Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[rwenzori]

I don't know why people think that a massive universe is an argument against the existence of God or against the notion that humans are special.
Claiming its mathematically impossible that earth has the only life is no better an argument than claiming it is mathematically impossible for complexity to evolve. Sure, there may be life elsewhere, we just don't know. Even if there is, this too does not appear to be any problem for the existence of God or humans being special. Don't know why people think these kinds of points appear to be arguments against religion....

LOL, does Bebeh Jesus tour the vastness of the universe getting crucified for everyone's sins on every life-bearing planet?

 

[unskinnybob]

LOL, does Bebeh Jesus tour the vastness of the universe getting crucified for everyone's sins on every life-bearing planet?

I guess on less evolved planets little centipede jesus gets squashed.

 

[Swa]

Don't be a clown, they are denouncing Intelligent Design and creationism.

From what I gather they are only saying it's not a science question. Creation(ism) is a whole separate question and accepted as true from religious teaching. Denouncing it requires saying it's not true.

Scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.

They are obviously and blatantly approving the scientific theory of evolution. You don't like this and you are evidently confused about the definition.

Approving it as a valid field of study. There is also the pope's words:
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."
It's clear that he's okay with the inquiry as long as the soul is created by God. This is the only definition of evolution alluded to and it describes the theory of evolution, primordial soup evolving into man. It's not accepted as fact and even described as a doctrine. He's approving it as a valid field of study being compatible with the genesis account and not stating it as a fact.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

If you define it as in the first sentence as mere change then there's no point of contention. If you include the second part which is the commonly accepted definition then many do object.

 

[Swa]

The vatican has no take on Genesis because they know its WRONG. The Earth isnt 6000 years old and everything else it preaches is nonsense.

The Vatican's take on it has always been that the whole bible is true. It also never even alludes to 6000 years.

Creationists always ask, "where did this primordial soup come from?" , "where the big bang came from?" and "what was before the big bang?" and as a person of science I can proudly say, I do not know the answers for these questions.... yet.

You admit you don't even know the basics yet claim to know that religion is nothing but man made mumbo jumbo. That is the very epitome of arrogance.

HOWEVER, when asked the same questions you can see the blind ignorance.

"where is god ?"
"why did god decide to create the universe?"
"and who created god?"

If you look closely these 3 questions are identical with just the subject of the question being different. Yet the religious expect the answer of "god is always there" as an acceptable answer YET they dismissed solid science with the exact notion. Is is possible to be anymore hypocritical than that? this is the arrogance of faith.

When science doesn't know it's knowledge but when religion doesn't know it's ignorance? THAT'S hypocritical.

If you claim god always existed then why is it so difficult to say "the universe always existed", its the fundamental flaw at which religion attempts to debunk modern science. They ask the questions towards science, questions they would NOT DARE ask their own faith, it would be criminal and seen as apostasy.

We are not afraid to say we don't know and may never know. We are not afraid to say it requires faith. You on the other hand have faith but deny it in the belief that science will eventually give you the answer. You shift the burden of prove to religion and accept that your view must be right until religion proves it wrong. The people in the wrong here are those who put science on a pedestal as the only begetter of truth hence the question is rightly asked to bring it down from that imaginary pedestal kicking and screaming if needed. Surely enough you are the one kicking and screaming.

Now that we are liberated from these barbaric events, no more stoning of people like god ordered in the old testiment, what is the fear of asking these questions?

Indeed we were. And by who?

There idealogy of hell should be enough to dismiss it as a "monster in the closet", I mean if I were to go to hell and get my skin eternally burnt by lava, what happens then? do I have a 'regeneration' pick up from quake 3? that I grow more skin for it to burn away for the rest of time? Secondly why would your soul behave in the exact same manner as your body? pain is a neurological indicator to preserve the physical body from damage, something a soul does not have. When you die , according to the abrahamic based faiths your body says in the ground and the soul leaves. Next if god created everything that means he must of created everything in Heaven and Hell, and it would take a very evil twisted mind to create the concept of hell, eternal torture is no mere jail sentence. Again you need to ask the next question, what was there before heaven and hell existed? is that the end of knowledge. Finally what kind of sick creature is god to have created mankind in his image only to then send them of to hell for the "evil" doings they performed with the FREEWILL he had instilled, strange.

This is not really the place for a discussion on heaven and hell. I don't know why you insist of dragging religion into science discussions. Perplexing

Genesis basically states evolution is incorrect. There is no common ancestor and god created humanity. Those christians that do not believe in Genesis are closer to losing their faith and are seen as poor christians. Though personally I believe this to be a better state than the fanatical, religion is not a bad concept at all but as an evolving species its time to put down the cardinal laws of god because we are now more intelligent and therefore do not need christ, allah ect ect to provide a moral grounding. Its because of this events like 9/11 occured, religion provides the reason to love HOWEVER it provides a reason to go to war as well. None of those people deserved to die in 9/11, but they were murdered in the name of Allah, muslims argue that they are not muslim but at the end of the day those terrorists considered themselves muslim and thought they were doing great according to their interpretation of the Quran and this is the dangers that religion poses in our modern society and this is the reason its time is must be abolished. If christianity decided to go up in arms with islam there would be no world left. This type of danger arises from an ignorant believe in their faith, something Swa has shown clearly though not to such an extreme manner. The point is the questions towards their own faith is never asked, and its accepted because generally its what they have grown up with, like all mammals that evolve on earth, they must be taught how to survive.

You have no idea what Genesis states. It's really ironic you keep claiming what it is I and others do when you're doing it yourself. But as they say irony is lost on the people it applies. It's a step in the right direction though. Obsession with religion leads to asking the right questions which eventually leads to God and Jesus.

 

[Techne]

ROFL cuzzin why you want me to come to another forum i came here because I needed help with 8ta, god im noob with cellphones these days. They progressing a bit too fast for my liking.

In other words that a polite no i will not go there

It's not that I want you to go to another forum, it's just that some people moan terribly about these kinds of conversations in the science section. So, to save you from this I thought it can continue somewhere else. No worries.

Don't be a clown, they are denouncing Intelligent Design and creationism.

Probably young earth creation and deism (ID at best is deism in drag) and not creationism per se.

It does. If you look at all religions of the Abrahamic wing, it depicts the fact that humanity is centre of focus. the scale of the universe shows how incorrect the understanding of the natural worlds these texts had. In terms of hinduism this would not hold as hinduism, which is the oldest known religion, already confirmed the age and size of the universe.

Well, the way I understand it is that humans are special because they are created in the image of God. Not univocally, but analogously. I.e. (again, from what I understand) humans have an intellect analogous to that of God although limited whereas God has an unlimited intellect. The place of humans or the spread of humans throughout the universe seems irrelevant.

Genesis basically states evolution is incorrect. There is no common ancestor and god created humanity. Those christians that do not believe in Genesis are closer to losing their faith and are seen as poor christians. Though personally I believe this to be a better state than the fanatical, religion is not a bad concept at all but as an evolving species its time to put down the cardinal laws of god because we are now more intelligent and therefore do not need christ, allah ect ect to provide a moral grounding. Its because of this events like 9/11 occured, religion provides the reason to love HOWEVER it provides a reason to go to war as well. None of those people deserved to die in 9/11, but they were murdered in the name of Allah, muslims argue that they are not muslim but at the end of the day those terrorists considered themselves muslim and thought they were doing great according to their interpretation of the Quran and this is the dangers that religion poses in our modern society and this is the reason its time is must be abolished. If christianity decided to go up in arms with islam there would be no world left. This type of danger arises from an ignorant believe in their faith, something Swa has shown clearly though not to such an extreme manner. The point is the questions towards their own faith is never asked, and its accepted because generally its what they have grown up with, like all mammals that evolve on earth, they must be taught how to survive.

Genesis lays claim to creation, it does not say creation is incompatible with common descent or that evolution is incorrect. Anyway, I don't know why people think creation ex nihilo is refuted by evolution.

Hmmmm difficult. I dont believe in god because there is no evidence. Though when I say that what I mean is the god that all religions preach.

This just begs the question, what exactly do you think is the definition of God "all religions preach". Seems a bit of a generalization as well, as different religions preach different conceptions of God. But, you claim there is no evidence for God, so, could you perhaps provide a bit more clear definition that the above?

Personally, I believe god exists within me, as part of my subconscious. God isnt some all powerful deity in the sky with a power to create things, neither as an entitiy but rather my moral compass. The god i believe in, I created nothing more nothing less.

Also stops me from swearing in inappropriate places "OMG" instead of "Fk this sht"

Well, you certainly have strange conceptions of God, not something any theist would believe. So it is probably no surprise you claim there is no evidence for these weird conceptions. With regards to your average classical theist, such an objection (claiming no evidence) is essentially a straw man objection to a view of God that theists don't have anyway.

That's also probably why you think these questions are... interesting:
"where is god ?"
"why did god decide to create the universe?"
"and who created god?"

For the classical theist (i.e. majority of Christians) these kinds of questions just demonstrate that you do not properly try to understand what they believe in the first place and you are essentially taking down straw man version of God.

Let me give you an example thats purely hypothetical. Say those guys that bombed the twin towers, at face value they are evil. Though widen the picture, what if they were bullied into doing this? they had their families facing an execution squad? and they sacrificed their lives to save those they care about. Now its not an act of terrorism but an act of selfless sacrifice. On the other hand one can argue that the act is still unjust and its plain down murder. See how the view of these terrorist/heroes changed depending on which side of the fence you looking from.

Its a very interesting concept, and it boils down to what we hold as dear to our hearts. At the end of the day humanity is a social mammal with heirachy, some allow the dominant alpha status to go to god while others respect knowledge or themselves. Its these that form the principles of their being and they will fight to protect these principles. This is why religion in the modern age, only serves to bring segregation.

To be fair though, it is not only religion that bring segregation. In fact, it is merely a difference in ideology (be it religious or secular) that serves to bring segregation.

You speak of ethics, but there is no law in ethics. Take prisoners for example, they put strain on the economy, they put strain on the environment yet we still keep them alive and treat them like human beings (to an extent), yet some of them have no chance to ever breathe fresh air. The ethical issue and modern law protects these people, yet they have had no respect for it, Aristole once said "the law is free from passion" yet modern law has allowed passion to exist in it under a clever guise called ethics. Personally I would have their debt to society repaid by making them medical research bodies. Though you cant its unethical, even though sacrificing 30 000 scumbags can benefit millions of people worldwide and provide a healthier future but in the end ethics has chosen to side with the lives of the minority over the benefit of the majority

Aristotle had a point and the natural law ethics developed by him and others is free from passion and logically objective. And I agree, much of modern laws and ethics are not grounded in much logic and is instead dictated by passion, like your passionate view to kill people to satisfy other ends (it's just evil consequentialist ethics that ultimately collapses to moral relativism). And I agree, that is the problem with ethics. Very few want to defend natural law ethics. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has his own passionate and subjective take on what is moral and what is not and that sadly probably leads to even more segregation. As soon as people drop a logical and objective view of morality, people with subjective, non-logical views of morality will inevitably just lead to more segregation, far worse than any ideology (religious or secular) can hope to achieve.

 

[Unhappy438]

Fair is fair , everyone berates Techne and Swa for bringing philosophy and religion into the Science section. Riax you seem to be doing the same, maybe do what Techne suggested and take it to another forum or PM. Alternatively you wait until you can post in PD.

 

[RiaX]

@ techne I wouldnt mind being called evil if I sacrifice 100 million people for the cure of all diseases for humanity, and I'd gladly sit in a jail cell or face a firing squad

Also I didnt say religion is the only reason why people call to arms but i said its one of the reasons we can abolish. Bringing religion into a debate trying to debunk or validate evolution is necessary because the next ideal is creationism which is a religious focus point. In other words they claim there was no primordial soup that formed the DNA (of course I cannot prove there was) and that God created all living things. Now having people who believe in both theories, which is a sensable thing to do TBH, can be seen as agnostic people. Must remember both sides have their extreme views. Fair enough I shall not bring religion furthermore into this discussion.

I rather have a better suggestion. Why dont we create two threads here, one to review evolution and its evidence and he other for creationism. We keep the two ideals completely seperate ? and we try to debunk both?

 

[Techne]

@ techne I wouldnt mind being called evil if I sacrifice 100 million people for the cure of all diseases for humanity, and I'd gladly sit in a jail cell or face a firing squad

It's a strange position to be in isn't it. On the one hand you think it is ok, heck even good to murder people in order to save many more. But at the same time people revile at the thought that some interpretations of God's actions are in effect the same as your actions. Trying to be consistent from a moral anti-realist or moral relativistic view sucks doesn't it?

Also I didnt say religion is the only reason why people call to arms but i said its one of the reasons we can abolish. Bringing religion into a debate trying to debunk or validate evolution is necessary because the next ideal is creationism which is a religious focus point. In other words they claim there was no primordial soup that formed the DNA (of course I cannot prove there was) and that God created all living things. Now having people who believe in both theories, which is a sensable thing to do TBH, can be seen as agnostic people. Must remember both sides have their extreme views. Fair enough I shall not bring religion furthermore into this discussion.

I rather have a better suggestion. Why dont we create two threads here, one to review evolution and its evidence and he other for creationism. We keep the two ideals completely seperate ? and we try to debunk both?

Problem is two-fold:

1) I don't need to argue against evolution to support creation. I accept evolution, heck I don't mind abiogenesis or even an infinite multiverse.
2) Creation is not relevant to empirical science (reason being) and would not belong in this section to begin with.

Knock yourself out though, wherever.

 

[porchrat]

I rather have a better suggestion. Why dont we create two threads here, one to review evolution and its evidence and he other for creationism. We keep the two ideals completely seperate ? and we try to debunk both?

This is the Science section. Creationism does not belong here.

Techne and Swa have been reminded of this countless times before and now it is your turn.

Please guys take the religious crap to PD. This place is for science.

 

[Techne]

This is the Science section. Creationism does not belong here.

Techne and Swa have been reminded of this countless times before and now it is your turn.

Please guys take the religious crap to PD. This place is for science.

This was totally unexpected...

 

[porchrat]

This was totally unexpected...

I wouldn't have to keep reminding you guys of this if you would just leave the religious stuff out of forums you know it doesn't belong in.

Instead of sarcastically implying something about how often I point out that you people keep dragging religion into places it obviously doesn't belong why not just STOP DOING IT?!?

 

[Techne]

I wouldn't have to keep reminding you guys of this if you would just leave the religious stuff out of forums you know it doesn't belong in.

Instead of sarcastically implying something about how often I point out that you people keep dragging religion into places it obviously doesn't belong why not just STOP DOING IT?!?

All your moaning does not appear to stem the anti-religious nonsense we encounter here now and again. So it was a definite welcome surprise to see you berate that too. Good on you chap.

 

[porchrat]

All your moaning does not appear to stem the anti-religious nonsense we encounter here now and again. So it was a definite welcome surprise to see you berate that too. Good on you chap.

I don't read every post or thread in this section and frankly the constant religious bickering in this section of the forum lately has chased me away... or did you not notice my lack of posting in this section as of late? I visit this section to read about interesting scientific finds not watch some fruitloops argue about creationism. Lately this place has turned into an extension of PD. Don't even try to tell me I am wrong.

 

[Techne]

I don't read every post or thread in this section and frankly the constant religious bickering in this section of the forum lately has chased me away... or did you not notice my lack of posting in this section as of late?

Not really. I also don't remember you moaning about the anti-religious and anti-creationism crap posted in this section. This was a breath of fresh air though. Congrats!

 

[porchrat]

Not really. I also don't remember you moaning about the anti-religious and anti-creationism crap posted in this section. This was a breath of fresh air though. Congrats!

Then I think your memory is faulty then. As far as I can recall I moaned about posting unscientific crap in the science section and attempted to get you guys (ALL of you) to move your discussions to PM or PD I really don't see how that doesn't apply to both the pro and anti side.

 

[Techne]

Then I think your memory is faulty then. As far as I can recall I moaned about posting unscientific crap in the science section and attempted to get you guys (ALL of you) to move your discussions to PM or PD I really don't see how that doesn't apply to both the pro and anti side.

My memory is fine thanks .

 

[porchrat]

My memory is fine thanks .

The evidence says otherwise:

Seriously guys.

Techne and rwenzori take a step back and look at what you guys are typing. Be honest now. Does this stuff really belong in Natural Sciences or do you think maybe you should start a new thread in PD?

 

[Techne]

The evidence says otherwise:

I don't remember any evidence where you explicitly moaned about the anti-religious and anti-creationist nonsense being posted here. The above refers to pretty bland philosophical meanderings.

 

[porchrat]

I don't remember any evidence where you explicitly moaned about the anti-religious and anti-creationist nonsense being posted here. The above refers to pretty bland philosophical meanderings.

In that quoted instance rwenzori was the one in the anti stance. I clearly said that what BOTH of you were typing didn't belong there.

Again your memory is proving faulty.

 

[Techne]

Lol, talking about purpose is pretty bland philosophical stuff. I guess you are just blind to most of anti-religious and anti-creationist crap posted here.