One reason i choose not to even try mixing within ex Exclusive Brethren forums . Is because i find within those places there remains an “aura of taboo” surrounding the free discussion of certain issues . Like some kind of stigma remain inherently attached. An intrinsic nature that continually exists due to the lineage of these people, who’s ancestors were mostly all extremely strict bible believing, god believing folk.
Anyway. On one thread on wikpeebia forum they discuss distant galaxies ,and what not . See here (material cited within law of fair use)
And naturally, as always, the discussion leads into the area of evolution which some discussion proceeds, with what could be best described as cautious optimism.
There is those whom will make statement like this
Quote : Philip
“Many in the scientific community remain creationists out of scientific conviction bolstered by their faith in Jesus. Many do not have enough faith to believe in evolution. Here they will draw a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution can be seen in changes in animals and plants around us as they are adapted to their long term environments. Macro evolution cannot be seen or evidenced. No-one has even seen an inter-species from any genus whatsoever.
Yet there is increasing evidence of at the very least, intelligent design. Amazing design so complex that an accident could not be the cause. Not even a million accidents (read mutations), especially when most accidents cause harm rather than benefit. We are fearfully and wondrously made.”
Then the next comment
Quote : Fisherman
“I’m a very simple common sense guy-maybe thats why I just can’t accept that you can turn a piece of granite into a living breathing creature like a sparrow that knows how to build a nest and raise its young without being taught.Just doesn’t make sense to me-even if you took a kazillion years-the lump of granite is still going to be a lump of granite-or maybe sand,but it sure isn’t going to turn into a sparrow.And we’re not even talking about how you can start out with NOTHING-ZERO-and turn it into a lump of granite,not in ten kazillion years ….just doesn’t make sense,there has to be some force to start out with nothing and turn it into something.But how when or why,I have no idea,nor do I speculate-wasn’t there anyway”
End quote (all material above and below cited within law of fair use)
Philip can’t understand why a human might not have seen the process of macro evolution . Saying this the theist may be saying something like this . “No human actually saw with their own eyes , the process of a Pakicetus evolving into a modern-day whale” . Which is correct
Yet theist don’t understand its just not possible for any human to see it with their own eyes , is all. Because this process has been spread out over such a very long time span. Maybe 50 million years
How can any human live for 50 million years . So as to see this process themselves.
Take this interesting quote taken from this site here
“The most basic creationist misrepresentation of macroevolution is that we can’t observe macroevolution occurring and if we can’t observe it, then it’s not science and isn’t real. This is an ironic position to take because Christian apologists misrepresent atheists as arguing “we can’t see God, therefore God doesn’t exist.” Apologists “respond” to this falsehood by pointing out that there is nevertheless evidence of God. Creationist Christians, though, won’t accept such reasoning with macroevolution. It is wrong that science can only study phenomena we directly and personally observe. They are also very wrong to argue that if we haven’t directly observed something then it can’t be true or real. They key is the presence of real, reliable, and consistent evidence — and we have an overwhelming amount of such evidence for macroevolution. “
Ironic for sure !
Theist don’t understand that generally speaking, there is no difference , between micro evolution and macro evolution . But for the fact that one happens (micro) within short-term period (which humans can see happening within their very own life span) . And the other one happens (macro) over an extremely long-term period (thus humans cannot see it happen within their own life span).
Philip goes on to say
“there is increasing evidence of at the very least, intelligent design.”
Yet it seems can offer us no ? evidence of this evidence. (no links to said scientific evidence)
While Fisherman’s comment states
“nor do I speculate-wasn’t there anyway”
Fisherman has his beliefs set in faith and creation stories written within the bible . We ask.What is this then ? if this isn’t also just another form of speculation that Fisherman is quite happy to adopt. Classed as faith
Surely “faith” must be ? one of the most extreme forms of speculation . If faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction and not proof.
Surely that must involve speculation at highest level. Yes ? … No ?
Fisherman also states
“I just can’t accept that you can turn a piece of granite into a living breathing creature like a sparrow that knows how to build a nest and raise its young without being taught.Just doesn’t make sense to me-even if you took a kazillion years-the lump of granite is still going to be a lump of granite-or maybe sand,but it sure isn’t going to turn into a sparrow.”
Fisherman seems so stuck on some “biblical creationism” ideals . That is he expect a piece of rock would suddenly form into a sparrow . Kind of like the way the bible story tells that God took a rib from man , and then bingo ! , suddenly changed it into a woman.
When (as far as i understand it) scientists suspect that simple bacteria were the first link to the earliest life forms on earth . Or perhaps they suggest that simple chemical reactions evolved into simple cells, which later evolved into more complex organisms . Which then later evolved into more and more complex organisms too.
Suggestions that “heavy bombardment of meteorites provided reactive phosphorus that when released in water could be incorporated into prebiotic molecules”.
“In an article published in the new edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USF Assistant Professor of Geology Matthew Pasek and researchers from the University of Washington and the Edinburg Centre for Carbon Innovation, revealed new findings that explain how the reactive phosphorus that was an essential component for creating the earliest life forms came to Earth.
The scientists found that during the Hadean and Archean eons — the first of the four principal eons of Earth’s earliest history — the heavy bombardment of meteorites provided reactive phosphorus that when released in water could be incorporated into prebiotic molecules. The scientists documented the phosphorus in early Archean limestone, showing it was abundant some 3.5 billion years ago.”
Read more about it here
Now this is not evidence that proves everything about how it might have all happened. But at least it is a form of evidence. I mean to say, scientists can come across pieces of meteorites they can test. And/or in this case, i think the research team had reached their conclusion after examining earth core samples from Australia, Zimbabwe, West Virginia, Wyoming and in Avon Park, Florida
People can say well that’s still not evidence that is fully conclusive . And that’s true. But still , what real-evidence do we have for creationism and God ?
The answer remains pretty much, none at all .
Here is a “key-word” search .Which produces a number of other interesting articles on this same subject, that are worth a read too
Back to the issue of evolution.
Another place i enjoy to read about the process of evolution. And micro and macro evolution . Which i feel is written in simpler easier to understand format. Is on this site here . Which is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.
It discusses lots of very interesting things like Reproductive isolation
Evidence for speciation and even The evolution of whales and much more . (At the bottom of each page there is an arrow that leads backwards, or forwards to the next page . So people can then easily go back/forwards over things, and learn more and more.)
If nothing else . In the very least, it’s a very interesting read.
It seems such a great shame that many theists still seem reluctant to even study this sort of material . What have they ? got to lose .
They do themselves no real favor , by remaining ill-informed . When we read certain comments they make on forums , like the ones i’ve quoted above. (I feel). Its easy to see they have not done much research at all.
What interests me personally. Is the way that it sometimes even seems that people like Ian McKay, seem perhaps a little apprehensive , to dare discuss such matters in detail. It seems to me that sometimes he kind of pussy foots around certain issues. Almost like what we could expect of someone feeling wary of treading on glass.
For instance .It will be real interesting to me to see if Ian McKay even discusses Philip’s suggestion that “there is increasing evidence of at the very least, intelligent design”
Or even Fisherman’s suggestion ? that a lump of granite turns into a sparrow. Or perhaps a discussion as to whether Fisherman’s faith also involves an element of speculation.
It interests me to gain better understanding about how free people like Ian may feel . To be totally upfront and honest
From my own personal experience on such forum’s . Iv’e found any discussion that rocks the creationists boat , can be highly unpopular among some people. About as highly unpopular as it is for an exclusive brethren member, to be hearing an ex exclusive brethren member dare discussing whether the Exclusive Brethren are a cult . Or if they are truly charitable folk etc
Like stepping on broken glass
One is always approaching subjects …. Carefully … On tippy-toes
As can be seen just by looking back at the comments that follow over on wikpeebia, that have been placed there since i started writing this post, earlier on today.
But at least they are showing some willingness to enter continued discussion.
That’s a good move.
— Update —–
I see Fisherman has now thrown this argument into the mix
“I can’t see how you can have ”creation ”without a ”creator”.Stuff just doesn’t ”happen”-its ”caused”
OK well i ask who ?” created the creator. In other words if God created the universe ,then where did God come from. We need to remember Fisherman just pointed to us out how
Quote : “Stuff doesnt “happen”- its caused”
What caused ? God then Fisherman
Christians would be likely to say well God just existed ,he was just “something” eternal.
Yet Christians wouldn’t even be interested to simply accept. That outside of this universe as we know it now ,“something” other than God may have simply just existed eternally. Say just for interests sake,that we said this universe may have popped up and developed, like a “baby bubble” forming from an “eternally existing bubble”. Or something like that.
Seems (to me) theists need there to also be something kind of “alive” about the reason for our existence . I’m not against such a thing .But where ? is there any real evidence of any such thing.
If something “alive” was the force behind our existence . Then why ? don’t we see any evidence of such “a being” still around today.
Like surely if God was a living identity (a living being) . Then as a living being we might have good reason ? to still expect to also see some “living evidence” of his existence within the universe, even today.
Yet we don’t see any .And science , with all its fancy tools and telescopes and gadget’s, still cant find any such evidence either
Thus why i propose its far more easier to believe in some form of “eternal existence” that also has no need of anything “living” about it at all.That way better explaining reasons why we also never see any evidence on anything living (in the sense of a living creator).
Funny thing that Theist find it quite easy to accept a God that simply existed eternally. Yet on the other hand will also find it extremely hard to accept that some “non living cause” of this universe, might have simply existed eternally.
It’s like they need there to be this real “living aspect” to reasons why we are here. Even though we don’t see ? any such evidence.
Their faith would have us believe that a “living being” in a “living way” busily created all the universe , and everything within. And then just disappeared and vanished from within our visual perception
Surely ? that must be must be “a thorn in the side of the people” who have faith in this creator being a “living being”
Yes ? ….No ?
I suggest if the theist sat down and really thought about these matters in some real depth. Surely they would at least need to understand why an agnostic atheist at least deserves understanding and acceptance, and most of all forgiveness, for their lack of ability to adopt faith in any living God.
Unless this form of honesty is deemed to be the worst crime of all time ?