I dont believe in evolution

[Zzyzx]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

[Tiberius47]

Cue double standards in 3...

2...

1...

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]





For me and the theology I follow dearest to my heart, the question of HOW we got here is not a priority.

The question of WHY we are here, is the priority.

Theism at least attempts to answer that question in a way which non-theism can never hope to achieve...at least that's how it looks so far.

Perhaps a non-theist can explain how come they do not require an answer to that question.



*chill*

W

[Tcg]

Perhaps a non-theist can explain how come they do not require an answer to that question.

I don't require it in this thread because it is totally unrelated to the OP.


I do hope that some will address the questions various thread OPs ask, but it very rarely happens. It gives the impression that some posters simply post to push their agenda rather than add content related to the OP.





Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

The question of WHY we are here, is the priority.

I do not choose to be obsessive about 'why we are here'.

There are, in my mind, much more important issues for concern -- such as, 'How to live together with minimum conflict and maximum cooperation', and 'How to live without destroying the environment'.

Theism at least attempts to answer that question in a way which non-theism can never hope to achieve...at least that's how it looks so far.

Perhaps Non-Theists do not tend to obsess about questions that are nice to know but not particularly significant " AND many of us are not inclined to make up or repeat stories to explain the unknown or to claim to know what we do not.

[Divine Insight]

Theism at least attempts to answer that question in a way which non-theism can never hope to achieve...at least that's how it looks so far.

The problem you are apparently unaware of is that a theist can never hope to answer this question either.

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that an atheist recognizes the limitations of what can be known, while a theist would rather pretend that they can know things that cannot be known.

If you think a theist can answer these questions in a way that an atheist can never hope to achieve then you are only kidding yourself.

[William]

Obsessed? No. Simple very interested.





*chill*

[1213]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

Proven scientifically? Probably nothing can be proven really. But if the evolution theory would be true, it should be seen in nature as it is explained in theory. That just doesnt seem to happen, one cant breed mouse into fish, or anything like that, even though it should be possible to achieve radical changes in animals by the mechanisms of evolution, if it is real natural phenomena. And yes, I know, it would require so much time that it is not possible to see it. It is something that is not possible to see and that is why I think evolution theory is just modernization of Mother Earth belief, not a real scientific matter.

But I understand, we cant see virgin birth happening 2000 years ago, therefore, person who requires that he sees everything, cant believe it. And to me it is ok. But it would be nice if that person would see evolution theory the same way.

The flood story is maybe the easiest of all those alleged historical events, because we can see its results also in nature, not only in stories.

[Tcg]

But if the evolution theory would be true, it should be seen in nature as it is explained in theory.

It has been:

Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations

The study comes from work conducted on Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection.

The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary and Peter Grant, two scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-galapagos-species.html

That just doesnt seem to happen, one cant breed mouse into fish, or anything like that, even though it should be possible to achieve radical changes in animals by the mechanisms of evolution, if it is real natural phenomena.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that states that one should be able to breed a mouse into a fish. This idea is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution.



Tcg

[benchwarmer]

Proven scientifically? Probably nothing can be proven really.

How about supported scientifically. With mountains of evidence. Including the reason many bacteria are no longer phased by older antibiotics.

But if the evolution theory would be true, it should be seen in nature as it is explained in theory.

It is.

That just doesnt seem to happen, one cant breed mouse into fish, or anything like that, even though it should be possible to achieve radical changes in animals by the mechanisms of evolution, if it is real natural phenomena. And yes, I know, it would require so much time that it is not possible to see it. It is something that is not possible to see and that is why I think evolution theory is just modernization of Mother Earth belief, not a real scientific matter.

Clearly you don't understand what the theory of evolution is about if you think you can breed mice into fish. The theory does NOT allow for this. Perhaps some basic study on what the theory is really about is in order?

But I understand, we cant see virgin birth happening 2000 years ago, therefore, person who requires that he sees everything, cant believe it. And to me it is ok. But it would be nice if that person would see evolution theory the same way.

They are nothing alike. If you want to see evolution in action, you can do that. Observe any living organism reproduce. Voila, you just observed evolution. Unless of course you think reproduction results in clones.

The flood story is maybe the easiest of all those alleged historical events, because we can see its results also in nature, not only in stories.

Actually we can't. Might I also suggest some courses in geology while you are learning about biology?

If you believe we can see the results of the Biblical flood story in nature, please enlighten us. You may also want to publish your findings for peer review and get ready for your Nobel prize in geology.