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.
And I think you will find supporting evidence that refutes most of that so either way there is no definitive answer that science can agree on.
The evidence and support by people who dedicate their lives to researching these theories overwhelmingly support evolution. Even if you want to say that evolution is not an absolute fact, there is much more evidence to support it then creation science which has absolutely not one shred of evidence to support its claims. Can you provide me with one source of anything (not the bible) that can lead one to conclude we were created by intelligent design?
Evolution is much like the earth-centric debate before it. It took a few hundred years for the Church to accept that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but eventually they had to. This will happen with evolution too someday...maybe not this generation or the next. But, eventually even the fundamentalists will need to accept the overwhelming amount of proof that evolution occurred and continues to occur. Then, religous leaders will fabricate another way to explain God's existence and role in mankind.
The evidence and support by people who dedicate their lives to researching these theories overwhelmingly support evolution. Even if you want to say that evolution is not an absolute fact, there is much more evidence to support it then creation science which has absolutely not one shred of evidence to support its claims. Can you provide me with one source of anything (not the bible) that can lead one to conclude we were created by intelligent design?
Evolution is much like the earth-centric debate before it. It took a few hundred years for the Church to accept that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, but eventually they had to. This will happen with evolution too someday...maybe not this generation or the next. But, eventually even the fundamentalists will need to accept the overwhelming amount of proof that evolution occurred and continues to occur. Then, religous leaders will fabricate another way to explain God's existence and role in mankind.
I'd say the Bible, written way before man had the inclination to even begin to examine where he came from, is a very reliable source of information. According to Apologetics, "the Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the original to the present, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable (which has yet to be done), then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible."
Knowing this, the question should be.....can you provide me with one source in the Bible that can lead one to conclude that we were not created by intelligent design?
I'd say the Bible, written way before man had the inclination to even begin to examine where he came from, is a very reliable source of information. According to Apologetics, "the Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the original to the present, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable (which has yet to be done), then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible."
Knowing this, the question should be.....can you provide me with one source in the Bible that can lead one to conclude that we were not created by intelligent design?
So the bearing of proof is on me to to disprove intelligent design...that's convenient. First, we would need proof other than your vague statements above that the Bible is true. Since I don't accept the Bible to be true, I would not use it as evidence to support either Creation Science or Evolution.
So the bearing of proof is on me to to disprove intelligent design...that's convenient. First, we would need proof other than your vague statements above that the Bible is true. Since I don't accept the Bible to be true, I would not use it as evidence to support either Creation Science or Evolution.
Well, if you are not willing to use a credible source such as the Bible, what will you use? My source predates yours so what else is there? Carbon dating? Paleontology?
The fact is evolution cannot be observed, nor can it be supported or reproduced in experiments so unless you have some type of written evidence that predates the Bible, I don't know what else to say other than no animal to my knowledge, has ever been observed changing or evolving into something other than it's original form and no one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Well, if you are not willing to use a credible source such as the Bible, what will you use? My source predates yours so what else is there? Carbon dating? Paleontology?
The fact is evolution cannot be observed, nor can it be supported or reproduced in experiments so unless you have some type of written evidence that predates the Bible, I don't know what else to say other than no animal to my knowledge, has ever been observed changing or evolving into something other than it's original form and no one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
No one has observed a "Creator" creating the entire universe in 7 days to my knowledge either. Evolution has been reproduced in experiments so that is a lie. (Google fruit flies and evolution) I don't know what your "source" predating anything has to do with well, anything. That's one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Well my earth-centric theory predates heliocentrism so the earth must be the center of the universe.
But you're right...there is nothing else to say. If I were to find 25 credible sources which show evolution evidence, you will discount them all and then yell Bible. So, you'll continue to believe in intelligent design and I'll continue to believe evolution theory.
Like I said, someday this will be a moot point as evolution will prevail if history is any indicator of what viewpoints triumph when it comes to science vs. religion.
Many intelligent and informed people (including people of many different faiths) do not agree with your views on the theory of evolution. You know, science is observable - your current view of evolution as a "law" is basically faith in an idea, it is not on a view resulting from conclusive scientific study. My question is, why don't you "defer to the experts" on this matter? If you disagree with the experts on this list, aren't you refusing to defer to the experts?
"During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
What you just don't seem to get is that for biologists the question of whether or not evolution explains the development of life on this planet has long been settled; the question is now focused on the nuances of how the process of evolution unfolded. There are very, very few, if any, respectable biologists out there who don't wholeheartedly believe that evolution is, in fact, true.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the use of the term 'theory.' For the layman the word theory implies ambiguity, it suggests that whatever set of principles is being referred to as a theory is just educated guesswork. In everyday use this is exactly what theory means. However, insofar as the natural sciences are concerned the term 'theory' is about the highest form of knowledge that can be attained. For something to gain the status of theory requires incredibly rigorous testing and debate for a considerable length of time, it requires a high degree of unanimity. Don't forget, we still refer to the 'theory of gravity' though it's pretty clear gravity exists. Evolution is about as settled as science gets, the principles of evolution are employed regularly in the biological sciences.
The other problem, I think, is that the media and high school biology classes tend to play to the lowest common denominator. In other words, they oversimplify things to an incredible degree. When I learned about evolution in high school, for example, it amounted to 'survival of the fittest' and a long slow process of genetic mutations and thats about it. However, in reality evolution is an incredibly complex process that takes years upon years of rigorous study to even begin to understand in any comprehensive manner. That's why the average biologist has to go to school for close to a decade to get their PhD and then goes on to study evolution and the like for the rest of their life. Yet, so many theists come up with witty little ways to 'prove' evolution false, as if they have some great insight that thousands upon thousands of biologists who've spent their entire lives studying evolution have somehow overlooked. I'm sorry, but I tend to defer to the experts.
Last edited by HSVbulldawg; 01-03-2009 at 07:42 PM..
Many intelligent and informed people (including people of many different faiths) do not agree with your views on the theory of evolution. You know, science is observable - your current view of evolution as a "law" is basically faith in an idea, it is not on a view resulting from conclusive scientific study. My question is, why don't you "defer to the experts" on this matter? If you disagree with the experts on this list, aren't you refusing to defer to the experts?
"During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
Many intelligent and informed people (including people of many different faiths) do not agree with your views on the theory of evolution. You know, science is observable - your current view of evolution as a "law" is basically faith in an idea, it is not on a view resulting from conclusive scientific study. My question is, why don't you "defer to the experts" on this matter? If you disagree with the experts on this list, aren't you refusing to defer to the experts?
"During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
Well for every one of these creation scientists, there are about 20 evolution scientists according to these numbers:
Religious people love to use science/scientists when it is convenient to their agenda, yet refuse to listen to the facts when it contests their faith.
I'll go back to the same case I mentioned already in this thread. There were many geo-centric scientists, some who believed this theory to be true and probably some influenced by the Church who disagreed when the heliocentric theory was established. There are many parallels with this and evolution. But like the church eventually accepted the overwhelming evidence of heliocentricity, they will eventually accept evolution.
Also, these passages below are just a few of the reasons why I can't accept the bible to be true. I'm sure these were used to explain how the earth was the center of the universe until it was no longer a viable argument. Now, you religious folk probably have some other twisted meaning for what they mean.
Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved
Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity."
Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
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.
If you disagree with the experts on this list, aren't you refusing to defer to the experts?
