Do you believe in evolution?

[BleakAsh]

This is dumbest stuff I see on internet.
Science and relegion go in parallel lines.
The most defination to science is study of observable universe and Religion is sort of related Spirituality and Mind.

Literally two different Dimensions and Realm are being compared.

Its not a matter of comparisons its a matter of people denying reality out of arrogance

Take a look at the every other chapter Allah asks us to ponder over his signs and creation

إِنَّ فِى خَلْقِ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَٱخْتِلَـٰفِ ٱلَّيْلِ وَٱلنَّهَارِ لَـَٔايَـٰتٍۢ لِّأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَلْبَـٰبِ ١٩٠

Quran 3:190

Its a test for religions too prove their credibility as an ideology that claims to explain the creation of man kind and universe/nature by affirming what the God of that religion has created .. If it contradicts basic reality then obviously hardcore believers will remain in denial

I don't know about other religions or even Christianity much when it comes to giving scientific and historical information in the scripture and tell the believers to ponder over it like Allah does in the Quran

but science doesn't calim factuality its a mere observation and study which can be developed upon further..

If science was blatantly a corpus of universal facts then it'd go hand in hand with the true religion.

Besides it should be common sense that a God would want his creation to ponder over his creation and leave hints in the text of his book.

Like that's the most basic yardstick to scale authenticity in the first place no?

 

[Phoenix D. King]

This is dumbest stuff I see on internet.
Science and relegion go in parallel lines.
The most basic defination to science is study of observable universe and Religion is sort of related Spirituality and Mind.

Literally two different Dimensions and Realm are being compared.

but some people look at the outdated sciences in these religions, that was based off shit thousands of yrs ago

 

[BleakAsh]

but some people look at the outdated sciences in these religions, that was based off shit thousands of yrs ago

For instance?

 

[Thaidakar]

Why do you think religious people don't believe in evoluiton?

Because they generally believe in religions that were made up 1400+ years ago starting with islam. (protestant Christianity, especially in the US, has accepted evolution by now - but they claim it was led by god). Catholic Christians are still hardcore adam&eve mode. I don't dare to talk about the Jewish religion, lest I probably get banned for whatever reasons.

And what evoluiton do they not believe in?

There's only one evolution in that matter. Do they believe living beings changed phenotypes (and genotypes) over time - yes or no. It's the basic principles of evolution religious apologists deny because it directly contradicts their book.

 

[BleakAsh]

There's only one evolution in that matter. Do they believe living beings changed phenotypes (and genotypes) over time - yes or no. It's the basic principles of evolution religious apologists deny because it directly contradicts their book.

What make you think they deny basic genetic and phenotyoical changes

What you are implying is the Human-ape ancestry theory true?

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

The most basic defination to science is study of observable universe and Religion is sort of related Spirituality and Mind.

Literally two different Dimensions and Realm are being compared.

Yeah, two different dimensions: one exists and the other doesn't, hence why science keeps finding reliable knowledge while religion keeps moving the goalpoasts of its fairytales because they keep growing outdated.

Science and religion don't go in parallel lines; don't insult science like that.

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2023

The fact that earth is where it is (goldilocks zone) and that Water and Iron came from space and has enough magnetic field to protect from UVs. And the fact that Saturn and Jupiter protect us from humongous Asteriods
And earth having a Moon " the Moon makes Earth a more livable planet by moderating our home planet's wobble on its axis, leading to a relatively stable climate"

Just for us to exist...

Randomness doesn’t do this any justice

Or we exist just because all of that happened to be like that instead of different; by randomness.

 

[Cruxroux]

Science and religion don't go in parallel lines; don't insult science like that.

Bruh 😮‍💨😮‍💨.
I never insulted science that's why I clearly said Those two are like parallel lines.
Its your agenda to push science > Religion.

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

Bruh 😮‍💨😮‍💨.
I never insulted science that's why I clearly said Those two are like parallel lines.
Its your agenda to push science > Religion.

Saying they're parallel lines is the devaluation. And certainly I don't need an "agenda" to push the most reliable tool of knowledge we have as superior to an outdated fairytale poisoning people's minds.

Saying that religion deals with "spirit" and "mind" as if spirit existed and mind wasn't actually studied by science, and depicting it as different realms to those science studies yet a parallel line to it, is the insult you wrote.

 

[Cruxroux]

Saying they're parallel lines is the devaluation. And certainly I don't need an "agenda" to push the most reliable tool of knowledge we have as superior to an outdated fairytale poisoning people's minds.

Saying that religion deals with "spirit" and "mind" as if spirit existed and mind wasn't actually studied by science, and depicting it as different realms to those science studies yet a parallel line to it, is the insult you wrote.

@BleakAsh 😮‍💨😮‍💨.

 

[Thaidakar]

What make you think they deny basic genetic and phenotyoical changes

What you are implying is the Human-ape ancestry theory true?

Apparently you are not a member of abrahamitic religions?!
In that case, sorry, whatever you believe in, if it's science based, i think it's fine. But tbh I don't know any.

Yes, obviously. It's not really a theory, 96% is enough to be quite certain.

 

[Zenos7]

It is fact

/thread

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2023

But i have been interested in ID ( Intelligent Design ) theory , which is like an opponent to Evolutionary theories .

intelligent design is no opponent to evolution.

also you need to distinguish between "theory" used in scientific context and colloqual context. basically used both there, which makes it kinda confusing.

ID has no evidence whatsoever, and pretty much the only thing ID proponents ever do is try to poke holes in the theory of evolution

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

Yes, obviously. It's not really a theory, 96% is enough to be quite certain.

"Theory" is the highest level of scientific knowledge. If something is labelled as a scientific theory then it has received a huge support to begin with; otherwise it's just an hypothesis.

 

[Thaidakar]

"Theory" is the highest level of scientific knowledge. If something is labelled as a scientific theory then it has received a huge support to begin with; otherwise it's just an hypothesis.

Yes. Unfortunately to many people theory means =hypothesis. Which is why I'm occasionally using the term in that context. But yeah, you're right.

 

[BleakAsh]

we exist just because all of that happened to be like that instead of different; by randomness.

thats a logical contradiction

"Everything has happened in a fine tuned sequence to cause further complexities to exist hence it is random "

96% is enough to be quite certain.

first of all where does that metric come from
second you just proved its not even a scientific consensus
are you alluding that scientists don't use logical biases to fill in gaps like inductive reasoning, homoplasy and homology?

so ape papa is not a fact thank you lol

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

Catholic Christians are still hardcore adam&eve mode

Pope Pius XII stated over 70 years ago that evolution doesn't conflict with the Church.
The originator of Big Bang theory was a catholic priest, who also had his theory embraced by the Church

So I'm not sure where this is coming from.

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

thats a logical contradiction

"Everything has happened in a fine tuned sequence to cause further complexities to exist hence it is random "

It's not. Your mistake is thinking it's a "fine tuned sequence", you're just falling for a reverse causation fallacy.

Earth's characteristics aren't like that for us to exist; we exist because Earth's characteristics happened to be the way they are. The difference is huge and certainly no logical contradiction is involved (don't dare bringing that up when you're sharing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc mistake older than yourself).

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2023

Pope Pius XII stated over 70 years ago that evolution doesn't conflict with the Church.
The originator of Big Bang theory was a catholic priest, who also had his theory embraced by the Church

So I'm not sure where this is coming from.

Evolution can't happen if Earth is 6.000 years old and the concept itself debunks the idea of humans being made after God himself. Religion does go against evolution, but since it's pretty much an undeniable fact as of today institutions such as the Church just redefined its own beliefs in order to fit current times; as they always do because otherwise they'd still defend stuff nobody in their right mind would share today.

That's why Pius XII stated that evolution doesn't conflict with the Church: because God can't win over science, therefore they need to change God.

 

[NAMELESS]

Pope Pius XII stated over 70 years ago that evolution doesn't conflict with the Church.
The originator of Big Bang theory was a catholic priest, who also had his theory embraced by the Church

So I'm not sure where this is coming from.

Its coming out of ignorance about both religion and the evolution theory.

 

[Thaidakar]

Pope Pius XII stated over 70 years ago that evolution doesn't conflict with the Church.
The originator of Big Bang theory was a catholic priest, who also had his theory embraced by the Church

So I'm not sure where this is coming from.

thats a logical contradiction



"Everything has happened in a fine tuned sequence to cause further complexities to exist hence it is random "







first of all where does that metric come from

second you just proved its not even a scientific consensus

are you alluding that scientists don't use logical biases to fill in gaps like inductive reasoning, homoplasy and homology?



so ape papa is not a fact thank you lol

Not gonna get into a discussion with you guys.
The metric comes from scientific research papers and the percentage is even higher in general.

@TheAncientCenturion of course the church is giving in at some point. Is it the overwhelming evidence that threatened the Christian base though or what is it? A coincidence the church gave in after a millennium+ of adam+eve?
As I said. I don't wanna discuss with you guys about that. Just do your own research. On scientific sites. Not islam.net or jesusislord.org or whatever (just randomly spit out those sites to make the point).

 

[BleakAsh]

It's not. Your mistake is thinking it's a "fine tuned sequence", you're just falling for a reverse causation fallacy.

Earth's characteristics aren't like that for us to exist; we exist because Earth's characteristics happened to be the way they are. The difference is huge and certainly no logical contradiction is involved (don't dare bringing that up when you're sharing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc mistake older than yourself).

wait you're not proving anything then...

you haven't even provided a reason to reject a creator to quality that as a fallacy ...


redherrring much?

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2023

Not gonna get into a discussion with you guys.
The metric comes from scientific research papers and the percentage is even higher in general.

can you atleast quote the RESEARCH

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

wait you're not proving anything then...

you haven't even provided a reason to reject a creator to quality that as a fallacy ...


redherrring much?

I'm not the one with the burden of proof on this, mate. What do you want me to do, prove you that there's no creator? (not only that but probably the creator you happened to believe in). Before or after I prove you there's no invisible, intangible dragon in my garage?

I'm too old for your fallacies. Hell, humanity should be too old for them. What's next, Pascal's wager?