Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

P

PsychoticEpisode

It is very dry in here today
Valued Senior Member
Why does the bible not acknowledge the theory of evolution? Please don't inundate these pages with bible interpretations that show evolution was a bad thing yet to come.

Was there not enough scientific knowledge, research or data? Was it unthinkable for that era? If it wasn't then did the church use its might to squash it? Not like they've done anything similar before. If ancient scribes had the evidence of today or a 100 years from now would the creation story get top billing?
 
The creation story would still get top billing, but they would be forced to push on until there is mystery. We know evolution is true, we are not sure how it started but know it goes back to a chemical molecular level... so still we have no room for god. So we go back to the 'creation' of the Earth... damn we solved that too... The sun? Damn. The Solar system? Nope... The galaxy? Nope we have a good idea about that too... The universe? Now we're talking! But from the above list, we should go along with the same assumptions that there is a process not involving an intelligent designer.
 
Not that I am a follower of Abrahamic treligions, but there is no valid reason to insist that one can not follow the teachings in the Bible and still accept that evolution is a fact of nature.
 
Kenny JC,
Why?
You're stating that since we know
how certain things came about that for some reason also applies to why there is something rather than nothing.

Good logic there...
 
1 raven: Technically there isn't (i think), however many of the religious leaders brand evolution as heresy and a direct challenge against their gods.
 
grover said:
Kenny JC,
Why?
You're stating that since we know
how certain things came about that for some reason also applies to why there is something rather than nothing.

Good logic there...
Click to expand...

What makes you think there is a 'why'?
 
KennyJC said:
What makes you think there is a 'why'?
Click to expand...

I was asking you why this statement you made should be true: "we should go along with the same assumptions that there is a process not involving an intelligent designer." So, I'll ask again, why?
 
grover said:
I was asking you why this statement you made should be true: "we should go along with the same assumptions that there is a process not involving an intelligent designer." So, I'll ask again, why?
Click to expand...

You asked me why there is something rather than nothing, and I replied why is there a 'why'?

As for 'we should go along with the same assumptions', we are just going by experience. We once thought life itself was divinely created. We then discovered masses of concrete proof that this did not happen (at least not the way people thought for thousands of years)... So once again the role of god is reduced, and I suspect reduced to a point where its existence is impossible/pointless. I think the existence of the universe will follow the same 'atheistic' path as evolution.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Why does the bible not acknowledge the theory of evolution? Please don't inundate these pages with bible interpretations that show evolution was a bad thing yet to come.

Was there not enough scientific knowledge, research or data? Was it unthinkable for that era? If it wasn't then did the church use its might to squash it? Not like they've done anything similar before. If ancient scribes had the evidence of today or a 100 years from now would the creation story get top billing?
Click to expand...

well given that there is no empirical evidence (particularly for macro-evolution, which is the gist of your stab at creation) to take the theory to a higher stance of credibility, it should be obvious
 
well given that there is no empirical evidence (particularly for macro-evolution, which is the gist of your stab at creation) to take the theory to a higher stance of credibility
Click to expand...

Whos understanding of "macro evolution" are you using? Yours/theists or sciences? (they're not the same)
 
Prince_James said:
Lightgigantic:

What of the human evolutionary tree?

Or the horse's?

Both are extremely well developed, showing clear progression.

The relationship of ancient wasps to present ants is also well established, with many links to the present from aeons ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant
Click to expand...
the question is whether these are tentative suggestions or claims backed up by someone from the position of direct perception

If it is merely a tentative suggestion, then at the very least it opens the way for further tentative suggestions (would you agree that science becomes potent - or more greatly potent - when it operates out of direct perception? That is when claims become capable of being evidenced and repeated rather than suggested)
 
Lightgigantic:

Clearly, you are correct that observable science is far better than science detailed from the archaeological record. However, it is beyond our ken to evaluate claims such as these from that platform, and therefore must put forth ideas of evolution from the prevailing evidence which does show a marked increase in sophistication and diversification of life, including some well established lineages, which are further bolstered by the difference in DNA between current day animals.

For instance, that humans and chimp DNA are 99 percent identical indicates well that they only recently branched off from a parent species.

Moreover, I think it is theoretically within the limits of eugenics to speciate rapidly-breeding organisms within a human lifespan. If they haven't all ready done that through creating non-fertile offspring producing microorganisms, I would definitely suggest they do so.
 
Those who deny the theory of evolution can deny the theory of gravity on the same grounds. I think we should give those who disbelieve in evolution a practical experience in scientific theory :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top