psych]

I'm not sure how to best phrase this, but...

There are dozens and hundreds of religions in the world. Evolution is covering the entire globe. Religions can vastly go against one another, and there's no true religion, so just because one says their god created the world and another supports another way, doesn't mean one is more correct than the other.

[Esau of Isaac]

That's what it is, right?

Well, you make connections by experiments. Carbon-dating, fossils, and such.

You can see a single-cell organism in one place... a complex organism in the next.

You make the connection... "Hm, they seem related... This must've become that."

Here, you make an assumption. You assume that the single-celled organism became a complex one.

But have you seen this process go through? You saw the beginning... you saw the end... you assumed that they were related.

Have you ever seen the Civil War? Did you actually watch it with your eyeballs?

I guess we can't say the Civil War really happened.

You can speculate as much as you like, but it all comes down to this: the theory of evolution is an assumption. (I'm not addressing whether it's right or wrong.)

The theory of evolution is as much an assumption as the theory of gravity. It's the best set of explanations we have to help us understand a specific phenomenon.

EDIT:

Oh, and the Bible really did remain unchanged for thousands of years.

My dad, who studied the topic of theology for about 20 years, says so.

Your father is incorrect. The Bible has been changed from translation to translation multiple times, inserting meaning into passages that weren't there or removing the original.

He's read the original text... he's read manuscripts about it... he's done the research.

How else could he have gotten his Ph.D.?

I don't know, diploma mill? You don't trust the thousands and thousands of educated biologists that say you're full of shit, why should we trust your father who we've never met?

I believe in microevolution. So yes, I believe that environment can trigger change.

But... reptiles becoming birds?

Single-celled organisms becoming what we are today? No.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. You have reptiles becoming birds through gradual changes over generations.

What you are saying is that ten inches exist but not thirty feet. It's stupid. Stop saying stupid things.

Also, with this science-y view... If evolution were true, we're all just chances. Every single one of us.

We just came about by a random encounter between a sperm and an egg... We have no purpose in life.

We live. We die. We're part of a natural cycle.

It just seems so... purposeless. Is life no more than that?

Does life have to be some kind of magical event for it to carry meaning? There are millions of people out there that ascribe meaning to their lives who are both Christian and acknowledge evolution. It's not hard.

The Bible was written from the beginning of time since it was given to Moses by God. There was no need to pass it down orally. (That'd be impossible, given the size of that book.)

You realize the Jews were originally a very orally-heavy culture, right? And that they and most others in ancient times passed down knowledge through oral teachings right?

Because the Bible has so many translations, it's not hard to derive a more common one and figure out what the original text was like.

If a majority of text say one thing... and a minority says another... which one is probably right? The majority one.

The majority of Bibles people read will make mention of the Devil. The Devil is never mentioned in the Bible one time.

I may not have scientific evidence, but...

Adam and Eve were the first humans (according to the Bible).

God took soil and breathed life into it, creating Adam.

Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.

The Bible shows that they were capable of thought... and emotions.

Their offspring (Cain, Abel, Seth, etc.) were also shown to think and feel.

Cain killed Abel when God accepted Abel's offering, but not his.

According to evolutionists, we humans are an advanced form of some primate, right?

This is where there's conflict.

Unless these primates were capable of thinking... reasoning... feeling hatred, joy, love... they're not the Adam and Eve God describes in Genesis.

So, believing in evolution... and that God made man doesn't.... fit.

In turn, believing that we're "chance" and that God made us doesn't make sense.

Unless of course you interpret it metaphorically which you have already stated you do, likely to avoid the clear contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

But...

Evolution has been proved over and over again that it works... yet is still a theory. Oh, the irony.

I thought theories that have been proved over and over again became scientific method.

Then you should probably brush up on the very most basics of science.

It's just personal opinions, not scientific facts. The theory of evolution is still a theory at best. And while it has "piles of evidence," scientists have to find piles more if they want to prove that evolution is the way humans came about.

Stop saying it's personal opinions. It's not. It's quantified, independently verified data the world over. And it is "still a theory at best," the same way that germ theory is "still a theory at best."

The time intervals shouldn't be taken literally. They can mean anything.

But the rules should be taken literally. Well, most of them.

"Don't interpret this literally, that's stupid and an obvious use of colorful language. But take everything else literally."

Yes you certainly can. ^^

...

I don't know, actually.

My family was never part of a particular sect.

We were just "Christians."

My mom and dad are first-gen Christians.

My siblings and I are second-gen Christians... we don't truly understand the idea. I'll admit that.

Take my sister. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if she decided to not be a Christian. I hope it doesn't happen... but I wouldn't be surprised.

I, on the other hand, have every intention to believe. I do.

Anyway, yeah. I'm not really part of any group...

But if you had to pick one... Presbyterian? (I'm not sure. I really don't know much, fine, anything about what sects believe what... I just have vague ideas.)

You don't even know what branch of Christianity you fall under.

This is paining me. I think I need a drink right now.

[Fruity Insanity]

Believing in creationism requires putting completely blind faith in something that yields no good benefit, unlike the rest of the Bible. Do you see the problem with this?

Yes, it's blind faith... I don't mind blind faith.

You just contradicted yourself. Which rules? Since this is apparently the guide to the creation of life, you can't just say "well, most of them are true". Specify.

The parts that are vague you don't take literally... like the creation of the earth... or the genealogies of the people. (Maybe they skipped generations. If C is the son of A, who's to say that C is A's actual son. Maybe there's a B in between. C would still be A's son... even if there was a B.)

The rules... Moses' laws (mainly for Jews)... Jesus' rules (mainly for Christians)... they are taken literally.

Oh, and Paul's letters. They're very content-rich on how to be a good Christian.

And Revelations...

I find that^ book very intesting. Although to atheists... there's lots and lots of conflict... :P

Er, no. Trying to refute evolution facts and whatnot with wishwashy arguments is what is mocked. You're literally ignoring all the evidence for evolution for "well, the Bible says otherwise". You can believe in what you want, but when you try to argue that evolution is wrong and ignore all the facts for otherwise, that's gonna get you some scrutiny. Faith isn't a good thing in itself, and shouldn't just be measured by how much you have of it. Faith in a way that supports your life is a good thing. Blind faith is not.

"Blind faith is not" - like I said before, evolution, while maybe not a blind faith, is... a foggy faith. A strong, foggy faith.

No matter how much evidence is out there, humans will never be able to prove that evolution is the way we're here today.

Well, unless humans make a time machine...

Ignore me on this... I'll just be saying the same thing over and over. How obstinate of me, I know.

So you're Protestant. It's generally viewed that Catholic members are more willing to deny evolution/accept creationism compared to other branches. It's not like evolution/creationism is the dividing point between the branches or anything, just a known correlation.

Yeah~

This topic really re-perked my interest in religion. I should talk about it more with my dad when I visit him.

Cool. Is your dad a pastor or something?

I'm not sure how to best phrase this, but...

There are dozens and hundreds of religions in the world. Evolution is covering the entire globe. Religions can vastly go against one another, and there's no true religion, so just because one says their god created the world and another supports another way, doesn't mean one is more correct than the other.

The majority rule doesn't apply to everything... You're saying that since evolution is a commonly accepted idea... it's right?

If everyone said 1+1=3 would that be right? No. Even though everyone says that... it's not true.

I'm not saying that this applies to evolution, I'm implying it I'm just saying that... never mind.

[Aere]

How on earth are you going to study astronomy when you don't believe ANY of the theories about space. How can you study the universe when you seriously believe Earth is the center of it?

[Ike-Mike]

In Germany, no one will believe you at first that creationism is still a thing, and even widely spread across America.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Ike-Mike

[eclipse]

I don't see why God couldn't have done the following:

function createEverything {
   initiateBigBang();
}

. . .and have everything else be a consequence to that.

[Rehab]

I might wonder why s/he'd have it take so friggin' long to get to the "formation of things" part if s/he already knew what was going to be made, such that it was part of what was executed in that one function, but basically yeah.

[Fruity Insanity]

Have you ever seen the Civil War? Did you actually watch it with your eyeballs?

I guess we can't say the Civil War really happened.

First of all... the Civil War and evolution are two entirely different events. You know that, yet you use it as an example. Why?

Second of all... we know that the Civil War happened. It was recorded in our history... written about in the past.

We have documents of that time.

Do we have documents from millions of years ago?

Didn't think so.

The theory of evolution is as much an assumption as the theory of gravity. It's the best set of explanations we have to help us understand a specific phenomenon.

Again, not true. We have seen with our own eyes the theory of gravity. How it works... what it does. It's all observable with our own eyes.

The same does not apply to the theory of evolution. You assume that the theory of evolution is correct. You know that they theory of gravity is true.

Your father is incorrect. The Bible has been changed from translation to translation multiple times, inserting meaning into passages that weren't there or removing the original.

Ri~ight~ You know better, right? Go get a Ph.D., then comment on what's true or not. Maybe then I'll believe you.

I don't know, diploma mill? You don't trust the thousands and thousands of educated biologists that say you're full of shit, why should we trust your father who we've never met?

You don't have to. Of course you don't have to. Who says you have to? I didn't.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. You have reptiles becoming birds through gradual changes over generations.

Okay... This is not true either...

Macroevolution suggests that a finch can become an eagle. (Drastic changes.)

Microevolution suggests that a finch can become a different kind of finch... but still a finch. (Minor changes.)

What you are saying is that ten inches exist but not thirty feet. It's stupid. Stop saying stupid things.

That's subjective.

For instance, what you say is stupid... to me.

Does life have to be some kind of magical event for it to carry meaning? There are millions of people out there that ascribe meaning to their lives who are both Christian and acknowledge evolution. It's not hard.

You obviously don't understand the reason why religions exist. That would explain you and your not-too-cool attitude.

You realize the Jews were originally a very orally-heavy culture, right? And that they and most others in ancient times passed down knowledge through oral teachings right?

No. Not true. They wrote down most, if not all, of the Bible.

The majority of Bibles people read will make mention of the Devil. The Devil is never mentioned in the Bible one time.

What the...?

The devil is mentioned in the Bible a ton of times.

Jesus was tempted by the devil.

C'mon, where are you hearing these things?

Unless of course you interpret it metaphorically which you have already stated you do, likely to avoid the clear contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

Then you should probably brush up on the very most basics of science.

If you're talking about high school science, then I have that brushed up.

Stop saying it's personal opinions. It's not. It's quantified, independently verified data the world over. And it is "still a theory at best," the same way that germ theory is "still a theory at best."

It is. It is. It is.

Others agree. You don't.

Don't know why.

"Don't interpret this literally, that's stupid and an obvious use of colorful language. But take everything else literally."

You don't even know what branch of Christianity you fall under.

This is paining me. I think I need a drink right now.

Do that. Whatever you please.

P.S. The other people commenting here are arguing with me... not putting me down. That's what you're doing. You most blatantly express your disgust in what I think. Please don't do that. (And geez, read the Serenes Forest Code of Conduct again...)

Tone down a little, eh? I'd much appreciate that... either that... or just stop commenting... please.

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

Will you believe me if I get a PhD in biology?

Give me like 8 years. Maybe 9.

I'll do it.

I'm crazy.

Also my name backwards is a god.

[Fruity Insanity]

Will you believe me if I get a PhD in biology?

Give me like 8 years. Maybe 9.

I'll do it.

I'm crazy.

Also my name backwards is a god.

I'll tell you what...

I'll seriously look over the topic when you get a Ph.D.

Maybe I won't believe you... but I'll research the thing.

I'll look at the theory from both sides.

The pros and cons... the evidence and the holes - I'll look into it.

And at that point, I'll hopefully have a good amount of knowledge tucked in my belt. After all, I'll have finished college... and maybe I'll be in med-school.

Edit:

I don't see why God couldn't have done the following:

function createEverything {
   initiateBigBang();
}

. . .and have everything else be a consequence to that.

Haha.. XD

Nice one.

How on earth are you going to study astronomy when you don't believe ANY of the theories about space. How can you study the universe when you seriously believe Earth is the center of it?

...

I don't believe that the Earth is in the center of our universe.

Never did. Never will.

And who says I don't believe in any of them...? It's just the BBT (and a few others) that I doubt.

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Sunwoo]

This topic. Just ... this topic.

I'm not going to try to convince OP of anything, because if no one else in the last few pages has been able to do so then I certainly won't succeed. The only reason I saw it fit to make a post is because this one particular thing that is bugging me.

fef4e, if my memory from your FE13 thread in FFtF is correct, you are in junior year of high school. You are probably 16 years old. And yet, what I see you doing is spouting off a lot of nonsense about stuff that you couldn't possibly fully understand, unless you're a super genius or something. Science is always changing and never constant. Scientists are always learning new things about the world and trying to figure out how everything works and fits together. One thing I've always heard is this: "Science can never prove anything, but it can disprove." Which means that yes, we can't ever actually prove without a doubt that evolution is real or that the Big Bang theory is real (save for a time machine, I suppose). But we can disprove certain other theories, such as spontaneous generation, the very first elements, and the preliminary atomic orbital models.

True scientists do not "pick and choose" their theories or findings. They should not be selective. Yes, there are some scientists who do fudge the truth for whatever reason, and they shame the entire scientific community. But no community is exempt from its share of people who reflect poorly on what they stand for. Yes, even religion has had its share of people who bring shame to that community.

What I am utterly pissed off about is you acting like a superior knowledge on a subject you understand very little about. I do not care that you took AP Chemistry. You are still in high school. Come back when you're my age and have taken upper division classes on science, scratched more than just the surface (and what I am learning is still nowhere near any understanding of my field), and then talk. I don't know if it is your intent or not, but you are still young and there are many things you don't understand. And yet, you have the audacity to say, "oh, but this is what scientists do," "this is what science is," "I don't have to cite anything," "no, I have better things to do than read my own article"? People aren't yelling at you about evolution. They're yelling at you for your arrogance and ignorance. UNLESS YOU'RE A SUPER GENIUS, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AT YOUR AGE.

Also, I see a lot of double standards in your arguments. You want people to prove evolution or the Big Bang theory, and then you say that all you need for your belief is "faith" and you use the Bible and your father's degree in it as evidence. First of all, I congratulate your father on his degree. It is certainly not an easy thing to accomplish. But your father is only one source. Why not ask other people who studied a similar topic as he had about how much the Bible has changed? You can't base all of your arguments on one source. What if everyone else disagrees? Is everyone else wrong, then? What if someone you're arguing with has a father who has studied and has a PhD in evolutionary theory? Are you just going to brush that person off by saying "prove it" while continuously using the fact that your father has studied the Bible as a source without proving anything yourself?

As others may have said, you cannot translate languages directly from one another. I suspect you may be Korean, so you should know this if you are. Can you translate what is said in Korean directly into English? No, you cannot, because it would sound all messed up and nonsensical if you tried to direct-translate it. Languages have different ways of saying different things that other languages may not have. This can lead to unclear or vague translations. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to perfectly translate something from one language to another. Also, something that is passed down from so far into the past is naturally going to get corrupted some way or another. It's unavoidable.

Faith is not a bad thing, but there are times when it doesn't work. I've heard stories of parents who had a sick child who could have been saved or at least received treatment had the parents just gone to the hospital. Instead, they prayed and said that faith would see them through, and the child died because of it. Would you say that faith is a "good thing" in this case? There's faith, and there's being so blindly stubborn that you are shooting yourself in the foot.

tl;dr

1. Please stop victimizing yourself. It is annoying.

2. Please stop acting like you know more about science and the scientific community than the professionals in that community. You do not.

3. Please stop being a hypocrite and applying double standards. If you expect others to give you proof, then they expect proof beyond just "the Bible said so".

EDIT:

Ri~ight~ You know better, right? Go get a Ph.D., then comment on what's true or not. Maybe then I'll believe you.

This is what I mean by "you're a hypocrite". Why don't YOU get a PhD in evolutionary studies and then comment on what's true or not?

Edited January 27, 2013 by Sangyul