Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

[ForEverAfter]

Are you saying there aren't masses of people that believe Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified and the rose from the dead?

No, I'm not. While most stories in the Bible aren't taken literally, some are unfortunately.

We were talking about young earth creationism.

Did i say all christians or even most christians are young earthers?

I've already responded. Now you're, what, changing it to just "all"?

bit_pattern made a sweeping statement that the stories have "become" literal and you agreed with him.

...

I'm done, here.

Having a discussion with atheistic fundamentalists is about as interesting to me as having a discussion with religious fundamentalists.

 

[rickolasnice]

Your assertion that religious people all literally believe in their respective mythological allegories is contrary to almost every interaction I've had with religious men and women.

You set the parameter.

If you have some facts and figures of how many theists (not just christians have the creation story) I'd like to see it..

The "billions" of people MAY have been an exaggeration on my part.. how many of the 1.6 billion muslims , 2.1 billion christians and every other religion with a creation story have you asked?

http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/creationists

 

[ForEverAfter]

I was responding to both you and bit_pattern when I said "all". He made a sweeping statement, implying the literal interpretation was the norm. I shouldn't have said "all". You asked "Did i say all christians or even most christians are young earthers?" I answered the most part. You didn't say "all". My bad. Whatever. In the end: debating all or most is just pedantry. The point stands, regardless.

 

[rickolasnice]

According to that study.. most american christians do believe the bible should be read literally

"Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth: the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists (15%), the biblical account of creation as told in the Bible (50%), or are both true? (26%)?" (Not sure responses accounted for the remaining 9%.) If forced to choose among these alternatives, many respondents find the task too difficult. In February 2001, the Gallup Poll asked, "Would you say that you believe more the theory of evolution (28%) or the theory of creationism (48%) to explain the origin of human beings, or are you unsure (14%)?"

But you're right.. I have no idea how many creationists or literal readers there are out there.. but neither do you

 

[rickolasnice]

Anyway.. enough derailment..

So.. that Darwin fella..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/evolution/evolutionrev3.shtml

 

[mabzie55]

Uh oh!



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

Even the pope believes in evolution and the big bang theory.




Depends what you consider creationism to be.. I'm pretty sure creationism involves the earth being around 6000 years old, animals being made as they are and, according to Ken Ham and his army of fools, dinosaurs lived alongside humans..

As well as the rest of the tripe in Genesis.

They are mutually exclusive. One says something that completely contradicts the other. They are not compatible.

No, I'm pretty sure creationism refers to some being/thing creating the universe and life.

Not mutually exclusive... At all.

 

[mabzie55]

Well, it pushes creationism further into the margins of probability. And that's the problem creationists have with it. It fills the gap of knowledge once occupied by god. A gap that just gets narrower and narrower and makes creation myths less and less likely, meaning that to maintain the myth one has to be more and more insane.

How so?
I'm not seeing how to makes it any more or less probable.

God and scientific knowledge are completely compatible.

It's only not to those with tunnel vision of the mind.

Plus the big bang basically is a creation myth... and a poor one at that.

 

[rickolasnice]

No, I'm pretty sure creationism refers to some being/thing creating the universe and life.

Not mutually exclusive... At all.

I corrected myself later on.. Young earth creationism is not compatible with science.

Plus the big bang basically is a creation myth... and a poor one at that.

If you have evidence to prove it's a myth why not try for a nobel prize?

 

[ForEverAfter]

the big bang basically is a creation myth... and a poor one at that.

The big bang theory has NOT been proven.
It is a theory, not a myth. (Learn the difference.) And it's a good theory, not a poor one.
If it was a poor theory, then it wouldn't be widely embraced by the scientific community.
That doesn't mean it's correct. There have been many widely accepted scientific theories that have been disproved.
The big bang is certainly not as rock solid as evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't compelling.

God and scientific knowledge are completely compatible.

I agree. But you're taking sides, aren't you, by attempting (poorly) to discredit the big bang theory?

...

rick: Even if most people do literally believe in religion (and not just the fundamentalists in the US, according to a limited survey), most people misinterpreted A Clockwork Orange upon it's release also but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the novel/film. It doesn't render Anthony Burgess' intent meaningless, nor does it prevent others from benefitting from the work. Christianity is not the world's only religion and the United States does not own it (although it seems to think it owns everything).

Christians in the US: less than 200 million.
Christians worldwide: over 2 billion.

The study you provided doesn't indicate a majority.

 

[bit_pattern]

How so?
I'm not seeing how to makes it any more or less probable.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[ForEverAfter]

^You're making the YEC\creationism mistake again.

Mabzie is talking about creationism, not YEC.

So, you're making a meaningless distinction.

God did everything, regardless of how it happened.

...

You post a lot of links, instead of making a point yourself. It's the internet equivalent of shoving a book at someone, during a verbal discussion. In this case, it doesn't even answer the question.

 

[bit_pattern]

You are uninformed

Lol.

Young earth creationism only became an issue when science demonstrated that the world is actually very old. Before that there was no distinction, people simply believed the literal interpretation that the world is 6000 years old. I might not have spoken to as many religious figures as you (thank fuck for that) but I am rather familiar with the history of science, in particular geology. It is well documented that early researchers were shocked to the core when the vast time periods that emerged from their studies was revealed. Same goes with evolution - the reason it was so controversial was because the scientific community literally believed that man was created 6000 years ago in god's image. It's not controversial. It's all out there and documented. You only need a cursory engagement with the literature to know about that. It's all pretty damned explicit.

I have no doubt that the less insane theists in the 21st century when confronted with relentless advance of knowledge about the past deal with the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs clashing with reality by reducing the Bible down to mere allegory. I'd probably do the same thing if I was so wedded to something so cray cray. But the stark reality is that throughout the vast history of Judeo-Christian belief the events of the Bible have been interpreted literally

 

[bit_pattern]

^You're making the YEC\creationism mistake again.

No I'm not.

God did everything, regardless of how it happened.

...

Lol. You should try actually reading the link.

This bit is particularly pertinent to the point you are trying to make here

When each gap is filled, the believer is forced to jump to the next gap. This game can continue ad nauseam, since human knowledge will never be able to explain everything (by definition of infinity, and by principles such as Gödel's incompleteness theorems). However, the argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. The ultimate "gap" that likely cannot be bridged is "well, god started everything", because even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, but what created the membranes?"

 

[ForEverAfter]

I might not have spoken to as many religious figures as you (thank fuck for that)

Like I said, you're uninformed.

Just as ignorant of religion as fundamentalist religious types are of science.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

the scientific community literally believed that man was created 6000 years ago in god's image

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.

I have no doubt that the less insane theists in the 21st century when confronted with relentless advance of knowledge about the past deal with the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs clashing with reality by reducing the Bible down to mere allegory.

Reduced to allegory?

I take it you haven't read the Bible.

Look at the Book of Job, for example. Are you seriously going to argue that is literal?

What about the allegorical teachings of Jesus? (I don't believe Jesus was a real person. He's a complex allegory: an allegorical figure, spouting parables.)

You are obviously seriously unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian mythology, yet you think you have it all worked out.

 

[ForEverAfter]

When each gap is filled, the believer is forced to jump to the next gap. This game can continue ad nauseam, since human knowledge will never be able to explain everything (by definition of infinity, and by principles such as Gödel's incompleteness theorems). However, the argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. The ultimate "gap" that likely cannot be bridged is "well, god started everything", because even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, but what created the membranes?"

Science will not stop at the big bang. The next question will be what (if anything) happened "before" the big bang? And if nothing happened, what does that mean? How is that possible? Eventually science will lead to God. The Big Bang Theory doesn't disprove God, nor does string theory or m-theory or any aspect of quantum mechanics.

even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, but what created the membranes?"

This is a scientific question and a religious question, depending on your orientation.

Do you think science will stop once the Big Bang Theory has been proved?

Of course they won't.

Isn't it a valid question, regardless of how you categorize it?

...

It is impossible to disprove God, just as it is impossible to prove God exists. Some people arrogantly want to know all the answers. They want to disprove something that is inherently incapable of being disproved. The thing is: scientific theories have been disproved repeatedly. God never has.

You will see, when you die.

 

[soMETHingactIVe]

My thoughts are probably very odd to a lot of folks because it's not what we the masses are taught on a regular. I believe in what my mnd and body tell me shutting out influence from others. I trust myself to make decisions after considering the sorces. Nevertheless I have seen that through time we adapt living creatures are adaptable we evolve we build up immune to drugs so they won't hurt us we get rough hands if we work hard with them. We build muscle if we lift heavy weights our body acculimates with harsh weather we build walls when our feelings are hurt we are amazing creatures I think it would be very unthought to say we didn't evolve in all these years.

 

[rickolasnice]

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

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

Neither me nor bit are implying the stories ARE literal.. we are suggesting people take them that way.. which they do.

Science will not stop at the big bang. The next question will be what (if anything) happened "before" the big bang? And if nothing happened, what does that mean? How is that possible? Eventually science will lead to God. The Big Bang Theory doesn't disprove God, nor does string theory or m-theory or any aspect of quantum mechanics.

Standard God of the Gaps argument. 8)

Do you know how many people believe in this crap? https://answersingenesis.org/

Kirk Cameron, just one creationist moron, has 1,889,417 likes on his fb page.. Are you denying these 2 million people exist? If you don't believe they take the bible literally, i invite you to join the page and engage with them.. Trust me.. They take the bible literally.

 

[mabzie55]

The big bang theory has NOT been proven.
It is a theory, not a myth. (Learn the difference.) And it's a good theory, not a poor one.
If it was a poor theory, then it wouldn't be widely embraced by the scientific community.
That doesn't mean it's correct. There have been many widely accepted scientific theories that have been disproved.
The big bang is certainly not as rock solid as evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't compelling.



I agree. But you're taking sides, aren't you, by attempting (poorly) to discredit the big bang theory?
.

No, I said it was a poor myth, it's a fine theory.

But it fills spot of the creation myth I.e. a non-proven story of creation.

And I don't believe I tried to discredit anything.
Maybe you're confused.

And I'm certainly not taking sides, on the side of reason.

 

[methamaniac]

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
------

 

[rickolasnice]

Please respond to the information YOU asked for before spouting any more crap.