Anouck
Queen of Procrastination
Extremely religious, in many people's opinions, is when you're going to deny facts because the Bible said otherwise. It's when you root your moral compass in ancient scriptures and don't think for yourself. It's when you do something, just because the Bible said so - regardless of whether or not you agree with it yourself.Some might consider me an "extremely religious person." It really depends on how you define that. Regardless, the name of the debate was "Evolution vs Creationism" not "Science vs Creationism". Big difference. I don't see science and creationism as being mutually exclusive.
I don't know and won't judge you. You seem to be a nice person, and in the end that's all that matters.
Isn't it great when something like evolution or the Big Bang gives us the answers to questions we've been asking for so long? Like you said: doesn't it ad to your respect for God? I can imagine that, if you love God's creation, you crave to understand how it works. We have the privilege to live in an age in which we can get those answers.
I never observed the Earth being created in 6 days. I never observed Adam & Eve being created. So if we are going to apply that logic to evolution, I can do the same thing to the creation story. The difference is there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, while there is none for the earth being 6000 years old. Hence why it's called 'faith'. You have to believe it, even when you'll never be sure.I'm quite aware of these experiments. However, there have never been observed mutations where additional genetic material has been added. Even in the small number of mutations that result in an advantage (the majority result in a disadvantage or death) there is loss of genetic information. In other words, how did a microbe work it's way up to the information required to make a man? Did the first life-form start with all the genetic information required to create every life form?
Instead of looking for evidence, what many religious people do is looking for holes in science's evidence. They can't disprove evolution, so they'll look for answers science doesn't have and will fill in it was God.
Personally, I find evolution a better explanation than God creating a man from dirt and then turning his rib into a woman. How come that this sounds perfectly fine but the idea of evolution over billions of years doesn't?
To answer your question: the first life form did not hold such 'information'. It was nature (or God) doing its work. There were tiny changes within species, and millions upon millions of years of evolution allowed the species to change drastically. We can actually see these changes in real life.
An example are the birds of some South-American islands. They used to live in an area where they were forced to eat berries, but migrated to another island where the main source for food were nuts. Over the years, they developed a bigger beak. Why? Because the birds with a bigger beak (like people who are taller or stronger or smarter than others) had a better chance of survival. They procreated, and eventually the species developed a big beak. That's just logical thinking.
Evolution is the reason why you need a new flu shot every year. Bacteria have such short life spans that you can notice drastic evolutionary changes within their species. They are not longer successful in our bodies because we take medicines, so their offspring will be resistant to that medicine. It's as simple as that.
You know what would completely prove evolution wrong? There are several layers of soil in the Earth. If you live near a big canyon or a cave, you could look for yourself. There are layers of dirt, stacked on top of each other. The deeper you go, the older the layer. You can see evolutionary processes in those dirt layers. You can see small life developing to bigger life forms as you get higher and higher. One of those species, I repeat, one of those species being located in the wrong layer, would crush the theory of evolution. People have been looking for it, including many religious folks who are eager to disprove religion. And an example of that has not been found yet.
#All examples of mutation. I have no objections to mutations.
You don't see the point. Mutation is the first step. Mutation is a chain of evolution. Evolution is a car factory and mutation is the department where they make the tires.
Successful mutations will cause successful offspring. This offspring lives longer and procreates more. They will replace the less successful animals over time.
In 10 years you won't see much change. But give it millions of years, and you see animals losing a tail or gaining the ability to climb. Give it time and the smaller changes will eventually make one big change.
Let's say you replace the tires of your car once a year. If I see your car and come back next year, it's still the same car - just with different tires. But if you also repaint it every 10 years, and change the windows every 20 years, and add/remove spoilers every 25 years, then - if you give it enough time - you will see a complete new car.
It's the same thing with evolution. Small changes add to a bigger picture over millions of years.
I don't see how you can be so critical of flaws in science, when you believe a book that was written 2000 years ago, which has been translated in hundreds of languages, which has been manipulated by the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic church ever since the fall of the Romans in 474 up to the 17th century, which was written in a time when people thought you could determine a witch from burning her.And I counter with: just because something is considered "fact" doesn't necessarily make it so. Newton's laws were considered fact until Einstein "fixed" them.
If you are going to say that facts can't be trusted because sometimes they are proven wrong, then you can dismiss everything.
Newtons laws were and still are facts. Gravity is a fact. That he, back then, made errors in his explanation - is understandable. And it got corrected. But gravity is still a fact. So is evolution, which is accepted by 90 to 100% of all the scientists.
Are they all wrong? Is Einstein wrong? Is Neil Tyson or Douglas Adams wrong? All those people, who dedicated their life to these subjects, who studied and have more diploma's than my brother gets speeding tickets, are wrong?
The things you mention, are the obvious arguments like mutation has nothing to do with evolution. Those arguments have been proven wrong by scientists. And you can deny that, but then it's going to be difficult to have a rational debate. When people deny facts, there's not much you can do.
Science gave us cars and laptops and consoles and cellphones. It has created atom bombs, it has created medication - it has created so much. But for some reason, they are so wrong on evolution? So dead wrong that their case can be dismissed so easily that a person saying 'that's just mutation' breaks their case?
If it would work that easy, it wouldn't be an accepted theory, buddy.
People keep discovering new things, and add that to the list of information. They do that because they don't keep new discoveries quiet.Eh? The theory has been in a constant state of change. First it was a gradual change then it was periods of explosive change. So on and so forth. Sure, the general idea has remained fairly stable since inception, but the mechanics are changing all the time.
There is no evidence for the Bible whatsoever. Now, I am not attacking religion. I don't have anything against religious people or religion itself. I completely understand it when a person thinks God created the physics laws to make our world work - but taking the Bible literally is something I do not understand.
You are so critical of science. I wish you'd apply that same criticism to the Bible? Because we all know the story about Noa's ark can not be true in the most literal way. Can we derive morals from it? Sure. But it can't be true in the most literal way.
You don't have to bother. Neither will I. I have better things to do than digging into soil. But it's just an example of what you can do to disprove this. Which is something no one has succeeded at so far. Are there things we don't know about evolution yet? Sure. But there is no evidence against it so far. Only gaps and unanswered questions.Amusing. I would never bother. I don't seek to disprove it in this thread. Instead, I hope to point out that there are some glaring issues with it as it stands now.
The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim - not the other way around. If God would not exist, you could not prove that anyway. Like I can't prove there isn't a unicorn in my room at this moment. Like I can't prove you can not fly. You can not disprove a negative. So if He is not there, no one will ever be able to show that.Then why are opposing viewpoints squashed without discussion? If you can't rule out intelligent design why is it dismissed as invalid?
There is no evidence of God's absence. But there is evidence that the literal creation story is false. That you're not aware of that evidence does not mean it's not there.
The point with the creation story, is that it has been (the literal creation story) proven false. The earth is older than 6000 years. There have been debates and discussions about that. It's not 'squashed' without discussion. That's something you say now. But I can assure you that's not true. Take a look at the video in the very first post of this thread: That's a 3 hour debate where you can see how the creation is story is not getting 'squashed' without discussion.
I think you may be skewing this a bit toward your position (which I would expect either of us to do - we aren't capable of objectivity). I argue that the same evidence you use to support evolution is used to support creationism, you just disagree with the conclusions and therefore throw it out as invalid.
I am objective. I acknowledge the flaws in science, and acknowledge our ignorance on many levels. I acknowledge I can not prove God does not exist. I don't claim to know what I don't know.
But facts are facts. And that's the good thing about them; they're true whether you agree or not.
The evidence I use to support evolution does definitely not support a literal Biblical creation story. Unless you think fossils that are millions of years old are in favor of the '6000 year old earth' theory.
Well now you know one nut job who believes the Earth is ~6000 years old. As for it being proven wrong, I wouldn't be so sure.
I don't think you're a nut job. But I do have a question for you, and that's not meant to provoke you or anything, I sincerely mean this:
Would you ever accept that you're wrong (if you are, this is hypothetical)? Or would you still believe - no matter how much evidence you will see that favors the opposition? There's nothing wrong with that; it's called faith for a reason.
It wouldn't be called faith if you'd have evidence to support your case. Some Christians I know think it's God's way of testing people's loyalty: making them believe in Him without any evidence of his presence, which is something only strong believers will succeed at.
During the debate Ken Ham literally said he wouldn't change his opinion - even if he was proven wrong. He said that literally. That, to me, is not a scientist. You seek evidence to form a conclusion, you don't pick evidence that suit your conclusion. If you as a scientist don't accept you could be wrong, you're in the wrong business.
If someone would have strong evidence to support the existence of God, I'd accept that right away. That's the thing with science; it is willing to accept another truth. While some religious people are not. And that's fine, but if you'll unconditionally believe in the Bible, you won't be able to make your case in a debate. Because it doesn't matter what the other person says, he is wrong anyway and the facts he mentioned are false and contain holes.
That would be a waste of time.