evolution vs the bible

[lawlmaster09]

the thread "Evolution and Intelligent Design" has gotten a little old, so this is the new one.

please dont be a newbie and say things like "well you just dont have any faith!" or "lol you are stupid, how can you idiots believe in dat shiz hahaha idiot lolollolol!" because that just annoys people.

personally i am an athiest and am really annoyed that christians are so hard-headed, but thats just me .

[Qyph]

the thread "Evolution and Intelligent Design" has gotten a little old, so this is the new one.

please dont be a newbie and say things like "well you just dont have any faith!" or "lol you are stupid, how can you idiots believe in dat shiz hahaha idiot lolollolol!" because that just annoys people.

personally i am an athiest and am really annoyed that christians are so hard-headed, but thats just me .

This topic is meant to replace the topic "Evolution and Intelligent Disign". Intelligent design however, is not the same as the bible. So what is the plan? Do you want to know what people think about evolution and bible, or evolution and intelligent design? Also the title "evolution vs the bible" suggests they are opposing each other, many people believe that evolution does not exclude Christianity.

You're not giving the right example of newbieless behavior in the first post. By saying: "..I am an athiest and am really annoyed that christians are so hardheaded.." Do you mean all Christians? And are they hard-headed about everything? And how does the hardheadedness of Christians in general relate to the discussion about evolution and the bible? 

You're claim to be an atheist. What has your atheism got to do with the discussion about the bible and evolution? Does it automatically mean that you believe in evolution? 

Qyph

[Daytripper]

Agreed. I don't see why you open a new thread for this, especially not in this manner.

You have not explained your stance or what you want to discuss. We can see how side tracked a thread can get. Some people want to attack tiny details and won't look at the big picture. While that is also interesting it isn't really my cup of tea.

I will go out on a limb here.

My stance is evolution must have happened, regardless of prior divine creation or divine intervention in evolution itself. While I'm not religious myself I cannot possibly disprove God. (Dis)proving God is a different type of discussion and we don't need evolution in that discussion. So I'm going to say it is just evolution, you can add whatever you want if you're religious.

Justification:

Fossil record. Older life is not the same as current life, so only evolution can explain that.

Extinction waves: There have been a couple of major extinction waves throughout history in which not all life, but still a lot was killed. And yet life always bounced right back. Only explanation: evolution.

Life is now more diverse than ever.

Humans have leftover DNA, DNA of different life forms in the same evolution tree branch is similar. Animals have residual structures such as the hind legs in whales.

I challenge you to disprove my stance to me. Offer an alternative that can account for the world.

[ratcharmer]

I really don't see what you mean by the evolution and intelligent design thread has gotten "old".

New posts have been added to that thread within a week.

I also agree with some of the above posts, the title seems chosen to bias the discussion.

[Daytripper]

I don't mind reposting in the old thread, though I said something along the same lines. Maybe I didn't explain it enough, because I pretty much didn't see any reply. There were quite a bit of different discussions going on, so quite possibly it was missed.

I don't mind where people reply, just saying that a single act of creation without any subsequent evolution (and I mean large scale evolution) is pretty hard to rhyme with what we know now.

[lawlmaster09]

@qyph

what i mean is that whenever (in discussions with REAL CHRISTIANS along the street) i make sense in disproving religion, they back off and say things like(and i quote) "well, you just dont have any faith!"

also i dont "believe" in evolution, as you can see on wiktionary(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe): "To accept as true without empirical evidence."

evolution has empirical evidence; (and im 99% sure that religion does NOT, but if i am wrong then please provide a link or quote or something) that is a FACT.

also if you seriously think that evolution and the bible can co-exist... then... well... PROVE IT!

[ratcharmer]

A response of "you don't have faith" could mean several things in the context of a debate over whether or not a religion is valid. The person could be trying to tell you that as an atheist you don't understand their beliefs and are misrepresenting them, that they don't feel the need to justify their beliefs to you (which you have interpreted it as) or it's even possible that they're calling you dishonest.

However, what I am 95% certain that they meant in your case was "You are making me uncomfortable, why are you attacking my beliefs like this, I would like to end this conversation now"

Whether you mean to or not, you come across extremely hostile towards religious persons, lawlmaster. Of course they won't give you a serious response if they think you hate them merely for existing.

Now on to evolution.

What you're trying to do is set up a straw man argument. You've started with the claim that evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible, which is a claim that literally no Christian who has posted in either this thread or the last one holds to be true.

You have then tried to force people into defending the straw man you've set up by insisting that they prove any position other than the one you've set up is feasible.

This is the equivalent of me asking you to prove you aren't a Buddhist. It's silly, and I've already listed why there's no conflict between the two in the other thread, and leading experts in evolution and major religious leaders see no conflict.

Why are you trying to create one?

@Daytripper:
Probably the reason you didn't get much reply is that there aren't very many people who believe in "a single act of creation without any subsequent evolution".

On general policy I try to avoid speaking on behalf of views I don't hold, since I find it rather offensive when people misinterpret mine.

[Daytripper]

Yeah,

It is turning into a non discussion here. Most people on the forum seem fine with some degree of evolution + (maybe) God. That or they don't care to discuss it.

Just as long as it isn't evolution instead of God I guess.

Now are there some issues left we don't agree on, or is it all over?

[lawlmaster09]

@ratcharmer

i see you use the word "belief" alot, please read the above comment defining "belief", if you do or have done, you will see that i would like to extinguish the word "belief" from the dictionary.

"that as an atheist you don't understand their beliefs and are misrepresenting them" true, i do NOT understand their beliefs, if i did, i would most likely be a christian.

"that they don't feel the need to justify their beliefs to you (which you have interpreted it as)" to me, that is equivalent to saying "plz dont argue any more, i dont care if it doesnt make any sense i just wanna believe in god"(if this is sounding a litle rude right now, soz)

"or it's even possible that they're calling you dishonest." "dishonest" isnt the best way to put it, because why would someone argue if they were lying?

"You are making me uncomfortable, why are you attacking my beliefs like this, I would like to end this conversation now" yes, i came to that conclusion too, which is why usually i just say "whatever, lol, bye" when they say that. but personally i think that they are just uncomfortable because they are wrong.

"you hate them merely for existing" i do not "hate" them, i merely "dislike" them a little bit because they "believe". but they are also fun because they provide good entertainment, when im bored

"evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible, which is a claim that literally no Christian who has posted in either this thread or the last one holds to be true." that is because evolution is a fact, and the bible is what they hold to be true, would it be better if what you hold to be true to be comp[atible with facts, or incompatible with facts?

"You have then tried to force people into defending the straw man you've set up by insisting that they prove any position other than the one you've set up is feasible." i am simply asking you to disprove my theory, that should not be a problem if what you say is true.

"leading experts in evolution and major religious leaders see no conflict". i havent actually seen you give any links (but i might just be blind or something ) so i would love for you to give me the link of the article stating that.

[ratcharmer]

@lawlmaster: Wikitionary is not really a reputable source to base such an argument off of. Dictionary.com, generally regarded as a more reputable source lists 4 different definitions for belief, only 1 of which includes the "no proof". You've picked the definition that works best for your argument and then assumed everyone must be using the same one.

Of particular note, a religious tenet is listed as a distinctly separate meaning than the "no proof" definition. You're arguing based on pure semantics with nothing solid to back it.

true, i do NOT understand their beliefs, if i did, i would most likely be a christian.

It is possible to understand what a given doctrine means without believing in it. If you freely admit that you don't understand religion then why are you so adamant about attacking it? That's like burning a book because you don't know the ending-it just doesn't make sense.

"that they don't feel the need to justify their beliefs to you (which you have interpreted it as)" to me, that is equivalent to saying "plz dont argue any more, i dont care if it doesnt make any sense i just wanna believe in god"(if this is sounding a litle rude right now, soz)

"or it's even possible that they're calling you dishonest." "dishonest" isnt the best way to put it, because why would someone argue if they were lying?

Umm . . . what? All I can figure is maybe you misread this part of my post?

What I was pointing out is that once again you've taken something that could've meant several things and assumed it meant the one that was best for your case.

The bit about dishonesty . . . I honestly can't even tell what you're trying to say.

You are not making people uncomfortable because they're wrong, you're making them uncomfortable because you're being hostile.

"you hate them merely for existing" i do not "hate" them, i merely "dislike" them a little bit because they "believe". but they are also fun because they provide good entertainment, when im bored

Firstly, reread my post, you might not hate them, but you certainly come across that way.

Second, the part I've made bold is the problem. Attacking someone's beliefs out of boredom is, to be a bit blunt about it, nothing mored than being a troll.

"You have then tried to force people into defending the straw man you've set up by insisting that they prove any position other than the one you've set up is feasible." i am simply asking you to disprove my theory, that should not be a problem if what you say is true

I don't think you understand what a straw man argument is, or why they aren't considered legitimate.

"leading experts in evolution and major religious leaders see no conflict". i havent actually seen you give any links (but i might just be blind or something ) so i would love for you to give me the link of the article stating that.

Umm. . .  I think I've already linked to Dr. Collin's book 3 or 4 times now. And a couple other sources as well . . .

Here's the link again:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08-07/news/17305535_1_dr-francis-s-collins-human-genome-project-atheist

If you want religious sources stating the same thing try some of these:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
(Vatican documentation that details when the Catholic Church Officially endorsed Evolution)

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Views-on-Evolution.aspx
(the pew forum, lists various religion's stances on evolution)

Note that out of the beliefs listed only the The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention (both extremely conservative groups) embrace creationism to the exclusion of evolution.

[Rundas]

"evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible, which is a claim that literally no Christian who has posted in either this thread or the last one holds to be true." that is because evolution is a fact, and the bible is what they hold to be true*, would it be better if what you hold to be true to be comp[atible with facts, or incompatible with facts?

*It's one of the things they hold to be true. And you still have to explain how the bible and the theory of evolution are incompatible.

Inb4 taking the Génesis literally...  .-.

"You have then tried to force people into defending the straw man you've set up by insisting that they prove any position other than the one you've set up is feasible." i am simply asking you to disprove my theory, that should not be a problem if what you say is true.

Theory? I guess you are not talking in a scientific sense =P

"leading experts in evolution and major religious leaders see no conflict". i havent actually seen you give any links (but i might just be blind or something ) so i would love for you to give me the link of the article stating that.

Stephen Jay Gould (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html), Francis Collins (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211593-1,00.html) and the Pope John Paul II (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm) for example (but I'm sure ratcharmer may give you a better answer with more links and stuff).
______

Edit: lol, there is the answer DDD:

[lawlmaster09]

@ratcharmer

"It is possible to understand what a given doctrine means without believing in it. If you freely admit that you don't understand religion then why are you so adamant about attacking it?" - "understand" in the way i mean it (and i think the way you mean it as well) means that i fully grasp the meaning of something. if i could fully grasp it i would either say "ahh, i see!" or "this stupid cr*p is complete bull***t". as it is i say neither, however, i am leaning towards the latter, as i am obviously an Athiest. (i will explain later why i am only leaning towards) (and yes, that's how you spell "towards", weird, i know XP)


"Attacking someone's beliefs out of boredom is, to be a bit blunt about it, nothing mored than being a troll." - its called "trying to be a little humorous" jeez -.-

"I don't think you understand what a straw man argument is" - eheheheheheeee... nurp... '^_^. i was just going by what information you gave.

(REPLY TO THE LAST PART WHICH I DONT REALLY FEEL LIKE PUTTING IN QUOTATIONS)

about Collins book: yes, as i think i have stated before, that is the only way they could co-exist. (that might have been a different forum though ), however, that is NOT the bible(which as far as i know preaches genesis, now I.D. or Collins' thing) 

about the Pius xii (unlucky number!? o.O) as i think i have also stated before (although that might have ALSO been on another forum :P:P) that of COURSE religious leaders will say that they co-exist, evolution has undeniable-hard-EVIDENCE!  (example -->) if you were some dude who believed in say... a bird-god or something called... Simorgh. then would you say that evolution was complete bull***t? or that your bird-god religion was compatible with it?

for some reason the pewforum thing isnt loading (damn you, crappy wifi!)