Do you believe in organic evolution?


Guest Scott
 Share

Do you believe in organic evolution?   

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in organic evolution?



Recommended Posts

Guest Scott

I'm just curious about the numbers.   There are already plenty of other threads to debate it out on.  Feel free to vote.  None of this will be used against you or be used as scientific information.   I promise not to sell your personal information to FB either.  😏

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

Let's just use this definition:

organic evolution The process by which changes in the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur in response to environmental changes.  Dictionary of Biology

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the U, but my buddy sneaked me in to BYU one day.  Which just so happened to be the day where they taught the various theories and notions of evolution and the science behind them.  Sounded plausible to me.  More plausible than a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

Am I entrenched in this or that particular belief about how the earth was created and what happened in the past?  pfft.  Hardly.  It's much more fun to watch YECs fight the Darwinists over dumb things that don't matter.  I get to feel more superior that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evolutionists claim this video, which was just the coolest thing I discovered the entire first three months of 2018.  But I figure the creationists could claim it as their own, if they could just allow themselves to stop believing that scientific ignorance is some sort of Christian virtue.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 if they could just allow themselves to stop believing that scientific ignorance is some sort of Christian virtue.

Drives me nuts watching this play out all too often.
Great video by the way, Dah' Beiber should be jealous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current position is I believe organic evolution is true.  Science is pretty solid on the matter.  But I answered I don't care because if Science comes up with a better theory that contradicts organic evolution, or if God says nope, organic evolution is a lie by the devil, it won't bother me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

My current position is I believe organic evolution is true.  Science is pretty solid on the matter.  But I answered I don't care because if Science comes up with a better theory that contradicts organic evolution, or if God says nope, organic evolution is a lie by the devil, it won't bother me at all.

Just because you believe something does not mean that you cannot change your mind when presented by more or better evidence (empirical or spiritual evidence).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just because you believe something does not mean that you cannot change your mind when presented by more or better evidence (empirical or spiritual evidence).

 

The Traveler

Usually.

But when it comes to religious matters, scientific theories bounce off of one's faith and they get rejected if they don't fit.  That's mainly why Creationists reject Evolution and Flat Earthers reject NASA and Galileo got ex-communicated.  

So my "don't care" answer says - organic evolution being true or false still fit within my faith.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Usually.

But when it comes to religious matters, scientific theories bounce off of one's faith and they get rejected if they don't fit.  That's mainly why Creationists reject Evolution and Flat Earthers reject NASA and Galileo got ex-communicated.

One of my personal great lessons is concerning empirical evidence.  I am convinced that humanity will do the most evil, stupid and illogical things in the name of G-d and religion - including (if you will) standing in the bright sun light of noon day and declare it night to uphold their desired religious notions.  G-d had declared that all things (including empirical evidence) witness there is and G-d and that Jesus is the Christ.  This means that when empirical evidence contradicts religious notions - the religious notions are incorrect.  G-d does not utilize empirical evidence to present false witnesses.   G-d controls the physical universe and does not lie by planting lies in the physical universe to test us.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One of my personal great lessons is concerning empirical evidence.  I am convinced that humanity will do the most evil, stupid and illogical things in the name of G-d and religion - including (if you will) standing in the bright sun light of noon day and declare it night to uphold their desired religious notions.  G-d had declared that all things (including empirical evidence) witness there is and G-d and that Jesus is the Christ.  This means that when empirical evidence contradicts religious notions - the religious notions are incorrect.  G-d does not utilize empirical evidence to present false witnesses.   G-d controls the physical universe and does not lie by planting lies in the physical universe to test us.

 

The Traveler

The greatest disservice to mankind is science claiming "empiriacal evidence" when clearly its anything but empirical. Most of the big claims about the origin and formation of the universe and life they claim as "empirical"  are not observable nor witnessed and thus miss the definition of being "empirical".

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One of my personal great lessons is concerning empirical evidence.  I am convinced that humanity will do the most evil, stupid and illogical things in the name of G-d and religion - including (if you will) standing in the bright sun light of noon day and declare it night to uphold their desired religious notions.  G-d had declared that all things (including empirical evidence) witness there is and G-d and that Jesus is the Christ.  This means that when empirical evidence contradicts religious notions - the religious notions are incorrect.  G-d does not utilize empirical evidence to present false witnesses.   G-d controls the physical universe and does not lie by planting lies in the physical universe to test us.

 

The Traveler

Science and Religion are similar in a sense that they base a lot of their stuff on interpretation... which are prone to error.  So one's empirical evidence is only as good as the scientist running the experiment because... you can have "90% of Scientists Agree TM" and it's not God utilizing empirical evidence to present false witness but scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Science and Religion are similar in a sense that they base a lot of their stuff on interpretation... which are prone to error.  So one's empirical evidence is only as good as the scientist running the experiment because... you can have "90% of Scientists Agree TM" and it's not God utilizing empirical evidence to present false witness but scientists.

You and @Rob Osborn must be confused concerning empirical evidence.  Empirical evidence is independent of any and all scientists, just as standard (as per LDS) or canonized (as per Traditional Christians) scriptures are independent of clergy and church membership.   Conclusions from empirical evidence may differ because of opinions just as scripture can be interpreted and translated because of different opinions with different results.

When scientists modify bacteria DNA and produce genetically engineered insulin to save human life (with type 1 diabetes) - religious nut jobs denying any possibility of organic evolution start to look rather silly to those with friends and family relying on genetically engineered insulin.  If man can do a thing - why would anyone that believes in G-d say that G-d can't do that same thing?

It appears to me that the main problem is that many steeped in religious culture have come to believe that G-d, his works and all things related to the divine are so far above mankind that it is impossible to understand as mere humans.  So the conclusion they draw, is that anything discovered, understood, replicated (reversed engineered) or accomplished by man must not have anything to do with G-d.   That the very intelligence of G-d and his essence cannot possibly be understood.  In essence their proof of G-d comes exclusively from things which cannot be explained or in essence is anything divine is unknowable and outside the able to be explained - if it is knowable or explainable it would disprove G-d.  A notion that is contrary to knowing the one True G-d and being born of the Spirit.  Religion based on a G-d of the gaps of explanation is the essence of lies and descriptions.   The more we understand and know the Truth the more we will understand and know G-d.  The less we understand and know truth the less we will understand and know G-d.  The more truth (anything that is true) that is rejected - the more we reject G-d and become a slave to lies and descriptions.

The notion that - just because something can be validated by our senses - that it is false and of the devil and is flawed and must be disbelieved.  We are in the very image and likeness of G-d and our senses were created by G-d to be just like Him and His.  The rejection of empirical evidence - or in other words that which we can sense by the miracle of our creation to be in the image and likeness of G-d makes no sense at all to me and looks a lot like false doctrine.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to add one more thought.  I can understand someone saying that they believe or disbelieve certain things.  What I do not understand - is when someone claims something that is true - to be false.  Or, if you will, something that is false to be something that is true.  I believe organic evolution to be true based on the evidence I know of - for example genetically engineered insulin.  Mankind is on a threshold of being able to genetically engineer humans.  Some are fearful that in so doing we are doing what G-d does or did in creating us.  And there is a religious problem for some, if we were able to genetically engineer better humans.  As though better humans is contrary to religionists - which causes me to wonder why those that believe in such religion would teach their religion to improve or better humans? 

One thing concerning science and religion - when religionists testify and give witness that something is not true - like the sun being the center of our solar system and that the truth is that the earth is the center of the universe.  When such a witness is proven false by empirical evidence - how can anything to which they testify as true or false to be believed.  The rules of logic say that any exception to a definitive statement - proves the statement to be false.  And if we are unable to employ the rules of logic in our discussions - of what purpose or end do we hope to have in any discussion?

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

And if we are unable to employ the rules of logic in our discussions - of what purpose or end do we hope to have in any discussion?

Oh, that's easy.  On online forums such as this, the purpose isn't to convince or change the mind of, those entrenched on the other side.  The purpose is to help undecided folks, or folks open to additional information and knowledge.  When someone desirous of grappling with the different notions of a topic, watches two sides battle online, they have the opportunity to tally their own score to pick a winner.  When those tally marks are given on the basis of rational thought or spiritual confirmation of truth, people will indeed change.

I'm pretty loud and obnoxious these days, but for a decade starting in the mid '90's, I basically lurked, read, searched, thought.  I solidified my testimony by searching out claims of critics, and seeing what everyone had to say about it, and then reaching my conclusions.  Absolutely zero critics budged a single dang inch in their opinions during the process. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, that's easy.  On online forums such as this, the purpose isn't to convince or change the mind of, those entrenched on the other side.  The purpose is to help undecided folks, or folks open to additional information and knowledge.  When someone desirous of grappling with the different notions of a topic, watches two sides battle online, they have the opportunity to tally their own score to pick a winner.  When those tally marks are given on the basis of rational thought or spiritual confirmation of truth, people will indeed change.

I'm pretty loud and obnoxious these days, but for a decade starting in the mid '90's, I basically lurked, read, searched, thought.  I solidified my testimony by searching out claims of critics, and seeing what everyone had to say about it, and then reaching my conclusions.  Absolutely zero critics budged a single dang inch in their opinions during the process. 

If I understand correctly - you appreciate posts or discussions that employ the rules of logic?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I solidified my testimony by searching out claims of critics, and seeing what everyone had to say about it, and then reaching my conclusions.

I'm glad you found your solidified testimony AND you are here today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

the rules of logic

Suddenly I feel like I might need to write a fishing story that revolves around "The Lures of Golic".  Maybe they're magical lures, or cursed lures.  Maybe Golic was the best fisherman ever, or the worst.  Maybe Golic is a place and you can only catch fish there with special lures.  Maybe it's not a fishing tale at all, but about trapping people who fall prey to the <movie announcer voice>Lures of Golic</movie announcer voice>.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You and @Rob Osborn must be confused concerning empirical evidence.  Empirical evidence is independent of any and all scientists, just as standard (as per LDS) or canonized (as per Traditional Christians) scriptures are independent of clergy and church membership.   Conclusions from empirical evidence may differ because of opinions just as scripture can be interpreted and translated because of different opinions with different results.

When scientists modify bacteria DNA and produce genetically engineered insulin to save human life (with type 1 diabetes) - religious nut jobs denying any possibility of organic evolution start to look rather silly to those with friends and family relying on genetically engineered insulin.  If man can do a thing - why would anyone that believes in G-d say that G-d can't do that same thing?

It appears to me that the main problem is that many steeped in religious culture have come to believe that G-d, his works and all things related to the divine are so far above mankind that it is impossible to understand as mere humans.  So the conclusion they draw, is that anything discovered, understood, replicated (reversed engineered) or accomplished by man must not have anything to do with G-d.   That the very intelligence of G-d and his essence cannot possibly be understood.  In essence their proof of G-d comes exclusively from things which cannot be explained or in essence is anything divine is unknowable and outside the able to be explained - if it is knowable or explainable it would disprove G-d.  A notion that is contrary to knowing the one True G-d and being born of the Spirit.  Religion based on a G-d of the gaps of explanation is the essence of lies and descriptions.   The more we understand and know the Truth the more we will understand and know G-d.  The less we understand and know truth the less we will understand and know G-d.  The more truth (anything that is true) that is rejected - the more we reject G-d and become a slave to lies and descriptions.

The notion that - just because something can be validated by our senses - that it is false and of the devil and is flawed and must be disbelieved.  We are in the very image and likeness of G-d and our senses were created by G-d to be just like Him and His.  The rejection of empirical evidence - or in other words that which we can sense by the miracle of our creation to be in the image and likeness of G-d makes no sense at all to me and looks a lot like false doctrine.

 

The Traveler

You just reworded my 2 sentences into 4 paragraphs and then told me I'm confused about empirical evidence.  What's up with that?  You mad at me, bro?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If I understand correctly - you appreciate posts or discussions that employ the rules of logic?

I appreciate posters who utilize logic and reason, and who understand the dictionary definitions of words in the same way that I do (meaning, they agree with the dictionary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I thought to add one more thought.  I can understand someone saying that they believe or disbelieve certain things.  What I do not understand - is when someone claims something that is true - to be false.  Or, if you will, something that is false to be something that is true.  I believe organic evolution to be true based on the evidence I know of - for example genetically engineered insulin.  Mankind is on a threshold of being able to genetically engineer humans.  Some are fearful that in so doing we are doing what G-d does or did in creating us.  And there is a religious problem for some, if we were able to genetically engineer better humans.  As though better humans is contrary to religionists - which causes me to wonder why those that believe in such religion would teach their religion to improve or better humans? 

One thing concerning science and religion - when religionists testify and give witness that something is not true - like the sun being the center of our solar system and that the truth is that the earth is the center of the universe.  When such a witness is proven false by empirical evidence - how can anything to which they testify as true or false to be believed.  The rules of logic say that any exception to a definitive statement - proves the statement to be false.  And if we are unable to employ the rules of logic in our discussions - of what purpose or end do we hope to have in any discussion?

 

The Traveler

 

Where the rubber meets the road-

There isn't empirical evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Nor is there empirical evidence that man evolved from a lower order of species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

You and @Rob Osborn must be confused concerning empirical evidence.

No, science somehow confuses "emipirical" with "theory". For instance- "Empirical evidence" in action would be the knowledge that say- birds can fly through the air. "Theory" , in that flying bird evidence would apply to "how the bird flies through the air." In evolution there is empirical evidence of change within species. Theory is applied to how that change happens. Technically speaking, it cannot even be called a "scientific theory" that all life evolved from a common ancestor as it lacks the necessary proofs required. But, with scientists they can do and say whatever they please as long as they get their buddies on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share