Evolution Debate ...
- Thread starter Planet_EN
- Start date
How do you know... For all you know the world and all of our memories of the what we thought was our past could be created yesterday. But you'd never know. Would you?
How about this...Gawd got the ball rolling and evolution is the process.
There, now everybody wins.
There, now everybody wins.
The evidence...actual hard physical evidence from several scientific disciplines...supports evolution. There is no physical evidence that any religious or cultural creation myth is true. Neither creationism nor "intelligent" design have any solid basis in science.
You can believe whatever you want when it comes to religious belief, but the second you say that those beliefs trump science or have any basis in science, then you have to follow scientific methods and procedures.
You have been unable to do anything of the sort.
You can believe whatever you want when it comes to religious belief, but the second you say that those beliefs trump science or have any basis in science, then you have to follow scientific methods and procedures.
You have been unable to do anything of the sort.
The churches have said that their scientists accept what science says regarding our beginnings. Its time to accept that fact and follow the led of science, till it changes its mind.
The church has known this for a long time that "some creatures are not of God"
I will post more on this at a later date.
The church has known this for a long time that "some creatures are not of God"
I will post more on this at a later date.
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...
Jay, you're talking about the creationism theory of just one religion, while there are alot other religions that also describe creationism ...
The Creationism theory is far more complex than just believing in a God who created everything ...
Jay said:
Jay, you're talking about the creationism theory of just one religion, while there are alot other religions that also describe creationism ...
The Creationism theory is far more complex than just believing in a God who created everything ...
It's not a theory...that would imply that it has a basis in science. It doesn't matter which creation myth you are talking about, none of them have any such basis.
Evolution is correct. Science, not religion or the Bible is the final truth on the matter.
The bible has so so many contridictions in it, I can not see why most people believe anything written in it. It seems like a fairy tale to me. In my opinion anyhow.
But, Alas I am open minded, but I found this interesting scripture.
So does this scripture from the bible mean we were brought here by what people refer to "aliens"?
Of course, everyone knows Ezekial in the Bible (verses 4 through 19, etc.)
"4. And I looked and beheld a whirlwind came out of the north a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance, they had the likeness of man… and the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of the flash of lightning…and when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them, and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up."
If its in the Bible it must be "true"?
The bible has so so many contridictions in it, I can not see why most people believe anything written in it. It seems like a fairy tale to me. In my opinion anyhow.
But, Alas I am open minded, but I found this interesting scripture.
So does this scripture from the bible mean we were brought here by what people refer to "aliens"?
Of course, everyone knows Ezekial in the Bible (verses 4 through 19, etc.)
"4. And I looked and beheld a whirlwind came out of the north a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance, they had the likeness of man… and the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of the flash of lightning…and when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them, and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up."
If its in the Bible it must be "true"?
For nearly a century and a half now, debates have raged over much of the world over a deceptively simple topic. The origin of species, especially humanity. The debate, sparked by the controversial Darwin theory (aptly named "The Origin of Species"), while initially one sided in the favor of the Creationist aspect of a religious beginning to the world, has grown into a more balanced form. On one hand, religion has a tradition, wherein it was the source to all of life's mysteries for many millenia preceding Darwin. On the opposite, Darwin presents a more scientific method, which showcases facts and figures, as opposed to myths and legends. However, it is entirely plausible that both sides are right at the same time. A universe ruled by a higher power, but explained through science, with the higher power as an overseer. --BB
And I will definately agree on Michael Jackson
And I will definately agree on Michael Jackson
Popular culture definition of the word theory:
Dictionary.com
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. This is the creationist.
This defination does not apply to a scientific theory. Which is described as
Dictionary.com
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Quote
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
I suggest a visit to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. Look up evolution. Or am I to believe now that wikipedia is just making this stuff up off the top of their head.
Dictionary.com
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. This is the creationist.
This defination does not apply to a scientific theory. Which is described as
Dictionary.com
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Quote
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
I suggest a visit to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. Look up evolution. Or am I to believe now that wikipedia is just making this stuff up off the top of their head.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of the Species"
"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.
Biochemist Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001) 205
"We have always underestimated the cell....The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines... Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" Cell 92 (Feb. 8, 1998)
Explain how a cell could have evolved by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of the Species"
"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.
Biochemist Franklin M. Harold, "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001) 205
"We have always underestimated the cell....The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines... Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" Cell 92 (Feb. 8, 1998)
Explain how a cell could have evolved by numerous, successive, slight modifications.