OP
OP
darkstar
New Member
It's unfair to judge Fiction and non-fiction together...
Do you believe in Evolution?
- Thread starter darkstar
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's unfair to judge Fiction and non-fiction together...
OP
OP
darkstar
New Member
Enjoy, it's a great read.
OP
OP
darkstar
New Member
Over The Hill
Guru
- Location
- Ridden off into the sunset
As I see it -
The whole God thing is belief bases and not factual.
If you want to believe it then carry on - but it is wrong to try to twist facts to meet your own belief.
The bible was written not by God but by various people who wanted to impose some order on society and install some sort of bogieman to keep us all in order. (We perhaps are supposed to be a bit happier with our miserable lot here on Earth if we are promised all the goodies in the next life).
Man has a natural desire to 'see' something that is not there and imagine beyond what we see (you often see a face in a random object or a small child will not question it if you say "teddy says he is sleepy") so it is easy to answer big questions by filling in blanks with God and the whole religion thing.
People like to believe in God as they feel too alone otherwise.
I do not find it odd when an ordinary man on the street believes in God I accept that their need for a God outweighs rational thought. But it does seem odd when a great thinker does. I really cannot see how they can be so rational and methodical in their approach to their field but then leap into an irrational belief in God at the same time.
But then there were loads of people who really thought crop circles were made by aliens.
The whole God thing is belief bases and not factual.
If you want to believe it then carry on - but it is wrong to try to twist facts to meet your own belief.
The bible was written not by God but by various people who wanted to impose some order on society and install some sort of bogieman to keep us all in order. (We perhaps are supposed to be a bit happier with our miserable lot here on Earth if we are promised all the goodies in the next life).
Man has a natural desire to 'see' something that is not there and imagine beyond what we see (you often see a face in a random object or a small child will not question it if you say "teddy says he is sleepy") so it is easy to answer big questions by filling in blanks with God and the whole religion thing.
People like to believe in God as they feel too alone otherwise.
I do not find it odd when an ordinary man on the street believes in God I accept that their need for a God outweighs rational thought. But it does seem odd when a great thinker does. I really cannot see how they can be so rational and methodical in their approach to their field but then leap into an irrational belief in God at the same time.
But then there were loads of people who really thought crop circles were made by aliens.
mangaman
Guest
Clearly you are a devout believer, Numbnuts (not a phrase I thought I'd ever type BTW)
I've always wanted to ask a literal believer in the Bible, how they get around the fact it was not a book written at the time of Christ, but a group of documents - some included, some left out, often written hundreds of years after the fact?
The Koran, for example, was directly quoted by God to Mohammed in one go and written down in an age of literacy.
People like yourself, who say the Bible is the word of God, forget it is a mish-mash of texts spanning many centuries.
Unlike Islam, there is nothing in the Bible saying explicitely - "Everything in these pages is literally true" I- it's one of the good things about the Bible. It doesn't claim to be the word of God anywhere.
Unless I'm missing something.
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
I personally need no more, being convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution is the correct explanation. However, strictly speaking one can argue that there is some way to go yet.
U
User169
Guest
Rather depends on what you mean by evolution. Dawkins sets out a rather particular version of the modern synthesis and it's not at all clear he's right. There are eminent, mainstream scientists that think he is wrong and, let's face it, his preening vanity is hugely tiresome.
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4
Yellow Fang
Legendary Member
- Location
- Reading
I've been reading Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species for the last few months. It was a Christmas pressie. I wouldn't call it great bed time reading, but I would have to admit Darwin was very thorough in finding evidence to back up his theory.
cookiemonster
Legendary Member
- Location
- Hong Kong
I grew out of reading fairy stories when I was about 7. Even those that are 2500 years old.
cookiemonster
Legendary Member
- Location
- Hong Kong
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
... or you could go easy on the apolexy (your blood pressure will thank you for it) and come out with the two words on which all religious assertion flounders: Prove it.
Can I just point out that nothing in science is ever "absolutely proven" - science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. You can only ever definitively disprove a theory.
The Theory of Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory. That is, it makes testable predicitions and has lots (in the case of evolution, mountains) of evidence to support it and no evidence to disprove it. If the theory as strong, with as much supporting evidence as Evolution, then scientists may refer to it as "proven" or "fact", as shorthand for saying that it is extremely well supported.
All science can really say is something along the lines of:
At the moment, with the evidence collected so far, this is the best explanation or model for observation or phenomenon X.
If evidence comes to light that conflicts with the prevailing theory, that theory must be modified to account for the new evidence or, if it cannot, be discarded.
Crucially, this is the great strength of the scientific method. That it does not blindly follow a set dogma, but is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. It might be slowly and reluctantly in some cases, but change it will.
As for Evolution, I struggle to imagine a scenario where it could be disproven, but it is possible. If a theory cannot, in principle, be disproven (i.e. it's not falsifiable) then it's not science.
In the meantime I accept Evolution as the best and most likely explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
The Theory of Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory. That is, it makes testable predicitions and has lots (in the case of evolution, mountains) of evidence to support it and no evidence to disprove it. If the theory as strong, with as much supporting evidence as Evolution, then scientists may refer to it as "proven" or "fact", as shorthand for saying that it is extremely well supported.
All science can really say is something along the lines of:
At the moment, with the evidence collected so far, this is the best explanation or model for observation or phenomenon X.
If evidence comes to light that conflicts with the prevailing theory, that theory must be modified to account for the new evidence or, if it cannot, be discarded.
Crucially, this is the great strength of the scientific method. That it does not blindly follow a set dogma, but is willing to change as new evidence is discovered. It might be slowly and reluctantly in some cases, but change it will.
As for Evolution, I struggle to imagine a scenario where it could be disproven, but it is possible. If a theory cannot, in principle, be disproven (i.e. it's not falsifiable) then it's not science.
In the meantime I accept Evolution as the best and most likely explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
