Science in Adam and Eve?

A group for members of all religions, or no religion at all, to talk about religion

  1. This is such BS. I challenge my beliefs all the time and have great conversations with atheists and agnostic people on a regular basis. Just because I'm not having them with you doesnt mean I'm incapable of having them.
  2. I assume evolution "is not a proven theory" because you personally don't believe in it. 150 years of armies of brilliant people coming to the same conclusion and attempts to poke holes in the theory failing are apparently not enough to persuade you. In that case you must have a super high standard for accepting notions as facts - I think that's amazing and there is no way you would believe in something which is unsupported by evidence and 100% speculative.

  3. Because if God is a God of love he wouldn't be petty. The whole idea that you have to say the right prayer or you burn forever in hell seems rather petty to me. It's a bit like a husband who wants to divorce his wife because one morning she was in a rush to get to work and didn't have the time to kiss him goodbye. At the end of the day, I don't ETC is true... Annihilationism maybe. Universalism is a possibility. Whatever the case is I'm done with trying to convert people since it caused me great anxiety.

  4. The point in challenging things is that we are human and fallible and we dont always understand things correctly. There are things that I've been taught in the church my whole life that I have recently questioned and realized I don't know that the Bible actually says anything on the subject, and the people saying it does might be wrong. It's not about challenging whether or not "Christianity is wrong" or "God is wrong." Its about trying to seek truth and not blindly accept everything that other Christians believe, because THEY might be wrong.

    Nope. It's not a proven theory because its literally not a proven theory. I've looked into it extensively. I think its hilarious everyone here is saying how close minded I am, when you are all completely unwilling to question your own belief in evolution and entertain the notion of a Creator. I fail to see how I'm the close minded one here. I'm also not the one being a dick to people because I disagree with them.

    I'm done with this thread. I don't need to sit around and be attacked and ridiculed for my faith. Have a nice life, and I wish you all the best.
  5. No, I did not feel attacked by you, but thank you for the apology anyway.
  6. I object to being accused of attacking or ridiculing you for your faith. I've only pointed out your inconsistent standards. Are you always so easily offended? Your belief in the supernatural is as valid as my materialism - it's just philosophy. But believing that there is "science in Adam and Eve" requires that the believer doesn't use his or her critical thinking capacities very much which is in a complete contradiction with the extremely distrustful attitude required to deny evolution.

    There are currently hundreds of thousands of biologists alive - you know, people whose job is to understand living systems which I'm assuming is not what you do - on this planet and nearly every one of them thinks that evolution is true (but I guess if you "looked into it extensively" then you must know better:emoji_joy:). The diagnosis is harsh: a person with your viewpoint is either demented or delusional (now it's finally the time to get offended). Since you don't strike me as someone with low IQ, it must be that damn Dunning-Kruger effect again...
    Deleted Account likes this.
  7. You are right on that being a naive opinion
    Second viewpoint is pure cowardness. Choosing to believe something because some jelous God will torture you eternally for a thought crime.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2018
  8. That statement is just literally false. You're so firm in your belief that you refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of Biologists, religious or not, who do not believe that macro evolution has been proven. Because it hasn't. Micro evolution is obviously a different story, but there has not been any definitive proof of evolution between kinds.

    Honestly, this conversation is pointless. You think that because I disagree with you, I must be stupid and close minded. I'm not. I have done extensive research in this subject, and I have always listened and been willing to be proven wrong. I havent been proven wrong yet.

    You, on the other hand, are clearly unwilling to listen to any opinion that differs from yours, considering you are so quick to name call and just assume anyone who doesnt believe what you believe is an idiot. That says a lot more about you than it does about me. Name calling and being rude is attacking and ridiculing, and there is absolutely no need for it in a mature, adult conversation. I've had plenty of mature conversations with atheists and evolutionists, and when people are grown ups, those conversations don't have to be like this.
  9. I assume by "kinds" you mean "species". Even if I were desperately trying to change my mind it wouldn't have been possible with your comments since all you've said to me so far is that I'm mean and narrow-minded. At least the latter is (I hope) completely false; I love to learn new stuff. Point me to a text written by an accomplished biologist which supports your position and I'll gladly give it a read.
  10. Yes, that is what I mean. Ask any evolutionist to give you observable proof of a change in species. They will not be able to do so, because there is no proof for it. I've seen this question asked time and time again, and nobody ever has an answer for it. They always point to something that is NOT a change in species, and use that as "proof" for Darwinian evolution, and it's not. It's proof for micro evolution, which as far as I know, nobody, even Christian Biologists, refute.

    Well when you come in being snarky and rude and clearly mocking me for my belief in God, that's not exactly the way to start a reasonable conversation. I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who chooses to start their interactions that way. If you want someone to explain their beliefs to you and have a mature conversation, you cant begin that process the ways you did. That's not how it works. You cant come in being snarky and rude and then critique me for not providing anything useful to the conversation. What conversation? You mocking me is not a conversation. Do you honestly expect to be able to come in making fun of someone and then have them respond by clearly and calmly explaining their beliefs, just so you can mock them further? Why would anyone do that? If someone actually wants to talk, I'm always happy to. But I have a brain and I can tell when I'm being baited to be mocked, and that is a waste of my time and energy.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2018
  11. "The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science." - American Institute of Biological Sciences

    "Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,' scientific creationism,' intelligent design theory,' young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum." -National Association of Biology Teachers

    "The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."- American Association of University Professors

    "Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history." - National Academy of Sciences

    But she studied it extensively lmao
    Deleted Account likes this.
  12. There is a massive distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. There is a HUGE difference between a bird's beak transforming over time to a different shape of beak, and humans evolving from something that was not human.
  13. lol, there is no distinction between macro and micro evolution. It is the same thing. The only thing that changes is the timescale, numerous small changes overtime add up until you got separate species. Resorting to using these terms just shows that you havent studied proper biology.
  14. And what is that difference? How different from you and me does an organism have to be not to be human?
  15. Okay, if you dont even know the difference between macro and micro evolution, then this conversation is officially pointless.
  16. If a population gets geographically isolated and is forced to evolve under unique environmental conditions, then overtime, with the genetic drift, they at some point will no longer be able to mate with members of what used to be their common population. Thus, speciation will occur, that is "macroevolution". This was shown experimentally:

    "A set of experiments is described that tests the general hypothesis that sympatric speciation is genetically feasible whenever reproductive isolation evolves indirectly as a correlated character. We specifically test the hypothesis that disruptive selection on habitat preference can lead to sympatric speciation when individuals mate locally within their selected habitat. Drosophila melanogaster was used as a model system. A 35-generation experiment using a complex habitat maze led to complete reproductive isolation between subpopulations using different spatiotemporal habitats. The reproductive isolation that developed over the course of the experiment was a result of offspring returning to mate in the habitat type selected by their parents, i.e., a gradual breakdown in migration between habitats." -

    This is direct evidence that you were saying does not exist.
  17. parkurman123

    parkurman123 Fapstronaut

    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory
  18. Don't you guys love it how creationists love to move the goalposts and create an impossible burden of proof when it comes to evolution, yet the bible story of creation makes perfect sense, right? Ok lets take a look at it. How about plants being created on the 3rd day, yet the sun being created on the 4th? Plants need the sun to survive. This means that the earth was created before the sun, which is clearly false.
  19. Septimus

    Septimus Fapstronaut

    Could be, but I think when you try to understand Scripture, you have to pay attention to the genre of the writing. Everyone immediately knows the difference between, say, an advertisement, or a poem, or a humorous story, or a news item, and so forth. When we recognize what we're reading (or hearing) by it's genre, we approach it differently -- we have different expectations.

    The same should be true with the Bible. So, for example, the account of creation in Genesis. You have to ask what the purpose of the human author was; and I think it's pretty obvious that s/he wasn't attempting to give a "scientific" explanation of creation -- even to speak of "science" as a distinct category of knowledge may not have been something that author or the people he wrote for would have thought about. Rather, the author was trying to make other points, which aren't too hard to spell out when you stop worrying about whether Genesis is "accurate" as science. This section of Genesis is pretty clear: it is a poetic way of presenting the complementarity of the sexes, and marriage as a natural reality. It also presents husband and wife as partners.
  20. parkurman123

    parkurman123 Fapstronaut

    The theory of evolution has not been proved (that is why ti is still called theory). It can not be observed nor tested.
    They find two fossils that look similar and say this fossil evolved from this one, this is not the observation of changes this is just subjective observation. And there are many fossils that do not have transitional fossils. You can say that TV looks like a microwave and you come to conclusion that microwave evolved into TV, everyone would laugh at you. When you find a fossil you do not know if he had children or that he haf different children all you Know is that it died. Evolution can not explain where orphan genes come from and why people are only one to have them. It is impossible that they developed after a long period of time by the chance. If I give you 8 letters to make sense out of them, but there are more combinations to make a nonsense especially if you do not have intelligence.
    Deleted Account likes this.

Share This Page