The Evolution Conflict

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Mohsin, Mar 18, 2004.

  1. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,731
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    Carson is gaining...but the gop hasn't a viable candidate.... Hence the popularity of these two...
     
  2. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    As if Hillary is a viable alternative???

    When did this thread degenerate into political circus? What does any of it have to do with Evolution?
     
  3. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    evolution of politics? I don't know...
     
  4. StevePame

    StevePame Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    243
    It started with Carson not believing in evolution, but I agree with juan that we've gotten away from the heart of the OP.
     
  5. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    378
    Okay, back to the beginning! :)

    This summation by the OP is riddled with inaccuracies and presuppositions. I will go through them in depth piece by piece.

    Now, my question is that since the theory of evolution is incorrect and have contradictions with both Quran and the Bible, thus conflicting religion.....

    The OP used his own definitions to come to the self appealing definition that the theory of evolution is incorrect. That it has contradictions with the Quran and the Bible is a given. Neither are scientific treatises, they are religious ones.

    why do so many people believe in it?

    Because when one looks at evidence rather than superstition, the evidence supports the correctness of the theory. I know several will jump on this comment with the holes-in-the-theory argument. Yes there are holes in the theory. No that does not invalidate it. There are far more connections than there are holes.

    Why is it tought in schools and colleges?

    Because it is considered by the vast majority of experts who have the scientific background to know the difference between good and bad science believe it is good science. Again for the naysayers, No it is not perfect science. Nothing in this reality is perfect. But the science is solid. It is the best we have.

    Why do many magazines and people of the scientific community defend this theory,

    Because the preponderance of the evidence shows that it is true.

    and do you, being a religious person, believe in this thoery?

    Ah now we finally get to the actual question the OP is aiming for. Can one be a religious person and still believe in evolution. This, of course, can only be answered yay or nay by each individual. There are plenty of statistics on the population as a whole. The number of religious people who accept evolution varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is posed, and how much the pollster is actually looking for a truthful set of answers. It is fair to say that there are plenty of religious people that do indeed believe in evolution, no matter what the actual number is.
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    I can go along with this, up until the point of being taught as immutable fact, unchanging, inerrant and infallible. Which, if one is honest, happens all too often. Such attitudes undermine the science such persons purport to represent. In your own words, "there are holes in the theory," some big enough to drive a truck through, and those holes are sufficient cause to rein in the irrational exuberance with which science is touted.

    My stance is cause for consternation, routinely, by those who assume I mean something other than the stand on reality based truth from where I actually do come from. Rather, if such persons would merely take a careful look, what I have always been saying all along throughout this thread and elsewhere is that there is still room to *better* formulate the explanations, to close the "holes," and consider the field from a more *fact as truth as reality* point of view, rather than dig in heels in arrogance and dogma.
     

Share This Page