Evolution is faith, not science 65 replies

Please wait...

FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#21 14 years ago

Argh! I just don't understand how anyone can deny that evolution is a valid theory!

Say you're reading the Bible, and you wish to interpret a particular Bible passage. This process, called hermeneutics, is essential to understanding the meaning of a Bible passage. There are generally two different hermeneutical processes:

  • Exegesis- you read the passage with an open mind and infer its meaning from what it says and and how it relates to other Bible passages.
  • Eisegesis- you read into the passage what you want it to mean, even though this may or may not be the correct meaning.

The latter is what people who deny evolution are doing: they refuse to believe that genesis should not be interpreted literally, they refuse to believe that any part of the Bible is not literally true, so they make up reasons for why evolution is false. Their motivation is not the search for truth, but the defense of what they already assume to be truth.




Μαjïç MushrøøM

I would die without GF

50 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

14,599 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago

CataphractArgh! I just don't understand how anyone can deny that evolution is a valid theory!

Eisegesis- you read into the passage what you want it to mean, even though this may or may not be the correct meaning.

The latter is what people who deny evolution are doing: they refuse to believe that genesis should not be interpreted literally, they refuse to believe that any part of the Bible is not literally true, so they make up reasons for why evolution is false. Their motivation is not the search for truth, but the defense of what they already assume to be truth.

You have just answered your own question. ;)




Titus

I post to get attention

50 XP

21st November 2004

0 Uploads

69 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago

Who is to say what the true meaning of anything really is, a.k.a., taking an exegesis view, over what is being interpreted, a.k.a., taking an eisegesis view? In here lies the problem.




D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago
ScijoxThis is a useless argumant evolution of animals did happen and if you want I can give you pages and pages of reasons why. Keep in mind eveolution is not creation theory that you still have grounds to believe what you want but eveolution is not a debate it happens every day in front of your nose and those who do not believe it dont understand it. If I have to enlighten you all say so. For those of you who say now what are the odds of everything randomly going into place its not random natural selection guides our evolution.

If you can give me one valid intermediate link I'll pat you on the back. :) And no, you're not understanding, for natural selection to happen, something has to happen before it! If nothing did, then nothing would happen! :D Before it comes mutations, and they are all random.

yeah I don't see how you cannot believe in natural selection when it makes perfect sense.

Who's denying it?

As far as I am concerned there is no way to argue with evolution if you wanna try be my guest but you will look very stupid.

oh yeah? ;)

1) About evolution as a mechanism for createing speicies, this is absolute scientific fact. You can prove this is true by making new speicies of bacteria, and all the evidence points towards the fact that this a has made all the current speicies on the planet.

Wait a second! Making a new species of bacteria proves that a fish evolved into a dog? And I don't see how mutations and natural selection can account for all the species, seeing as mutations do not add new genetic information.

Those who believe otherwise are simply dismissing the facts in favor of a biased, often religious philosophy, which is unfortunately quite common.

And the research done by evolutionists isn't biased? :rolleyes:

maybe i'm just not understanding something, but how does it happen every day right before our eyes?

Microevolution and natural selection do.

also can science prove definatly that the big bang did take place?

Actually it pretty much can. But! It could not have happened without something guiding/innitiating it.

That things adapt to their environment is a fact, that people were created that way is speculation.

^ That there is 100% fact!




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#25 14 years ago

Who is to say what the true meaning of anything really is, a.k.a., taking an exegesis view, over what is being interpreted, a.k.a., taking an eisegesis view? In here lies the problem. Huh? Isn't it always better to keep an open mind rather than a closed mind when searching for truth?




Titus

I post to get attention

50 XP

21st November 2004

0 Uploads

69 Posts

0 Threads

#26 14 years ago

I mean, if, for example, you say one thing is one way, and I interpret it another way, who has the right to decide which of the two views is the exegesis or eisegesis?




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#27 14 years ago

We don't. It's up to the individual to recognize whether what they are doing is simply reading into something the meaning they want it to have, rather than identifying the meaning for what it most probably is. I know from experience that eisegesis is what a lot of people who interpret the Bible literally do. The tendency is to deny any scientific finding, no matter how compelling, until it agrees with Scripture. Such a person will read into reality what Scripture (literally) tells him about reality, instead of treating Scripture and real experience with equal precedence. This raises the question of what holds higher precedence to a person who interprets the Bible literally: real experience or Scripture? The answer is apparently Scripture. Was the world really created in 6 days? No, but this is what Scripture says. So the tendency is to deny common sense and assume Scripture is right. Was there really a flood that covered the entire world some 4,000-5,000 years ago? No, but this is what Scripture says. Scientific knowledge makes this highly unlikely, for where did all the water go? But, again, the tendency is to assume Scripture is right instead of science. Some might even argue that such differences between Scripture and science show that Satan is at work, deluding human beings through science. This, of course, is ridiculous, and only proves how gullible some people are. Blaming Satan for any thought to the contrary of Scripture is on par with blaming some left-wing media propaganda conspiracy for any thought to the contrary of the Republican Party.




Μαjïç MushrøøM

I would die without GF

50 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

14,599 Posts

0 Threads

#28 14 years ago
D.Sporky!And the research done by evolutionists isn't biased? :rolleyes:

It is not. They analyze nothing but the facts and form theories as they go. They hold no biased opinion and they assume nothing, but form conclusions chiefly by analyzing their discoveries.




Hellknight1993

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

11th May 2009

0 Uploads

4,137 Posts

0 Threads

#29 14 years ago
CataphractYou don't have to believe in the Big Bang in order to believe in Evolution. God could have, for instance, created the Earth and then created a single life form which evolved over time into the many that existed today. Earth is, after all, a planet of a second-generation star system (a previous star had exploded into a supernova, the gases of which formed the sun).

OMG Cataphract, I think thats sooo true. I ( just my 2cents ) reckon "God" placed the 'seed'!! We on this planet were left to evolve! truely.




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#30 14 years ago

D.Sporky! And the research done by evolutionists isn't biased? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

As Mushroom said, it isn't biased. It can be wrong, it can be way off, but not biased.

[QUOTE=D.Sporky!]Wait a second! Making a new species of bacteria proves that a fish evolved into a dog? And I don't see how mutations and natural selection can account for all the species, seeing as mutations do not add new genetic information.

They can add new information.

When G-C-A-C is changed into G-A-A-C, new information is created.