How can you ask god for a cure and not blame him for the cause ?

Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2004
Posts
1,535
Location
Stevenage
"soup to man evolution"

It's the single common ancestor that is the problem, evolution would be fine if it was:

Chicken soup to poultry kind
Beef broth to cattle kind
Carrot Consommé to vegetable kind
Minestrone soup to pasta kind
Scotch broth to ,,,
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
Personally I have no strong view on evolution. But my general feeling is that macroevolution is taught too much as fact, when we only have sure proof of microevolution.

Can you state what you mean by the terms micro and macro evolution? They have specific scientific meaning but tend to be misrepresented by creationists.

For what it is worth both have been observed Talk Origins has plenty of examples.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,602
Location
16509
Personally I have no strong view on evolution. But my general feeling is that macroevolution is taught too much as fact, when we only have sure proof of microevolution.

But surely, you understand that Evolution by natural selection is currently the only model that fits the data, and I'm also sure you understand that the theory itself hasn't been successful just because people feel comfortable with it, find it aesthetically pleasing, or find it easy and simply to understand?

It's the best theory so far, because all other competing theories have been ruled out, nothing else fits the data as well as evolution, no other theory satisfactorily fits, or compares to nature as well as evolution by natural selection - it explains life as we know it, and it does it very well.

So until another, better theory comes along - we're stuck with it, and I'm not complaining because it's a very good theory, is supported by enormous amounts of evidence.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
7,753
Location
Staffordshire
I think I've only really come across the term ' macroevolution' as a straw man in the context of people objecting to evolution. Is it actually a thing? It never came up in Palaeontology lectures but I only studied biology to A Level (Edit: Google tells me the term has become unpopular in Anglo-American academia but more popular on the continent. That perhaps explains why I'd not come across it).

It really concerns me that mentioning God in a thread is like chumming the water for those that can sniff out a creation vs evolution thread from the other side of the internet. It's like no other part of the gospel is so important or something. Are prayer, miracles and suffering so unimportant to them? We've not had so much as a sniff of an opinion from certain people on that topic.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2004
Posts
1,535
Location
Stevenage
I think I've only really come across the term ' macroevolution' as a straw man in the context of people objecting to evolution. Is it actually a thing? It never came up in Palaeontology lectures but I only studied biology to A Level.

It really concerns me that mentioning God in a thread is like chumming the water for those that can sniff out a creation vs evolution thread from the other side of the internet. It's like no other part of the gospel is so important or something. Are prayer, miracles and suffering so unimportant to them? We've not had so much as a sniff of an opinion from certain people on that topic.

That would require a certain level of individual thought and the ability to question "gods word" rather than just blindly following and parroting the mantra of the literalist interpretation.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,602
Location
16509
I think what grates with me is that it is also my understanding that the are questions to be asked on evolution and there are things that aren't fully understood. But there seems to be a culture of "well if you have questions on evolution then clearly your a idiot for not understanding, or just to be written off as a crazy creationist" rather than sensible scientific debate.

The problem is, as is the case at many points within this thread (and many threads before it) all arguments against evolution are almost always crazy, and as such anybody making such an argument is correctly written off as a crazy creationist - and rightly so, I have no sympathy there whatsoever, they're asking for it by talking stupid nonsense, and it goes on and on - if anyone has a coherent, sensible and unbiased argument that challenges evolution, lets hear it..

Obviously it can be difficult to engage in scientific debate when people have religious beliefs outside science. But the attitudes on the side of the scientists to me seems just as bad.

I think I the main point of posting the article was just that:
- although yes evolution is the best theory we have
- there are questions within the academic community about it
- people shouldn't be so judgemental and quick to claim evolution has everything wrapped up

However I'm also quite in agreement that I'm not a biologist and I really don't know what I'm talking about - if we're talking about the cold hard scientific theory.

I think the only time you really run into problems when discussing evolution, is when certain religious folk simply can't deal with how nature works, and they invoke a crusade to try and disprove it by typing words from the bible, which understandably upsets people, this is normally true of any such debate involving evolution on the internet, outside of biology forums - which is a shame

On the subject of questions, AFAIK - there's a whole load of stuff that's unanswered about evolution and biology in general, I don't think anybody is claiming that these theories are in any way complete, but they're by far the best we've done so far - and have yet to be proven false.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
7,753
Location
Staffordshire
That would require a certain level of individual thought and the ability to question "gods word" rather than just blindly following and parroting the mantra of the literalist interpretation.

I don't know. I grew up in a church where the assumption was more or less that miracles ceased with Jesus' immediate followers. That once the Bible was complete there wasn't really a need for them any more because the scriptures were all people needed for faith.

Maybe we have believers here that don't expect miracles, that have consequently low expectations for their prayers? And I guess that would make it easier to describe the God that created or inspired people to write Scripture thousands of years ago than the one that seems to be resting now? They wouldn't need to explain God's seemingly arbitrary actions because they believe he's basically leaving us to our own devices?
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,880
Location
Cheshire
I think we can safely say that creation science is just bad science. We don't need to discuss it any more than that.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,880
Location
Cheshire
So originally there had to be one male and one female wolf which all the various types of dogs we see today came from. Is that correct?

No it is a transition.

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old
The primordial soup
Early organisms - single cell
Dinosaurs & Animals now extinct - some survive and random mutation (a gene means an organism gets an advantage) and natural selection (the environment favours or punishes that advantage gene) means that certain gene pools survive and evolution takes place with successive generations.

Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/evolution/evolutionrev1.shtml

Buy a book for goodness sake.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,880
Location
Cheshire
I don't think it's double talk.

I have no idea what double talk is Uriel but you certainly don't have to defend you faith beliefs in this instance. The irony is that you are being attacked whilst patiently explaining GCSE biology to this forum buddy whose understanding of these issues is the same as bronze age man.

I am delighted you understand all the issues, that makes perfect sense to me. Bravo. :p
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,880
Location
Cheshire
BACK ON THREAD FOLKS

Okay I will post this one last time. It was not my idea, someone else who is much smarter.

The OPs question about why do we pray to get better.

It has to do with patient compliance, will the patient comply with the treatment to get better.

And Free Will, do we have free will.

Some philosophers believe that free will is an illusion and that we are 'moist robots' that is our conscious thoughts, all though we think they are our own, are in fact as a result of our genes and man-brains.

For example:
The lady prays to get better to a God.

This is because humans via our genes are like moist robots, to make sense of the world in the early days our inner programs made religions, we invoke supernatural superpowers to pray to and we look for patterns where there are none. They are survival instincts in our programming if you will. In contemporary times we understand that medicine/science can benefit us.

Therefore the patient has only the illusion of free will. Or 'our brains made us do it'.

Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjCt-L0Ph5o
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
4,602
Location
16509
The thing is now we're having a sensible conversation about things you're quite willing to agree that evolution is incomplete. But looking over the last few pages that's not the feeling you get from reading the responses from the evolution side.

I think the problem is, that when people like Kedge and win8.1 turn up - they talk such total incorrect nonsense, that it's akin to turning up and proclaiming that the world is flat - the degree in error is literally the same, sat in your chair, or in your garden you'd have literally no idea that the world is round, and it's the same with evolution, without an education or any research - you'd have no idea about these basic scientific facts or laws.

As a result, when these people come in and start talking with such authority that "evolution is false because soup to man evolution has not been observed" then it tends to trigger a backlash (somewhat understandably) and then it goes on for 100 pages.

I'm actually fascinated by it (the obsession with these arguments) and how it's possible for someone to be so incorrect - yet have so much endurance, and to keep at it, page after page, thread after thread... it's.. like some sort of disorder.


*edit* see the post above, it's just baiting/trolling, but on a level that seems almost abnormal, (this is page 34, and I guarantee you'll see the exact same things being posted by page 134, if the thread is still open by then.....)
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
30 Apr 2014
Posts
681
And Free Will, do we have free will.

Men have a will but are not as free as they think.

"if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:26

Unless God's Word convicts and brings a man to repentance and saving faith (as faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God) they will never be recovered out of the snare of the devil. They are held captive by him at his will.

Without God and His Word men are totally lost and led by their fallen nature.

"for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

And the way of peace have they not known:

There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:9-18

As athiest's/false professors (who don't really believe fundamental truth's of scripture - bringing destruction on themselves and others that would listen to them ) have rejected that Word continually many have been been given over to a reprobate mind unto eternal damnation.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Posts
1,880
Location
Cheshire
Men have a will but are not as free as they think.

As athiest's/false professors (who don't really believe fundamental truth's of scripture - bringing destruction on themselves and others that would listen to them ) have rejected that Word continually many have been been given over to a reprobate mind unto eternal damnation.

Ok, invoke God and claim to know what God is doing based on the bible, got it.

Now would you not agree that it is religious people who appear to be the ones bringing the most destruction on themselves and others, and if they accepted that we are all the same species, human, with common ancestors and that we should lead a meaningful life, and look after each other, the world would be a better place?

If religion and scripture is so great how come no one who follows it appears to be happy. A look on the BBC website alone illustrates it is the basis of wrong thinking, war, terror, human rights abuse, abuse of women, child abuse, murder and rape.

Win 8.1 please keep the scripture rants coming, they are easy to defend. But know that they are tediously boring and not adding to the discussion on free will.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,577
The problem is that religion is crazy when you put it into a scientific discussion. "Yes I believe in an invisible man who loves me". It just doesn't work!
Exactly.
So in order for creationists to have a reasonable conversation with evolutionists both sides need to offer the other a bit of slack. Or rather, a lot of slack!
There simply isn't room for creationism in a scientific discussion. We have the mechanism of natural selection and nobody has presented any evidence that it requires a supernatural element. You can say "evolution is guided by god" and we can't really debate the point as there's no testable hypothesis there. You can also say "macroevolution doesn't happen, god created all living beings" and we will rightly laugh at you.

So, since we can't have a scientific discussion about the origins of animals, what is left? A religious one, where science isn't allowed? Well, knock yourself out, I guess, but you'd better make a separate thread and make it clear that science isn't allowed.
The thing is now we're having a sensible conversation about things you're quite willing to agree that evolution is incomplete. But looking over the last few pages that's not the feeling you get from reading the responses from the evolution side.
Evolution as such isn't incomplete, only the data is, as we don't have fossils for every creature that ever lived. We do, however, have a huge amount of fossil evidence and none of it has really thrown evolution into question, rather just the lineage of various species'.
Also having not read the whole thread I'm sure the creationist side of the argument are equally to blame for the conversation degenerating. But having looked at the last few pages I thought it worth trying to bring back some balance.
Equally? Try entirely. Don't play the "both sides are to blame" game without evidence that they are on par.
 
Top