Why do Christians Strongly Disagree with Science and Distrust Scientists

[Coloradomtnman]

I still think you're cool, Care, cause nerds are cool just not in school.

 

[JBeukema]

J, my friend, you have misquoted me. Actually the person who made that statement was Toro in a post before my own. I had quoted him.

My mistake. multi-quote can get unwieldy

I may not agree with the primordial muck "theory"

No such thing

or that I am a direct descendant of apes

You fail to understand the evolutionary tree. Man did not evolve from apes. That is a christian lie, a strawman they use to avoid addressing the evidence at hand. Apes and Man evolved 'beside' eachother, from a common ancestor.

but that does not mean .... I am blind to the evidence that has been laid out before me

Evidently you are, as you respond not to the evidence but to anti-intellectual propaganda and misinformation spread by religious reactionaries

 

[Amanda]

I've been reading [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Human-History-Common-Origins/dp/0618352104/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240513501&sr=8-1"]Mapping Human History[/ame] and while it's interesting and a little hard to understand for someone like me, I haven't seen anything in it to disprove what I believe.

 

[JBeukema]

I recommend for a beginner:
Genome: The history of a species in 23 chapters

 

[Newby]

You fail to understand the evolutionary tree. Man did not evolve from apes. That is a christian lie, a strawman they use to avoid addressing the evidence at hand. Apes and Man evolved 'beside' eachother, from a common ancestor.

Christianity believes that man evolved from apes?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I've been reading Mapping Human History and while it's interesting and a little hard to understand for someone like me, I haven't seen anything in it to disprove what I believe.

Isn't this author of this book a Christian? I thought I heard him in an interview on NPR talking about his Christianity in regards to being a genetic scientist who believes common ancestry and Evolution through Natural Selection to be most likely accurate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Personally? I think we evolved from sea mammals, as in dolphins.

Why?

Dolphins and humans are the only 2 known species to have sex for pleasure and not procreation.

Besides.......didn't Yeshua say "follow Me and I will make you fishers of men"?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Personally? I think we evolved from sea mammals, as in dolphins.

Why?

Dolphins and humans are the only 2 known species to have sex for pleasure and not procreation.

Besides.......didn't Yeshua say "follow Me and I will make you fishers of men"?

Actually, bonobos (a close relative to chimpanzees and homo sapiens) also have sex for pleasure (and social and tribal political reasons). Some anthropologists hope we are more closely related to bonobos who live in, essentially, non-violent, non-aggressive societies than we are to chimpanzees who wage war against rival bands of chimpanzees over territory and dominance within the tribe.

 

[KittenKoder]

Alright, on evolutionary tracts specifically (evolution itself is fact which we see and use a lot today) through history, why does it matter to some christians to say we didn't evolve from another species (simian specifically)? What is wrong with even their god using this technique or perhaps it's a byproduct of their gods power?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......I kinda think that Darwin got most things right. The only problem came in when after observing evolution, instead of checking behavior and internal workings, he went for what looked like the closest approximation to mankind.

He did good work, just took a wrong turn at Albequerque.

 

[JBeukema]

Personally? I think we evolved from sea mammals, as in dolphins.

Why?

because our line split form theirs long ago?

Dolphins and humans are the only 2 known species to have sex for pleasure and not procreation.

That's a lie

 

[Care4all]

Personally? I think we evolved from sea mammals, as in dolphins.

Why?

Dolphins and humans are the only 2 known species to have sex for pleasure and not procreation.

Besides.......didn't Yeshua say "follow Me and I will make you fishers of men"?

Actually, bonobos (a close relative to chimpanzees and homo sapiens) also have sex for pleasure (and social and tribal political reasons). Some anthropologists hope we are more closely related to bonobos who live in, essentially, non-violent, non-aggressive societies than we are to chimpanzees who wage war against rival bands of chimpanzees over territory and dominance within the tribe.

Actually, I don't think animals have ANY CLUE on why they are having sex and have sex purely for pleasure... they don't know that hormones, programed in to their beings, are there triggering their sex drives through pleasure, so that they can procreate...their offspring is just a side affect of them enjoying sex....

Humans are the only ones that I am aware of that has given "reason" to why we all have sex, from animals to ourselves.

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....so there is no purpose for me to hypothesis on this issue....

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it...

This is directed at others on this topic:

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, I don't think animals have ANY CLUE on why they are having sex and have sex purely for pleasure... they don't know that hormones, programed in to their beings, are there triggering their sex drives through pleasure, so that they can procreate...their offspring is just a side affect of them enjoying sex....

Humans are the only ones that I am aware of that has given "reason" to why we all have sex, from animals to ourselves.

that.. makes sense...

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....

Google 'list of transitional fossils'

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it...

Another stawman. man did not evolve from apes. learn what the theory says before challenging it; you look like a fool

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

Yep. And did you know that 90+% has no bearing on species. Look up ERVs, to start out

 

[JBeukema]

(Endogenous retrovirus)

 

[KittenKoder]

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....so there is no purpose for me to hypothesis on this issue....

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it...

This is directed at others on this topic:

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

There is, tons of proof, since Darwin posed the theory scientists have been looking for it and found it. The "missing link" isn't between modern homo sapien and the previous step, it's several steps prior to homo sapien, so it doesn't disprove anything. Here's the thing, why is it so hard to accept being related to the natural world? What is so wrong with being ... well human?

 

[Immanuel]

J, my friend, you have misquoted me. Actually the person who made that statement was Toro in a post before my own. I had quoted him.

My mistake. multi-quote can get unwieldy

I may not agree with the primordial muck "theory"

No such thing

or that I am a direct descendant of apes

You fail to understand the evolutionary tree. Man did not evolve from apes. That is a christian lie, a strawman they use to avoid addressing the evidence at hand. Apes and Man evolved 'beside' eachother, from a common ancestor.

but that does not mean .... I am blind to the evidence that has been laid out before me

Evidently you are, as you respond not to the evidence but to anti-intellectual propaganda and misinformation spread by religious reactionaries

I will take it that you THINK YOU ARE AN EXPERT like all the other experts on the board and put you with all the other fanatics who think they know everything.

Apes and Man evolved 'beside' eachother, from a common ancestor

Right, now we go back to the primordial muck "theory". All of us started from one single cell animal and all of life (including all the various types of cells that make up just a single organism) evolved from one single cell into what we have today. And people like you, think that I have faith?!

I may not agree with the primordial muck "theory"

No such thing

Do you understand what quotes around a word mean? Didn't think so. Why do you think there were quotes around the word "theory"?

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Actually, I don't think animals have ANY CLUE on why they are having sex and have sex purely for pleasure... they don't know that hormones, programed in to their beings, are there triggering their sex drives through pleasure, so that they can procreate...their offspring is just a side affect of them enjoying sex....

Humans are the only ones that I am aware of that has given "reason" to why we all have sex, from animals to ourselves.

that.. makes sense...

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....

Google 'list of transitional fossils'

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it...

Another stawman. man did not evolve from apes. learn what the theory says before challenging it; you look like a fool

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

Yep. And did you know that 90+% has no bearing on species. Look up ERVs, to start out

Are you too new to link yet? Okay, looks like you are.... I will try to look it up....

Care

 

[Coloradomtnman]

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....so there is no purpose for me to hypothesis on this issue....

Sorry, Care, but JBeukema (did I get that right?) is right. There isn't a single link between homo sapiens and the common ancestor from which we and other primates have evolved. There are, in fact, many links, transitional fossils, that clearly show the evolution of homo sapiens from homo erectus and australopithicus, etc. etc. Did God create many other bipedal species of primates that are very similar to us who went alternated going extinct and the next, more human-like species appeared in the fossil record until the last one which went extinct in about the same place and time, when and where homo sapiens began to appear in the fossil record? What about neandertals? They existed at the same time homo sapiens did? Did God create them and then decide he liked the slimmer, more intelligent version better?

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

The Transitional Fossil Challenge for Creationists | Progressive U

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it.......

Just check those links above. But you can also purchase a biological anthropology text book which will lay it out for you in a way that's easy enough for a college freshman to understand. I took the course while majoring in Anthropology at Colorado University, and talk about fascinating stuff and hard to deny without being irrational about it.

Here is a page of a thread where N4ddissent explains it very well and articulately:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/72160-science-under-attack-in-texas-11.html

This is directed at others on this topic:

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

JBeukema is also right about this. Science has answered these questions, but Christian propaganda, without much scientific validity or verifiability, still challenges the very valid, credible, verifiable, and believable research studies which support human evolution.

Why can't Christians believe in common ancestry? Couldn't God have created the conditions wherein single-celled organisms would develop, that then evolved under His influence into the current level of biodiversity? There is A LOT of scientific evidence which suggests and supports that that is exactly what happened (minus the God part). But that doesn't mean God didn't mean for it to happen that way.

 

[JBeukema]

Personally, if there turns out to be a god (deity), I would be much more impressed and in awe about an evolving creating set in motion just so as to bring us the this very moment, where the natural laws of the universe would combine with our perception, will, and actions, to create all we see around us than a series of incompetent attempts to create man that had to be erased and the need to make things 'as they are' and set the light from the stars in motion partway here, so as to try to set the stage ahead of time and act as though god could have created the amazing conditions described in the first possibility. In the latter case, that's is if the xtian propaganda is right, god is pretty incompetent. in the first, more deistic, scenario, the power and mind of such a deity would be truly awe-inspiring, and the wonder of a self-evolving creation would be truly striking. Of course, one could then argue whether the course was planned or left to fate, or to what degree it was planned out- in either case, however, the wonder of it all would be truly impressive

 

[Immanuel]

Personally, if there turns out to be a god (deity), I would be much more impressed and in awe about an evolving creating set in motion just so as to bring us the this very moment, where the natural laws of the universe would combine with our perception, will, and actions, to create all we see around us than a series of incompetent attempts to create man that had to be erased and the need to make things 'as they are' and set the light from the stars in motion partway here, so as to try to set the stage ahead of time and act as though god could have created the amazing conditions described in the first possibility. In the latter case, that's is if the xtian propaganda is right, god is pretty incompetent. in the first, more deistic, scenario, the power and mind of such a deity would be truly awe-inspiring, and the wonder of a self-evolving creation would be truly striking. Of course, one could then argue whether the course was planned or left to fate, or to what degree it was planned out- in either case, however, the wonder of it all would be truly impressive

With that I very much agree.

We put God into a box when we say he could not have set the ball rolling and included evolution in the laws of nature.

Heck, Christians assume he set up the law of gravity, why wouldn't he also set up a plan for life to evolve as things change?

Immie