Why Did The Turks Side With Germany...
History3 mins ago
If evolution is fact.....
64 Answers
Do you think that god evolves as well (obv assuming there is one)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suspect you need to look up what 'theory' means when used as a scientific term, Keyplus (I know it's hardly a definitive source, but Wikipedia does cover this quite adequately). It doesn't mean 'an idea which may or may not be true' (that's what a scientist would call a hypothesis) even though that how most non-scientists would use the term.
It is a problem, because it does lead to a lot of confusion; creationists are very keen to exploit the two meanings of the word to imply that evolution isn't cut and dried.
There's a further confusion because evolution is a fact in the sense that there's no doubt (among people with any credibility to comment, at least) it happens, but the exact mechanisms by which it happens are not entirely understood, so there's still some hypothesies there.
It is a problem, because it does lead to a lot of confusion; creationists are very keen to exploit the two meanings of the word to imply that evolution isn't cut and dried.
There's a further confusion because evolution is a fact in the sense that there's no doubt (among people with any credibility to comment, at least) it happens, but the exact mechanisms by which it happens are not entirely understood, so there's still some hypothesies there.
Waldo, doesn't that beg the question of who has credibility to comment? Credibility in whose eyes, exactly?
I ask this in the light of the climate change kerfuffle, in which it appeared (regardless of the facts about climate change itself) that scientists simply give each other credibility by recommending each other.
I ask this in the light of the climate change kerfuffle, in which it appeared (regardless of the facts about climate change itself) that scientists simply give each other credibility by recommending each other.
Credibility in the sense that they understand the concepts, regardless of whether they accept them, for a start. Most creationists don't understand even the basics of the theory they're criticising. They have no credibility (for example, Answers in Genesis where Theland gets his ideas is totally intellectually dishonest. Ditto the Islamic Creationist Adnan Oktar (better known as Harun Yahya) who famously printed a book decrying evolution featuring pictures of fishing lures that were labelled as real caddis flies)
Opposition to evolution is pretty much grounded in one of two things; 1) religious conviction or (but often *and*) 2) scientific ignorance.
I'm not quite sure what aspect of the recent climate change debacle you're referring to - do you mean the recent UEA kerfuffle (which didn't discredit climate change whatsoever, but did reveal academics talk to each other like children and that records management in universities is cack)? In the long term, it doesn't really matter if scientists recommend each other, does it? It could waste some time and money in the short turn, but if you make claims, other people are going to test them. If they're massively false, they'll be found out. If they're egregiously wrong the scientist will be discredited, otherwise you're simply talking about the progression of science.
Opposition to evolution is pretty much grounded in one of two things; 1) religious conviction or (but often *and*) 2) scientific ignorance.
I'm not quite sure what aspect of the recent climate change debacle you're referring to - do you mean the recent UEA kerfuffle (which didn't discredit climate change whatsoever, but did reveal academics talk to each other like children and that records management in universities is cack)? In the long term, it doesn't really matter if scientists recommend each other, does it? It could waste some time and money in the short turn, but if you make claims, other people are going to test them. If they're massively false, they'll be found out. If they're egregiously wrong the scientist will be discredited, otherwise you're simply talking about the progression of science.
This question has been answered more than adequately by Waldo.
However, just for my own amusement I'd like to try and condense the whole 'fact'/'theory' debate.
Religion deals with absolutes – it says that one thing is right and another thing is wrong – one thing is true and another is false. Religion is black and white. In religion, there is often no room for theological or intellectual manoeuvre – the religious text says what it says and that's the end of it. It's what makes religion, religion.
Science, on the other hand, says something subtlety different. When a scientist talks about facts, what he is actually saying is, “To the best of our knowledge, at this time, the observable and repeatability testable data shows that [whatever theory is under discussion] appears to reflect reality”. Science leaves room for manoeuvre.
For example, science tells us why objects fall to earth – it's called Gravitational Theory. However, gravity can also be described as a 'fact'. Why? Because every instrument available to man and every single piece of observed evidence leads inexorably to the conclusion that objects fall towards an object with a greater mass at a mathematically predictable rate.
Even the most obtuse creationist would balk at the suggestion that the 'theory' of gravity is an unproven hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory – all the observed evidence strongly suggests that evolution happens and continues to happen.
Therefore, evolution can be accurately described as both a 'fact' and a 'theory' because the likelihood of it being wrong is infinitesimally small.
However, just for my own amusement I'd like to try and condense the whole 'fact'/'theory' debate.
Religion deals with absolutes – it says that one thing is right and another thing is wrong – one thing is true and another is false. Religion is black and white. In religion, there is often no room for theological or intellectual manoeuvre – the religious text says what it says and that's the end of it. It's what makes religion, religion.
Science, on the other hand, says something subtlety different. When a scientist talks about facts, what he is actually saying is, “To the best of our knowledge, at this time, the observable and repeatability testable data shows that [whatever theory is under discussion] appears to reflect reality”. Science leaves room for manoeuvre.
For example, science tells us why objects fall to earth – it's called Gravitational Theory. However, gravity can also be described as a 'fact'. Why? Because every instrument available to man and every single piece of observed evidence leads inexorably to the conclusion that objects fall towards an object with a greater mass at a mathematically predictable rate.
Even the most obtuse creationist would balk at the suggestion that the 'theory' of gravity is an unproven hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory – all the observed evidence strongly suggests that evolution happens and continues to happen.
Therefore, evolution can be accurately described as both a 'fact' and a 'theory' because the likelihood of it being wrong is infinitesimally small.
Interesting topic. From the replies given by certain god defenders i can only assume they havent even read about Charles Darwin or his theory of evolution.
In my opinion 'God' is man made and a man made figure in some peoples' very imaginative brain which has a combination of history and updating. So with this in mind, to answer the question...yes i think in this context god will evolve because it is man made. If we evolve (which we are) then our thoughts, imagination and brain power will also, along with our 'God'
As far as evolution goes....well.........maybe now the scientists have a bit further to go but for sure there is trouble ahead for the failthful as at the moment test after test after test that scientits do keeps consistant with this theory of evolution.
I have spent much time in the US, particuarly along the bible belt and what i find now is that the theory of evolution is so strong that some religious people are thinking proactive (as not to lose any ground) and now saying that yes evolution my be true but again only work of God.......how convienient ?!!!
Also i agree, really annoying when someone asks " why are there still monkeys if we are evolved from them" Just read Darwin.
In my opinion 'God' is man made and a man made figure in some peoples' very imaginative brain which has a combination of history and updating. So with this in mind, to answer the question...yes i think in this context god will evolve because it is man made. If we evolve (which we are) then our thoughts, imagination and brain power will also, along with our 'God'
As far as evolution goes....well.........maybe now the scientists have a bit further to go but for sure there is trouble ahead for the failthful as at the moment test after test after test that scientits do keeps consistant with this theory of evolution.
I have spent much time in the US, particuarly along the bible belt and what i find now is that the theory of evolution is so strong that some religious people are thinking proactive (as not to lose any ground) and now saying that yes evolution my be true but again only work of God.......how convienient ?!!!
Also i agree, really annoying when someone asks " why are there still monkeys if we are evolved from them" Just read Darwin.
Yes jake. I think i know what you mean. This would be an interesting question.
I would say there is only going to be one direction when it comes to the idea of God, and that is down. To me its amazing that anyone can still believe in any supernatural being without being shown any evidence. I can understand how it has happened, because we will always be scare of death, but still amazed we cannot overcome this.
Yes the idea of God will evolve and i fully expect that in even 100 years time it will be so ridiculous to believe in such a thing. Imagine 1000 years time. This is why i always urge atheists to keep calm and dont worry too much. Our natural progression will take care of this temporary lapse in our human progress and irrational thiking. Atheists there are around now are just unlucky they are not alive 100 years later as they would be able to laugh at such stupid faith.
I would say there is only going to be one direction when it comes to the idea of God, and that is down. To me its amazing that anyone can still believe in any supernatural being without being shown any evidence. I can understand how it has happened, because we will always be scare of death, but still amazed we cannot overcome this.
Yes the idea of God will evolve and i fully expect that in even 100 years time it will be so ridiculous to believe in such a thing. Imagine 1000 years time. This is why i always urge atheists to keep calm and dont worry too much. Our natural progression will take care of this temporary lapse in our human progress and irrational thiking. Atheists there are around now are just unlucky they are not alive 100 years later as they would be able to laugh at such stupid faith.
mibn2cweus. you are right. You and I know this, as atheists, but i'm afraid large groups of our species may take some time. How it takes time to demand evidence....who knows !! For me its simple.
Totally agree, I think the human species is a long was behind where we are meant to be because of irrational and illogical thought. The day we can get rid of such nonsense is the day we can improve as a species and think for ourselves, question, analyse, research and conclude without being told by someone else that they know what has and will happen without a shred of evidence.
The process of praising a simple person or supernatural god for fear of punishment and/or hope of an eventual reward without requiring any evidence but on wish and faith alone can only damage the very best asset that we have....our brains and intelligence......its an insult to our species as being the most advanced on the planet.
Totally agree, I think the human species is a long was behind where we are meant to be because of irrational and illogical thought. The day we can get rid of such nonsense is the day we can improve as a species and think for ourselves, question, analyse, research and conclude without being told by someone else that they know what has and will happen without a shred of evidence.
The process of praising a simple person or supernatural god for fear of punishment and/or hope of an eventual reward without requiring any evidence but on wish and faith alone can only damage the very best asset that we have....our brains and intelligence......its an insult to our species as being the most advanced on the planet.
What do you mean by "where we are meant to be"? That seems to imply design or predestination, which, er, leads back to a deity/creator of some sort and puts us no further forward.
If you'd said, "where we could be" then that would have been better in my book, though I would advance the perhaps controvertial notion that religion is not likely to die out any time soon. We can but hope for secular societies so that people's religious views do not permeate into national and local governance too much. Anything else strikes me as highly unrealistic, and a securlar society is going to be difficult enough.
If you'd said, "where we could be" then that would have been better in my book, though I would advance the perhaps controvertial notion that religion is not likely to die out any time soon. We can but hope for secular societies so that people's religious views do not permeate into national and local governance too much. Anything else strikes me as highly unrealistic, and a securlar society is going to be difficult enough.
And I also - and I am being arch and pedantic about this - with your characterisation of humans as the most advanced species on the planet.
Define 'advanced'. If you mean in terms of knowledge and technology, then ok. If you mean to characterise humans as the apex species, then you're committing a grave error and will have to be taken off for message-reinforcement in one of our new Atheist Re-education Camps. (Damn, have I just let the cat out of the proverbial?)
Define 'advanced'. If you mean in terms of knowledge and technology, then ok. If you mean to characterise humans as the apex species, then you're committing a grave error and will have to be taken off for message-reinforcement in one of our new Atheist Re-education Camps. (Damn, have I just let the cat out of the proverbial?)
Waldo, Remember, that admission must take place through proper channels (in spite of how you yourself gained entry). You are of course welcome at any time to forgo the process of obtaining unanimous approval by opening any of the many available annexes adjacent to The Sanctuary for private discussions.
