Evolution vs Creationism

That's not name calling, that's a description of a state of being. When you have all of the evidence at hand and choose to ignore it, you are willfully ignorant. It is what it is. The cool part about ignorance is that it is a reparable state. I wasn't speaking to you at that point, but it seems you fall into that category. And yes, asking questions when the answers are easily attainable by any 3rd grader with a phone is disputing something. The way you asked the questions wasn't exploratory, it was defiantly. There is a difference.

You want to know why primates still exist while we have evolved? It's for one, because we are not the pinnacle of evolution, there is no such thing and with how we've been doing with destroying ourselves, I'm not sure that would be an apt description even if it there was. Evolution is not linear. I know that makes it more complicated, but it's just how it works. It's more like a web. Some spots branch off into multiple areas, some strings go nowhere (the vast majority, honestly). We evolved from a common ancestor to modern primates. They evolved to best adapt to their niche in the system and we evolved to best adapt to ours. It just happens that we got a fully opposable thumb and a bit more grey matter so we were able to behaviorally adapt to a lot more situations than other animals. We are not more evolved or less evolved than any of our brethren, we are just separately evolved. You can choose to get butthurt, I'm sure there's an ointment for that out there, or you can choose to actually take the time to do straight up research on the subject. You will probably need someone to guide you through this due to the complexity, which is why I suggested the college courses. This book might be a good starting point as this series is typically very solid.

Originally Posted by JCCS

That's not name calling, that's a description of a state of being. When you have all of the evidence at hand and choose to ignore it, you are willfully ignorant. It is what it is. The cool part about ignorance is that it is a reparable state. I wasn't speaking to you at that point, but it seems you fall into that category. And yes, asking questions when the answers are easily attainable by any 3rd grader with a phone is disputing something. The way you asked the questions wasn't exploratory, it was defiantly. There is a difference.

You want to know why primates still exist while we have evolved? It's for one, because we are not the pinnacle of evolution, there is no such thing and with how we've been doing with destroying ourselves, I'm not sure that would be an apt description even if it there was. Evolution is not linear. I know that makes it more complicated, but it's just how it works. It's more like a web. Some spots branch off into multiple areas, some strings go nowhere (the vast majority, honestly). We evolved from a common ancestor to modern primates. They evolved to best adapt to their niche in the system and we evolved to best adapt to ours. It just happens that we got a fully opposable thumb and a bit more grey matter so we were able to behaviorally adapt to a lot more situations than other animals. We are not more evolved or less evolved than any of our brethren, we are just separately evolved. You can choose to get butthurt, I'm sure there's an ointment for that out there, or you can choose to actually take the time to do straight up research on the subject. You will probably need someone to guide you through this due to the complexity, which is why I suggested the college courses. This book might be a good starting point as this series is typically very solid.

Yep, thanks for the advice.

Forgot the link: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dum.../dp/0470117737

Originally Posted by JCCS

If you want to learn about science, ask a scientist, not a preacher.

Is an accredited scientist who is also a preacher a reliable source for learning science?

Originally Posted by Robert Walker

Is an accredited scientist who is also a preacher a reliable source for learning science?

I think that's a very interesting question. I studied biology and the basics of genetics and evolution with a classmate who was a staunch Baptist, and believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore the 6-day creation story.

We discussed (civilly) how she dealt with the dichotomy, and she was able to separate what she "knew" (i.e., learned in class) from what she "believed" (i.e., learned in church).

I have worked with other scientists who are able to accept evolution and/or natural selection (which are not exactly the same thing, by the way) as the mechanism by which a god could create, and continue to perfect, life.

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

I think that's a very interesting question. I studied biology and the basics of genetics and evolution with a classmate who was a staunch Baptist, and believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore the 6-day creation story.

We discussed (civilly) how she dealt with the dichotomy, and she was able to separate what she "knew" (i.e., learned in class) from what she "believed" (i.e., learned in church).

I have worked with other scientists who are able to accept evolution and/or natural selection (which are not exactly the same thing, by the way) as the mechanism by which a god could create, and continue to perfect, life.

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

Civility is key in any discussion or it really isn't a discussion.

I know several college professors, public teachers and doctors that are pastors or preachers. How many of us have walk into a doctors office that comes highly recommended by their peers and asks "are you one of those mindless religious people"? What if they say yes, are you going to find another doctor that isn't quite as capable, just because this one is "religious". Who is/was one of the top neurosurgeons in the USA, you gonna walk away because he's a "religious" man?

I probably associate with more non religious people than with "religious" people.

I understand creationism, evolution and natural selection very well.

We (human race) as individuals live our lives by what we believe and understand. Tell me, am I that bad of a person because of how I live my life? We lump people together (stereotypes) into groups, when in reality, we are all individuals living together.

I think the true issue here, is the definition of several terms seem to be fluid.

If the scientist/preacher is an evolutionary biologist, then absolutely. I bet that person would also be fun as hell to have a beer with as well.

Again, it's not so much about religion but about fundamentalism. If the doctor said they didn't believe they needed to treat snake bites because god said if you were a righteous person, you couldn't be hurt by one, then yes, I'd probably find another doctor. I've worked very closely with churches in food security programs and feeding the needy and enjoyed my time doing so. As I said, religion is not the problem. The problem is when religion asks you to stop thinking critically and solely believe what is written in their book. (whichever book it is)

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

rather than insisting that one must refute the other.

^ This for me.

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

While I'm not a scientist I have several friends who are.
I wish I had a direct link, but you can scroll down to the "Science" section to see those involved in the fields of: Forensic DNA, Geology, Astronomy, Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, Human Genetics, Biology, Organic Chemistry, etc. who have no issues viewing our existence through both lenses, using science & religion to see what many define as a more complete view then a single lens.
Scientist Link

Well heck, I dunno, but there seems to be so much of science that is actually really just theory, so I sometimes have a very hard time drawing the line between what is actually "science" and what is "religion". And lord knows there have been "heretics" of both camps that burning at the stake, in a metaphorical sense, has certainly taken place.

For instance, it is kind of interesting following the "war" between old line "scientists" and upstart "heretics" concerning the age of the The Great Sphinx of Giza and the pyramids. And lord only knows about the battles over ancient structures all over the globe that it is difficult to believe that those people are actually only discussing theories and not facts.

Seems some scientists and followers get every bit as entrenched in their beliefs as theologians and their followers do in theirs. Sometimes it is difficult to tell who is who without having a scorecard.

Sometimes it is humorous, and other times it is quite sad.