Replacing Evolution [Spirituality & Religion]

@CopperCicada
Christians are still upset over the “ monkey “ business “. They hate the idea that they weren’t hand crafted by god. They could accept at least some of the other sciences, if it didn’t mean including that aspect of evolution.

@CopperCicada [quote]There are a bunch of scientific things that one could launch a religious refutation of on the basis of Biblical pseudoscience.[/quote]

We have no religious pseudoscience but we do know that science points to God and no evolution. After all, God is the Author of science for our benefit.

@DocSavage [quote]They hate the idea that they weren’t hand crafted by god. They could accept at least some of the other sciences, [/quote]

We hate the lie of that they weren’t hand crafted by God when actually we were created by Him. Science will always point to God and not evolution.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]After all, God is the Author of science for our benefit.[/quote]
Where's your evidence, or is that just another one of your unsupported claims? Remember, as you keep saying, opinions aren't evidence.

@GodSpeed63 My question stands. Why is evolution the focus?

@CopperCicada [quote]My question stands. Why is evolution the focus?[/quote]

Why not evolution?

@GodSpeed63 I didn’t say not evolution. I’m just curious why all the other non-Biblical scientific subjects are ignored.

@GodSpeed63
Evolution is the subject that kicks creationism’s collective ass. The religion is based on the idea that humans are the best of god’s creatures. Made in his image , yadda, yadda, yadda, the other sciences they challenge the timeline of creation, but evolution defeats the purpose of it. Humans aren’t special, they’re just part of the natural process and they got lucky.

@DocSavage [quote]Evolution is the subject that kicks creationism’s collective ass.[/quote]

So why hasn't it done it yet. We're still waiting.

@GodSpeed63 Sorry, dude, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster kicks creationism's butt all the way around the block. If you're going to go with an untestable hypothesis, [b]FSM is the BEST![/b]

https://www.spaghettimonster.org/

@GodSpeed63 [quote]So why hasn't it done it yet.[/quote]
It already has. You must have blinked.

@CopperCicada biblical pseudoscience? Book of Job has and accurate if simplified explanation of water cycle science finally figured out in the late 1800's hmmm

@GodSpeed63 Hasn't done, so far...and if the "word of god" was the word of truth, why were so many scientists branded "heretics" during the Inquisition? What were the religious so afraid of? After all, the scientists at the time had confirmed the findings of ancient civilisations that had discovered how the Earth and the universe worked, thousands of years before religion was thought of.

@GodSpeed63
Even Kenny had to acknowledge that evolution exist, and must have happen. His claim is that after the animals left the ark, evolution went into hyper drive , creating all the species we have today. He simply couldn’t get pass the math. You can’t squeeze that many different animals , and dinosaurs on a boat that size. He calls it micro evolution. But he can’t get it to fit the timeline. Creationist, expect others to overlook the flaws in their claims as well as the lack of evidence. They will tell you “god did it “ and that’s all you need to believe. Waste of time to ask them for proof. It will never come. And won’t pass mustard if it did.

@DocSavage [quote]Even Kenny had to acknowledge that evolution exist, and must have happen. [/quote]

I doubt that.

@GodSpeed63
You sound like an Atheist. You doubt e erything.

@CopperCicada Evolution is the focus because "science" has concluded that we evolved from primates and they don't see any other viable alternative. "Science" has been looking for the missing link since Darwin thought up evolution. The main alternative to evolution is Creation, so, religion is the main opponent of evolution, science argues against anything supported by religious views. Science's goal is to prove the Bible incorrect.

@Roadsterrider You appear to misunderstand science.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is simply an explanation of the observed facts. Other scientists now attempt to prove it wrong by find flaws in it or by finding evidence that contradicts the Theory.

It is a common misunderstanding among non-scientists, that scientists try to prove Theories true. They don't. Let me make it perfectly clear, [b]scientists attempt to prove Theories wrong.[/b] If they succeed, the Theory is replaced by a better Theory that does explainn the fresh evidence. An example of that in my field (physics) is the orbit of the planet Mercury.

Newton's Theory of Gravity could not explain the perihelion advance or Mercury's orbit. Scientists hypothetized another planet (Vulcan), orbiting nearer to the Sun, that was affecting it but, despite Astronomers efforts, no one managed to find it. Eventually Einstein's Theory of General Relativity provided the answer by acurately predicting Mercury's perihelion advance. Although Newton's Theory was able to predict the perihelion advance of the other planets with reasonable accuracy, Einstein's Theory predicted them more accurately.

The "missing-link" is something of a red herring - it is a hypothetical creature supposed halfway between modern man other apes. The idea comes from a common (deliberate?) misinterpretation of Darwin's work that human evolved from existing species of apes. That's not what the Theory claims. All fossils are links (obviously no longer missing) between stages of evolution.

[quote]science argues against anything supported by religious views.[/quote]
No, science argues against anything not supported by evidence. Admittedly, most religious views tend to fall into that category.

[quote]Science's goal is to prove the Bible incorrect.[/quote]
Again you appear to misunderstand the point of science, which is to explain the workings of the universe. From what various christians have said, both here and elsewhere, it seems the goal of christianity is to prove science incorrect. Rather ironically, as I said above, science also tries to prove current scientific Theories incorrect.

@Sharon Scientists try to explain how things happened, whether you want to call it proving a theory or not, they take a stab at eliminating ideas that don't fit their evidence as far as the workings of the universe. Some ideas are dismissed without being disproven, a global flood being one of them. If you bring up a global flood, the first thing that gets pointed out is that the Bible is a fairy tale. Yet most of the Earth is covered with sedimentary rock and the places that have metamorphic rock are places that have been lifted due to continental drift or volcanic activity. The Great Non Conformity of the floor of the Grand Canyon, scientists will say that having that much history exposed is great and it proves tings are exactly as they say until you get to the bottom and the non conformity. They can't explain that. Why is the Bible a fairy tale but the Epic of Gilgamesh a historic document? Why is science so against a global flood when there is evidence for a global flood?

Evolution isn't something I care a great deal about except for arguments sake. What bothers me is when something comes up where there the science says "this is the way it happened and there is no other possibility. The Grand Canyon was created by the river running through it over millions of years. Period, end of story, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Things like that just can't happen any other way. Then when Mt. St. Helens blew, Engineer Canyon was formed in a matter of a few days.

There is more to the evolution of the planet than science wants to believe.

@Sharon No, science argues against anything not supported by evidence. Admittedly, most religious views tend to fall into that category? Let's see, first life in the ocean, the water cycle, the circle of the Earth all thousand of years before science hmmm.

@Faith13praise [quote]Let's see, first life in the ocean, the water cycle, the circle of the Earth all thousand of years before science hmmm.[/quote]
What point are you trying to make? Considering science is simply a method, what do you even mean by "before science"?

@Roadsterrider [quote]eliminating ideas that don't fit their evidence[/quote]
It's not [b]"their"[/b] evidence, it's [b]"the"[/b] evidence. That's an important difference.

[quote]Some ideas are dismissed without being disproven, a global flood being one of them.[/quote]
No, hypothesies are dismissed when the fail to explain [b]the[/b] evidence. There is no evidence of a [b]global flood[/b] and considerable evidence that none occurred. There is some evidence of various localised floods but that's all.

[quote] the science says "this is the way it happened and there is no other possibility. [/quote]
That's a misrepresentation of science. I don't know of any scientist who would say anything like that. We say "the evidence suggest that..." and "we're not aware of any better explanation." If there were a better explanation, it would replace the previous Theory.

@Roadsterrider As somebody trained as a scientist-- it's never been a thing to prove the Bible or any other religious narrative incorrect. Largely because that's not the job of science. The job of science is to take physical observations and test hypotheses that come from them. Period. Full stop. Coming from a physics background it's a non issue as God has no mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, and so on.

One of my graduate mentors was a Lutheran theologian. My graduate advisor an elder in his church. There is no animosity between faith and science unless one wishes there to be. It's really a matter of one's individual choices.

One can look at science and say: [i]Look, there's obviously no God![/i] One can look at science and say: [i]Look, this shows the existence of God through the beauty of creation![/i] Or one can look at science and say: [i]Look, it's different from the Bible (or some other religious narrative) the science must be wrong![/i] It's also possible to not really connect the two, science and faith, at all.

@DocSavage [quote]You sound like an Atheist. You doubt e erything.[/quote]

Learn to spell. I doubt anything that has to do with evolution and I am certain that Ken Ham wouldn't admit to such a thing existing.

@Roadsterrider As for my original comment-- it's not clear to me why [i]evolution[/i] is something that ends up in these science-faith wars? There are so many other things that could be held up as faith-based challenges to science. It's certainly a reasonable one, but it seems like there are so many other natural challenges. Most things in physics seem natural challenges as being antithetical to faith for those who demand reconciling the science of religious narratives with modern science. And that's not talking about the open questions of modern physics. Heck. The open questiosn of biology or neuroscience.