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.
Not a lot. Evolution doesn't. It has became a sort of religious debate because some believers feel they have to reject evolution in favour of an all -at -once creation. It is one thing, Vizio, that perhaps we needn't argue about.
What I wonder is why those who reject evolution explain how the natural world has change without measure over the time when the primoral ocean showed the first sign. Could they not choose to explain that 'god' created life, but in order to stay alive that life had to continually change and adapt to new environments? Or do they believe that 'god' directed evolution?
I'm not christan but I believe in a life force drawn from spirit and while it did not make life, its nature is to make living things wish to live, and thus adapt to new challenges so they are driven to continue.
Because of the insistent of science denial by YEC who demand literal interpretation of the bible.
Yes. It boiled over in the Monkey trial and had been bubbling ever since. Even though the lid was slammed on at Dover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So why do you believe it is here, on this board?
As I said, it has become significant in the religious debate because of Genesis -literalism. It was seen from the beginning as denying what the Bible said and that is still the basis of the polemic struggle. I have got caught up in it myself and now see Darwin as an atheist Icon...maybe the top one, albeit one he never intended to be.
It is largely a US debate. There is nothing like that Darwin -denial here (though some of the polls are a surprise). Of course Dawkins' books debunk God biologically, but more through pointing up the absence of any hand of God in biology and good reasons not to suppose it is there, rather than the YE and Flood debate in USA, but the same sort of arguments are used, such as the Giraffe's neck argument. The difference is that Dawkins is rather arguing against I/D and the Creationists argue for I/C.
I/D: evolution shows the hand of God in its working.
I/C: Evolution cannot work, so it was all created in one go.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-21-2016 at 04:53 AM..
Who knows where evolution will go? They have stayed as they are where they are well suited to their environment. It is where it changes that there are extinctions and they either produce an adaptation that will survive or that particular line will go extinct, while the others carry on as usual. Right up to the present. I might say that I detect a glimpse of the fallacy of an intended evolutionary Result implicit there. There is no reason why any evolution should result in humans. It was only a series of accidents that resulted in us.
A series of random accidents and non-random selection.
A series of random accidents and non-random selection.
Let me just reiterate for the faint of heart that it is "random mutations in the germ line and non-random natural selection."
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.
