Creationism infecting universities

[MLCKAA 402]

Science has already proven all life comes from common decent via evolution. Science has already proven species change, and species come and go via evolution.

 

 

Its descent.

 

Science has positively never ever proven that all life comes from common descent via evolution. First of all, darwinian evolution theory relies upon the assumption of millions of favorable mutations within a species. If true, this would represent an ascendance rather than a a descendance, but that's just a semantics argument! At any rate, there is literally no proof of any kind whatsoever that organisms presently populating Earth exist as the result of evolutionary development. There is no scientific evidence of any kind supporting this.

 

And observation, not science, is is the only essential in confirming that a species can change. Observation is requisite to science, but science is not requisite to confirming change. Observation.

 

As for "species come and go via evolution" there is, as already stated, no physical evidence to reveal the entrance or exit of a species via evolutionary change. Rather, the fossil record presents us with species that disappear rapidly for unknown reasons and species that appear in the rke seemingly out of nowhere, with no transitional forms (no "missing links") to connect them with earlier species.

 

A lengthy period of introspection may help reveal more to you about the validity of darwinian evolution than academics ever will. Tell me the value of art from a survival-of-the-fittest persepctive. How does art aid the predator? Or the complexity of love? Or the desire for recognition? Or philosophy and the depth of human thought? If anything these are detrimental to survival and really serve no beneficial purpose to man, from the darwinian evolution perspective. And, yet, these are exactly the things that make us human.

 

If all species originate from a common warm little pool, then why the immeasurably vast gap between human sophistication and that of the 2nd most sophisticated species we have? Science cannot offer anything to justify or explain the global dominance of humankind.

[LaChup 154]

Its descent.

 

Science has positively never ever proven that all life comes from common descent via evolution. First of all, darwinian evolution theory relies upon the assumption of millions of favorable mutations within a species. If true, this would represent an ascendance rather than a a descendance, but that's just a semantics argument! At any rate, there is literally no proof of any kind whatsoever that organisms presently populating Earth exist as the result of evolutionary development. There is no scientific evidence of any kind supporting this.

 

And observation, not science, is is the only essential in confirming that a species can change. Observation is requisite to science, but science is not requisite to confirming change. Observation.

 

As for "species come and go via evolution" there is, as already stated, no physical evidence to reveal the entrance or exit of a species via evolutionary change. Rather, the fossil record presents us with species that disappear rapidly for unknown reasons and species that appear in the rke seemingly out of nowhere, with no transitional forms (no "missing links") to connect them with earlier species.

 

A lengthy period of introspection may help reveal more to you about the validity of darwinian evolution than academics ever will. Tell me the value of art from a survival-of-the-fittest persepctive. How does art aid the predator? Or the complexity of love? Or the desire for recognition? Or philosophy and the depth of human thought? If anything these are detrimental to survival and really serve no beneficial purpose to man, from the darwinian evolution perspective. And, yet, these are exactly the things that make us human.

 

If all species originate from a common warm little pool, then why the immeasurably vast gap between human sophistication and that of the 2nd most sophisticated species we have? Science cannot offer anything to justify or explain the global dominance of humankind.

Now that's deep I have no idea what you just said, but you said it so well that I'm willing to believe you. Much like an Obama lover

[Greedo 13]

So take a little leap with me here, you are saying if there was an omnipotent being that being would not have the ability to create fossils that would appear to our science to be 4524643624522534 years old?

 

It would. But I can only PROVE the 2nd piece of your statement, not the 1st.

 

Can you prove God is false? Evolution is just another "theory".

 

I'll give it a try. One example is more metaphysical than the other.

Why is there evil in creation if God is omnipotent?

If God is willing to eliminate evil, but not able, God is impotent, and is not God.

If God is unwilling to eliminate evil AND not able, see above.

If God is able to eliminate evil, but not willing, then God is malevolent, and is not God.

Is God both able and willing to eliminate evil? Then why does evil exist?

 

Imagine the Angels sweep the Yankees 4-0. Do they play games 5-7? No. Why not? Because the outcome is already determined. If the outcome of creation is predetermined, then there would be no reason for it to exist. Therefore, any God you create in your mind does not know the outcome of creation, and by definition is not omnipotent. If God was omnipotent, there is no need to create something for which God already knows the outcome.

 

My question was: how is it that anything exists -- people, planet, universe? And the followup question, why does it exist? And, does there need to be a why?

 

THESE are the real fun questions, far more interesting than the God blather. Was there a Big Bang, what happened just after it, and right before it? Humans are curious, I guess, and want to know "why"? I guess most people can't deal with the fact that humanity could be an evolved random fluke.

 

Its descent.

 

Science has positively never ever proven that all life comes from common descent via evolution. First of all, darwinian evolution theory relies upon the assumption of millions of favorable mutations within a species. If true, this would represent an ascendance rather than a a descendance, but that's just a semantics argument! At any rate, there is literally no proof of any kind whatsoever that organisms presently populating Earth exist as the result of evolutionary development. There is no scientific evidence of any kind supporting this.

 

And observation, not science, is is the only essential in confirming that a species can change. Observation is requisite to science, but science is not requisite to confirming change. Observation.

 

As for "species come and go via evolution" there is, as already stated, no physical evidence to reveal the entrance or exit of a species via evolutionary change. Rather, the fossil record presents us with species that disappear rapidly for unknown reasons and species that appear in the rke seemingly out of nowhere, with no transitional forms (no "missing links") to connect them with earlier species.

 

A lengthy period of introspection may help reveal more to you about the validity of darwinian evolution than academics ever will. Tell me the value of art from a survival-of-the-fittest persepctive. How does art aid the predator? Or the complexity of love? Or the desire for recognition? Or philosophy and the depth of human thought? If anything these are detrimental to survival and really serve no beneficial purpose to man, from the darwinian evolution perspective. And, yet, these are exactly the things that make us human.

 

If all species originate from a common warm little pool, then why the immeasurably vast gap between human sophistication and that of the 2nd most sophisticated species we have? Science cannot offer anything to justify or explain the global dominance of humankind.

 

Wow - I disagree with every word of this, but appreciate the effort. Not even sure where to begin. Maybe start by reading my earlier posts regarding the fossil record, look at medstudent's walking fish, and review yet another recently discovered missing link in the fossil record: Ardi. That record is filling in more completely, and more accurately, as time goes by. Take all this evidence against the evidence a wizened man with a white beard is staring down at us from the sky, looking at his world he created in 7 days.

 

We have opportunities to introspect because we, as a species, have currently solved the survivalist Food-Shelter-Clothing thing. Much you call introspection would go away if they were threatened. We might be the only species survival of the fittest no longer applies to, given the number of morons that are breeding.

[Snoopy 0]

It would. But I can only PROVE the 2nd piece of your statement, not the 1st.

 

That's why it requires faith.

 

I'll give it a try. One example is more metaphysical than the other.

Why is there evil in creation if God is omnipotent?

If God is willing to eliminate evil, but not able, God is impotent, and is not God.

If God is unwilling to eliminate evil AND not able, see above.

If God is able to eliminate evil, but not willing, then God is malevolent, and is not God.

Is God both able and willing to eliminate evil? Then why does evil exist?

 

God gives you and everyone freedom of choice, if you choose evil that is your fault, not His.

 

Imagine the Angels sweep the Yankees 4-0. Do they play games 5-7? No. Why not? Because the outcome is already determined. If the outcome of creation is predetermined, then there would be no reason for it to exist. Therefore, any God you create in your mind does not know the outcome of creation, and by definition is not omnipotent. If God was omnipotent, there is no need to create something for which God already knows the outcome.

 

He knows the outcome of your decisions, that does not mean He made your decisions.

 

THESE are the real fun questions, far more interesting than the God blather. Was there a Big Bang, what happened just after it, and right before it? Humans are curious, I guess, and want to know "why"? I guess most people can't deal with the fact that humanity could be an evolved random fluke.

Wow - I disagree with every word of this, but appreciate the effort. Not even sure where to begin. Maybe start by reading my earlier posts regarding the fossil record, look at medstudent's walking fish, and review yet another recently discovered missing link in the fossil record: Ardi. That record is filling in more completely, and more accurately, as time goes by. Take all this evidence against the evidence a wizened man with a white beard is staring down at us from the sky, looking at his world he created in 7 days.

 

We have opportunities to introspect because we, as a species, have currently solved the survivalist Food-Shelter-Clothing thing. Much you call introspection would go away if they were threatened. We might be the only species survival of the fittest no longer applies to, given the number of morons that are breeding.

 

As you stated all you claim is evidence, not a prove of evolution as a fact.

[mobb_deep 917]

Imagine the Angels sweep the Yankees 4-0.

 

That would be sweet! GO ANGELS!

 

Wow - I disagree with every word of this, but appreciate the effort. Not even sure where to begin. Maybe start by reading my earlier posts regarding the fossil record, look at medstudent's walking fish, and review yet another recently discovered missing link in the fossil record: Ardi. That record is filling in more completely, and more accurately, as time goes by. Take all this evidence against the evidence a wizened man with a white beard is staring down at us from the sky, looking at his world he created in 7 days.

 

There are even examples of evolution on a much smaller and recent scale. For example, humans no longer needing the appendix. The discovery of fire and practice of cleaning food before consumption has made the appendix completely useless. Another example is the shape of the human foot. Babies are now born with the pinky toe curved slightly inwards, to better fit a shoe. Look at an older fossil of the foot vs. a recent one.

[Greedo 13]

God gives you and everyone freedom of choice, if you choose evil that is your fault, not His.

He knows the outcome of your decisions, that does not mean He made your decisions.

 

You're missing the point. It's not about fault, or decisions. It's about having no reason for existence in the first place if the results are already known by your God. And it's about the impossibility of an omnipotent God - it's a contradiction in terms to have an omnipotent, benevolent God and evil all at once.

 

And I'll admit, I prefer evidence to blind faith. It's why some scribe added the "Doubting Thomas" story into the bible: to help convince future believers to deny reason and experience and choose faith.

[MLCKAA 402]

Wow - I disagree with every word of this, but appreciate the effort. Not even sure where to begin. Maybe start by reading my earlier posts regarding the fossil record, look at medstudent's walking fish, and review yet another recently discovered missing link in the fossil record: Ardi. That record is filling in more completely, and more accurately, as time goes by. Take all this evidence against the evidence a wizened man with a white beard is staring down at us from the sky, looking at his world he created in 7 days.

 

We have opportunities to introspect because we, as a species, have currently solved the survivalist Food-Shelter-Clothing thing. Much you call introspection would go away if they were threatened. We might be the only species survival of the fittest no longer applies to, given the number of morons that are breeding.

 

 

I consider your opinion to be as faith-based as mine. We should just accept that we disagree.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Science has positively never ever proven that all life comes from common descent via evolution. First of all, darwinian evolution theory relies upon the assumption of millions of favorable mutations within a species. If true, this would represent an ascendance rather than a a descendance, but that's just a semantics argument! At any rate, there is literally no proof of any kind whatsoever that organisms presently populating Earth exist as the result of evolutionary development. There is no scientific evidence of any kind supporting this.

And observation, not science, is is the only essential in confirming that a species can change. Observation is requisite to science, but science is not requisite to confirming change. Observation.

 

If we look at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, then you'd be right. But that's not how the real world works. Common descent is a fact. All life on Earth is related through common ancestry. Common descent means that every living thing on Earth is related to every other living thing on Earth genealogically, genetically related. All modern organisms are descended from one original species. Closely related modern species evolved from a common ancestor. This means humans did not come from chimps. Both humans and chimps came from a creature that had more primitive features than either modern humans or modern chimps.

 

For almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine evolution and common descent. And for 150 years not a single test has ever failed to validate that all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor. Here are just a few of the prestigious scientific organizations that accept this as proven fact : Animal Behavior Society, Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, Society of Systematic Biologists,The Ecological Society of America,National Center for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences, American Institute of Biological Sciences , and The American Society of Naturalists.

 

The consistency of nested hierarchies of species is another success for common descent. We have a complete series of fossils that show that mammals gradually evolved from a reptilian ancestor. There are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an ancestor. All vestigial organs makes sense only in the framework of evolution.

[Snoopy 0]

If we look at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, then you'd be right. But that's not how the real world works. Common descent is a fact. All life on Earth is related through common ancestry. Common descent means that every living thing on Earth is related to every other living thing on Earth genealogically, genetically related. All modern organisms are descended from one original species. Closely related modern species evolved from a common ancestor. This means humans did not come from chimps. Both humans and chimps came from a creature that had more primitive features than either modern humans or modern chimps.

 

For almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine evolution and common descent. And for 150 years not a single test has ever failed to validate that all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor. Here are just a few of the prestigious scientific organizations that accept this as proven fact : Animal Behavior Society, Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, Society of Systematic Biologists,The Ecological Society of America,National Center for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences, American Institute of Biological Sciences , and The American Society of Naturalists.

 

The consistency of nested hierarchies of species is another success for common descent. We have a complete series of fossils that show that mammals gradually evolved from a reptilian ancestor. There are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an ancestor. All vestigial organs makes sense only in the framework of evolution.

 

Just because it may look like a caused b it does not make it so. As of yet no evolutionist could explain why for instance there was no fossils of rabbits found in the precambrian era, supposedly known for its diversity of life, yet last I checked lots of them are hopping around.

 

You are entitled to your theories just don't pretend to have the universal truth --- which you don't have.

[MLCKAA 402]

If we look at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, then you'd be right. But that's not how the real world works. Common descent is a fact. All life on Earth is related through common ancestry. Common descent means that every living thing on Earth is related to every other living thing on Earth genealogically, genetically related. All modern organisms are descended from one original species. Closely related modern species evolved from a common ancestor. This means humans did not come from chimps. Both humans and chimps came from a creature that had more primitive features than either modern humans or modern chimps.

 

For almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine evolution and common descent. And for 150 years not a single test has ever failed to validate that all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor. Here are just a few of the prestigious scientific organizations that accept this as proven fact : Animal Behavior Society, Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, Society of Systematic Biologists,The Ecological Society of America,National Center for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences, American Institute of Biological Sciences , and The American Society of Naturalists.

 

The consistency of nested hierarchies of species is another success for common descent. We have a complete series of fossils that show that mammals gradually evolved from a reptilian ancestor. There are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an ancestor. All vestigial organs makes sense only in the framework of evolution.

 

 

Dude, I really don't respect plagiarism and since this document is where virtually every word of your post came from, you should really consider citing it in a footnote or link.

 

So, I quickly read what apparently serves as your premium source of information on this subject and its a nice condensed version of the modern argument for evolution. However, it was all "evidence" that I've read about previously and I stand by everything I've said in prior posts. Ardi is interesting, but there is hardly anything to consider "proof" based on the "evidence" out there now. No disprespect intended.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Just because it may look like a caused b it does not make it so. As of yet no evolutionist could explain why for instance there was no fossils of rabbits found in the precambrian era, supposedly known for its diversity of life, yet last I checked lots of them are hopping around.

 

You are entitled to your theories just don't pretend to have the universal truth --- which you don't have.

From Wikapedia, "Rabbits are mammals. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian."

 

So, this is your answer, Snoopy. The Precambrian Era came before the rabbits evolved. That's why you don't have any fossils of them from the Precambrian Era.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Dude, I really don't respect plagiarism and since this document is where virtually every word of your post came from, you should really consider citing it in a footnote or link.

 

So, I quickly read what apparently serves as your premium source of information on this subject and its a nice condensed version of the modern argument for evolution. However, it was all "evidence" that I've read about previously and I stand by everything I've said in prior posts. Ardi is interesting, but there is hardly anything to consider "proof" based on the "evidence" out there now. No disprespect intended.

 

I actually didn't realize I took that much from one source. I actually never viewed the written transcript but only the video. Thanks for posting the evolution transcripts. The source is from a project called the CassioPeia Project. http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/ This is project that makes science simple. As you said, it's actually a "condensed version" of modern evolution. I agree with that. Common Descent has been proven and I knew from one of the videos of the CassioPeia Project, they listed scientific organizations that view common descent as fact. Obviously, you don't think much of those organizations or you would have written some type of a rebuttal. You must know other science organizations that view common descent as not fact, like the creation museum in Kentucky that I listed previously. Or maybe you are a proponent of Kent Hovind and all of his lectures.

 

Kent Hovind doesn't view common descent as fact. Kent Hovind from Wikapedia says, "He explains the fossils were created by billions of organisms that were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized.

 

The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the earth "wobble around" and collapsed the vapor canopy that protected it.

 

During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind states that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time."

 

Not only is common descent proven because there are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an ancestor but because of the tracking of DNA. The tracking of DNA is actually what I find as the strongest evidence in support of evolution.

[Greedo 13]

I consider your opinion to be as faith-based as mine. We should just accept that we disagree.

 

I'll agree to disagree. Thoiugh since you have no fossils of God, I like my chances better.

 

Just because it may look like a caused b it does not make it so. As of yet no evolutionist could explain why for instance there was no fossils of rabbits found in the precambrian era, supposedly known for its diversity of life, yet last I checked lots of them are hopping around.

 

You are entitled to your theories just don't pretend to have the universal truth --- which you don't have.

 

You're absolutely right that none of us have the universal truth - I don't think anyone claims to.

[EAwer 1]

*yawn*

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Just because it may look like a caused b it does not make it so. As of yet no evolutionist could explain why for instance there was no fossils of rabbits found in the precambrian era, supposedly known for its diversity of life, yet last I checked lots of them are hopping around.

 

You are entitled to your theories just don't pretend to have the universal truth --- which you don't have.

 

The problem is that theists seem to think they have the universal truth by printing, "In God We Trust" on our currency, and "Under One God" in the pledge of allegiance. Why should our kids be forced to utter such nonsense??? It's not a "universal truth" as you put it.

[Snoopy 0]

The problem is that theists seem to think they have the universal truth by printing, "In God We Trust" on our currency, and "Under One God" in the pledge of allegiance. Why should our kids be forced to utter such nonsense??? It's not a "universal truth" as you put it.

 

Are you trying to say that evolutionism is not being shoved down the throats of kids pretending for it to be a fact?

[gocolts 300]

Are you trying to say that evolutionism is not being shoved down the throats of kids pretending for it to be a fact?

POW!!!

[Frank M 181]

Are you trying to say that evolutionism is not being shoved down the throats of kids pretending for it to be a fact?

 

No, it's taught in science classes as a theory. You have the right to decide what you believe in, but it's a theory based on evidence.

 

Creationism is not science, there is no possible way to test it, therefore it does not belong in a science class.

 

If you don't think evolution is the way humans came to be here, fine. Teach your kids that God created them. Creationism is not science or even a viable alternative theory. It's religion.

[Snoopy 0]

No, it's taught in science classes as a theory. You have the right to decide what you believe in, but it's a theory based on evidence.

 

Creationism is not science, there is no possible way to test it, therefore it does not belong in a science class.

 

If you don't think evolution is the way humans came to be here, fine. Teach your kids that God created them. Creationism is not science or even a viable alternative theory. It's religion.

 

Exert from http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/biomajor/evolution.html (I am sure you can find more if you like to search more)

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I am a high school student and am currently enrolled in a biology class. In this class, we are using your books entitled Biological Science: An Ecological Approach. In chapter 9 ("Continuity Through Evolution"), you presented your ideas about the theory of evolution as fact instead of theory, or in some of the cases, idea. This is prohibited by law, especially if the teacher presents it as a fact. Most of my classmates feel the same way I do. I encourage you to do further research of this subject, especially since Charles Darwin died a Christian. It is not the only process that explains where all living creatures come from, as stated in the book. In closing, please reword this chapter so as not to make any student or teacher actually think that a theory based on teeth and bone fragments (much less head size) is a fact. I thank you for your time.

 

 

Dear Student:

 

Thank you for your letter about the treatment of evolution in the our program Biological Science: An Ecological Approach. I appreciate your taking the time to write, because your letter provides an opportunity to explain our treatment of evolution and to clarify some central misconceptions you hold about this extremely important topic.

 

1. You are concerned that our "ideas about the theory of

evolution are [presented] as fact instead of theory, or in

some cases, idea." Two points are critical here.

 

First, the fact of evolution--the fact that species have

changed during the immensely long history of life on

earth--is not in dispute among scientists. This fact was

obvious to many scientists before the time of Darwin, and

its validity is clear to anyone who examines the fossil

record. There is some disagreement within the scientific

community about the exact mechanisms by which evolution

occurs. For example, there is some dispute about the

nature of adaptation and about the pace of evolutionary

change. Such internal disputes, however, are

characteristic of science, irrespective of the

discipline, and they do nothing to challenge the validity

of evolutionary change as an established fact.

[Frank M 181]

Exert from http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/biomajor/evolution.html (I am sure you can find more if you like to search more)

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I am a high school student and am currently enrolled in a biology class. In this class, we are using your books entitled Biological Science: An Ecological Approach. In chapter 9 ("Continuity Through Evolution"), you presented your ideas about the theory of evolution as fact instead of theory, or in some of the cases, idea. This is prohibited by law, especially if the teacher presents it as a fact. Most of my classmates feel the same way I do. I encourage you to do further research of this subject, especially since Charles Darwin died a Christian. It is not the only process that explains where all living creatures come from, as stated in the book. In closing, please reword this chapter so as not to make any student or teacher actually think that a theory based on teeth and bone fragments (much less head size) is a fact. I thank you for your time.

 

 

Dear Student:

 

Thank you for your letter about the treatment of evolution in the our program Biological Science: An Ecological Approach. I appreciate your taking the time to write, because your letter provides an opportunity to explain our treatment of evolution and to clarify some central misconceptions you hold about this extremely important topic.

 

1. You are concerned that our "ideas about the theory of

evolution are [presented] as fact instead of theory, or in

some cases, idea." Two points are critical here.

 

First, the fact of evolution--the fact that species have

changed during the immensely long history of life on

earth--is not in dispute among scientists. This fact was

obvious to many scientists before the time of Darwin, and

its validity is clear to anyone who examines the fossil

record. There is some disagreement within the scientific

community about the exact mechanisms by which evolution

occurs. For example, there is some dispute about the

nature of adaptation and about the pace of evolutionary

change. Such internal disputes, however, are

characteristic of science, irrespective of the

discipline, and they do nothing to challenge the validity

of evolutionary change as an established fact.

 

 

This person is wrong. Evolution is a theory that has lots of evidence supporting it.

 

Interesting article on the rumour that Darwin died a christian (*spoiler*-He didn't)

 

link

[Snoopy 0]

This person is wrong. Evolution is a theory that has lots of evidence supporting it.

 

Interesting article on the rumour that Darwin died a christian (*spoiler*-He didn't)

 

link

 

It's a theory I agree that far.

You stated evolution is being presented as a theory -- I just quoted one school book (author) which/who obvious presents a different viewpoint to students -- which supports my original premise that it is fed to kids.

[Frank M 181]

It's a theory I agree that far.

You stated evolution is being presented as a theory -- I just quoted one school book (author) which/who obvious presents a different viewpoint to students -- which supports my original premise that it is fed to kids.

 

I doubt that's how it's done everywhere.

[gemynd 0]

Evolution is a theory that has lots of evidence supporting it.

 

Let's be specific about it then. Evolution is a "scientific theory". There is a difference between a scientific theory and a theory in layman's terms (see this). It is a fact that creatures evolved over time. The theory puts all the pieces together into an explanation of why and how.

[GobbleDog 822]

In my mind evolution consists of every change to the universe since the big bang 15 billion years ago and before. People are atoms.

 

But for some reason the term evolution always stops at monkey-man from about 2 million years ago. I guess that's as far as a lot of people are willing to accept. Heck, go back just 60 million years ago and we were rats, along with every other mammal today.

 

 

 

 

Rat Boy!

[Frank M 181]

Let's be specific about it then. Evolution is a "scientific theory". There is a difference between a scientific theory and a theory in layman's terms (see this). It is a fact that creatures evolved over time. The theory puts all the pieces together into an explanation of why and how.

 

I'm on board with this. I guess my point is that you can say evolution occurs, science has shown, especially in the last twenty-thirty years, that genetic changes lead to phenotype changes, but you can't definitively claim as fact exactly how that happens or has happened in the past. Does it happen exactly like the way Darwin explained it, or is there room for some other (scientific) explanantion? The minute we say something is fact, we cease to explore it further.

 

And for the record, I think that Darwinian theory is fact, I'm just wary about dismissing any other (scientific) explanations, hence I hesitate to call the theory of evolution "fact".

[jerryskids 5,213]

Newtonian physics was considered pretty much fact for about 500 years, then that Einstein guy came around, also quantum theories and sub-atomic discoveries.

 

Localized evolution is fact, but it doesn't explain the metaphysical question I posed earlier.

[Frank M 181]

Newtonian physics was considered pretty much fact for about 500 years, then that Einstein guy came around, also quantum theories and sub-atomic discoveries.

 

Localized evolution is fact, but it doesn't explain the metaphysical question I posed earlier.

 

 

That's where I'm at. That's a good example.

[jerryskids 5,213]

That's where I'm at. That's a good example.

I get frustrated when these threads inevitably turn into literal biblical creationism arguments. I'm OK with the idea that God, if there is one, didn't feel the need to explain all of the science that went into creation, and instead worded it in ways that people of the day could understand for the purpose of the Bible. Personally I think that if there is an involved God, he set up a structure to test our behavior, hence the existence of evil etc. Unless he comes down again as George Burns or Morgan Freeman, we are left with speculation as to the reason any of this exists.

[Greedo 13]

I can buy your existence of evil theory as long as you agree that as part of your theory God is not omnipotent. If God was, there's nothing to test.

[Snoopy 0]

I can buy your existence of evil theory as long as you agree that as part of your theory God is not omnipotent. If God was, there's nothing to test.

 

Assuming that you mean by "there's nothing to test" that there would be no fossils. I fail to see how one relates to the other.

 

Feel free to elaborate.

[VikesFan 1]

It would. But I can only PROVE the 2nd piece of your statement, not the 1st.

I'll give it a try. One example is more metaphysical than the other.

Why is there evil in creation if God is omnipotent?

If God is willing to eliminate evil, but not able, God is impotent, and is not God.

If God is unwilling to eliminate evil AND not able, see above.

If God is able to eliminate evil, but not willing, then God is malevolent, and is not God.

Is God both able and willing to eliminate evil? Then why does evil exist?

 

What if evil is the absence of good as opposed to the opposite (think light and dark)? Your argument is flawed because it assumes you know what omnipotence really is. Even an omnipotent being, should one be conceived, would have limitations. Could that being make a rock that this being couldn't lift? Could it make a an object in which all points are equidistant from a central point yet have four 90 degree angles (square-circle)? You assume that an omnipotent being can cure evil. But perhaps evil should be defined not by what it is, but by what it is not.

[VikesFan 1]

Speaking of ridiculous,

 

the entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. Ray Comfort is not distorting Darwin's original work (which by the way, modern evolutionists don't really follow. Compare the idea of punctuated equlibirium to what Darwin had to say in Origin). Comfort is simply adding a 50 page rebuttal. Why is there an outrage? Do we honestly believe that we shouldn't be teaching children how to critically analyize things? Isn't the point of a University to teach them how to think, as opposed to simply spitting out what we want them to say? Isn't that the point of education in general?

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm a firm believer in teaching people that there is more than one viewpoint out there. My faith is strengthened by having to study opposing views. I do that in the theology classes I teach, and I expect that from anyone who claims to be a teacher, especially those who will be teaching my children. You certainly have the right to share your opinion, but you can do that without compromising education. If the pro-evolution crowd is so sure of what they believe, why are they against Intelligent Design being taught as an option? The same goes with the creation crowd (who in the past was no better).

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Speaking of ridiculous,

 

the entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. Ray Comfort is not distorting Darwin's original work (which by the way, modern evolutionists don't really follow. Compare the idea of punctuated equlibirium to what Darwin had to say in Origin). Comfort is simply adding a 50 page rebuttal. Why is there an outrage? Do we honestly believe that we shouldn't be teaching children how to critically analyize things? Isn't the point of a University to teach them how to think, as opposed to simply spitting out what we want them to say? Isn't that the point of education in general?

 

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm a firm believer in teaching people that there is more than one viewpoint out there. My faith is strengthened by having to study opposing views. I do that in the theology classes I teach, and I expect that from anyone who claims to be a teacher, especially those who will be teaching my children. You certainly have the right to share your opinion, but you can do that without compromising education. If the pro-evolution crowd is so sure of what they believe, why are they against Intelligent Design being taught as an option? The same goes with the creation crowd (who in the past was no better).

 

When you are teaching the history of of established religious groups, sects and cults, it's perfectly acceptable to bring up intelligent design. In a history lesson, you can bring up intelligent design, along with Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Jim Jones, and even Charles Manson. Religious groups, sects, and cults are a fact. They are a part of culture. But just because there are alot of members in a group or cult, doesn't mean the belief system of that group or cult replaces scientific theory. It's too bad that so many people in the United States think Intelligent Design should be an option in science class along with evolution. Intelligent design is just another form of creationism and has been outlawed from the school systems because it's been thoroughly debunked. From Wikapedia, "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

 

Many different viewpoints in science are argued , but creationism isn't one of them.

[LaChup 154]

I would rather believe in God and be wrong than believe in evolution and be wrong Can you please try and "debunk" God for me?

[Stopper 0]

Let's be specific about it then. Evolution is a "scientific theory". There is a difference between a scientific theory and a theory in layman's terms (see this). It is a fact that creatures evolved over time. The theory puts all the pieces together into an explanation of why and how.

 

Bloody hell! I've been reading this thread wondering how long y'all were going to allow the creationists to continue to misrepresent the word "theory." Thank you.

[Stopper 0]

I would rather believe in God and be wrong than believe in evolution and be wrong Can you please try and "debunk" God for me?

 

Pascal's Wager for the...no.

 

The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion to the positive. You claim that your god exists; it's up to you to prove it, not up to the non-believer to disprove it.

[LaChup 154]

Bloody hell! I've been reading this thread wondering how long y'all were going to allow the creationists to continue to misrepresent the word "theory." Thank you.

Actually, a creationist is someone who believes in God's creation, not evolution. Maybe the evolutionists are misrepresenting here.

[LaChup 154]

Pascal's Wager for the...no.

 

The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion to the positive. You claim that your god exists; it's up to you to prove it, not up to the non-believer to disprove it.

Easy Pascal. GridironAssassin is the one who said creationism has been debunked. I'm just asking for his proof. In the meantime.......go look up the definition of a creationist.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Pascal's Wager for the...no.

 

The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion to the positive. You claim that your god exists; it's up to you to prove it, not up to the non-believer to disprove it.

 

Since the THEORY of evolution is now being taught in public schools, mebbe they should stop teaching it until it is no longer a THEORY and can be proven...........but that's just using your logic.

[Stopper 0]

Actually, a creationist is someone who believes in God's creation, not evolution. Maybe the evolutionists are misrepresenting here.

 

In a scientific context, the word "theory" is interchangeable with the word "fact." As someone explained above, the common usage of "theory" does not. Creationists often employ the common usage when saying, "Evolution is only a theory," but in a scientific context that's like saying a basketball is "only a sphere."

 

There are plenty of lines of evidence for evolution: Fossil, molecular, and DNA come to mind immediately. Though he is anathema in discussions like these, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is a good read on this subject, as I understand his The Selfish Gene is, too (though I haven't read this one). I could also recommend Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Donald Prothero's What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.