Explain Why You Don't Accept Biological Evolution as a Fact

[Tlaceceyaya]

Then don't call it a theory.

It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, hypothesis.

From a theological point of view, it's a theory.

And that definition is a completely useless one in a context even remotely related to science because it only creates confusion and allows the bullshit of "It's just a theory!" to survive.

[Blasveck]

Then don't call it a theory.

It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, hypothesis.

From a theological point of view, it's a theory.

My point still stands.

It is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable.

[Republic of Greater America]

Screw science! My book written by illiterate and uneducated farmers, goat herders, and fishermen 3,000 years ago is always right because it says so! Who cares if they had no knowledge prior to their parent's generation? Who gives a crap that they had no running water, no education, gender inequality, no healthcare, no technology, lived by war, and had an average life expectancy of 30 years, if not less! And finally, we all know that anything we can't is fake, right? Babeh Jeebus works in strange ways with our big daddy, Gawd! Yes, this entire post is sarcastic, understand?

wtf are you talking about

You know exactly what I'm talking about. No scientific evidence of anything from the Lie-ble, complete with its numerous fantasies of 1,000 year old men, the idea that everyone comes from one man and one woman, because we don't need to know how everyone else came from (hint hint, according to the Bible, we are all inbred), and a flood that kills everyone except for a family, who repopulate the Earth. Again, how do they do this (assuming that they don't inbreed with each other), and an old man splitting across two continental landmasses. Go on, read some fairy tales, and this time, think about how it is scientifically and rationally possible, so no, magic man swoops down from the sky and fixes our problems, okay?

[Sociobiology]

moving goal posts is most of the reason religion still exists.

I wouldn't say moving the goal posts. What people forget is that the Gospels didn't have Science, Archaeology or Anthropology to back them up, therefore they could only interpret the world as they saw it around them. No, Science allows Christians to gain a more accurate view of the world, seeing as the Bible can't be taken literally.

religious stories were invented to explain the world, then science came along and began forcing the unknown left to mythology in smaller and smaller corners. religion has done nothing but retreat in its explanations for centuries. we no longer think thunder is caused by angry gods nor do we think snakes are legless as punishment for misdeeds.

[Chishimotata]

Then don't call it a theory.

It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, hypothesis.

Just because it's not a scientific theory does;t mean it isn't a theory. The word "theory" isn't exclusively the scientific term.

In this discussion, yes, "theory" means the scientific term.

[Athylon Prime]

"Ha! I've got you now! I asked you when Miller and Urey produced life from amino acids! You fool, all you've done is provide several different sources demonstrating that the very building blocks of life can be created in conditions simulating the early earth!"

[Chishimotata]

From a theological point of view, it's a theory.

My point still stands.

It is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable.

I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, because a hypothesis needs to be testable.

[Wolfmanne]

Well, it's as it says. Do you have the right to disrespect the opinion that Slavic Macedonians are Macedonian because historical evidence proves that they are in fact not?

You don't lack the right to respect or lack respect for any opinion. Opinions don't inherently deserve respect. You cannot defend something by saying "It's my OPINION!"

I wouldn't say moving the goal posts. What people forget is that the Gospels didn't have Science, Archaeology or Anthropology to back them up, therefore they could only interpret the world as they saw it around them. No, Science allows Christians to gain a more accurate view of the world, seeing as the Bible can't be taken literally.

As I said before:

But you can't take the Bible literally. All of the Prophets and the Gospels used the world around them to make an accurate interpretation. Now with Science, this can be done easier; Science is an excellent method of keep an accurate view of the world for Christians and those in other religions. Ahmadiyya Muslims and many Hindus use science to make accurate interpretations for their faiths.

But why use the bible or other holy books as a basis? All that you gain from doing that is practice at making illogical leaps and unnecessary assumptions.

I've answered this already:

Because I believe in the existence of God. Life is such a great thing, the soul is such a great thing, the Universe is so large, so big and I just feel that somewhere there is a God who write the laws of science to make such a great Universe. If you choose not to believe in God and you have your own interpretation, that's fine. No one will go to hell for misbelief.

[Warda]

wtf are you talking about

You know exactly what I'm talking about. No scientific evidence of anything from the Lie-ble, complete with its numerous fantasies of 1,000 year old men, the idea that everyone comes from one man and one woman, because we don't need to know how everyone else came from (hint hint, according to the Bible, we are all inbred), and a flood that kills everyone except for a family, who repopulate the Earth. Again, how do they do this (assuming that they don't inbreed with each other), and an old man splitting across two continental landmasses. Go on, read some fairy tales, and this time, think about how it is scientifically and rationally possible, so no, magic man swoops down from the sky and fixes our problems, okay?

ok ok
1. the torah was written 2400 years ago
2. the bible was written less than 2000
3. the romans had running water systems
4. for their time period the romans had pretty good standards
5. um, no tell me more about how the civilzation that performed surgries that where not done again for another thousands years had no medical science
6. i dont understand how you can have no tech
7. the bible was written during pax romana
8. if you lived to the age of 10 your life exp was around 68 (death during birth was common until the 1900s)
9. there is a genetic adam and eve

[Wolfmanne]

I wouldn't say moving the goal posts. What people forget is that the Gospels didn't have Science, Archaeology or Anthropology to back them up, therefore they could only interpret the world as they saw it around them. No, Science allows Christians to gain a more accurate view of the world, seeing as the Bible can't be taken literally.

religious stories were invented to explain the world, then science came along and began forcing the unknown left to mythology in smaller and smaller corners. religion has done nothing but retreat in its explanations for centuries. we no longer think thunder is caused by angry gods nor do we think snakes are legless as punishment for misdeeds.

But there wasn't any Science back then to teach people the correct way of thinking. Science disproves what these people saw and knew about the world, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a God. It means that these Creation stories and so-called 'God-caused events' aren't real. However, if you believe in God, then you use modern day evidence to determine the extent of the involvement of God in the universe. He didn't punish snakes by removing their legs, but he did ensure that natural selection would create the right genetic material for the snake.

[Blasveck]

religious stories were invented to explain the world, then science came along and began forcing the unknown left to mythology in smaller and smaller corners. religion has done nothing but retreat in its explanations for centuries. we no longer think thunder is caused by angry gods nor do we think snakes are legless as punishment for misdeeds.

But there wasn't any Science back then to teach people the correct way of thinking. Science disproves what these people saw and knew about the world, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a God. It means that these Creation stories and so-called 'God-caused events' aren't real. However, if you believe in God, then you use modern day evidence to determine the extent of the involvement of God in the universe. He didn't punish snakes by removing their legs, but he did ensure that natural selection would create the right genetic material for the snake.

I don't know if this has been asked, but how do you know that God influenced evolution?

[Tlaceceyaya]

9. there is a genetic adam and eve

For fuck's sake...
THEY"RE JUST FUCKING NAMES.
That's all they are. Names. Does Thor exist because there's a day named after him that occurs once every single week?

[Warda]

9. there is a genetic adam and eve

For fuck's sake...
THEY"RE JUST FUCKING NAMES.
That's all they are. Names. Does Thor exist because there's a day named after him that occurs once every single week?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
shoo

[Vazdania]

9. there is a genetic adam and eve

For fuck's sake...
THEY"RE JUST FUCKING NAMES.
That's all they are. Names. Does Thor exist because there's a day named after him that occurs once every single week?

Didn't they not know eachother???

[Tlaceceyaya]

For fuck's sake...
THEY"RE JUST FUCKING NAMES.
That's all they are. Names. Does Thor exist because there's a day named after him that occurs once every single week?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
shoo

And it's just a fucking name. They chose the name Eve in reference to the abrahamic creation myth. There's an asteroid which was once considered to be a possible threat to Earth, called 99942 Apophis. Does that mean that Apophis is real? (The Stargate version, since that's who they named it after)

[Mavorpen]

For fuck's sake...
THEY"RE JUST FUCKING NAMES.
That's all they are. Names. Does Thor exist because there's a day named after him that occurs once every single week?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
shoo

Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term “Mitochondrial Eve” or even the name “Eve” in their original paper; in fact it appears to be a popularised media interpretation, obviously because of its catchy name.[21] The name stemmed first from research news of the scientific breakthrough in Science in 1987, where Roger Lewin reported with a rather captivating title "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve".[22] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the obvious title "Out of the garden of Eden".[23] Wilson was aware of it and wanted to use a more euphemistic "Lucky Mother" as the name.[24] When the use of Eve spread like wildfire, Wilson remarked it as "regrettable".[22] Scientists including the original researchers attempted to avoid the biblical confusion by trying to give alternative name like "African Eve", most ardently by Wilson himself, obviously as a pun.[25] But the subsequent popularisation enamoured the public's eye such as with the Newsweek cover story (11 January 1998 issue had Adam and Eve on the cover with the title "The Search for Adam and Eve"),[26] and a cover story in Time on 26 January 1987,[27] they were the baptism on the christened name. It is interesting that even though Mitochondrial Eve only vaguely denotes the biblical Eve, on immediate aftermath of its publication, Cann received not only scientific criticisms, but also public and religious hostility with hate mails, crank mail, late night calls, and even a visit from the FBI.[18]

[Wolfmanne]

But there wasn't any Science back then to teach people the correct way of thinking. Science disproves what these people saw and knew about the world, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a God. It means that these Creation stories and so-called 'God-caused events' aren't real. However, if you believe in God, then you use modern day evidence to determine the extent of the involvement of God in the universe. He didn't punish snakes by removing their legs, but he did ensure that natural selection would create the right genetic material for the snake.

I don't know if this has been asked, but how do you know that God influenced evolution?

I honestly don't know. I just believe in the Catholic Bible as the most accurate religious view of the world, but I recognise that even so there are significant faults in it and I believe that Science, to the best of it's ability, can not only disprove the flaws in it, but also mend them. The Bible is like a jar that has been smashed into the tiniest pieces, and Science to me is like duct tape or superglue. Because they are so tiny, we'll probably never fully fix it, but with duct tape and superglue we can fix it to the best of our ability.

[Warda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
shoo

And it's just a fucking name. They chose the name Eve in reference to the abrahamic creation myth. There's an asteroid which was once considered to be a possible threat to Earth, called 99942 Apophis. Does that mean that Apophis is real? (The Stargate version, since that's who they named it after)

no, its real because mtdna proved it.

[Sociobiology]

religious stories were invented to explain the world, then science came along and began forcing the unknown left to mythology in smaller and smaller corners. religion has done nothing but retreat in its explanations for centuries. we no longer think thunder is caused by angry gods nor do we think snakes are legless as punishment for misdeeds.

But there wasn't any Science back then to teach people the correct way of thinking. Science disproves what these people saw and knew about the world, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a God. It means that these Creation stories and so-called 'God-caused events' aren't real. However, if you believe in God, then you use modern day evidence to determine the extent of the involvement of God in the universe. He didn't punish snakes by removing their legs, but he did ensure that natural selection would create the right genetic material for the snake.

which is moving the goalposts into the unknown, just as mentioned.
It is an attempt to justify something for which no evidence exists by keeping it in the dark away from anything we actually have information for.
Natural selection does not need a cause,*. so to propose one you must have evidence.

* it is an inevitable result of the laws of physics as we know them

[Tlaceceyaya]

I don't know if this has been asked, but how do you know that God influenced evolution?

I honestly don't know. I just believe in the Catholic Bible as the most accurate religious view of the world, but I recognise that even so there are significant faults in it and I believe that Science, to the best of it's ability, can not only disprove the flaws in it, but also mend them. The Bible is like a jar that has been smashed into the tiniest pieces, and Science to me is like duct tape or superglue. Because they are so tiny, we'll probably never fully fix it, but with duct tape and superglue we can fix it to the best of our ability.

Why not just build a new jar rather than repair one that, when it was not broken, still worked poorly anyways?

[Warda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
shoo

Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term “Mitochondrial Eve” or even the name “Eve” in their original paper; in fact it appears to be a popularised media interpretation, obviously because of its catchy name.[21] The name stemmed first from research news of the scientific breakthrough in Science in 1987, where Roger Lewin reported with a rather captivating title "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve".[22] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the obvious title "Out of the garden of Eden".[23] Wilson was aware of it and wanted to use a more euphemistic "Lucky Mother" as the name.[24] When the use of Eve spread like wildfire, Wilson remarked it as "regrettable".[22] Scientists including the original researchers attempted to avoid the biblical confusion by trying to give alternative name like "African Eve", most ardently by Wilson himself, obviously as a pun.[25] But the subsequent popularisation enamoured the public's eye such as with the Newsweek cover story (11 January 1998 issue had Adam and Eve on the cover with the title "The Search for Adam and Eve"),[26] and a cover story in Time on 26 January 1987,[27] they were the baptism on the christened name. It is interesting that even though Mitochondrial Eve only vaguely denotes the biblical Eve, on immediate aftermath of its publication, Cann received not only scientific criticisms, but also public and religious hostility with hate mails, crank mail, late night calls, and even a visit from the FBI.[18]

im not sure why your yelling at me for saying theres a genetic first human

[Sociobiology]

And it's just a fucking name. They chose the name Eve in reference to the abrahamic creation myth. There's an asteroid which was once considered to be a possible threat to Earth, called 99942 Apophis. Does that mean that Apophis is real? (The Stargate version, since that's who they named it after)

no, its real because mtdna proved it.

it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

[Tlaceceyaya]

im not sure why your yelling at me for saying theres a genetic first human

Because you're lying. Or at the very least, being completely incorrect.
The most recent mitochondrial ancestor of humanity was one of thousands of humans alive at the time, at the very least.

[Mavorpen]

im not sure why your yelling at me for saying theres a genetic first human

Because there wasn't.

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[7][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[33]

[Warda]

no, its real because mtdna proved it.

it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.