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.
How true!! And that comes from a non-religious person .... though I am often accused of holding religious based ideas, simply because I possess the raw intelligence necessary to look at the intricacies of a Swiss made watch and realize that it couldn't have created itself, or be created by natural processes. Silly me, I think a watch maker made it.
That a living cell, or even that of DNA happens to be infinitely more complex than a watch, doesn't seem to have the tiniest impact on those unevolved brains of the evolutionists. The sad truth is, the very belief in life being created through evolution is evidence of evolution's flawed philosophy, because contrary to the claims .. human beings have never been dumber than they are today, proven by believing such absurd things.
The problem I have with that is why this intelligent designer created things which then died out. I'm more likely to believe that an intelligent designer is behind evolution as a design tool than I am to believe that evolution didn't happen. I think it more likely that this designer set evolution in motion knowing that eventually X would happen but had no direct involvement in that process. To me the fact that humans evolved isn't ridiculous. But the idea that humans evolved by an "accident" of natural selection is ridiculous. It could have gone any way and it just happened to result in Beethoven, Aristotle, and Michelangelo? Strains credibility.
The pro evolution arguments that I have seen usually revolve around showing that it is possible that this occurred and how it could have happened. To me, that's weak. I could develop the ability to fly tomorrow. But it's a big leap to go from the possibility of that happening that to believing I actually will develop the ability to fly tomorrow.
The anti evolution arguments that I have seen usually revolve around picking some complex system and saying it couldn't have evolved. The problem there is that the complex system may have been some other system. If some system requires 10 parts to all be functioning perfectly, that does not lead to any requirement to believe all 10 of those parts suddenly functioned perfectly. They could have been performing some other function and gradually evolved into performing the function we see now.
The argument that there is no evolution is ridiculous because the evidence of it is all around us - there is, literally, an entire universe of it. I mean all you have to do is look at your appendix. The argument that nothing but natural selection happened is also ridiculous given the chances of it actually resulting in a few chemicals in some primordial soup becoming a planetwide intelligent civilization are like winning 10 lotteries in a row. So I guess I'm something of a Deist rather than Theist or an atheist.
Actually "science" didn't discover those particles - they have always existed since God created them.
I will trade you two muons for a neutrino.
Science did "discover" those particles. Everything that is discovered has to have existed before being discovered. Science can't discover things that don't exist. It can only discover things that do exist, and then attempt to fit them into the way we understand the world around us. Discovery confirms our understanding, or confounds our understanding, so that we have to devise a new way to explain the world around us. That's why science is so exciting.
... I'm more likely to believe that an intelligent designer is behind evolution as a design tool than I am to believe that evolution didn't happen. I think it more likely that this designer set evolution in motion knowing that eventually X would happen but had no direct involvement in that process. ...
This is how I tend to view it. I don't find the two at all incompatible.
There may be an afterlife. There may be a soul. There may be a god. I don't know that none of these things exist, and if it gives others comfort to believe in these things, then I have no issue with that. As a human being, we all seek comfort, we all want to feel safe, we all want to feel that we have a purpose. Each of us as individuals must find our own resources, our own reality, that gives us these things.
Fossils and DNA and even direct observation (in the case of bacteria and viruses) are all evidence of evolution. It's foolish to deny that such evidence exists. To debate what the evidence means is science. To search for new evidence is science. To teach how to search for and how to debate the evidence is science. But to deny the evidence is irrational, to me. And to want to teach such denial as science is irrational. Science belongs in the science classroom. Religion belongs elsewhere.
I am in virtual agreement with your. I turned away from the mythology long ago, and once I realized that existance is limited (as opposed to "infinie") it became so much more precious. Anything, in infinite supply become worthless.
It is sad that in 2013 people still hold on to the dark-ages stuff, and even worse, want society to give it official credance by teaching it, or, as in this case, not teaching things that contradict it.
We can never grow, until we stop such backwards thinking.
What specifically has been proven with regard to evolution? In terms of micromolecules to man evolution?
Where is it?
Wow, that is a record-setting goalpost-move if ever there was one. I assuming they are now in interstellar space, because that is the only place that could accomodate such a massive goalpost move. We are talking about evoution, not the origins of life.
There may be an afterlife. There may be a soul. There may be a god. I don't know that none of these things exist, and if it gives others comfort to believe in these things, then I have no issue with that. As a human being, we all seek comfort, we all want to feel safe, we all want to feel that we have a purpose. Each of us as individuals must find our own resources, our own reality, that gives us these things.
Where are the transitional fossils that would indicate that evolution has occurred? You'd think that there would be thousands of transitional fossils, and yet, we don't see any.
No, DNA proves the exact opposite, for mutations within DNA do not add any new information from a genetic standpoint, but rather take away. Since they take away, they can't add new material, but rather only select-for modified genes already within genetic pool. One example of this is in the way the Y-Chromosome is gradually breaking down over the generations. Since males are XY and females are XX, through the process of meiosis, the production of female gametes (eggs) allows for mutations to be covered over (since they have two x's). On the other hand, the Y chromosome over time is breaking down, given that problems arising are not able to be covered over, as there is only one X. http://creation.com/y-chromosome-extinction
Quote:
and even direct observation (in the case of bacteria and viruses) are all evidence of evolution.
Actually, there has never been any evidence of any changes within any multicellular organism. There has not been any direct observation of this happening. There are not any transitional fossils proving this to be so. The reason for slight changes in bacteria is because it is only one cell. Even then, a bacterium is still a bacterium, and no one has observed bacteria changing into something not a bacterium. Hence, it's not evolution. With multicellular organisms, magnify the absurdity many fold. Since multicellular organisms are made up of anywhere from millions to trillions of cells, and since neither of the cells are going through division at the same time, it is virtually impossible for there to be any form of evolution in multicellular organisms.
Natural Selection occurs, but it is not evolution. It is simply a selection of the favored genes within the current gene pool based on environmental factors.
Quote:
It's foolish to deny that such evidence exists.
Actually, you're quite wrong. I'd say that it's odd that one would claim there to be such evidence when it doesn't exist.
Quote:
To debate what the evidence means is science. To search for new evidence is science. To teach how to search for and how to debate the evidence is science. But to deny the evidence is irrational, to me. And to want to teach such denial as science is irrational. Science belongs in the science classroom. Religion belongs elsewhere.
What is micromolecules to man evolution, for it certainly isn't science. It's a religion, in a sense.
Last edited by Sound of Reason; 03-15-2013 at 02:18 PM..
There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, along with creation as a theory. Neither should be taught as proven fact, because both are unproveable.
Evolution is fact. It happens. The only unknown are the exact mechanisms behind it. People act like scientific theory is like religious faith. One is based on evidence and testing, the other is based on wild guesses that make them feel better.
There may be an afterlife. There may be a soul. There may be a god. I don't know that none of these things exist, and if it gives others comfort to believe in these things, then I have no issue with that. As a human being, we all seek comfort, we all want to feel safe, we all want to feel that we have a purpose. Each of us as individuals must find our own resources, our own reality, that gives us these things.
Where are the transitional fossils that would indicate that evolution has occurred? You'd think that there would be thousands of transitional fossils, and yet, we don't see any.
By the way, fossilization can occur rapidly.
What do you, a fossilized hat, proving that fossilization can occur rapidly under the right conditions.
No, DNA proves the exact opposite, for mutations within DNA do not add any new information from a genetic standpoint, but rather take away. Since they take away, they can't add new material, but rather only select-for modified genes already within genetic pool. One example of this is in the way the Y-Chromosome is gradually breaking down over the generations. Since males are XY and females are XX, through the process of meiosis, the production of female gametes (eggs) allows for mutations to be covered over (since they have two x's). On the other hand, the Y chromosome over time is breaking down, given that problems arising are not able to be covered over, as there is only one X.
Actually, there has never been any evidence of any changes within any multicellular organism. There has not been any direct observation of this happening. There are not any transitional fossils proving this to be so. The reason that bacteria works is because it it only one cell. Since multicellular organisms are made up of anywhere from millions to trillions of cells, and since neither of the cells are going through division at the same time, it is virtually impossible for there to be any form of evolution in multicellular organisms.
Natural Selection occurs, but it is not evolution. It is simply a selection of the favored genes within the current gene pool based on environmental factors.
Actually, you're quite wrong. I'd say that it's odd that one would claim there to be such evidence when it doesn't exist.
What is micromolecules to man evolution, for it certainly isn't science. It's a religion, in a sense.
Since we clearly can't agree, then no, it shouldn't be taught at all. Just tell them the world is and we can't explain why.
In other words, lie to kids because religious people are that their creation myths aren't paraded around as facts despite no supportable evidence whatsoever.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 05:42 PM..
Reason: language
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.
