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.
I think we need to look at the totality of what is known, what is not known, and how we've managed to gain the knowledge that we do have about evolution today. I hear alot of people trying to discredit evolution because every single detail hasn't been worked out. What they're not considering is how much we really do know and how we came to know it. In the last century and a half a theory put forward by Darwin has accumulated a vast amount of data based on physical evidence such as fossils, geological studies, etc and the pace of that accumulation of knowledge continues to accelerate. At this point in time we clearly can say that more is understood about evolution than physics for example which is constantly revising it's most basic fundamentals while evolution can clearly be stated to be a fact even thought that irritates many people. Most of the natural sciences have something that still has to be sorted out whether it's in chemistry or whatever the case may be. Because all of this progress has been made using the scientific method and no credible evidence undermines the foundation of evolutionary principles we are clearly on the road to fully understanding all of the physical and genetic mechanisms and this will eventually include the field of abiogenesis. This isn't based on faith in science, it's based on a track record of continuing to expand the range of human knowledge using the scientific method. None of this can be said about creationism and despite the conversations that we've had not a single creationist scientist, if I can call them that, has ever published a scientific document using the tried and tested methods that scientists use and presented it to the scientific community to analyze. I say to them, either put up or shut up, if you have scientific proof that creationism has scientific validity present your evidence. Of course that's never going to happen.
In the last century and a half a theory put forward by Darwin has accumulated a vast amount of data based on physical evidence such as fossils, geological studies, etc and the pace of that accumulation of knowledge continues to accelerate.
The problem is tho, the evidence is accumulating to support a theory.. First the theory was advanced, then the evidence started accumulating... and will continue to accumulate.
Quote:
if you have scientific proof that creationism has scientific validity present your evidence. Of course that's never going to happen.
I agree. That won't happen. The knowledge of God that is behind the Creationist worldview is never going to be proven scientifically. It's an entirely separate realm.
I agree. That won't happen. The knowledge of God that is behind the Creationist worldview is never going to be proven scientifically. It's an entirely separate realm.
I've never heard a creationist say that before. Normally what we hear is that evolution is false and if we would just listen to the people studying creationism we'd finally replace evolution. Here's my problem with what you're saying. If the earth was really 6,000 years old or so then that shouldn't be an entirely separate realm because all of us are living on the earth and it's a real physical place as opposed to some supernatural or spiritual realm. Don't the laws of nature apply to the earth that we live on? They appear to from what I see everyday. It sounds like even you don't think that creationism is scientifically verifiable but if we're talking about our physical world why wouldn't it be?
I've never heard a creationist say that before. Normally what we hear is that evolution is false and if we would just listen to the people studying creationism we'd finally replace evolution. Here's my problem with what you're saying. If the earth was really 6,000 years old or so then that shouldn't be an entirely separate realm because all of us are living on the earth and it's a real physical place as opposed to some supernatural or spiritual realm. Don't the laws of nature apply to the earth that we live on? They appear to from what I see everyday. It sounds like even you don't think that creationism is scientifically verifiable but if we're talking about our physical world why wouldn't it be?
I'm talking about the act of Creation itself. I believe that at that point, scientific laws as we know them were put in place. So, we can study and learn scientifically, because those laws don't change. What I meant about "separate realm" was where God is, or dwells, or came from. That isn't going to be scientifically proven or figured out with the laws we have on this earth, IMO.
Normally what we hear is that evolution is false and if we would just listen to the people studying creationism we'd finally replace evolution.
I don't necessarily agree with this thinking.
I'm not sure how to put my thots clearly into words... It's like a different language. I think in that language, I talk in that language. Until someone learns the language, they're not going to think that way.. no matter how much they study it or listen to it.
I say to them, either put up or shut up, if you have scientific proof that creationism has scientific validity present your evidence. Of course that's never going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
I'm talking about the act of Creation itself.
Just an additional thought.. like I mentioned, the act of Creation was outside of the scientific realm.. a supernatural event which IMO is not provable scientifically. So besides that, what is there to prove? God made humans and here we are; animals were created, there they are.. The world was complete. There's really nothing to "prove" in creationism, thus the focus of most "creation scientists" it seems, is to prove evolution wrong.. which brings up a few valid points IMO but usually ends up being kinda pointless... If people don't know God, we're not going to convince anyone. That's really the starting point.
You just need to look at the behaviour of some human beings to see that we come from the same family.
Good point hutch. Just put an ape or a chimp in a suit and it would be hard to tell them apart from the rest of the crowd at a Giant Truck Rally or TV Wrestling audience.
Good point hutch. Just put an ape or a chimp in a suit and it would be hard to tell them apart from the rest of the crowd at a Giant Truck Rally or TV Wrestling audience.
I disagree, the Chimps are much cuter and possibly have a higher IQ. Maybe those audiences are the missing link ?!
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.
