Macroevolution - do you believe?
- Thread starter gashin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Smoked a blunt fell off a rock, hit his head then got hit by a truck id imagine.
In my experience people who make this claim are, in the overwhelming amount of cases, flat out liars about both statements made in that quote.
If there is an intelligent force who designed my life I would seriously like to smack the hell out of it.
Last edited:
I'm not one of those cases - I actually DID see God. This was the only way he could reach out to me because I was a hardcore anti-Christian, anti-religious fanatic 5 months ago. The first time I was just walking in the park and all of a sudden everything started glowing brightly - the trees, flowers, grass, and people had this bright aura around them and then all of a sudden I felt this huge burden lifted off my shoulders to the point where it felt like I could fly (I didn't) This overwhelming joy filled me because the whole sight was awesome and I realized that God was real and everywhere in everything. Then God gave spoke to me directly and told me to read the Bible critically and it seemed as if I was being controlled as I read through most of the New Testament in one sitting. No I wasn't on drugs or anything and I was very atheistic up until the point that this vision happened. The next vision was a dream which I at first didn't accept because it was just a dream but everyone started telling me that God spoke in dreams and I lfound this in the Bible and Quran (I'm not Muslim btw, just interested). I had this dream that seemed to be happening in ancient times where people were dressed in robes and were standing around this altar outside before a steep hill - then one person in the center raised a cup towards the sky and the sky literally split open revealing this bright orange, yellowish flame that colored the other clouds surrounding it. A voice then said,"I am the Lord your God, what do you want?" Someone then asked,"How can I serve you?" But there was no response and everyone was staring at the sky for a very, very long time in silence and then the dream ended. Granted, this was only a dream - but upto this point I was just starting to come out of atheism even after the first vision and was a hardcore skeptic of visions and the like. But then I shared this vision with a couple Church leaders and they said that it was similar to what happened when Jesus rose into heaven - with people staring up in the sky with nothing happening - which I didn't know when the dream happened.
So yes, I do believe I saw God both when I was awake and when I was dreaming. But we're DIGRESSING and I said not to bring up religion on this thread.
So yes, I do believe I saw God both when I was awake and when I was dreaming. But we're DIGRESSING and I said not to bring up religion on this thread.
I have been trying to make a simple point that seems to be getting missed. I blame myself. I think I am trying to argue a point and feel out where you are coming from at the same time and I end up with walls of text and the core issue gets lost. Lets do this, I am going to ask a couple of quick questions and then comment on what responses to those questions mean as I see it and we can decide to continue from there.
1. Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
2. Do you believe that all species were created at the same time and the diversity we see now is due entirely to extinction?
3. Do you believe that there were millions of individual creations over time?
4. Do you believe that species are related to each other and diverge form a shared ancestor? (through Natural Selection grand design or other)
1. Sorry if this question offends, but it is the logical first step. If you think the Earth is 6000 years old than you are obviously willing to over look all evidence and the only guiding source in your life is pure faith. Cool more power to you.
2.Unfortunately, I would suggest that if you answer Yes to this question you are not really much different than people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There is just too much evidence of a time line and no evidence of humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time. THis is also Earth is the center of the universe territory. Again more power too you but evidence clearly isn't going to go anywhere no matter how solid.
3. This seems to be were you are at if you are convinced there is no such thing as speciation. I would suggest that family tress of the species are almost enough to suggest that this view is unlikely. In addition it is pretty close to spontaneous generation.
4. If you said no to the others and yes to this but you believe that it is all according to a plan or design, I would suggest that you do believe in speciation, but have doubts about the mechanism (natural selection). This is an arguable point, but not by saying speciation doesn't exist. You have to approach the mechanisms themselves.I would suggest again that while natural selection has 150 years of hypotheses generated, data collected and while no one point will prove anything that is a strong body of work. ID on the other hand has no real testable Theory, no one is testing hypotheses and collecting data. My stance concerning ID has always been do the work and then we can talk but until then it just is notin the same category. Science is not sitting around pontificating. It is a work and you have to get your hands dirty to be taken seriously.
I'm glad you're so well versed in biology.
Perhaps then you'll remember that the common dog was, for an exceedingly long time, referred to as simply "canis familiaris", and the wolf was "lupus lupus".
This classified them as being different species, and it was believed they could not interbreed and produce viable offspring. Of course, we now know that this was incorrect.
That was the entire point of my argument- when we refer to a species, we're using the best scientific method available to us, but it's still trying to shoehorn nature's spectrum into neat little boxes.
How will we know when a single dog is born which is changed enough that it can no longer interbreed with a wolf? That would be a whole new species right there, but if it was still close enough to mate with other dogs, and you kept classifying them as wolves, you avoid the problem (at the cost of discovery).
"Species" is a man-made construct, like right and wrong. Evolution is a simple mechanic of nature, and we try our best to understand the how in it's method.
The why is not a question for scientists, but for philosophers.
Perhaps then you'll remember that the common dog was, for an exceedingly long time, referred to as simply "canis familiaris", and the wolf was "lupus lupus".
This classified them as being different species, and it was believed they could not interbreed and produce viable offspring. Of course, we now know that this was incorrect.
That was the entire point of my argument- when we refer to a species, we're using the best scientific method available to us, but it's still trying to shoehorn nature's spectrum into neat little boxes.
How will we know when a single dog is born which is changed enough that it can no longer interbreed with a wolf? That would be a whole new species right there, but if it was still close enough to mate with other dogs, and you kept classifying them as wolves, you avoid the problem (at the cost of discovery).
"Species" is a man-made construct, like right and wrong. Evolution is a simple mechanic of nature, and we try our best to understand the how in it's method.
The why is not a question for scientists, but for philosophers.
I'm going to address the original poster's concern about macroevolution being taught as fact.
I simply disagree. In science, the theory with the most evidence is the one that is accepted. That does not mean it is fact, it means it is what is taught until something better comes along. Unfortunately, when one theory is the front runner for long enough (and especially in this case with evolution having no viable competing theory) many people start touting it as fact. These people are simply mistaken, and should not be in a teaching position.
This reminds me of the big bang theory, which, as you may have noticed, many people regard as fact. These people are wrong. Just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean it began as an explosion from a central point, it is just the most logical conclusion. The more I learn about physics the more I distrust the big bang theory.
Neither of these are facts. They are simply well-accepted theories. Unfortunately an overwhelming number of people just accept them as fact, and they give science a bad name.
I simply disagree. In science, the theory with the most evidence is the one that is accepted. That does not mean it is fact, it means it is what is taught until something better comes along. Unfortunately, when one theory is the front runner for long enough (and especially in this case with evolution having no viable competing theory) many people start touting it as fact. These people are simply mistaken, and should not be in a teaching position.
This reminds me of the big bang theory, which, as you may have noticed, many people regard as fact. These people are wrong. Just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean it began as an explosion from a central point, it is just the most logical conclusion. The more I learn about physics the more I distrust the big bang theory.
Neither of these are facts. They are simply well-accepted theories. Unfortunately an overwhelming number of people just accept them as fact, and they give science a bad name.
- Status
Similar threads
