How could anyone "believe in evolution"?

Oct 2019
609
44
USA
There are literally thousands of tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and zero evidence for the existence of God.
Which one do you choose to believe in?
Yawn, more circular reasoning, and arguments from authority - you're merely referring to evidence via Francis Bacon's scientific method, so this isn't you having tested or gathered the evidence, or invented the theories of physics yourself, just appealing to the authority of the scientific method. Even during the era in which it originated, Bacon's method (or empericism) wasn't the only school of knowledge, and was opposed by other "secular" theories.

So honestly, I'm getting tired of people being patently ignorant on the history of their own culture. By the same definitions of "evidence" used by Bacon's method, then Charles Darwin doesn't exist - since his existence isn't repeatable or testible in any way, so in practice, no one honestly uses Bacon's method to approximate every type of knowledge in existence - it's apparent that they demand one definition of evidence for God, but not for other things which people believe in on faith, or take for granted - which wouldn't "exist" either within the scope of Bacon's method.

Physical theories are just constructs built from mathematics, so in that regard, they're arguably no different than any other type of constructed theory, to begin with (such as theories of law, government, business, or... music).
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,825
27,630
La La Land North
Yawn, more circular reasoning, and arguments from authority - you're merely referring to evidence via Francis Bacon's scientific method, so this isn't you having tested or gathered the evidence, or invented the theories of physics yourself, just appealing to the authority of the scientific method. Even during the era in which it originated, Bacon's method (or empericism) wasn't the only school of knowledge, and was opposed by other "secular" theories.

So honestly, I'm getting tired of people being patently ignorant on the history of their own culture. By the same definitions of "evidence" used by Bacon's method, then Charles Darwin doesn't exist - since his existence isn't repeatable or testible in any way, so in practice, no one honestly uses Bacon's method to approximate every type of knowledge in existence - it's apparent that they demand one definition of evidence for God, but not for other things which people believe in on faith, or take for granted - which wouldn't "exist" either within the scope of Bacon's method.

Physical theories are just constructs built from mathematics, so in that regard, they're arguably no different than any other type of constructed theory, to begin with (such as theories of law, government, business, or... music).
Serious question. You consistently criticise the scientific method, and insist on trying to make yourself seem well read by labelling it Bacon's, which I have already explained is an irrelevant waste of words. Then you further criticise them for accepting arguments from authority, as if they should only accept these things if they did the experimentation to conclude these things by themselves. And you call things circular reasoning that are not circular reasoning at all.

So I ask you, do you talk to god? More importantly, does he talk back? And where did you do the research to attain your beliefs? Didn't it all come only from the authority of the bible?

Justify yourself please in these terms please.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
Serious question. You consistently criticise the scientific method, and insist on trying to make yourself seem well read by labelling it Bacon's, which I have already explained is an irrelevant waste of words. Then you further criticise them for accepting arguments from authority, as if they should only accept these things if they did the experimentation to conclude these things by themselves. And you call things circular reasoning that are not circular reasoning at all.

So I ask you, do you talk to god? More importantly, does he talk back? And where did you do the research to attain your beliefs? Didn't it all come only from the authority of the bible?

Justify yourself please in these terms please.

I wouldn't be surprised if god talks back to him. Try to prove that it's not the real one.

:)

Even the official catholic church process of beatification and canonization is done on the basis of hearsay about someone "miraculously" healing stuff. No regular real world miracles like walking on water or feeding 1000 people with one fish. They ceased shortly after the crucification apparently.
 
Dec 2018
3,312
2,444
Wisconsin
Serious question. You consistently criticise the scientific method, and insist on trying to make yourself seem well read by labelling it Bacon's, which I have already explained is an irrelevant waste of words. Then you further criticise them for accepting arguments from authority, as if they should only accept these things if they did the experimentation to conclude these things by themselves. And you call things circular reasoning that are not circular reasoning at all.

So I ask you, do you talk to god? More importantly, does he talk back? And where did you do the research to attain your beliefs? Didn't it all come only from the authority of the bible?

Justify yourself please in these terms please.
Reminds me of a scene from The Newsroom: What does god sound like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Feb 2019
2,066
541
here and there
The difference is that anyone can go to a geological museum and see evolution in action for themselves. Or look at the new varieties of fruits available. Or read the same conclusions coming from different sources. What is being taught about evolution doesn't come from some compilation of books and essays written long ago by mostly unknown people making up stories of magic and miracles. It is reports from people with easily verified biographies whose work can be reproduced and studied independently and verified.

Religion is myth, science is observed phenomenon. Religion is blindly accepted, science can be confirmed. The are way different.
Ever heard of Biblical Archeology?

The Bible has verifiable information in it

In fact, it is the only religious book I know of that has a scientific discipline created for it.

And no, these Biblical Archeologists don't all believe that everything in the Bible is correct, rather, they just recognize the value it has because it is used to find digs.
 
Dec 2018
45
23
USA
Ever heard of Biblical Archeology?

The Bible has verifiable information in it

In fact, it is the only religious book I know of that has a scientific discipline created for it.

And no, these Biblical Archeologists don't all believe that everything in the Bible is correct, rather, they just recognize the value it has because it is used to find digs.
Sure but 1) the verifiable stuff is window dressing. Knowing that there really was a guy named Pontius Pilate doesn't get you anywhere closer to the supernatural claims. You'd expect any attempt to insert myths into history or create myths put of real people might include some real names of people and places. People writing close enough to the time period might be expected to mention real technologies etc., but even historical fiction writers can do that. Focusing on this stuff would be like arguing that sparking vampires exist because the Twilight books mention the iPhone or President Obama.

And 2) some of the window dressing stuff you'd expect to be verifiable (like whether Israel had domesticated camels at the time of abraham) has so far failed to be verified despite intense digging. (Which is not exactly the same as being falsified, but not great news for biblical literalists).

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2019
2,066
541
here and there
Your point made me think of something else. Religious people often claim their proof of god is some internal moment of clarity, or a feeling. Which, contrary to the point you made about science, can't be examined by other people. Can't be tested. People are just supposed to take their word for it. When in fact, their warm and fuzzy feelings are all perfectly explained by knolwedge of biology, physiology, neuroscience, human psychology, etc.

The lack of rational thinking of many religious people (the extremists and the literalists) always amazed me. Do they know they are being disingenuous., do they not see how illogical their so called arguments are? My guess is not, because of their genetic predisposition to believe in things without proof and deny anything that contradicts that. And very intelligent people can be this way as well.

It would be interesting to try and find the genetic component, if any, to people believing in religion
The Bible deals with wisdom, science deals with knowledge.

The story of the Garden of Eden regarding Adam and Eve eating form the tree of "knowledge" shows us that knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As the famous scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer famously said once creating an A-bomb, "I have become death"
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Feb 2019
2,066
541
here and there
Sure but 1) the verifiable stuff is window dressing. Knowing that there really was a guy named Pontius Pilate doesn't get you anywhere closer to the supernatural claims. You'd expect any attempt to insert myths into history or create myths put of real people might include some real names of people and places. People writing close enough to the time period might be expected to mention real technologies etc., but even historical fiction writers can do that. Focusing on this stuff would be like arguing that sparking vampires exist because the Twilight books mention the iPhone or President Obama.

And 2) some of the window dressing stuff you'd expect to be verifiable (like whether Israel had domesticated camels at the time of abraham) has so far failed to be verified despite intense digging. (Which is not exactly the same as being falsified, but not great news for biblical literalists).

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
There are unverifiable things in the Bible as there are in science.

For example,, there is no proof that lifeless matter can spring to life. Abiogenesis has yet to be reduplicated by the scientific method or even observed.
 
Dec 2018
45
23
USA
There are unverifiable things in the Bible as there are in science.

For example,, there is no proof that lifeless matter can spring to life. Abiogenesis has yet to be reduplicated by the scientific method or even observed.
So what? Of course there are edges to our present state of knowledge and always will be. You can be a scientist (or science enthusiast) and be a skeptic about any particular theory of life's origins (or all of them). 'I don't know' is totally allowed.

Though I always suspect that people who make this particular argument are fairly unaware of the progress made in creating synthetic bacteria. Though this is not being done as origins of life research, but for industrial and environmental purposes (I.e. they'd 3D print them if they could even though that doesn't mirror abiogenesis through natural mechanisms). This distinction gives the creationists wiggle room to remain unimpressed, but there doesn't seem to be any magic required to take organic molecules and assemble them into organisms that metabolize and reproduce.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,825
27,630
La La Land North
Ever heard of Biblical Archeology?

The Bible has verifiable information in it

In fact, it is the only religious book I know of that has a scientific discipline created for it.

And no, these Biblical Archeologists don't all believe that everything in the Bible is correct, rather, they just recognize the value it has because it is used to find digs.
And most of it is readily debunked, as has been done in this forum frequently.

But it's fun, so give us a few examples of these biblical archeological revelations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007