"Evolution is the change in the gene pool over time. Natural selection is the idea that changes in the gene pool that help someone survive will allow them to breed, and ones that are a hindrance will make them more likely to die, thus preventing it's spread. I have already discussed genetic drift. All of these things happen. It is a fact that the gene pool changes over time. Nobody denies this. Nor do they deny the logic involved in natural selection.
In fact, we can see evolution of viruses and bacteria occurring on the scale of human lifetimes. I said before that evolution is a more solid theory than gravity - and it is. Because with gravity, all we can say is "stuff is attracted to stuff". That is, matter attracts matter. We don't know why. It just does. The current theory is that things called gravitons do it, but we have never seen a graviton at all. But not one single religious person will raise an objection to this theory. Nor do they deny electromagnetism, nuclear forces and the like. They never raise objections to the existence of DNA. Nobody ever objects to plate tectonics or other forms of geology.
What these people seem to be saying is that they trust science as long as it doesn't say something they don't want to hear. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not an accurate source of information. I'm not trolling, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm stating a truth. I don't want this to sound like a rant - but Christian scholars accept that most of the Old Testament is complete BS. Only some protestant sects (ie. Baptist churches) accept the litteral truth of the Bible - all Christian communities worth their salt accept that it is mostly metaphorical; it is intended to convey truths about the world through fictional stories.
The point I am making is that Baptist Christian communities (and let me reiterate: you are the ONLY Christians who deny evolution as an official position) seem to think that if evolution is true, then the bible must be wrong. And since they are completely convinced the bible is right, then evolution must be wrong. No evidence will ever change their minds about this. But the first premise is wrong. It just means that to accept Evolution and God, you're going to have to fall in line with the rest of the entire global Christian community and most of the Jewish communities - and accept that it is not the litteral truth.
The Intelligent Design movement as a credible scientific idea is dead. It was dead when it was created, because it can't stand up to peer reviewed Journals. The creator of "Darwin's Black Box", a champion of Intelligent Design, admitted under oath in a Court of Law that all of the evidence he raised that brought Evolution into doubt had been completely discredited as evidence. The court case in which ID was shot down by the supreme court as being unconstitutional to teach in science classes... the Judge was a fundamentalist Baptist Christian. As in, a noted Baptist Christian recognized that Evolution was basically indestructable as a theory, based on evidence he was presented, despite the top minds in the ID camp trying to provide counter claims.
This was a court of law, both parties were allowed to speak uninterrupted, and both had a fair say. Let me state again: this is not an argument against Christianity, it's an argument that you can not refute Evolution with evidence, because when you look at all of the evidence and say "how did all of this come to be?", Evolution is the theory that you come up with. Evolution isn't some evil idea put here by satan, it's a series of logical deductions based on actual evidence. If God created the Earth, then he created it in such a way that anybody who tried to analyze the world would be compeltely wrong. I know lots of scientists who believe in god, but none of them believe in a deliberately misleading god.
If God can't reveal himself to people "because it would take away your choice to believe", then he certainly can't plant evidence that would knowingly damn billions of people to an eternity of hell. Not if he is all loving."
A breath of fresh air. A few nitpicks/suggestions- Genetic drift does not occur on a mass scale. It is the theory that in a population of low numbers, such as those in a zoo or isolated in some other way, will adapt extremely rapidly because a dominant or more beneficial allele takes much shorter time for it to become completely prevalent in the population. Additionally, alleles of little difference between each other rarely coexist- it is usually one or the other, because the popualtion numbers are so low. Second of all, what you are saying sounds a lot like blasphemy. I know that a lot of people like great-sounding phrases, and, don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but don't phrases like "worth their salt" and calling the ENTIRE Old Testament bullshit? I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you? Remember, you are treating this like a religious debate- try to keep things civil and don't point fingers and call names. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- regardless of how misguided it may seem to others. "The Intelligent Design movement as a credible scientific idea is dead. It was dead when it was created, because it can't stand up to peer reviewed Journals." I fucking love this bit. The irony is that you don't even realize what is grossly wrong with that notion. Before you try to rant (and yes, this is a rant, albeit a particularly well-informed one) about a religious topic as touchy as BAPTIST CHRISTIANITY, at least take a few words from Mr. Common Sense: You don't measure the quality of a square peg by how well it can fit into a round hole, and you don't measure the quality of a religion by how well is abides by the laws of science. But, before I divulge into a rant, let me get my two cents in before this thread is locked- I will attempt to disprove God by using logic, and, in doing so, will prove that all religion is illogical, and thus cannot conform to a logical society, and thusly should be ALONE. God- an omnipotent being. Omnipotence- all-powerful. Question: Can omnipotent being, A, create a rock that A cannot lift? If yes, then A is not omnipotent, and if no, then A is not omnipotent. Â God is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist in reality. It is not opinion, it is logical fact, which is valid. Thus religion is invalid. I know I am right because I have a rational argument to prove I'm correct. I know I have a rational argument because the rational validity of a set of arguments is how well they conform to reality. 1. Reality is objective. Â 2. Rationality is valid. Â 3. The rational validity and truth value of a statement is how well it conforms to objective reality. --note here- this is an OBJECTIVE REALITY- religion is SUBJECTIVE-- You accept these three premises implicitly when you engage in rational debate. Â 1. If reality is not objective then what is there to argue about? and who are arguing with? If reality is all in your mind, then arguing at all makes you irrational, because you would be arguing with yourself; and to do that you must hold two conflicting statements, both of which you completely believe to be true. Â 2. To claim that rationality is invalid requires the use of rational arguments. You cannot invalidate rationality. To do so would require using rational arguments, and thus require you to first accept rationality is valid. In this sense it is self evident truth. Â 2a. If rationality were not valid there would be no point in debate. The purpose of debate is to determine truth from falsehood. The validity of rationality presupposes debate. You accept that it is valid in order to debate in the first place. 3. When you argue with someone you accept that arguments can be either correct or incorrect, true or false. If you did not accept this then you'd be in agreement with everything the other said, and there would be no argument. --THUS IT IS IRRATIONAL TO ARGUE RELIGION-- faith (n.) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief; See synonyms at trust.-
Log in to comment