Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact? - Chess Forums - Page 18

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#341

Whaaaat is going on here?

This is getting seriously off topic people.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#342

Optimissed wrote:

TheRealWilliam2 wrote:

As Rev mentioned, the Bible does not contradict evolution. It contradicts the theory that the universe was created by pure coincidence, but not evolution. So please, can we move the christian arguments off this forum both so that we are sticking to forum rules and so that we can talk about facts and interesting concepts, which are what hapless_fool wants to talk about

There's no need to insist that evolution is due to pure chance only. In general that assumption is made but I would say it's incorrect. The assumption is due to a polarisation, so that many of the most outspoken pro evolutionists are atheists, as I am, but they don't properly know the meaning of atheism. There's no edict that states that all atheists have to be logical positivists. There's no edict that states that evolutionary divergence of mutation must be random. That's an assumption. Some assumptions are better than others. Assumptions are often good if they're helpful and often not so good when they're the result of lazy thinking or of an inability to entertain challenging ideas.

Ok... if it's not random than there must be some intention behind it, which completely contradicts everything evolution tries to say.

That's also why the entire theory of evolution cannot agree with the bible. The bible shows intention and purpose behind the universe; evolution clearly says that x,y,z happened to be in the place to form the amino acids, happened to get struck by lightening, and there happened to be energy at all to be begin the big bang in the first place.

Species changing within themselves and and adapting is not contradicted by the bible, however. The bible does not agree with the overarching theory, but neither does it contradict the very solidly proven scientific facts like the difference between a wolf and a dog.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#343

Sobrukai wrote:

Luke-Jaywalker wrote:

you guys have been rambling on about evolution for years.

the fact that you are discussing it with people it doesn’t matter to, shows how insecure you are in your beliefs. when you are not successful converting the heathens, you resort to bully tactics. the issue is your own lack of conviction in your beloved science.

evolution has its own place.

and it doesn’t need Jehovahs witnesses to propagate theories and pseudosciences about it.
a proper discussion about it, being respectful of people with other views, even people who disagree with it totally, is fine. why do you let people who disagree with it get under your nose ?

it’s because it reminds you that your belief is not secure.

and you then resort to saying “but it’s science”.

so the frick what!!

My belief is very secure, and I learned about the mechanics of evolution in AP bio. Evolution is a fact, and you are uneducated.

I disagree very highly with these beliefs, for scientific reasons and religious ones; but I am glad y'all are at least very well researched here. That promotes better discussion and understanding than otherwise would be had.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#344

Optimissed wrote:

That would be because, reputedly, you-know-who taught acceptance and the virtues of good deeds while rejecting the kind of false pride that rejects evolution.

I don't know who.

Do you mean Jesus?

Pride should not be a reason to either accept or deny evolution. I for one hold that evolution is not strongly enough supported by science to be held as true; on the contrary there are some things that evolution cannot answer. I am also a Christian. That and the reasons above are why I do not think evolution is true.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#345

Optimissed wrote:

I mean, GodsCoelacanth isn't rational because he writes:

"Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact."

The Law of Biogenesis? I ask you, who invented that? If life hadn't come from non-life, how the 'eck did it get here? Needed an entrepreneur with a capital "E" maybe? Could it be because Spontaneous Generation, where they supposed that fleas and flies and things just miraculously appeared, was rejected and the dumb so-and-sos thought that meant that life can't arise from non-life? If I believed in the Big Entrepreneur, I'd just accept that They created life using natural processes, since the B.E. seems to have created natural processes too, so that it would follow ....

Louis Pasteur invented the law of Biogenesis.

If everybody is so eager to follow Darwin's ideas (yes I know they have changed somewhat) than I do think we ought to listen to the guy who gave us pasteurized milk.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#346

Optimissed wrote:

Fennla wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

That would be because, reputedly, you-know-who taught acceptance and the virtues of good deeds while rejecting the kind of false pride that rejects evolution.

I don't know who.

Do you mean Jesus?

Pride should not be a reason to either accept or deny evolution. I for one hold that evolution is not strongly enough supported by science to be held as true; on the contrary there are some things that evolution cannot answer. I am also a Christian. That and the reasons above are why I do not think evolution is true.

I think you are wrong on that and that it's sufficiently supported by science that we can know it's correct.

I also accept that you are reacting against the thread title, which was insufficiently neutral and accepting of genuine discussion.

I shall retain my beliefs and allow you to follow in yours.

Yes they are beliefs, by the way, since y'all have been arguing very fervently about them.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#347

Optimissed wrote:

Fennla wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I mean, GodsCoelacanth isn't rational because he writes:

"Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact."

The Law of Biogenesis? I ask you, who invented that? If life hadn't come from non-life, how the 'eck did it get here? Needed an entrepreneur with a capital "E" maybe? Could it be because Spontaneous Generation, where they supposed that fleas and flies and things just miraculously appeared, was rejected and the dumb so-and-sos thought that meant that life can't arise from non-life? If I believed in the Big Entrepreneur, I'd just accept that They created life using natural processes, since the B.E. seems to have created natural processes too, so that it would follow ....

Louis Pasteur invented the law of Biogenesis.

If everybody is so eager to follow Darwin's ideas (yes I know they have changed somewhat) than I do think we ought to listen to the guy who gave us pasteurized milk.

Well, Pasteur was obviously wrong. That should be clear enough to a child, since we are here and life exists.

Our presence here on Earth is not proof enough that Pasteur was wrong. Give me more proof, things that you can prove, not just a theoretical situation billions of years ago that you can't even properly recreate. (We've already talked about the Miller-Urey experement in this thread.) You know, Darwin was not perfectly correct...

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#348

Optimissed wrote:

<<Our presence here on Earth is not proof enough that Pasteur was wrong. Give me more proof, things that you can prove, not just a theoretical situation billions of years ago that you can't even properly recreate. (We've already talked about the Miller-Urey experement in this thread.) You know, Darwin was not perfectly correct...>>

If there were a powerful entity, which created everything that exists, which created evolution so that simpler creatures would evolve towards the culminating goal of that entity, which may be mankind although we mustn't dismiss the possibility that we are a non-essential stepping stone along the way to a much more glorious reality, then wouldn't that entity have ensured that there is a mechanism by which life would come into being in the first place? After all, if it's all such an entity's creation, then that's what it would presumably have done.

I forget what the Miller-Urey expt. is or was. Was it really relevant to present day thinking? I'm a present day thinker and I dunno what it was. I'll have to google it.

The way said "entity" ensured that life would come into being was creating life.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#349

just-fester wrote:

It has been said often, even early in this thread, that there is just as much proof of design as evolution.

This is clearly evidentially nonsense. While we can't see actual evolution happening, because it takes longer the a puny human lifetime, evidence abounds. Whereas there is zero proof of creation. The claim of "What else could it be" is neither proof of design nor logical.

Faith is a powerful drug and it is the end of scientific discovery.

Bruh where would we be without Sir Issac Newton and Leonard Euler, who were both, may I remind you, strong Christians? How about Kepler and Copernicus, or Galileo?

That last sentence is very incorrect.

There is very little SOLID evidence about many parts of Evolution, such as the beginnings of it all. And don’t bring up more half-proven hypotheses please. Whereas the enigmas in the fossil record and the very COMPLEXITY and design of life, as well as the undeniable miraculous healings performed are evidence for a creator.

Again micro evolution alone is not a final proof to cover all the other unsolved mysteries.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#350

just-fester wrote:

The religion you believe in is purely circumstantial to where and when you were born and to whom. Whereas science can be studied regardless of the circumstances of your birth.

I will wager no one here is a convert from the religion they were raised to believe or if they are it was some other closely related religion they knew of. If you were born 3000 years ago you would believe in multiple gods.

There is no correct religion. They are all based on faith in what you were told.

Science on the other hand is a learning process. The only dogma is to keep searching.

3,000 years ago, there were still believers in God.

Anywaaays, if science is all about “keep on searching” then why are all the leading scientists insisting that a theory with multiple unfilled wholes is absolute fact? You answer me that.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#351

WHERE IN THE WORLD DID THE ENERGY COME FROM THAT SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED THE BIG BANG???

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#352

just-fester wrote:

The origin of the universe is not the same discussion as evolution.

But evolution is entirely dependent upon the origin of the universe, thereby making the origin of the universe a key factor to it.

BigChessplayer665

May 26, 2024

0

#353

Fennla wrote:

just-fester wrote:

The origin of the universe is not the same discussion as evolution.

But evolution is entirely dependent upon the origin of the universe, thereby making the origin of the universe a key factor to it.

Evolution is dependant on the origin of life not the universe

All we need is to know about how old the earth is (which we do know )

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#354

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Fennla wrote:

just-fester wrote:

The origin of the universe is not the same discussion as evolution.

But evolution is entirely dependent upon the origin of the universe, thereby making the origin of the universe a key factor to it.

Evolution is dependant on the origin of life not the universe

All we need is to know about how old the earth is (which we do know )

Unreliable methods.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#355

just-fester wrote:

Fennla wrote:

3,000 years ago, there were still believers in God.

Anywaaays, if science is all about “keep on searching” then why are all the leading scientists insisting that a theory with multiple unfilled wholes is absolute fact? You answer me ththat.

1 - Humor me and tell me all you know about any 3000 year old religion.

2- "all the leading scientists" have never claimed that.

3 - your lack of understanding does not equate to an "unfilled hole". (not whole)

1. Then research the history of Christianity and Judaism

2. Yes they have.

3. Thank you for correcting my spelling. That doesn’t explain, however, the gaps in the fossil record, few “common ancestor” remains being found, or where the energy for the Big Bang came from.

BigChessplayer665

May 26, 2024

0

#356

Fennla wrote:

BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Fennla wrote:

just-fester wrote:

The origin of the universe is not the same discussion as evolution.

But evolution is entirely dependent upon the origin of the universe, thereby making the origin of the universe a key factor to it.

Evolution is dependant on the origin of life not the universe

All we need is to know about how old the earth is (which we do know )

Unreliable methods.

Did people believe that the solar system existed at first and the earth was actually flat ?

Yes but the solar system was still there just because people thought the earth was the center of the universe didnt make it true just because people believe evolution to not exist doesn't make it accurate this happens a lot in science to pretty much everything including evolution

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#357

just-fester wrote:

Fennla wrote:

1 - Humor me and tell me all you know about any 3000 year old religion.

2- "all the leading scientists" have never claimed that.

3 - your lack of understanding does not equate to an "unfilled hole". (not whole)

1. Then research the history of Christianity and Judaism

2. Yes they have.

3. Thank you for correcting my spelling. That doesn’t explain, however, the gaps in the fossil record, few “common ancestor” remains being found, or where the energy for the Big Bang came from.

1 - that's not an answer

2 - nope

3 - yep there are missing pieces

This in not about the big bang. Second warning.

1. Demonstrates that you have not yet researched it and are going only by what you have heard. (Judaism originated with the biblical patriarch Abraham (approx 1800 BCE) Abraham established a covenant with God that was confirmed with the reception of the Law, including the Ten Commandments, from God through Moses to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai approximately 3,320 years ago.) - that's from a government source.

2. Pray tell. What have they been teaching in schools and universities and museums for the past fifty years??? Eh? It couldn't be Evolution. Just go to the Smithsonian museum of Natural History in D.C. and that's all the evidence you need for point 2. It is all backed by leading scientists. Except the Christain, creationist ones, of course. And the Deist ones, and the Theist ones, and maybe a couple others.

3. As I said. Since there ARE missing pieces, as you have said, it should not be accepted as completely true. So why are y'all arguing as if it was?

Second response - The big bang is an integral part of this theory about the orgin of life. Without the big bang, and the accumulation of the building blocks for life in the perfect location, your theory is nothing. Pretty much. It all comes from the big bang, which is why we MUST include that in the picture. You can't say someone is the U.S. President without citing an election.

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#358

just-fester wrote:

Fennla wrote:

Unreliable methods.

Let me guess. Home schooled Christian under 18.

You think so?

x-5607209224

May 26, 2024

0

#359

Fennla wrote:

just-fester wrote:

Fennla wrote:

Unreliable methods.

Let me guess. Home schooled Christian under 18.

You think so?

Also you haven't showed how the methods weren't unreliable.

LordHunkyhair3

May 26, 2024

0

#360

Like the government has ever been a reliable source of information lol