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.
It does not exclude a first cause, rather it doesn't address it and it shouldn't.
The entire basis of modern science, arrived at during the Middle Ages, is built upon finding an explanation for natural events without appealing to the Almighty - that is philosophy's role.
If we do go with creationism then we are stuck with if the creator is good or evil or if we are an alien experiment.
"The entire basis of modern science, arrived at during the Middle Ages, is built upon finding an explanation for natural events without appealing to the Almighty - that is philosophy's role."
Save the dogma. In the Middle-Ages they didn't know a Big Bang (creation event) had happened apart from religion. They didn't understand mechanics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy or anything else we would consider "science".
Why not exclude nothing then see where the evidence takes us?
This biased approach is why evolution, as embraced by the public school system, is in fact the state endorsed religion of Atheism dressed up as science.
I am of the opinion that something caused the Big Bang (first cause). Whatever caused it to happen would seem to exist independently of time and space, and is by definition our Creator.
Can you address the question of first cause without sinning against your faith that no creator can possibly exists?
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are as faulty as your logic here ... I think the Noah's Ark business of literal interpretation of religious parable is as absurd as your side's opinion ... and I don't think that citing what Ark people believe is some legtimate endorsement of your side's nonsense. But desperate times call for desperate measures, so I suppose any acknowledgment, regardless of source is acceptable to you evolving beings.
I do not particularly care what your religious beliefs are. I merely point out (again) that even creationists call bull sh*t on your claim. So you're kind of hanging out there on your own with the absurd falsehood that speciation has never been observed and does not occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Secondly, your claim that "speciation" has been observed as exclusively involving mutation and natural selection is COMPLETE NONSENSE too, on a couple of levels ...
Ya think? Okay, let's see how you do trying to prove that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas1
There are as many arguments within the "evolutionist" camps over "speciation" as there are theories and types of 'speciation" being debated (while you insinuate there is consensus and uniformity).
Why must you always set up straw men rather than argue with what I actually say? You do it on all your wacky conspiracy theory threads, and you're doing it here too. Argue with what I say, not on what you hallicinate I have "insinuated."
But this much we do know. We know what a species is. And we have seen new species arise from older species in both the laboratory and the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas1
2) The claim made dismisses interbreeding/hybridization among animal and plants capable of genetic reproduction or cross pollination, which is in reality the ONLY proven mechanism of "speciation". All other types are speculation and hypothetical. Even viruses exchange DNA or pick up foreign DNA, and through recombination, create a subspecies.
What exactly do you understand "species" means? You appear quite confused.
That said, you are simply and factually in error. Speciation has been observed which involved no hybridization or cross breeding whatsoever.
I am of the opinion that something caused the Big Bang (first cause). Whatever caused it to happen would seem to exist independently of time and space, and is by definition our Creator.
So you are saying someone/thing had to exist to cause the Big Bang? Something couldn't have just "existed". And this being is the Creator?
By the same logic, how could "the Creator" just exist? Who created the Creator?
Don't feel bad .... as you are far from the only evolution expert that doesn't realize monkeys HAVE THUMBS TOO .... As for the larger brain .... well, size does matter in some areas, but brains ... well that's debatable.
I swear to God, though I don't believe in evolution ... I can see how undue credence to the monkey/human connection might be considered reasonable in some cases.
So you went into an underhanded personal attack. Was expected. And when did I say that monkeys 'don't have thumbs too'?
I ask you again: What is the Creationism theory? Please define it for me.
This biased approach is why evolution, as embraced by the public school system, is in fact the state endorsed religion of Atheism dressed up as science.
Seriously asking, is this why folks who believe in creationism think it should be taught as science instead of religion? Because they believe evolution as taught in schools is promoting atheism?
The issue of evolution has never really been 'science' (junk science at that, as recognized throughout most of the scientific community).
The real issue is ACCOUNTABILITY! -- As long as man remains randomly evolved from swamp gas (or whatever), he has no accountability to anyone or thing higher than himself. In other words, man can be his own 'god.'
But, if one acknowledges the truth of God's creation as revealed in God's Word, then man, as a created being ... must also acknowledge his own accountability to his creator and God.
The 'science' of evolution never really answers man's questions regarding the 'source of life' ... or resolves man's inborn desire and search for God's truth. That's because God created man as a being who will only find peace and satisfication of the inborn desires of his heart ... from God!
Save the dogma. In the Middle-Ages they didn't know a Big Bang (creation event) had happened apart from religion. They didn't understand mechanics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy or anything else we would consider "science".
Duh!
May be I should ask what part of "science" do you understand? But you managed to make an interesting point. Religion knew about big bang? Could you elaborate on what it knew about creation at the time and where it came from?
But, if one acknowledges the truth of God's creation as revealed in God's Word, then man, as a created being ... must also acknowledge his own accountability to his creator and God.
Again...where is the science or evidence that supports the existance of God?
Attacking gaps in the science behind evolution isn't the same as proving the theory of creationism. Proving theories (actually hypothesis) is in large part what science is about.
I swear to God, though I don't believe in evolution ... I can see how undue credence to the monkey/human connection might be considered reasonable in some cases.
Yep. I'm pretty sure monkeys aren't likely to have clue about evolution, much less believe in it.
But here is a question, what do you think evolution is?
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.
Great question ... if you are really willing to think about it!
