Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory.

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. However, in his autobiography he recalled that at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.[1]

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." He was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".[2]

also related. 2 other types.

Micro which is slowly accumulated changes like loss of apendix that will eventually change the species catagory. This is accepted scientific fact. Species change over time to different species, but remain fundamentally the same.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

asianboy10123 wrote:

Charles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory.

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. However, in his autobiography he recalled that at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.[1]

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." He was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".[2]

also related. 2 other types.

Micro which is slowly accumulated changes like loss of apendix that will eventually change the species catagory. This is accepted scientific fact. Species change over time to different species, but remain fundamentally the same.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Why the hell are you posting this? And in the wrong section? I moved the thread to R&R

Also, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a blatant contradiction to Christianity, end of story. Whether or not he was agnostic or atheist or whatever the hell he wants to call himself, his theory sucks ass and was designed to challenge religion. After all, just because he believes in 'a god' doesn't mean he's in favor of religion. He always thought it was a bunch of bull shit.

Also, when a species changes into another species, it doesn't become a whole new animal. Primates and Humans are NOT the same animal. Just because they both have thumbs and common genes, doesn't mean anything. And keep in mind back then I believe the technology wasn't good enough to view genes and compare them, so Darwin must have been playing it all by eye.

Darwin was also a drunk. Didn't see that mentioned anywhere.

dude the rumor that darwin was a drunk is just a random rumor. There are hundreds of rumors that are not widely acknowlaged becasue they have no backing watsoever. Like the rumor that Mary was actualy a prostitute and that the Prophet dude from the koran was clinicly insane. They are just random tidbits said by someone who hates the said person.

Also how does darwins theory suck ass? It is increadibly well founded for that time. The theory itself in the way it was stated by darwin was disproven but it was presented in a logical case with experiment, hypothetical backing and also a large amount of evidence. He didnt design the theory to piss off christans he said it in a way to consol himself becuase of the early death of his daughter. He originally planned to be a clergyman. And ironicly he wasnt playing it by eye but used the eye itself as part of his proof.

And i posted this to get a good debate/argument going for shitz and giggles

'Well founded at that time' doesn't mean shit if your technological advances were ass. There actually hasn't been much 'evidence' to speak of, and if he made his theory just to console himself I wouldn't have trusted that theory. And anyone can be a clergyman, just ask Jeremiah Wright. Also, you keep straying from Darwin's theory and talking about some other form of 'evolution' theory and then going back to Darwin's. That doesn't help your 'argument'. If there is some other form of 'evolution', don't tie it to Darwin, because Darwin's Evolution got the shit beat out of it but some stubborn scientists (most of which happen to be anti-religion) don't want to admit it. And also just because he followed the steps in the scientific process doesn't mean he was right, but you seem to think that just because he followed the steps by making a hypothesis and gathering information and all that, that his theory must be correct. That belief defeats the entire purpose of the scientific method.


And you can't really use the argument that any of his ideas were accepted as 'scientific fact'. Around 700 years ago, the Earth being flat was considered a 'scientific fact' even though I'm pretty sure someone proved it was round but they continued to believe it was flat until Columbus took his journey.


I don't understand why you like Darwin so much. At least if you're going to argue for him get both ends of the spectrum for research done on the subject. You'll find that Darwin was full of shit. I also suggest you check these out. Don't read them as part of this argument, but read them as individual articles, they're quite interesting. The first two links are about Communism in relation to Darwin's book.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i4/stalin.asp
and this http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/darwin-trotsky.html
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/child.asp
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/evolution.asp
and this http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112

And here is a link to news of interest relating to creation and evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/focus.asp
Just read through this link especially. Evolution has more to it than you believe.


Also, on a random note, you know you don't always have to win an argument, right? There's no shame in 'losing' an argument if you were proven wrong, because you just gained new information and then you move on. No sense in putting your ego into this. In other words, don't be a Devil's Advocate (a person who argues for the sake of arguing.)

Those are interesting links but regardless Darwin is not my favorite but he had made scientific achivement still made today. My argument is not that his theory is correct but evolution iteslf is a scientific fact. When they believed the earth was flat it was an assumtion. Noone had tested anything of the like. Evolution however has been tested so much that it even got its own branch of science. The idea that u have about the scientific method proves things to be correct shows that you do not know anything about it. It was designed only to prove things that are wrong. It can be used to prove things to have a higher percentage chance to be correct after hundreads of thousands of tests but it was not designed so. And also there is nothing in my other post saying i agreed with darwins theory. I said it myself and it can be quoted DISPROVEN. im saying EVOLUTION is a fact not darwin's evolution. Also darwins theory did not get the "shit beat out of it". It was 1 proven fact that removed the basis of his theory. All other evidence supported it until it was proven wrong by its basis. And also darwins theory had a large amout of evidence comming from natural selection. In fact he revolved his theory around natural selection. From a Scientific viewpoint it's irrefutable. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).

Look at "Purebreeds" Like dogs and cats. These animals were artificially bred to "Selectively" "Bred in" or "Bred out" certain genetic traits. By doing this we are just exploiting the "Natural Selection" of the Evolutionary process, since in the wild, Nature (the forces of the surrounding environment) provide the "Breeding" of Natural Selection. You can see this quite clearly in natural species that get isolated. Isolated groups of animals will almost always develop differently than their none isolated counterparts. Look at any group of animals that get isolated on islands and you can see the differences from their mainland counterparts quite readily. Darwin observed this process in all it's glory on the Galapagos Islands. He saw it first hand and the rest is history.



http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoI29OXqLB8M Shows common ancestory

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Non related but interesting in human evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4222460.stm

PS. I am the devils advocate and the very first site u sent me lost its credibility on 2 accounts 1 it called dawins theory a lie. You cannot state that in an argument because it shows bias or lack of knowlege for that term. 2 it shows extream bias because it relates his theory to MURDER and OPPRESION. Thats like saying dont believe religion because people get killed over it. and the russian people who read darwins work were nutjobs who missinterpreted it.

And this is what i truley believe below not just arguing for fun. God could have created a 6000 year old earth that was billions of years old. Its an annoying concept but read on for explanation. Its because of the human way of perception that has sparked this debate.

Imagine God created a 30 year old tree right now in your front yard next to a truly 30 year old tree. A friend comes by and says "how old are these trees?". You say "One is 30 years old and the other is 2 minutes old". The friend realizes they are both the same size and appear the same age so cuts the trees down, he sees 30 rings in both and concludes that both trees are 30 years old because the tree grows a new ring every year. SO who is right? Does one say that the tree counting method of determining tree ages is incorrect? NO. DOes one say that both trees are 30 years old? YES - because God made a 30 year old tree. Can you convince the person that the tree is only 2 minutes old? Maybe. He has to have FAITH that the tree is only 2 minutes old yet at the same time he can KNOW it is 30 yrs old and it is not a conflict because the tree can be BOTH.

We are human beings and we see time in a linear way. We were given by God a certain set of physical rules of the universe in which we live. All of those rules have to apply to us both FORWARD and BACKWARDS in order for our world to make sense. If we were to cut down a tree that looks like a 30 yr old tree but find no rings, that would not make sense. We could no longer use that method to determine tree age and t hat would not allow us to do simple things like grow trees for houses since we would have no idea how long it takes certain trees to grow.

So it's no surprise that God gave us a backwards path that makes sense all the way back to some infinitely small point. That point being the big bang and that's where it all breaks down. At that point all things cease to make sense but it is far enough back to allow us to discover the laws of the universe as he decides we should discover them and apply them to our lives.

Evolution is just one of those things. It allows us to make sense of everything within the physical laws of the universe that He created. Without some kind of clear path backwards that can be applied going forward and tested and proven, we would not be able to discover diseases and correct them. We could not figure out why DDT no longer works on bedbugs. And perhaps worse of all, it would be glaringly obvious to everyone that there was a God and faith would no longer matter.

And evolution does not conflict with the bible. I dont care if God made the world in 1 day or 6. The point is that if he put trees here, he also included rings in the trees. And if he put people here, he also included a NATURAL reverse path back to the beginning of time. This is so we can make sense of the world, AND so people can choose faith.

SO yes, Evolution is a scientific fact. It is a process just like weather and the solar system. But it is much more than that. It is God's way of ensuring that people choose Him through faith and not by proof. The last thing that any Christian should want is proof of God or the destruction of evolution because proof of God would destroy the whole reason for haveing faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place.

asianboy10123 wrote:

Those are interesting links but regardless Darwin is not my favorite but he had made scientific achivement still made today.

He had no scientific achievements whatsoever. Evolution wasn't even his idea, all he did was use his manipulative ways to present it in a way that people could blindly accept.

Quote :

My argument is not that his theory is correct but evolution iteslf is a scientific fact.

Uhh..how can it be a fact if it was 'invented' by a mentally ill man that was out to manipulate people? You can't say his theory was incorrect and still a scientific fact.

Quote :

It can't be a fact if When they believed the earth was flat it was an assumtion. Noone had tested anything of the like.

It doesn't matter, it was considered a fact.

Quote :

Evolution however has been tested so much that it even got its own branch of science.

It's also been disproven so much that another branch of science was made for it called Scientific Creationism or Creation Science

Quote :

The idea that u have about the scientific method proves things to be correct shows that you do not know anything about it. It was designed only to prove things that are wrong.

First of all, why are you attacking me? Second of all, that statement is completely false and uninformed. The scientific method isn't about ONLY to prove things wrong. That actually made me laugh, considering the scientific method is basically asking a question and then forming a hypothesis. You then try to prove that hypothesis, not disprove it. If it's right, then there you go. Then later down the line as technology improves, you use the scientific method again to test that hypothesis to see if it is still right. If it's wrong, then you try to find out why, and then you form a new hypothesis and try to PROVE it.

Quote :

And also there is nothing in my other post saying i agreed with darwins theory. I said it myself and it can be quoted DISPROVEN. im saying EVOLUTION is a fact not darwin's evolution.

That right there is a blatant contradiction. The evolution you are talking about is the same thing as Darwin's evolution. You don't have to say you agree with him. The fact that you are defending him under the guise that "it's a different" evolution speaks for itself.

Quote :

Also darwins theory did not get the "shit beat out of it". It was 1 proven fact that removed the basis of his theory. All other evidence supported it until it was proven wrong by its basis. And also darwins theory had a large amout of evidence comming from natural selection. In fact he revolved his theory around natural selection.

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution itself, other than the fact that it was thought of by the same guy. Natural selection is basically the weak die the strong survive. BY ADAPTING. They don't turn into other animals, but a different species of that same animal.

You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the stronger or smarter animals outsurvive the weaker and dumber ones. Anyone could have told you that. There is nothing wrong with natural selection. In fact, if it isn't already, it should be considered NOT part of evolution.

Evolution however, says that a monkey turned into a human and a fish into a reptile and so forth. Show me one example of that EVER happening. Sure there are reptiles that can swim or live underwater, but that doesn't make them fish. All it means is they adapted to a water environment.

Quote :

From a Scientific viewpoint it's irrefutable. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).

Again, that's natural selection. The bacteria that were able to adapt and build resistance to the toxin survived. However that bacteria didn't turn into a parasite or a virus. It still remains bacteria, but a different species of it. Natural selection at work. Nothing wrong with that.

[qupte]Look at "Purebreeds" Like dogs and cats. These animals were artificially bred to "Selectively" "Bred in" or "Bred out" certain genetic traits. By doing this we are just exploiting the "Natural Selection" of the Evolutionary process, [/quote] Natural selection is not part of the evolutionary process. The evolutionary process says that an animal turns into an entirely new animal. Like a dog turns into a cat. Natural selection is a dog adapting and becoming another species of dog. Huskies and Siberian Huskies could be one example, but you get the idea.

Quote :

since in the wild, Nature (the forces of the surrounding environment) provide the "Breeding" of Natural Selection. You can see this quite clearly in natural species that get isolated. Isolated groups of animals will almost always develop differently than their none isolated counterparts. Look at any group of animals that get isolated on islands and you can see the differences from their mainland counterparts quite readily.

Again, that's adaptation, not evolution. Those groups of animals will still be that type of animal, but a different species. And don't say that evolution isn't an animal becoming a different animal, because that's EXACTLY what it is. The bulk of your little counter argument is about natural selection, not evolution.

Quote :

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoI29OXqLB8M Shows common ancestory

No it doesn't. At no point does it show a picture or fossil of this 'common ancestor' and said "here it is." Just because it has genes in common doesn't mean it came from the same animal. In fact, all it can mean is that whoever created those animals was one person with the same set of tools. (that would be God, by the way). And also 25% of human genes are the same as that of a banana. That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line of banana's "ancestors" that one of them was the same "ancestor" of humans.

Quote :

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Same can be said for this. All it means is that the same entity used the same style (or had the same 'tools') to create all those animals.

Quote :

Non related but interesting in human evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4222460.stm

That's still not evolution. We're still humans, all it means are brains got bigger to meet the ever more complicated everyday tasks that we have. We didn't turn into some other animal. And also if you had looked at my links, you'll also see that neanderthals believed in souls and had rituals which is only something found in HUMAN behavior.

Quote :

PS. I am the devils advocate and the very first site u sent me lost its credibility on 2 accounts 1 it called dawins theory a lie. You cannot state that in an argument because it shows bias or lack of knowlege for that term. 2 it shows extream bias because it relates his theory to MURDER and OPPRESION. Thats like saying dont believe religion because people get killed over it. and the russian people who read darwins work were nutjobs who missinterpreted it.

You contradict yourself AGAIN. If that author can't say so and so about Darwin, you can't say for a fact that Stalin and his crew were nutjobs who misinterpreted it. Just because they were nutjobs, doesn't mean they weren't smart. If they were dumb, they wouldn't have taken over pretty much all of russia and created the soviet union. You can't say it lost its credibility. Read the whole thing.

Quote :

And this is what i truley believe below not just arguing for fun. God could have created a 6000 year old earth that was billions of years old. Its an annoying concept but read on for explanation. Its because of the human way of perception that has sparked this debate.
Imagine God created a 30 year old tree right now in your front yard next to a truly 30 year old tree. A friend comes by and says "how old are these trees?". You say "One is 30 years old and the other is 2 minutes old". The friend realizes they are both the same size and appear the same age so cuts the trees down, he sees 30 rings in both and concludes that both trees are 30 years old because the tree grows a new ring every year. SO who is right?

That wouldn't happen. A two minute year old tree can't be the same size and have the same ring. You can't make an example out of something that doesn't happen.

Quote :

Does one say that the tree counting method of determining tree ages is incorrect? NO. DOes one say that both trees are 30 years old? YES - because God made a 30 year old tree. Can you convince the person that the tree is only 2 minutes old? Maybe. He has to have FAITH that the tree is only 2 minutes old yet at the same time he can KNOW it is 30 yrs old and it is not a conflict because the tree can be BOTH.

As I said, that wouldn't happen. And if it did, it would happen differently. It would mean that God was using the CryEngine 2 to spawn a 30 year old tree and it was spawned 2 minutes ago. That tree would be 2 minutes old in terms of how long its been there, but in age it is 30. With the other tree, it just so happens that the age is the same as how long its been there. But that's purely theoretical thinking. And that's not really what Faith is, but I don't blame you on not knowing what it is because you don't have a religion. Faith is trusting in God to handle things and not worry about the future and believing he is there and that you could do anything by the power of God if he wills it. Example, if you want to move a mountain and you have faith that God can help you do it, and God sees no problem with it, he'll allow you to do it. This actually HAS happened in Egypt when the Jews and the Christians were each trying to prove their religion. The Jews picked a passage from the bible that said something like "A man can move a mountain with faith the size of a mustard seed" and they used that passaged and told the Christians to prove that it was possible. The Christians prayed for like 3 days and the Mountain rose high enough that you could see the sun on the horizon under it. This isn't something in the bible but an actual historical event that was recorded. You could actually visit this mountain today, and my mom has actually been to it. and there's a church on it that is actually part of the mountain. Here's a few pictures.


It's called the Al Mokattam mountain. Which translates into "The Cut-up". Something like that. It's called that because when it was moved it was lifted in the air multiple times so it was like Cut up at the base.

(Check second post)

(continued)

Quote :

We are human beings and we see time in a linear way. We were given by God a certain set of physical rules of the universe in which we live. All of those rules have to apply to us both FORWARD and BACKWARDS in order for our world to make sense. If we were to cut down a tree that looks like a 30 yr old tree but find no rings, that would not make sense. We could no longer use that method to determine tree age and t hat would not allow us to do simple things like grow trees for houses since we would have no idea how long it takes certain trees to grow.

Again, that is theoretical thinking. As I said, If that WERE to happen, then all it means is God spawned a 30 year old tree, but it wasn't there two minutes ago. So its BIOLOGICAL age is 30 years old but its existence is 2 minutes. So technically this isn't really relevant to the point you were trying to make, but it's still something that is interesting to think about, and it's good that you brought it up.

Quote :

So it's no surprise that God gave us a backwards path that makes sense all the way back to some infinitely small point. That point being the big bang and that's where it all breaks down. At that point all things cease to make sense but it is far enough back to allow us to discover the laws of the universe as he decides we should discover them and apply them to our lives.

People who believe in the big bang say that 'Nothing' exploded and became Everything. That alone proves that for nothing to be changed into everything, a force had to have acted upon it. Think of it as Inertia on a much bigger scale. And also keep this in mind. There were no 'days' as we knew them until God created the sun and daylight on the third day I think it was., which means that something could have taken millions of years to be formed but it was only considered 3 days to him. In other words, In the bible it is written as days so we can understand it. But it's a different measure of 'Days'

Quote :

Evolution is just one of those things. It allows us to make sense of everything within the physical laws of the universe that He created.

But the thing is, evolution is false. Animals are always that animal, but they adapt to form new species OF THAT ANIMAL. Natural selection can be considered true, but not evolution.

Quote :

Without some kind of clear path backwards that can be applied going forward and tested and proven, we would not be able to discover diseases and correct them. We could not figure out why DDT no longer works on bedbugs. And perhaps worse of all, it would be glaringly obvious to everyone that there was a God and faith would no longer matter.

Okay, let me explain a few things. There is a path backwards. God creating things is that path. The faith part comes into play in believing that he did all those things even though it's not clear. Also, diseases are bacterias and viruses that adapted and gained hostile characteristics. They can become new types of viruses, or new types of bacteria, but they are still bacteria or viruses. You will never see a bacteria turn into a virus. DDT no longer works on bedbugs because they ADAPTED to it. And there was a time where you didn't need faith in the way that it is needed today. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they didn't have to do anything. The trees grew themselves and the animals all got along and God would talk to Adam and Eve freely. He told them that the one thing they shouldn't do is to eat from the tree of knowledge. In essence, he wanted them to have faith that everything was under his control and they they shouldn't try to figure it out for themselves, but to just enjoy what he has created. However, God didn't want mindless followers. He created beings that had free will, so he gave them a choice. They chose to eat from the tree, so now they have knowledge and also they became mortal. However, back then they would have still lived a very long time. They lived like centuries old. Also back then when people sinned they would sacrifice a goat or a sheep as asking for forgiveness and their sins would be 'transferred' to that sheep. The reason it was animals was because animals could not sin and had no sins. However 1 sheep couldn't account for all the world's sins, so he sent Jesus Christ to die and bear all the sins of the world, and the reason he could do this was because he was fully human while being fully divine at the same time. Also he was without sin. So BASICALLY the way it works is, you have faith in God and follow his commandments and you go to heaven and 'live' forever. Anyway you should read the New King James Version of the Bible. It's the most widely accepted and most accurate translation of it. I have one if you want to borrow it.

Quote :

And evolution does not conflict with the bible. I dont care if God made the world in 1 day or 6. The point is that if he put trees here, he also included rings in the trees. And if he put people here, he also included a NATURAL reverse path back to the beginning of time. This is so we can make sense of the world, AND so people can choose faith.

Again, not exactly. Evolution is the change from one animal into another animal (for a specific example. an unknown creature adapts in two different environments, one becoming a monkey and one becoming a human, which are both different animals). And I already talked about the other parts of this statement previously.

Quote :

SO yes, Evolution is a scientific fact. It is a process just like weather and the solar system. But it is much more than that. It is God's way of ensuring that people choose Him through faith and not by proof. The last thing that any Christian should want is proof of God or the destruction of evolution because proof of God would destroy the whole reason for haveing faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place.

No, it is NOT a scientific fact. Animals don't become a whole other animal, And as I said, before we didn't need faith in the sense that we need it today, and the entire purpose of being here today is because of Adam and Eve. Proof in God doesn't destroy the whole reason for having faith. Having faith is believing IN God, as in his abilities. It isn't believing that there IS a God, because there IS. People say athiests "don't have faith" because they can't believe in God's abilities if they don't even believe that there IS God.

Anyway you should borrow the Bible I have and read it, but keep in mind not everything in it should be taken literally and is more symbolic. If you choose to borrow it and have problems deciding what's literal and what's symbolic you could ask me and I'll tell you or find out for you.

Ok prepare for a near equally long post:

Quote :

He had no scientific achievements whatsoever. Evolution wasn't even his idea, all he did was use his manipulative ways to present it in a way that people could blindly accept.

First of all scientists do not blindly follow anything. They spend massive amounts of time studieing and reaserching before comming to a conclution. Also advancing the theory of natural selection was one of his achievements so he had achievments. Also he was not manipulative he just gathered all the ways in which evolution could be correct and presented it to the public.

Quote :

Uhh..how can it be a fact if it was 'invented' by a mentally ill man that was out to manipulate people? You can't say his theory was incorrect but it was still a scientific fact.

He wasnt out to manupulate people he was out to convince people to believe him. Religion also seaks out to convince people to believe in that religion. Also saying that he his mentally ill is unfounded that is a random unfounded rumor. There are other rumors like that saying that Mary was a whore. http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Marymagdalene.html. That doesnt prove anything.

Quote :

It doesn't matter, it was considered a fact.

It doesnt matter what the masses considered it as. The bulk of people consider a theory as a random pipedream that people guessed. It cannot be a fact until it is supported scientificly nearly completely.

Quote :

It's also been disproven so much that another branch of science was made for it called Creationism science.

That statement is incorrect as something cannot be disproven more than once. I believe you ment to say that it had enough evidence against it that it was given its own branch of science.

Quote :

First of all, why are you attacking me? Second of all, that statement is completely false and uninformed. The scientific method isn't about ONLY to prove things wrong. That actually made me laugh, considering the scientific method is basically asking a question and then forming a hypothesis. You then try to prove that hypothesis, not disprove it. If it's right, then there you go. Then later down the line as technology improves, you use the scientific method again to test that hypothesis to see if it is still right. If it's wrong, then you try to find out why, and then you form a new hypothesis and try to PROVE it.

I am attacking you in the statement because i took the misinterpredted assumtion below as an insult therefore i belived it deserved a rebuttle.
Also the scientific method can NEVER prove things correct. You can borrow my bio textbook if you want. It was desiged so that it can ONLY prove things incorrect never correct. Because if a certain experiment was deemed correct another experiment on another variable that affected it might deem it incorrect. It CAN be used to deem PARTS of things correct. The best it can do is prove something to be a THEORY. Because with the scientific method there will ALWAYS be other variables. However if the scientific method deems a variable incorrect it will always remain incorrect UNLESS the method itself was done incorrectly.
took this as an insult

Quote :

also just because he followed the steps in the scientific process doesn't mean he was right, but you seem to think that just because he followed the steps by making a hypothesis and gathering information and all that, that his theory must be correct

Quote :

That right there is a blatant contradiction. The evolution you are talking about is the same thing as Darwin's evolution. You don't have to say you agree with him. The fact that you are defending him under the guise that "it's a different" evolution speaks for itself.

A guise is a flase pretense so it is not a guise unless i wholely support his argument. And also the fact that there are KNOWN different beliefs of evolution shows that you have no founding for believeing that it is a guise. Also a contradiction is a DIRECT clash of ideas. Becuase there are other forms of evolution. so unless i am supporting and against the SAME EXACT type of evolution you cannot say it is a blatant contradiction.

Quote :

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution itself, other than the fact that it was thought of by the same guy

"evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes are relatively minor from one generation to the next, but accumulate with each subsequent generation and can eventually cause substantial changes in the organisms"
Defenition of evolution. The traits are passed on in accourdance with natural selection so it is involved in Evolution.

Quote :

Evolution however, says that a monkey turned into a human and a fish into a reptile and so forth. Show me one example of that EVER happening. Sure there are reptiles that can swim or live underwater, but that doesn't make them fish. All it means is they adapted to a water environment.

First of all evolution does not state that a monkey DIRECTLY turned into a human. It is also in accourdance with the belief of common ansestry. So from 1 type of cell came all life on earth. I have interpreted this to show that the 1 type of cell has specilized bringing it into another species catagory. It means that it could also say that a monkey and a human had a common ansestor that had part of its population adapt into humans and the other adapt to become a primate.

Quote :

Again, that's adaptation, not evolution. Those groups of animals will still be that type of animal, but a different species. And don't say that evolution isn't an animal becoming a different animal, because that's EXACTLY what it is. The bulk of your little counter argument is about natural selection, not evolution.

It is not EXACTLY what it is as the above definition states. It is the POSSIBILITY of that happening. Like a human did not have to come from a common ansestor as a monekey. It could have been directly from the original unspecified cell. also "your little counter argument" could also be seen as a sutble insult.

Quote :

No it doesn't. At no point does it show a picture or fossil of this 'common ancestor' and said "here it is." Just because it has genes in common doesn't mean it came from the same animal. In fact, all it can mean is that whoever created those animals was one person with the same set of tools. (that would be God, by the way). And also 25% of human genes are the same as that of a banana. That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line of banana's "ancestors" that one of them was the same "ancestor" of humans.

It said in the video it was indirect proof of evolution. This could be interpreted differently. You could see it as god having a basis for building life but also it could be seen as showing that the organisms have things in common which could mean that they came from a common ansestor. It doesnt PROVE it but it could be seem as indirect proof.

Quote :

You contradict yourself AGAIN. If that author can't say so and so about Darwin, you can't say for a fact that Stalin and his crew were nutjobs who misinterpreted it. Just because they were nutjobs, doesn't mean they weren't smart. If they were dumb, they wouldn't have taken over pretty much all of russia and created the soviet union. You can't say it lost its credibility. Read the whole thing.

I wasnt contradicting myself AGAIN as you stated. The definition of contradiction is not what you are trying to use it as. I never said that I am unbiased or that my statement is credited from bias. So i can say it has lost its credibility as others can say that my Stalin/nutjob statement is uncredited.

Quote :

That wouldn't happen. A two minute year old tree can't be the same size and have the same ring. You can't make an example out of something that doesn't happen.

It can if you believe that god created it. Since god is a construct not understood by humans you cannot say that it will not happen. Im pretty sure taht along with god comes the belief that his powers are unlimited. AND just because it hasnt happened so far doesnt mean it cant happen in the future because nothing binds god so it is not bound by the fact that we have not seen it happen yet.
also you said yourself

Quote :

Faith is trusting in God to handle things and not worry about the future and believing he is there and that you could do anything by the power of God if he wills it

Part 2

Quote :

As I said, that wouldn't happen. And if it did, it would happen differently. It would mean that God was using the CryEngine 2 to spawn a 30 year old tree and it was spawned 2 minutes ago. That tree would be 2 minutes old in terms of how long its been there, but in age it is 30. With the other tree, it just so happens that the age is the same as how long its been there. But that's purely theoretical thinking. And that's not really what Faith is, but I don't blame you on not knowing what it is because you don't have a religion. Faith is trusting in God to handle things and not worry about the future and believing he is there and that you could do anything by the power of God if he wills it. Example, if you want to move a mountain and you have faith that God can help you do it, and God sees no problem with it, he'll allow you to do it. This actually HAS happened in Egypt when the Jews and the Christians were each trying to prove their religion. The Jews picked a passage from the bible that said something like "A man can move a mountain with faith the size of a mustard seed" and they used that passaged and told the Christians to prove that it was possible. The Christians prayed for like 3 days and the Mountain rose high enough that you could see the sun on the horizon under it. This isn't something in the bible but an actual historical event that was recorded. You could actually visit this mountain today, and my mom has actually been to it. and there's a church on it that is actually part of the mountain. Here's a few pictures

Even if it was historicly recorded it doesnt mean its true. Not that i dont accept it becuase i still believe in a Entitie with the definition of god and unlimited powers. But i must play devils advocate to this statement to ensure i am not misunderstood. I saw something about this once on the history channel. It was about religious miricles. It also showed that moses when spliting the sea was also recorted. Even though i am willing to accept it i cannot state that it is true.

Quote :

Again, that is theoretical thinking. As I said, If that WERE to happen, then all it means is God spawned a 30 year old tree, but it wasn't there two minutes ago. So its age is 30 years old but its existance is 2 minutes. So technically this isn't really relevant to the point you were trying to make, but it's still something that is interesting to think about, and it's good that you brought it up.

It is relevant to the point i was trying to make. I was trying to explain the religions part of the concept i was trying to explain. in religion there are some that say the earth is only 6000 years old i was trying to state that it was possible to be millions of years old and at the same time possible to be 6000 years old. And theroretics cannot really be used in a topic as unlimited as god because god can just out of nowhere do random things that have no reason because it can be a all knowing being without bias or reason. So something random like Will riding a pig with a bullseye painted on his back while my rifle suddenly has a freak accident like jumping a few thousand fps can happen at any time.

Quote :

People who believe in the big bang say that nothing exploded and made anything. That alone proves that for nothing to be changed into everything, a force had to have acted upon it. Think of it as Inertia on a universal scale. And also keep this in mind. There were no 'days' as we knew them until God created the sun and daylight on the third day I think it was., which means that something could have taken millions of years to be formed but it was only considered 3 days to him. In other words, In the bible it is written as days so we can understand it. But it's a different measure of 'Days'

Many people who believe that it is a big bang also stated that it is the point in which all things cese to make sence. The last time i botherd to think about it i remember taht god doesnt need any reason and that his abilities or unlimited. So the big bang could have been the 3 days god was creating the universe.

Quote :

But the thing is, evolution is false. Animals are always that animal, but they adapt to form new species OF THAT ANIMAL. Natural selection can be considered true, but not evolution.

Thats part of my point. Nowhere in my actualy beliefs did i say creationism is wrong i only said i BELIEVED it to be right or wrong. Becuase in order for this massive debate to become scientificly accepted as true or false EVER piece of evidence has to be destroyed either on evolution or creationism.

Quote :

Okay, let me explain a few things. There is a path backwards. God creating things is that path. The faith part comes into play in believing that he did all those things even though it's not clear. Also, diseases are bacterias and viruses that adapted and gained hostile characteristics. They can become new types of viruses, or new types of bacteria, but they are still bacteria or viruses. You will never see a bacteria turn into a virus. DDT no longer works on bedbugs because they ADAPTED to it. And there was a time where you didn't need faith in the way that it is needed today. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they didn't have to do anything. The trees grew themselves and the animals all got along and God would talk to Adam and Eve freely. He told them that the one thing they shouldn't do is to eat from the tree of knowledge. In essence, he wanted them to have faith that everything was under his control and they they shouldn't try to figure it out for themselves, but to just enjoy what he has created. However, God didn't want mindless followers. He created beings that had free will, so he gave them a choice. They chose to eat from the tree, so now they have knowledge and also they became mortal. However, back then they would have still lived a very long time. They lived like centuries old. Also back then when people sinned they would sacrifice a goat or a sheep as asking for forgiveness and their sins would be 'transferred' to that sheep. The reason it was animals was because animals could not sin and had no sins. However 1 sheep couldn't account for all the world's sins, so he sent Jesus Christ to die and bear all the sins of the world, and the reason he could do this was because he was fully human while being fully divine at the same time. Also he was without sin. So BASICALLY the way it works is, you have faith in God and follow his commandments and you go to heaven and 'live' forever. Anyway you should read the New King James Version of the Bible. It's the most widely accepted and most accurate translation of it. I have one if you want to borrow it.

The yea but that is if the faith you put your beliefs in states taht. Because you would need to have faith to accept that. And peope have chosen to bear the burden of knowlege so they are unwilling to let up on either side and give it to faith for evolution or faith for creationism. And yeas i want to borrow one. I dont convert to religions but it is always interesting to see what the enitity known as god has done.

Quote :

No, it is NOT a scientific fact. Animals don't become a whole other animal, And as I said, before we didn't need faith in the sense that we need it today, and the entire purpose of being here today is because of Adam and Eve. Proof in God doesn't destroy the whole reason for having faith. Having faith is believing IN God, as in his abilities. It isn't believing that there IS a God, because there IS. People say athiests "don't have faith" because they can't believe in God's abilities if they don't even believe that there IS God.

It is scientific fact becuase it fits the definition. It doesnt matter wheather you believe or if it is really wrong. It is a scientific fact becuase it fits the defenition of one. The majority of scientists in that field accept it to be so. So it is a theory or a scientific fact. Keep what i said before in mind so you dont take it as an insult. It doesnt matter if you believe it to be right or wrong. Or if it is right or wrong. I still state it because it is the definition. The words i chose before about faith did not accuratly give my position on faith as i had hoped. Mainly becuase i dont know the words to use that would function by definition and in accourdance with my beliefs. But i will not attempt to chance what i said about faith before because there is nothing i can think about right now that accuratly depicts what i want to state about it.

How come most, if not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists? How every day more and more scientists are rejecting evolution?

The reason evolution is rejected by Christians is because it goes against the Bible. And considering how there is so much overwhelming historical as well as scientific proof to support the Bible, I'm going to have to side with it.

And add to the fact that more and more aspects of evolution have been proved false as new research and evidence piles up.. I'm gonna continue to side with Creationism.

Did you know that if a human were to learn something new every second, it would take 30 million years for their brain capacity to run out? How come we have a brain capacity for 30 million years if we only live for like 90 years? Evolution is changing only when there's a need to change, isn't it?


Also, I misinterpreted Natural Selection. Natural Selection has no foresight, so if animal like a woodpecker didn't get all the traits it has today all at once, then it surely would have died. This video explains it. http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b&page=1&viewtype=&category=mv

and here are some other links.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/640506/posts
http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

Anyway, we could not have all come from a single-celled organism that originated from non-living chemicals unless a supreme being made it happen, but evolution says that this stuff happens by chance.


Another thing, In my other post I added those subtle insults just to demonstrate how annoying they are..so don't take them personally


Anyway I'm done debating about this, this is obviously going to go nowhere since the issue of Creationism vs. Evolution has been going on for a long time (which would mean that there would have to be a contradiction between the two, which means you can't really believe in both without modifying what Creationism and Evolution is, which wouldn't really make it Creationism and Evolution anymore.)So if it boosts your ego, think of it as a "I quit." I don't care. You believe what you want, and I'll continue to do the same.


And here is an online version of the New King James Version of the Bible. http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50

Just click on each chapter and stuff.


EDIT: Oh and apparently light and day were the first things on God's to-do list, so forget about that one part of the argument I made in my previous post.


Also, if you do decide to read it, when you get to the book of Revelation, I'd be really careful. There's a lot debate on how symbolic or literal it is, and it has been interpreted in many different ways...people aren't sure what it really means, but basically it talks about how the world is going to end. It's the last book for a reason . So don't go reading it without reading the rest of the Bible first.

Quote :

So if it boosts your ego, think of it as a "I quit." I don't care. You believe what you want, and I'll continue to do the same.

Do u take time to think about subtle insults or do they just come to u Personaly i look through everything i say or right to remove sublt insults any insult i make is intended and obvious.

Quote :

Anyway I'm done debating about this, this is obviously going to go nowhere since the issue of Creationism vs. Evolution has been going on for a long time (which would mean that there would have to be a contradiction between the two, which means you can't really believe in both without modifying what Creationism and Evolution is, which wouldn't really make it Creationism and Evolution anymore.)

this was expected as since there are scientists who have degrees that we haveent even heard of debating over it so if we could reach a conclution something is definatley wrong.

EDIT:
And i like having the last word so for the woodpecker thing even if it was not born with all its adaptive traits the cell it evolved from had slowly adapted. It would have surly died if it was not started with all of its traits as a wood pecker. So it could have started from an unspecified building block simple enough to survive.

and the Atheistic evolution says it happens by chace. But evolution was explained with the nonorganic formula included with god. The evolution statement had to be changed because of the everlasting question "what came first the chicken or the egg?"

Quote :

How every day more and more scientists are rejecting evolution?

polls compare from 1980 till 2006 the more time passed the less creationists and more dont care people.

asianboy10123 wrote:

Quote :

So if it boosts your ego, think of it as a "I quit." I don't care. You believe what you want, and I'll continue to do the same.

Do u take time to think about subtle insults or do they just come to u

They just come to me, but the statement you quoted wasn't meant to be one. lol


Also check my post again, I edited it.

i edited my edited post

asianboy10123 wrote:

i edited my edited post

I saw. and I'm talking about scientists, not normal average people. But whatever.


Anyway I put a link of the New King James Version in my edited post thing if you want to read it. Its quite interesting.


Also I was looking around and its amazing how much proof there is to support the Bible besides you know..the whole fulfilled prophecy things.

regardless of its proof its hard for people to accept god in itself because of the view the masses have of it. So everytime something beyond horrible happens to 1 person they sometiomes turn atheist. Because alota people are convinced taht god will never let anyone good get hurt and taht there is a reason.

and here is the polls and stuff contrary to what i thought most people believe in creationism.
I had expected taht most scientists believe in evolution thugh.
It also shows different evolution types

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Heres something interesting
Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.
61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.
57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

It seems politics influences science now.