Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, for the millionth time, evolution is a fact or set of facts, and the THEORY explains those facts. It is not a guess, it is an explanation. Changes to the theory do not change the underlying facts.
Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Gravity - which has changed much since Newton's time, doesn't change the underlying fact of gravity.
The same is true of evolution.
So, one cannot be a Christian and have a science education?
Because I don't believe Genesis is literally true?
Oh noes.
Did you get my Pascal's Wager reference yet?
Care to make any more baseless assumptions while I am here?
On that note:
"For the sixth time, hundreds of religious congregations on six continents will participate in an event designed to demonstrate that the most exciting scientific findings pose no threat to deeply held religious belief. Indeed, the leaders and members of these congregations recognize that as science teaches us more about how the natural world functions, their faith becomes stronger rather than weaker. "
"Religious people from many diverse faith traditions and locations around the world understand that evolution is quite simply sound science; and for them, it does not in any way threaten, demean, or diminish their faith in God. In fact, for many, the wonders of science often enhance and deepen their awe and gratitude towards God. "
The Clergy Letter Project (http://blue.butler.edu/%7Emzimmerm/rel_evolution_weekend_2009.htm - broken link)
Have to say, I was quite disheartened after reading through many of the posts in this thread. This event, however, gives me hope
We're on page 18 of discussing the scientific merits of evolution. Can any creationist provide evidence to support the theory of creationism? Any scientific experimentation? Even a logical arguement? Or is it just "because I said so"?
Playing a devil's advocate... I actually like a version of creationism, from Hinduism, perhaps because it is the closest thing to what we understand through science: a universe that gets created and destroyed every few billion years, the “Gods” churning primordial soup on earth to create various forms of life.
There it is... the M-theory and abiogenesis (Miller-Urey experiment) combined.
Playing a devil's advocate... I actually like a version of creationism, from Hinduism, perhaps because it is the closest thing to what we understand through science: a universe that gets created and destroyed every few billion years, the “Gods” churning primordial soup on earth to create various forms of life.
There it is... the M-theory and abiogenesis (Miller-Urey experiment) combined.
It makes a whole lot more sense than a literal interpretation Genesis.
Lord only knows why we bother arguing with Biblical Literalists. They've abandoned reason long ago, so it seems pointless.
Some of the experts here couldn't explain the mechanisms of a wheel barrow.
They must not be jewelers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The point that was being made ... I think ... is that adaptation is being misrepresented as evolution. Though there is certainly evidence of adaptation taking place, there is ZERO evidence of evolution in the traditional sense that evolution is said to produce an entirely different species from another source species through genetic mutation, or a combination of mutation and selection.
Not even Creationists believe that any more.
For example, in order to fit all the animals on the Ark they have accepted that all the existing modern species could not have been included. So they have invented the concept of the "Baramin" or "Created Kinds," and asserted that only these were represented on the Ark, and the vast number of current species evolved from them.
In other words... they fully accept that speciation occurs. And in fact, they accept as true far more evolution than that required to distinguish humans from Chimpanzees.
All that said... speciation has been repeatedly observed in both the laboratory and the field, and the mechanisms were exclusively mutation and natural selection.
Here's my theory for why they turn this into Hatfield and Mccoy every single time it's mentioned. Faux religious people are incredibly insecure. It's insufficient that they exercise their religion (if only they would) on their own dime in their own time. They've got to point themselves at the planet as God pitchmen and force everyone to justify their religion. They have to justify every custom, deeply held belief or habit, and force all others to join in. Not very Christian IMO. They make mockery of free will, mimic God with their little god mentalities (blasphemy), and abuse the very basis for their right to religious freedom using it as a brick bat in open society & public policy.
Catholic Parochial schools have no problem teaching both theories side by side for decades now. The problem is not with the students, but with the so-called adults refusing to grow the hell up themselves clinging desperately to ala carte horse blinders. This means you too, atheists. Don't be guilty yourselves of what you accuse others.
Kids can't grow up until adults do. Y'all going back and forth are an albatross around their necks, unworthy of parenthood, unqualified to provide spiritual guidance, or leadership of any sort. Incompetent adults in need of a spanking themselves. I see no point to respond to this thread any further because nothing new under the sun is going to turn up we haven't already heard a million ways to Sunday (avoiding growing up).
The universe (regardless of it's origination) may, and most likely does contain all of the building blocks and codes for every species that ever has or ever will exist, and that various environmental factors determine which of those predefined codes manifests and thrives in any given environment or situation, which may also employ natural selection and survival of the fittest as part of those environmental factors.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? Where is the experimental data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
We know Polar Bears reside in the Polar regions, which is likely why they are referred to as freaking Polar Bears. And it makes way more sense to consider that Polar Bears are a species that based on their predetermined genetic makeup thrive in such polar climates as opposed to another specie of bear. The evolutionists would suggest that polar bears simply evolved from another species, developing the traits necessary to survive in polar regions ... ignoring the issue of how did they survive long enough to evolve ... which is a very slow process according to Darwin.
We know, and have documentation within just the last few years that demonstrates that polar bears are from the same familiy as grizzly bears, and that they indead do cross-breed. What data suggests "it makes way more sense to consider that Polar Bears are a species that based on their predetermined genetic makeup thrive in such polar climates as opposed to another specie of bear."? If you're arguing that polar bears just happen to exist (which is what I get from a "predetermined genetic makeup"), just how did they happen to exist in the arctic, rather than the tropics? OK, I guess the more basic question is, what is a "predetermined genetic makeup".
I would like to understand which creationism theory you are supporting. I gather it's not an Adam and Eve, genesis type version. I'm not attacking you, I just want to understand the basis of what we're discussing.
And in turn, that is my question for those that support the teaching of creationism as a (valid) theory in the school system. Where is the evidence, experimental results or data that supports creationism? I don't oppose the teaching of creationism as a theory in a science class, if there is some science to support it. At best, the creationist arguement that I've seen attempts to poke holes in the evolution theory. Attacking another theory is not the same as proving yours.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 02-08-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Playing a devil's advocate... I actually like a version of creationism, from Hinduism, perhaps because it is the closest thing to what we understand through science: a universe that gets created and destroyed every few billion years, the “Gods” churning primordial soup on earth to create various forms of life.
There it is... the M-theory and abiogenesis (Miller-Urey experiment) combined.
Of course, the claims that the Miller-Urey experiment proved "you can't get there from here" have been completely reversed. Seems they didn't even report on what their experiment really did produce, and later more sophisticated and thorough experiments of this same basic type have indeed produced more than the necessary-for-life 20 amino acids from "household chemicals". Sorta kills that denial, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
It makes a whole lot more sense than a literal interpretation Genesis.
Lord only knows why we bother arguing with Biblical Literalists. They've abandoned reason long ago, so it seems pointless.
Why, because they are so amusing to argue with, especially since they don't generally argue in accordance with any known sort of debating rules., like answering straight-forward and carefully posited questions, or staying on topic, or reading and then responding to links we provide them. Their greater agenda is the only thing that becomes obvious over time.
As I recently suggested to an educated friend of mine, my thoughts on those outlandish reported percentages of those wanting to present Creationism in science class in thuh skoolz:
I'm pretty sure that some of this is the result of cultural fear of such a socially controversial subject matter. Can you imagine inviting the blunt force trauma of a PTA investigation into your teaching credentials or educational background?
This alone is why, I'm pretty sure, the Founding Fathers were avowed Christians. They were afraid not to be! You went around proudly proclaiming an obvious fear of The Lord, and a devout belief. To do otherwise was political and social suicide.
As well, the true teaching credentials of some science & math teachers might actually be questionable. There is always a lack of good science teachers, and if you even seem to qualify, you might well get hired. Without the additional credentials of an education degree, as in child psychology, schoolroom procedures, teaching techniques, etc.
Add in that the local school board is probably () biased towards the outright religious, and so what would you expect to get?
As an alternative, imagine if teachers were Federally recruited from, shall we say, non-secular locales and universities, and then redistributed according to scholastic need and the subject teacher's avowed lack of any biases, to the far Outer Limits of the Baptist south?
OMG, huh? The bigger problem, as I see it, is that our American education system is fraught with such shamism and biases, and that does not bode well for our position in the ultra-competitive future global marketplace. After all, you only have to look at the current-day Middle East for a good example of what blindered faith-based thug theocracies have produced in terms of innovation and peaceful positive and productive scientific pursuits.
Oh well; there's always jobz down @ Wal-Mart... where you can try to convert purchasers when they come to your checkout stand, and where you have a bible on display and a cross around your neck...
I still would like someone with clear understanding and grasp of 'Creationsim' to define the theory. Please?
Godddit.
Any other questions? There better not be, or you'll go to Hell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
