157 replies to this topic

[Chris Weimer]

A belief in the Christian God isn't the only form of religious belief in history. There were no Christians among the Native Americans before the Europeans came, but there were probably very few atheists too. They had lots of creation myths of their own. Same with the Chinese and the Aborigines, they were all generally religious people. If you had asked them if they believe that spirits exist, or even that a Great Spirit exists, they would mostly have said yes.

Yet it still is a learned thing. Nothing deviates from that.

Did you say this before? You only said: "A theory is defined as a working description of scientific facts." Genetic mutation is a scientific fact, yes. But "innumerable instances" of genetic mutation leading to the evolution of fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals is something that can only be proposed based on the interpretation of a number of fossils.

Yes, the two are the same. One was merely what a theory was, and the other was what a particular theory was, i.e. the Evolutionary Theory. It's like saying what a language is, then going further in depth and saying what Swahili is.

Go visit a Pentecostal church sometime. You might see something that would inconvenience you. As it is, you seem to be claiming there is no such thing as light because you've never tried to open your eyes.

Here's the odd part, I was a part of a Pentecostal church once. I did witness the "laying on hands" and other such "miracles." But when it came time for them to lay their hands on me, what happened? Nothing. Everyone else was falling into "hypnotic" trances and I merely as faking it. As a Christian at the time, I felt like either I was betraying God, or God was betraying me, or something along those lines, but now reading up on hypnotic trances and the state of the mind, it is easily explained by self-induced chemicals which alter brain activity. This is probably what causes the religious experience to begin with, and why this is present in most religions including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and various native religions of Africa, America, and Australia. But as for seeing something miraculous, nothing. Has a dead person been raised from the dead? As soon as a Christian can do that (as it is stated they could from the Bible itself!) I'll be a believer.

[Yun]

Yet it still is a learned thing. Nothing deviates from that.

At its best, it is learned and then experienced, otherwise it is never real. I learned about God when I was 2 or 3. I did not experience Him until I was 17, and last year and this year I have experienced some more that I never previously thought possible.

Here's the odd part, I was a part of a Pentecostal church once. I did witness the "laying on hands" and other such "miracles." But when it came time for them to lay their hands on me, what happened? Nothing. Everyone else was falling into "hypnotic" trances and I merely as faking it. As a Christian at the time, I felt like either I was betraying God, or God was betraying me, or something along those lines, but now reading up on hypnotic trances and the state of the mind, it is easily explained by self-induced chemicals which alter brain activity. This is probably what causes the religious experience to begin with, and why this is present in most religions including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and various native religions of Africa, America, and Australia. But as for seeing something miraculous, nothing. Has a dead person been raised from the dead? As soon as a Christian can do that (as it is stated they could from the Bible itself!) I'll be a believer.

Until last year, I didn't believe in it either and had never seen it myself because my church didn't much care for being filled by the Spirit (what you call "trances") until then. And I only experienced it this year, despite being very sceptical at the time that it would happen to me (because I'm just very rational about these things). But there I ended up on the ground. The second time was the next day, and this time a pastor just blew a breath on me. I wasn't even intending to fall down again. You could call it chemicals in my brain, but I think I know my brain better. Demon manifestations, healings, words of prophecy about people, I've seen them. Raising from the dead is not on the list, but I've heard testimonies of it from other countries (which one can always be sceptical about).

How many times did nothing happen when someone laid hands on you? The first time someone laid hands on me, nothing happened either.

[Chris Weimer]

But I wasn't skeptical to begin with, I just became that way after seeing how phony it all was. Despite this, I remained a Christian until just recently (er, four years ago?).

[Ryz05]

The last I checked, evolution was still a theory and not a fact. Of course, an idea can become so dominant and accepted that people assume it is a fact. For example, the idea that God does not exist.

Please do not confuse the word "theory" with the word "guess" or "a hunch." A theory in science means something that is supported by a lot of evidence, and the theory of evolution is fundamental to modern biology, as well as other sciences.

A person does not have to choose between believing in Evolution or Religion. The two deals with completely different things. Evolution talks about how animals became the way they are today, while Religion deals with the importance of life. A person can be both a supporter of evolution, and a devout Christian.

Yun, you are also mistaking the word "fact." A fact is something everyone can observe. The sky is blue is a fact. Water boils at 100 degrees Celcius at sea level is another fact. To say evolution is a fact is completely misleading.

Knowing the difference between evolution and religion is something everyone must be familiar with.

A helpful website is http://bioliteracy.net/.

[Chris Weimer]

Ryz05 - I think I adequately summed up "fact." Evolution is observable, but the Evolutionary Theory is a theoretical framework which describes the innumerable instances of evolution and our evolving nature is a theory, a scientific theory at that. A Theory is built on Facts.

[Ryz05]

Ryz05 - I think I adequately summed up "fact." Evolution is observable, but the Evolutionary Theory is a theoretical framework which describes the innumerable instances of evolution and our evolving nature is a theory, a scientific theory at that. A Theory is built on Facts.

It really depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Microevolution is observable, but macroevolution is only evident in fossils, and has never been observed. Also, you shouldn't say that theory is built on facts, because people know that dinosaurs existed by studying their fossils, but no one was ever there to witness them. This is kind of like how a detective solves a crime scene; even though no one was at the scene of the crime, detectives can use DNA and fingerprints to capture the murderer. It is more correct to say that a theory is built on evidence, not facts.

[Chris Weimer]

Sure, then, theory built on evidence. But this evidence happens to be overwhelming. To deny dinosaurs existed is akin to denying the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte.

And if by macroevolution you mean a species as a whole, then it has been observed, one fly species to another.

[Ryz05]

Do you mean by one species of flies turning into a new species has been observed? That's interesting, I've only heard of it in plants, but I guess it's possible with animals like flies. A more serious kind of macroevolution would be a change from fish to land-living animals, or from dinosaurs to birds, which has never been observed.

[Chris Weimer]

I'm sure it has been observed, just not by humans. Homocentricity. That's the big picture. Everyone thinks that everything revolves around mankind. Take a look at mitochondrial DNA, it's mere hubris to sit and deny anything that might contradict a book you've taken a priori to be truth.

But yes, the fly thing, I'll try to dig through articles to see if I can find it. I'll let you know when I come across it again.

[Chris Weimer]

On a related note, if 1 + 1 = 2, then why wouldn't you assume 100000 + 100000 = 200000?

[Chris Weimer]

mib - Isn't there an old saying, "practice what you preach"?

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

from: http://www.talkorigi...oevolution.html

[Spc4]

I guarantee that this debate between creation and evolution will not change anyone's minds, if you guys want to continue it.
Faith and science are inherently incompatible frameworks.

Once in a blue moon, points of contention arise such as the Inquisition's disagreement with Galileo about astronomy that can be settled ( http://en.wikipedia....rch_controversy ). Ever since then, religion has been in a sort of "on the run" state with a multitude of interpretations of the same text. Leave further resolutions to the future.

[snowybeagle]

I refrained from commenting on the details of disagreements between evolution and the bible, been there done that and this is not really the right forum for it unless there's some relevance to Chinese history, culture or otherwise.

It is up to individuals to decide whether their understanding of what evolution is would render the bible as mythology, and vice versa whether a person's understanding of the bible would put evolution into a different perspective.

But even if one is to consider the bible as having elements of mythology, numerous or otherwise, the discussion of the namesake of this thread can still continue by offering personal subjective thoughts but keeping it in as objective a manner possible.

The presence of "mythological" elements should not render any idea as wholly ficticious - the same influences were present in traditional accounts of the Xia and Shang dynasties.

One of the ways we can discuss this in a more objective manner is to address the specific claims made.

For example, it was claimed in the link of the first post that the Garden of Eden as described in the Bible has four rivers flowing east.

To address it objectively,
(1) Verify if any versions of the Bible did make that claim.
(2) Verify if the Mesopotamian and Middle East region as a whole in fact did not have the four rivers.
(3) Verify if the SiChuan region in China had only four rivers, or in fact, actually more than four. Just because the region had the name of SiChuan did not mean it had exactly four rivers.
(4) Names of rivers in the Bible are not necessarily "carved in stone" - because of translations over time and distance. For example, the sea that Moses was to have led the people away from Egypt were translated to either the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. Besides, I believe the Red Sea is a relatively modern name for the body of water - the ancients called it differently and the term Red Sea actually referred to the body of water further south (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_sea )

And so forth ...

I hope you folks get what I am trying to put across here.

Edited by snowybeagle, 03 May 2005 - 09:32 PM.

[Yun]

Please do not confuse the word "theory" with the word "guess" or "a hunch." A theory in science means something that is supported by a lot of evidence, and the theory of evolution is fundamental to modern biology, as well as other sciences.

Yun, you are also mistaking the word "fact." A fact is something everyone can observe. The sky is blue is a fact. Water boils at 100 degrees Celcius at sea level is another fact. To say evolution is a fact is completely misleading.

Ryz05, I think it was Chris who described evolution as a fact. I happen to define a fact in about the same way as you do. And I agree that a theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence, and when the evidence is not simple observation but has to be interpreted indirectly, the theory cannot be established as a fact. It works the same way in history as in science, except that in history many academics like Carr believe that a historical fact can be established as such as soon as the majority of historians reach a consensus that it happened. I am rather doubtful about that approach myself.

A person does not have to choose between believing in Evolution or Religion. The two deals with completely different things. Evolution talks about how animals became the way they are today, while Religion deals with the importance of life. A person can be both a supporter of evolution, and a devout Christian.

If one picks and chooses what aspects of religion one wants to accept, this approach might work. After all, all religions tend to emphasise the importance of life. However, the Fall of Man is a central belief in the Christian worldview, and so when evolution is applied to explain how HUMANS became the way they are today, it basically undermines any significance in the Fall and the origins of sin. But how does one use evolution with regard to animals but not to human beings? That would seem to draw a line that biologically should not exist.

[Yun]

Anyway, I agree with Snowybeagle. I usually have little interest in debating on evolution because I find that it always comes down to that pointless "prove it" argument on both sides.

It would not have been necessary if we could just avoid provocative statements like "the garden of Eden did not exist" and "evolution is a fact". Let's all respect each other's beliefs here on CHF, whether we agree with them or not.