Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

[mabzie55]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Okay that explains why some people may have a problem with it, but still makes creation no more or less probable

So I still don't see how that makes it more or less probable.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Standard God of the Gaps argument.

Standard meaningless atheistic retort, hiding behind a sloppily-constructed logic theory that supposedly disproves all theistic arguments.

Ironically, the God of the Gap theory functions in exactly the same way as what it attempts to criticize.

bit_pattern implied a number of times that the stories were written literally, then re-interpreted later.

Your only evidence contrary to what is being proposed is your own beliefs and a hand full of encounters..

There is no hard evidence in theology or philosophy. I can't scientifically prove God. Atheists thinks that means they win by default, because God must be proved on their terms or not exist at all. Ridiculous.

Like I said.. I've spoken to many theists that take the bible as literal gospel.. Are you denying they exist?

We're going in circles, now.

Are you denying these 2 million people exist?

2 million out of 2 billion? ... 100 million out of 2 billion? Still a fraction. And how many of them truly believe? Fundamentalist cults tend to force people to say they obey. The majority of Christians and Christian leaders don't believe that the stories of the Bible are literal, from my experience. I've known a number of former Mormons, who've confirmed that they were afraid to say anything contrary to the Mormon status quo. Statistics have a tendency to misrepresent things. (I've studied mathematics, physics, statistics and theology at a tertiary level.) Believe what you like.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

This has gotten beyond boring.

Oh dearz,
Its become the religion of evolution vs the religion x as I feared
The sign of nervous faith
------
Cue ad hominem attacks
------
Please dont let that man the "pope"speak for me on the religion of evolution or any religion for that matter

You're out of your element, Donny.

Seek help.

So I still don't see how that makes it more or less probable.

It doesn't. He's avoiding answering your question.

 

[methamaniac]

Okay that explains why some people may have a problem with it, but still makes creation no more or less probable

So I still don't see how that makes it more or less probable.

IT doesn't , that's where the hypocrisy comes in
There jealous cause "evolutiondidit"
begins to break down logically and they need another saviour like multiple universes
sad really

 

[methamaniac]

Forever wrote:
"You're out of your element, Donny"

HA
"Doesn't anybody care about the rules anymore?"

too funny

 

[rickolasnice]

There is no evidence in theological discussion. I can't scientifically prove God. Atheists thinks that means they win by default, because God must be proved on their terms or not exist at all. Ridiculous.

Why do you think I was talking about proving the existence of God? I'm saying the only evidence you have of most theists not taking the bible literally is your own belief and a hand full of encounters. Plus what bit_pattern said about science changing the status quo from literal reading is solid.. Texts were taken literally until science made the literal impossible.. even so.. people STILL take the texts literally.

I'm not trying to prove that most Christians read the bible literally, I'm proving many of them do.

Cult? Young earth Creationism is a very popular belief in America..

Look, it's great you can read the bible and not take it literally.. Really is it.. but mass amounts of people do.. That is what I'm talking about.

The majority of Christians and Christian leaders don't believe that the stories of the Bible are literal, from my experience.

8)

I take you collected a substantial sample size of religious leaders from many different geographical locations and many different religions (and sects)?

I'm not saying most theists believe in literal interpretations, just that many of them do. You, however, are saying that most theists don't.. And your only evidence is a few run ins with priests. So do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

[bit_pattern]

Fuck me. Talk about multiplying herp by derp.

The scientific community?

So: all over the world, all scientists believed that the world was 6000 years old? Even in countries without Christianity? Even before Christianity?

What about the creators of science: the Greeks? They believed in YEC too, did they?

You're speaking shit.

You may know a fair bit about the history of science, but you know next to nothing about theology.

Jesus. You need to take a deep breath and calm down. For starters, we're talking about Christianity and Christian myths. And, yes, until modern scientists determined the age of the Earth then for the vast Judeo-Christian experience the vast majority of believers accepted Genesis as literal fact. YEC only came about as a reaction to evidence that the world was a lot older than 6000 years. Before that, it was commonly accepted that Genesis, the flood and all of that crap was true. You need to stop talking with religious people and read a book or two.

bit_pattern implied a number of times that the stories were written literally, then re-interpreted later

Actually, I explicitly stated that neither you nor I know what the intention of the writers was. But what is clear is that they have been re-interpreted numerous times but that for the last 2000 years at least they have more or less been interpreted literally.

Okay that explains why some people may have a problem with it, but still makes creation no more or less probable

So I still don't see how that makes it more or less probable.

It makes it less probable because previously god could explain a lot, as we learn more god can explain a lot less; the corollary being that the more we learn about the universe the less likely it is that god can explain natural phenomenon.

 

[ForEverAfter]

America owns science, too!

Jesus. You need to take a deep breath and calm down.

I'm perfectly calm.

It makes it less probable because previously god could explain a lot, as we learn more god can explain a lot less

No. Again your implying that the purpose of religion is to literally explain things, in place of science.

The Bible never made any attempt to explain scientific phenomenon. If you think it did, you're mistaken.

Actually, I explicitly stated that neither you nor I know what the intention of the writers was. But what is clear is that they have been re-interpreted numerous times but that for the last 2000 years at least they have more or less been interpreted literally.

Yes, but you're inconsistent. You say that you don't know what the intentions were - even though they're obvious - and then you repeatedly imply otherwise.

...

(Herp to the power of derp!)

...

I read plenty. I also started a Masters in theology earlier this year at a Catholic university, but decided it wasn't for me. (I started a science degree, straight out of high school, and - just as quickly - came to the same conclusion). The teachings were NOT literal. I met hundreds of students from all over the world and not a single one believed literally in (OT) Biblical stories.

I've also been all over the world and engaged in theological discussions with people of many different backgrounds and religions. It is uncommon for people to literally believe. Fundamentalist Christians do not represent Christianity. Nor do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam. And so on, and so forth.

your only evidence is a few run ins with priests

Not a few run ins. Not a hand full of experiences.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I said I was done before.

I'm done now.

This isn't an interesting conversation, for me.

Both sides are wrong.

 

[rickolasnice]

How do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what the intentions of the author of Genesis was?

Legit sincere question.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm done.

 

[rickolasnice]

ie you don't.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm perfectly calm.

That's not the impression you give.

No. Again your implying that the purpose of religion is to literally explain things, in place of science.

No. I am implying that is the function it has served.

The Bible never made any attempt to explain scientific phenomenon. If you think it did, you're mistaken.

The idea of "scientific phenomenon" didn't exist when the Bible was written. The Bible most definitely did attempt to explain natural phenomenon. And it served in that function for at least the better part of 2000 years. And, as was my original point, regardless of the intent of the bronze age tribes who invented the stories the Bible has been used by Christians as a literal explanation for a whole range of phenomena - most notably the origin myth. That is why history is littered with examples of science clashing - sometimes violently - with the Church as it developed. Because science was perceived to be encroaching on the literal truths that the Church believed. I mean, shit, even today a centela tenet of Catholocism is the literal beleif that Jesus rose from the dead - yet many Anglican's will tell you THAT is allegorical.

Yes, but you're inconsistent. You say that you don't know what the intentions were - even though they're obvious - and then you repeatedly imply otherwise.

No. I'm perfectly consistent. All I've said is that, regardless of the intent or regardless of how modern theologians interpret things, the historical experience is that the creation myths of the Bible have been accepted as literal truths for a lot longer than they haven't.

The teachings were NOT literal.

I met hundreds of students from all over the world and not a single one believed literally in (OT) Biblical stories.

Lol. So only OT? I guess someone being resurrected from the dead isn't "allegorical"? 8)

It is uncommon for people to literally believe

It might be uncommon today - in the face of undeniable evidence but that is not the historical experience. If you look at the scope of Christian history then your modern interpretation is the aberration.

 

[Xorkoth]

First off sorry for getting caught up in war of words. Not helpful
I appreciate your examples.
Evolution relies on mutations. For example, have you ever seen a baby with a third arm? Its sad.
But that baby didnt evolve third arm, there was a miscopy in its genetic material. A typo if you will, that says build another arm. But these
mutations can only use the information they have. They could say dont build a foot, leaving you with no feet. Sadly which happen. But they 99.99 percent leave you worse off. YES, if some wild circumstance came along where no feet was beneficial, then feet go away.
But if you dont have the 4 bit code to make feet in the first place, you dont get feet. And it is just make believe to think a bone can keep getting mutations that would split into all bones in the feet. Can you see why is hard to swallow?

You have to keep going uphill. Losing info is a set back majority of time, and once that info is gone you would have to somehow mutate it again. This is what I mean by starting and stopping.
Evolutionist cant make up their mind on how we evolved. But want you to believe it is "settled science" Some say we started in ocean ,came on land, then went back to ocean only to come back on land. Does that sound right to you?

What about evolving from dolphins? Aquatic apes? It just silly
The most accepted theory is probably we came from whales. Somehow gaining ability to breathe on land, getting fur and limbs, then deciding to jump back in ocean cause things got tough, then deciding to jump back out that ocean cause things got tough again, then we got our limbs and fur back we lost. just on a simple level it seems ridiculous. Now factor in all the parts in and out that all need mutations too to form. It starts to become overwhelming

But if it was beneficial enough to survival to have 3 arms (which I'm thinking it is not due to how our bodies have evolved, blood flow, etc), then that child might go on to reproduce more successfully and pass that mutated gene on. And over time it could become common in the population, and over more time it could spread even further, and after a substantial duration it could become a part of the human genome. And that would be evolution, started from a random mutation and driven by natural selection into a new feature of the species.

 

[methamaniac]

^^^
You are just ignorant to the mechanics that allow us to use our limbs. The extra limbs that are produced are not beneficial.
Babies born with two legs growing out their hips cant use those extra legs for everyday survival (has happened)
Go ahead and use your "imagination" to invision situation where those legs are useable and become dominant over two leg leg people.
I'm staying in reality.
talk about willfully blind
You need to go online and check out these awful abnormalities

 

[methamaniac]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-THREE-arms-heartbreaking-rare-condition.htm

Try telling the parents of a child born with these "gifts" that they are beneficial

 

[rickolasnice]

Ignorance at it's finest.

Try telling the people born immune to malaria it's not beneficial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_resistance_to_malaria

Some mutations of DNA are not beneficial. some are.. the ones that are make it more likely it will survive and be passed down.. the ones that aren't decrease those chances.

Btw.. the mechanism behind birth defects is not the same as the mechanism of evolution.

I don't know how I can spell it out any clearer..

Have you read my links yet?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

You're making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[methamaniac]

You're true evolutionist storm trooper.
cue: sickle cell anemia for the block
First off we were talking about Polymeia.

Your proving my point for me. Any benefit sickle cell anemia gives comes with the price of anemia.
If you use something that can kill ya to keep from getting killed the odds will quickly add up that you will be what we call today ---dead

Those extra feet might help you in a contest of who has the most feet, but you ain't winning no marathons with them

 

[Dystopia35]

All of this energy trying to prove or disprove god. I don't have to do it. I just simply know that these gods do not exist. There is nothing that will ever change my mind. I was born this way. Even as a child who was made to go to church, I can honestly say that I never once believed in that nonsense. I consider myself lucky.

 

[methamaniac]

All of this energy trying to prove or disprove god. I don't have to do it. I just simply know that these gods do not exist. There is nothing that will ever change my mind. I was born this way. Even as a child who was made to go to church, I can honestly say that I never once believed in that nonsense. I consider myself lucky.

Um, all this energy to come here and tell us we are spending too much energy
yeah that's logical
Yeah I believe you not interested

 

[rickolasnice]

Oh lord..

Genetic immunity to HIV then? If the other is too hard to understand why it was beneficial and therefore passed down..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

You're trying to use a birth defect that, as i pointed out, doesn't happen by the same mechanisms as evolution, to disprove that SOME mutations of the genome are beneficial..

Read the fucking links.

Btw you are now admitting that genetic mutations happen.. you're now trying to imply NONE of them are beneficial.. using a birth defect (not the same thing) as proof.

Carry on.