Why is the theory of evolution so controversial?? (Congress, controversy, Christ)
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 took billions of years or life as it is know today to evolve. Life itself appeared very quickly after conditions that would tolerate it at all came about (e.g., the earth had cooled from being a ball of molten lava)...
Then prove it wrong. Show us all, as Idahogie has said, that the Bible is a book of fables.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you since you are the one asserting the that the bible isn't a book of fables. Why should I assume that anything in that book is factually correct? I don't do that with any other book. Any book that does asserts facts usually provides evidence to back up its claims. Again, burden of proof is on you to show us all the CREDIBLE evidence (you have trotted out your dubious web links already) that the bible has even a shred factually correct information in it.
It took billions of years or life as it is know today to evolve. Life itself appeared very quickly after conditions that would tolerate it at all came about (e.g., the earth had cooled from being a ball of molten lava)...
There is no way I believe we came from the fishes, although you can make a point of Bush devolving from a chimp.
I saw this comment earlier (in which you were challenging someone else, not me). It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. It's also wildly off-topic.
However, I can show that your statement is plainly false without checking your links. You said the bible "has accurately predicted future events hundreds and thousands of years forward without error or omission." I can show one omission: it didn't predict that I would write this post. Therefore, your statement is false.
Other than that, the bible is full of internal contradictions, and cannot therefore be "the word of god" (which is a man-made concept, anyway). Ask yourself this: what did the sign on Jesus's cross say? The bible gives multiple answers. How can it be true?
Third, you're no different than the followers of Nostradamus or Sylvia Plath. It's easy to twist concepts and events to make vague pronouncements fit a long enough history. Your arguments are totally unconvincing.
The bible is a stupid thing to base one's scientific world view upon. People who do so are questionable, to say the least.
Show me a prediction by Nostradamus or Sylvia. I'd love to see one.
"I can show that your statement is plainly false without checking your links" but can you stay on topic and disprove the evedence provided by the links?
[quote=BigJon3475;7104107]Wow... I suggest starting back on page one yourself. The post was a direct response to the original question. The reason it's so controversial is you claim nothing can be proven in the thought process of creationism and then turn around and use circumstantial evidence to try and prove evolution.[quote=BigJon3475;7104107]
Actually, I disagree with the OP comment that ToE is controversial. Based on it significant body of science behind the theory, is as close to fact as you can get for a theory. Even the top creationist "scientists" (I use the term loosely) do not dispute the significant evdience for the TofE. Evolutionary evidence is circumstantial...I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Disregarding that the actual fact it can never be proven scientifically with the scientific method...just overwhelmingly with circumstantial evidence. And I think you missed Darwin's whole reason for his studies if you think it doesn't attempt to trace back to biogenesis. Reverse engineering is the only way (if possible) to ever recreate those conditions. If it took billions of years to happen it's not likely we are gonna accidentally fall upon the answer.
\
I'm familiar with Darwin's goals. That doesn't mean that because it was Darwin's goal to explain abiogenesis that the ToE MUST explain abiogenesis.
It explains what is explains, with the evidence at hand. Nothing more.
The theory of evolution is controversial because it threatens the juvenile narcissistic notion that man is special and is at the center of the universe. You see, many people have this need to believe that the universe revolves around them and that everything that happens in it has some meaningful connection to them. Creationism (at least in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition) satisfies this need. The theory of evolution provides an alternative, rational, verifiable, mechanistic and elegantly simple explanation that eliminates the need for a deity who ostensibly intervened to create that special organism, man.
So yeah, the TOE is controversial. But only to the narcissists.
Seriously, though -- who knows how old the vents are? These ecosystems may be eons old.
Midocean ridges are not stable. The plates on either side move away from the ridge, and vulcanism is common. Old vents can be destroyed and new ones can be created on human time scales. There are sites where, despite erosion and overfill, three successive generations of smokers can be observed.
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.
