• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is Evolution or Religion right?

emilseine

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
87
If you think about it all the scholars back up what the Bible claims happened. And we have CHristian scientists that back it up to, all we have on evolution is just an educated theory, which is more believable to you bluelighters?
 
Doesn't the fossil record prove evolution it does in my opinion if we have records over 600million years of life making little changes through out that time untill where we are now. Seems like proof to me
 
But why can't they simply call it a fact? Also do the fossils really prove that with the subtle changes overtime? Where is the missing link? We don't have all the fossils adding up to a human being.
 
I'm only asking questions. I just want to know what to believe. Could someone explain evolution in detail and the proof that we came from apes?
 
We have primitive bones that show it's evolving, but does that mean it's evolving into humans or just an advanced ape?
 
But why can't they simply call it a fact? Also do the fossils really prove that with the subtle changes overtime? Where is the missing link? We don't have all the fossils adding up to a human being.

While we may not have them all we have a hell of a lot of them. Everything from the monkey/proto-ape change, to the first true ape, to the first hominid to walk upright and many between and after.

These "primative bones" are called vestigial structures and are another proof of evolution. They are there because at some time in our history we used them for a function, but as we adapted we lost the need for that function and parts of the structure. What remains is the vestigial structure.

Also, a great example of ape to human evolution is our chromosome 2. All great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23. It is theorized that in our past, an ancestral ape underwent fusion of one of its chromosomes. The evidence lies within structures called centromeres and telomeres. Normally a chromatid will have one centromere in the middle where it fuses with the other and two telomeres at each end to protect the chromatid and prevent end to end fusion. Human chromosome 2 has two telomeres on the end like normal, but also a central telomere. Further more it has two centromeres, not placed in the middle. This proves that at sometime, a mutation occurred allowing the ape chromosomes to fuse into one distinct humanchromosome.

Biology, genetics, paleontology, geology and numerous other disciplines all point towards evolution as the truth.
 
If you think about it all the scholars back up what the Bible claims happened

Which scholars and which claims are you talking about? The Bible claims a lot of stuff, some of which is pretty outlandish.

Evolution driven by random genetic change is something people can observe in a laboratory with stuff like fast dividing single cell organisms, and it's also why we worry about antibiotic resistance.

Darwin also observed species differentiation in the Galapagos among birds that had adapted to their individual habitats.
 
Scholars and theologians etc. The people who read the King James Bible claim we were created out of sand by God.
 
You need to ask yourself what you believe. You can believe in evolution and science in general and still be religious/spiritual.
 
Evolution = Masses of evidence.

Creationism = No evidence.

I highly recommend reading through this site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

As someone has already pointed out.. The word theory when used in science means:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)
 
Last edited:
The tenacious need for the Bible to be anymore than an allegorical tale with some historicity sprinkled in is the root of this conflict. We need to mature as a species and move beyond the emotional need for fiction to be true. The Earth is not 5000 years old and neither are humans. Time to get over it already. Someone wrote a good story however many centuries ago and it captivated us. Let's respect it for that and move on.

As for evolution theory... it's pretty solid, except for when it comes to humans. We can't seem to find the missing link which explains how we ended up coming into existence. Homo sapiens are pretty much an anomaly at this point. I don't think that invalidates evolution, it just means we don't know yet.
 
If you think about it all the scholars back up what the Bible claims happened. And we have CHristian scientists that back it up to

what? can you provide some links?
seriously, how can you believe something that was written by who knows who who knows when and was intended, IMHO, as a mere allegory (with a good message of course, but just a made up story) that has no proof? (and I would hardly believe even with solid proof).

and if you think about it, the whole creationism think is absolutely absurd, as it implies that the human race is the only intelligent form of life in the WHOLE friggin universe. this, IMHO, defies any logic.
 
There are many tutorials on the internet about "the scientific method". Some even explain how an unconfirmed theory can become a universally confirmed law. A theory becomes a law when it can be repeatedly tested and observed under the same conditions. The scientific method also falls under the greater category of inductive logic (testing particular effects to determine the general cause).
So with the scientific method applied to the natural world around us, we can theorize about all sorts of things such as what sort of causes bring about certain effects by studying the effect in question. Let's take a book for example. We see a book (the effect) on the counter and we want to know what type of cause is responsible for its existence. For such an experiment we could also apply the Mills Method (do google search on) and find that only intelligent causes brings about intelligent effects. Or to state it negatively, "no natural causes can produce intelligent
effects." The wind cannot produce a book. The waves crashing against the shore cannot produce a book. Only minds can produce a book. What about sand dunes or coastal erosion? What types of causes produce them? Primarily, not intelligent causes, but nonintelligent (natural) causes.
Now in the case of a human being, what kind of cause is responsible for them? If we apply the scientific method and experimental method (aka the Mills Method) and assuming we see humans as intelligent beings, would come up with the conclusion that only an intelligent cause is responsible for human existence. Or negatively, no unintelligent (natural) cause can produce human beings. This conclusion stands as law, unless of course someone can run an experiment and observe repeatedly that intelligence (mind) can be produced by unintelligence. It's funny how even some of the greatest minds of our time have tried to prove an unintelligent cause for human existence. No matter how hard they try, they end up proving the very thing they deny - it will always take an intelligent cause to produce intelligent effects. Science backs this up every time.
 
Last edited:
Do you feel that those bones are just animals evolving into different animals and not humans or do you feel we walked out of the animal kingdom 2 million years ago? And we may have 23 chromosones, but that's 1 short, so did we really evolve? Maybe I just don't understand evolution, I've read books and watched documentaries, but not 100% on it.
 
The actual number of chromosomes is irrelevant. Ferns have over 1000. I was trying to illustrate that there is a genetic basis showing human evolution from apes. And we are still animals. We never walked out of anything.
 
Scholars and theologians etc. The people who read the King James Bible claim we were created out of sand by God.

First of all, the title of this thread is a little misleading. You are asking about Christianity, which is a very specific religion. The questions you ask do not really apply to other religions' creation stories, however allegorical they may be.

Second, as people have already said in this thread. The Bible was written by a series of men over hundreds of years, many claiming to have communicated directly with God. Yet the text itself is considered to be infallible by a lot of Christians. Sorry, even scientists get to have their work scrutinized and questioned by their peers. But I don't see how someone can believe something that was written by man to be the Word of God and the absolute truth with no scrutiny or questioning of it. Does. Not. Compute.

There are hundreds of different religions that exist all over this planet and most of them have their own creation story. What makes you think the Christian Bible is the correct one? IMO they either all have to be true or they all have to be false. I don't have time to sit and listen to someone sell me on why their religion is better than someone else's. Or why they will have an afterlife but someone of a different faith will not.
 
But I don't see how someone can believe something that was written by man to be the Word of God and the absolute truth with no scrutiny or questioning of it.


The universal nature of truth demands the negation of statements such as, "if it's Gods truth, then it cannot be mans truth", and "if it's mans truth, then it cannot be Gods truth." Truth is not determined by its source (see Genetic Fallacy). You yourself believe that what you say in your post should be accepted as absolutely true. However, truth is exclusive in the sense that if the Christian account of creation is true, then all nonChristian accounts are false. If 2+2=4, then all non-4 answers to the 2+2 question is false.

On the issue of the fossil record, Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist from Harvard who himself was no Christian pointed out 2 significant aspects of the fossil record:


"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

(1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

(2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

When anyone uses the term "evolution", it's important to make the distinction of the two types of evolution. Microevolution describes small changes within a species that "exhibit no directional change." Finches observed by Darwin had small morphological changes in their beaks, but no Finch was observed to change into a dog. Microevolution is a universally accepted fact by both Christians and nonChristians. However, macroevolution, the idea that enough small changes of microevolution can produce one species from an entirely different species, is the dividing line between a theistic worldview (which includes not only Christianity, but Judaism and Islam) and all nontheistic worldviews since each believe that man was created "fully formed" by the hand of God.

But even if there are similarities in different species, it does not prove that each had a common ancestor. Similarities in species may prove a common Creator, rather than a common ancestor.
 
Last edited:
^ Actually.. Most Christians in the UK are intelligent ( :\ ) enough to accept Evolution as fact

And you only have to look at the genome of each species to realise that we (every living thing on earth) are ALL related.

NSFW:

I'm just playing Christians you know I love you <3
 
Top