Does anyone deny Evolution is a fact anymore?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, or that science should decide our moral beliefs, or things like that. foxhound_fox

you havent unless they are talking about they prisoner's delima which covers only a very small fraction of morality.

I've heard plenty of scientists say such things, but none of them were very respectable. Theokhoth

:lol: You want me to be 'mature' (that is, to think the same you think) but you're talking about what my pastor says and you have no idea about that.

eloyc

True, it was a guess. But the point is, I'm willing to bet you've been taught this anti-evolution claptrap from some source, and one guess was as good as another. Parroting it, regardless of where you source it from, serves nothing, especially in the face of the reams of evidence that suggest -- strongly -- that you are wrong, which you are utterly unwilling to consider.

That's what I mean by immaturity.

I doesn't matter at the end, I'll always be a stupid animal from your point of view if I don't think like you.

eloyc

No, just misguided. And you won't always be, perhaps. Nor do I expect you to think exactly like me...just stop making the rest of us Christians look like fools with your rambling; that's all I really ask.

you havent unless they are talking about they prisoner's delima which covers only a very small fraction of morality.laughingman42

It makes sense that you shouldn't take something that someone has earned from them if you haven't earned it, or that you shouldn't kill something with the inherent right to life, or force yourself sexually upon someone who hasn't given you their consent... you don't need religion OR science to tell you that.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]you havent unless they are talking about they prisoner's delima which covers only a very small fraction of morality.foxhound_fox

Tell that to the Democrats.

(sry I couldn't resist):cry:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I've heard plenty of scientists say such things, but none of them were very respectable. foxhound_fox

And then there's also the third category: the scientist who tries to use science to prove the faiths of others false.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]you havent unless they are talking about they prisoner's delima which covers only a very small fraction of morality.foxhound_fox

I was talking about cooperation, and why its helpful or hurtful not whether or not it is moraly right or wrong.

Utilitarianism says hello thar Foxhound.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="eloyc"]

:lol: You want me to be 'mature' (that is, to think the same you think) but you're talking about what my pastor says and you have no idea about that.

WtFDragon

True, it was a guess. But the point is, I'm willing to bet you've been taught this anti-evolution claptrap from some source, and one guess was as good as another. Parroting it, regardless of where you source it from, serves nothing, especially in the face of the reams of evidence that suggest -- strongly -- that you are wrong, which you are utterly unwilling to consider.

That's what I mean by immaturity.

I doesn't matter at the end, I'll always be a stupid animal from your point of view if I don't think like you.

eloyc

No, just misguided. And you won't always be, perhaps. Nor do I expect you to think exactly like me...just stop making the rest of us Christians look like fools with your rambling; that's all I really ask.

I understand very well what you mean, but put yourself in my place: I can't give up my beliefs if I firmly believe I'm right.I don't give the same value to all that 'proofs' and 'evidences' you all say, and I won't debate more about that nor repeat myself one hundred more times.

That said, I just expressed my opinion, although I know that sounds scandalous, retrograde and unpopular for the most of you.

And I never called immature somebody that thought different from me. That was your bigger mistake. I wasn't annoyed just because you think different from me, but because you called me immature just for the 'lalalala' quote. My posts are not that immature, and I already closed my debate with Genetic_Code.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Utilitarianism says hello thar Foxhound.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I've heard plenty of scientists say such things, but none of them were very respectable. Theokhoth

And then there's also the third category: the scientist who tries to use science to prove the faiths of others false.

It cant disprove most things based on faith wrong (most importantly "is there a god") but it can show that some things are wrong (for instance biblical litteralism)

I deny evolution happens. I mean really, how the **** did everything living today evolved from bacteria? I doubt it.JC346

I deny evolution happens. I mean really, how the **** did everything living today evolved from bacteria? I doubt it.JC346

Well, it did have a few billion years to work at it. ;)

I deny evolution happens. I mean really, how the **** did everything living today evolved from bacteria? I doubt it.JC346

then what is your explination?

Yes, or that science should decide our moral beliefs, or things like that.

Theokhoth

it's not like you need religion for morals either...

[QUOTE="JC346"]I deny evolution happens. I mean really, how the **** did everything living today evolved from bacteria? I doubt it.laughingman42

then what is your explination?

I understand very well what you mean, but put yourself in my place: I can't give up my beliefs if I firmly believe I'm right.eloyc

Depends which belief. Your belief in Christ? Nobody is asking you to give that up (certainly, I'm not). But your belief in the falsehood of something which is amply demonstrated by mountains of evidence? That's a flawed belief, and worth giving up, isn't it?

I don't give the same value to all that 'proofs' and 'evidences' you all say, and I won't debate more about that nor repeat myself one hundred more times.eloyc

Then you're deliberately keeping yourself blind. God did give you a brain with the capacity for reason; perhaps this is a gift you should more thoroughly explore the use of?

That said, I just expressed my opinion, although I know that sounds scandalous, retrograde and unpopular for the most of you.eloyc

No, just...staggeringly incorrect.

And I never called immature somebody that thought different from me. That was your bigger mistake. I wasn't annoyed just because you think different from me, but because you called me immature just for the 'lalalala' quote. My posts are not that immature, and I already closed my debate with Genetic_Code.

eloyc

I reserve every right to call a spade a spade. ;)

Why are people trying to say evolution is not a fact by saying its just a theory?

That's like saying gravity is not a fact because its just a theory...jump off a cliff and you'll see that there is more than conjecture to the word theory.

Depends which belief. Your belief in Christ? Nobody is asking you to give that up (certainly, I'm not). But your belief in the falsehood of something which is amply demonstrated by mountains of evidence? That's a flawed belief, and worth giving up, isn't it?

WtFDragon

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that. It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want. You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

Then you're deliberately keeping yourself blind. God did give you a brain with the capacity for reason; perhaps this is a gift you should more thoroughly explore the use of?

WtFDragon

'Perhaps' you should think you're not the one, between you and me, that uses the brain.

No, just...staggeringly incorrect.

WtFDragon

................ ok.

I reserve every right to call a spade a spade. ;)

WtFDragon

We agree on that.... so where's my trophy?? :P

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that. It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want. You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.

eloyc

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man? I mean do you honestly beleive that god came down here and wrote the bible with his own hand? If so he left some odd contradictions.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

eloyc

actually there is doubtful interpritaion.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Which is right?

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that.eloyc

It says that in one creation account, but not in the other. How do you reconcile these realities by adopting a literal interpretation of both?

It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want.eloyc

Granted, but this has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.

You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.eloyc

I believe all the Bible has to say, but I don't believe the Bible always speaks to us in a literal way.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.eloyc

There is easily one doubtful interpretation, if you take the literal view: there are two different, distinct creation accounts, with different orders of creation, split between Genesis 1 and 2. How do you reconcile these? Was the Earth created twice, once where man came first and once where man came last?

'Perhaps' you should think you're not the one, between you and me, that uses the brain.eloyc

Perhaps.

On the other hand, which of us accepts both the evidence of Scripture and the evidence extant in the natural world?

................ ok.

eloyc

Spade a spade, remember?

We agree on that.... so where's my trophy?? :P

eloyc

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man?

laughingman42

I'm (actually, we) not arguing about if Bible is true or not, but if it's consistent in a Christian to believe in evolution.

I don't have a problem when atheists believe in evolution because there's no incongruity in their beliefs, but to say you believe in God and don't believe in what it's supposed He said... it just doesn't fit.

WtFDragon has a totally opposed opinion, thouhg. According to him, there's no incongruity.

I don't have a problem when atheists believe in evolution because there's no incongruity in their beliefs, but to say you believe in God and don't believe in what it's supposed He said... it just doesn't fit.eloyc

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man?

eloyc

I'm (actually, we) not arguing about if Bible is true or not, but if it's consistent in a Christian to believe in evolution.

I don't have a problem when atheists believe in evolution because there's no incongruity in their beliefs, but to say you believe in God and don't believe in what it's supposed He said... it just doesn't fit.

WtFDragon has a totally opposed opinion, thouhg. According to him, there's no incongruity.

Exactly.

Where, in the Bible, does it tell us that every last word in the Bible must be interpreted literally?

[QUOTE="eloyc"]I don't have a problem when atheists believe in evolution because there's no incongruity in their beliefs, but to say you believe in God and don't believe in what it's supposed He said... it just doesn't fit.Vandalvideo

???????? No comments. I think I'm actually replying.

???????? No comments. I think I'm actually replying.eloyc

[QUOTE="eloyc"]???????? No comments. I think I'm actually replying.Vandalvideo

and cutting off her hand if she jumps in between you and another man in a fight and she accidentally grabs the other guys balls. (and at the end it says "Show her no pity")

[QUOTE="eloyc"]Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

laughingman42

actually there is doubtful interpritaion.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Which is right?

[QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="laughingman42"]

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man?

WtFDragon

I'm (actually, we) not arguing about if Bible is true or not, but if it's consistent in a Christian to believe in evolution.

I don't have a problem when atheists believe in evolution because there's no incongruity in their beliefs, but to say you believe in God and don't believe in what it's supposed He said... it just doesn't fit.

WtFDragon has a totally opposed opinion, thouhg. According to him, there's no incongruity.

Exactly.

Where, in the Bible, does it tell us that every last word in the Bible must be interpreted literally?

I didn't say that. I perfectly know that some passages are metaphorical, but Creation doesn't sound metaphorical to me at all.

Moreover, I don't see any incongruity between Genesis 1 and 2. Gensis 1 explains Creations in chronological order and Genesis Chapter 2 gives some more details about facts already explained.

[QUOTE="eloyc"]

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that. It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want. You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.

laughingman42

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man? I mean do you honestly beleive that god came down here and wrote the bible with his own hand? If so he left some odd contradictions.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

eloyc

actually there is doubtful interpritaion.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Which is right?

Both.

[QUOTE="eloyc"]???????? No comments. I think I'm actually replying.Vandalvideo

Would you pleas stop that non-sense talk? What's next? To say I support ethnic cleansing?

I didn't say that. I perfectly know that some passages are metaphorical, but Creation doesn't sound metaphorical to me at all.eloyc

That's one opinion. Parables don't sound particularly metaphorical either, but...

Moreover, I don't see any incongruity between Genesis 1 and 2. Gensis 1 explains Creations in chronological order and Genesis Chapter 2 gives some more details about facts already explained.

eloyc

Genesis 1 to 2:3 - God created the Earth. Man appears on the 6th day.

Genesis 2:4-25: - God created the Earth. Man appears on the same day as the world is formed.

Please to reconcile?

These are not the same account; these are two different accounts written by two different authors (yes, more than one author wrote Genesis). One does not fill in the details for the other; the order of creation is totally different between the two accounts.

Genesis 2:4-25: - Man appears on the same day as the world is formed.

WtFDragon

I don't see the Genesis Ch. 2 says that man appears a different day from what it says in Genesis 1.

i dont get how someone can deny cold hard evidence, but at the same time believe in a book written thousands of years ago, by men who "claimed" to be guided by god, with no knowledge of modern science, medicine, and technology. if someone today claimed to have phsical contac by god, he would be deemed crazy, but not some old guys that lived thousands of years ago....

in the end this is really all what it comes down to

*Trophy picture*

WtFDragon

I forgot to thank. :P

Nice trophy, a little naive, though.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"][QUOTE="eloyc"]

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that. It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want. You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.

Theokhoth

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man? I mean do you honestly beleive that god came down here and wrote the bible with his own hand? If so he left some odd contradictions.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

eloyc

actually there is doubtful interpritaion.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Which is right?

Both.

that doesnt explain why in gen 1 animals came before man and in gen 2 man came before animals

that doesnt explain why in gen 1 animals came before man and in gen 2 man came before animals

laughingman42

Because Genesis 2 doesn't say that.

God created Adam and then put him in the Garden. Then God made some animals and put them in the Garden as well. The chapter doesn't state that all animal life was made after mankind.

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

TheLastPrincess

Evolution has been observed, and has a plethora of evidence to support it.

[QUOTE="TheLastPrincess"]

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

xxDustmanxx

Evolution has been observed, and has a plethora of evidence to support it.

Nice usage of the word plethora, lmao. Evolution has been observed at a micro level, not a macro level. As such, Evolution as a whole cannot be considered fact.

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

TheLastPrincess

gravity is a theory, it's also only a theory that the earth moves around the sun

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="TheLastPrincess"]

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

TheLastPrincess

Evolution has been observed, and has a plethora of evidence to support it.

Nice usage of the word plethora, lmao. Evolution has been observed at a micro level, not a macro level. As such, Evolution as a whole cannot be considered fact.

And scientists don't use 'micro' and 'macro' anymore... they're pretty much the same thing.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="TheLastPrincess"]

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

TheLastPrincess

Evolution has been observed, and has a plethora of evidence to support it.

Nice usage of the word plethora, lmao. Evolution has been observed at a micro level, not a macro level. As such, Evolution as a whole cannot be considered fact.

Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. No one has experimentally proved it.

It's actually pretty stupid to think its fact for no reason, since another answer could be out there that we just havn't discovered yet.

TheLastPrincess

we can speciate fruit flies in a lab.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="laughingman42"][QUOTE="eloyc"]

I think it's mature in a Christian to be consistent and to believe what God says. If it's said in the Bible that God created Earth and life in 6 days, I believe that. It has no sense to say you're Christian and get what you want and leave what you want. You take it or not. 'God, I believe in you, but hey! I don't believe all that you say '.

laughingman42

How do you know that the bible is the word of god and not the word of man? I mean do you honestly beleive that god came down here and wrote the bible with his own hand? If so he left some odd contradictions.

Creation has no doubtful interpretations in the Bible. Off course, you'll say this is ONLY my poor opinion.

eloyc

actually there is doubtful interpritaion.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Which is right?

Both.

that doesnt explain why in gen 1 animals came before man and in gen 2 man came before animals

In Gen 2 it's not saying that he created them for the first time, but that he gave the garden each kind on animal.