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.
Most who don't believe the theory of evolution came from a religious background. Because, they already have a competing theory of creationism of their own. To a religious person, this is a faith issue, since different people were born into different fundamental tenets, and it all depends on how one was raised and taught. After that, it's all your faith against my faith. Religion sees science as a competitor; science does not see religion as a competitor.
A Vedic creationist seems a spectacularly bad example of someone non-religious challenging the ToE.
There's no denying that along the way, some scientists have failed to uphold the standards of the scientific method, nor that some fix their minds in some sort of orthodoxy. However, the method is designed to be self-correcting - you don't get Nobel prizes by confirming established theory, but by overturning it.
Michael Credo's contention - that modern humans have been around for hundreds of millions of years - is not supported by the evidence.
He is NOT a creationist. I seriously doubt you know very much about his work. He was invited to speak at universities before and they tried to silence his research by labeling him as that. The presidents of the schools knew nothing about him or his work just that some of research was at odds with "the commonly held beliefs" of the scientific community. Kind of like when everyone thought the world was flat.
It's directly applicable to survival of the species. Refer to my Bio 101 example of exponentially increased takers in an environment of limited suppliers. The result is extinction. No surprise, given the ToE.
The ToE isn't even applicable to that experiment, although you are at least in the correct general science, so there is that, which is nice.
The ToE states that speciation is due to modified descent from a common ancestor. That a bacteria colony will die out when its food supplies run out really has nothing to do with that.
Do I believe in evolution? Nope. Far too many inconsistencies for me to verify it as "fact", especially when hundreds of scientists argue about origins. No one was there to document it, its not observable, its not testable, therefore its not science and just a bunch of guesses. And using unreliable radiometric carbon dating to guess how old something is is quite laughable.
I belong to a Hindu tradition that accepts one supreme God, known by the name Krishna. I believe God, by whatever name people know him, did not use Darwinian evolution to create human beings and other species of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Cremo
So although I am a creationist, my ideas are inspired by my studies in the Vedic literature. Therefore some people call me a Vedic creationist. I prefer being called a Vedic creationist over being called a Hindu creationist.
How not? Why didn't the bacteria naturally adapt to the decreasing and eventually extinguished food source in relation to their increasing population?
Ah, they should have adapted to a situation without food. Evolved into life that didn't need energy input. Brilliant.
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.
