Victory for evolution in Texas

[Raskolnikov]

Dan Daly:

Examination of evidence is the key. The problem is that evolutionary theory dodges the question of evidence by claiming the process takes too long to observe within a human lifetime. No one has ever observed a species turning into a differnent species. But advocates of evolution demand we believe it- Not on evidence…but on FAITH. The same faith that is decried as superstion when used to argue against the theory. Just as Atheism requires as much faith as belief in God, thinking the vast mulitude of life arose out of…random chance, requires as much faith as believing in a loving Creator.

Actually, scientists have watched viruses, bacteria, and even fruit fles evolve quite substantially. As for mammals and other higher taxa, we have historical evidence as well as biological evidence in the species themselves that refer to their ancestors. Your “I can’t see it, ergo it’s not there” argument makes as much sense as the argument that Jesus didn’t exist because there isn’t enough evidence. No one who believes Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus existed has a remotely valid reason to doubt that Jesus existed. So why do you believe in Plate tectonics? Ever seen it happen? Did you see Pangea divide into seven continents? Why then do you take the geologists’ word for it? Natural history yields evidence for it, even if it happens to slowly to be observed in real time, that’s why.

Also, stop with this equation of evoltion with atheism. It’s nothing more than a false dilemma used by people lacking in arguments, be they atheist or religious, to try to bully others into accepting their opinion.

 

[Arkadin]

The key element out of it is that denial of the supernatural was a central element of Darwin’s theory.

It’s why I’m cautious of so-called theistic evolution. Atheism isn’t a sidebar to evolutionary theory that can be casually discarded and replaced with one that says “ditto…PS God did it”. Atheism is a key part of the theory. And when atheism is a key part of someone’s theory, one should be cautious about the rest of the theory. Believing in a theisitic evolution is like beliving in Christian Marxism.

I am an atheist and former catholic. Besides the discrepancies in the bible and the false “miracles”, evolution seems to prove that christianity and other Abrahamic religions are actually false. How one can remain a theistic and continue to observe the facts we are finding with evolution puzzles me. The only thing I could say is that the Deist god is the only somewhat plausible way to continue believing in a god and recognize the truths of evolution.

But that is me and in no way should deter someone from seeing evolution to be valid and believe in it. It may be possible to believe in christianity or some other religion and accept evolution. I personally can’t, but that doesn’t mean you could not believe in both.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The key element out of it is that denial of the supernatural was a central element of Darwin’s theory.

It’s why I’m cautious of so-called theistic evolution. Atheism isn’t a sidebar to evolutionary theory that can be casually discarded and replaced with one that says “ditto…PS God did it”. Atheism is a key part of the theory. And when atheism is a key part of someone’s theory, one should be cautious about the rest of the theory. Believing in a theisitic evolution is like beliving in Christian Marxism.

More nonsense, go figure. You’ve probably never even read a word about theistic evolution. Dismiss it though as you will. Yhile you’re at it, why not dismiss theistic Newtonian physics because it conflicts with the Aristotelian view of physics pushed as uniquely consistent with Christianity for 15 hundred years? Why not reject the heliocetric solar system too? You, just like so mant atheists, seem incapable of understanding how scientific advancement effects theological truth, and more importantly, how it doesn’t.

 

[Dan_Daly]

creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Fellow creationists would warn you not to say things like : “No one has ever observed a species turning into a different species”

talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

The list of you linked to still doesn’t show anyone observing one species turning into another. It shows someone observing a species and then coming back later (from 5 to thousands of years later) and observing a different species. But no one observes one species giving birth to an offspring which is a different species. Which is what must happen at some point for evolution to occur.

It’s the old chicken and the egg conundrum. Which came first? You can’t have a chicken that didn’t hatch out of an egg. But you can’t have an egg that wasn’t laid by a chicken.

 

[Arkadin]

The list of you linked to still doesn’t show anyone observing one species turning into another. It shows someone observing a species and then coming back later (from 5 to thousands of years later) and observing a different species. But no one observes one species giving birth to an offspring which is a different species. Which is what must happen at some point for evolution to occur.

It’s the old chicken and the egg conundrum. Which came first? You can’t have a chicken that didn’t hatch out of an egg. But you can’t have an egg that wasn’t laid by a chicken.

I’m borrowing this from estesbob.

They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I am an atheist and former catholic. Besides the discrepancies in the bible and the false “miracles”, evolution seems to prove that christianity and other Abrahamic religions are actually false. How one can remain a theistic and continue to observe the facts we are finding with evolution puzzles me. The only thing I could say is that the Deist god is the only somewhat plausible way to continue believing in a god and recognize the truths of evolution.

But that is me and in no way should deter someone from seeing evolution to be valid and believe in it.

That it dazzles you dazzles me. It’s nothing more than good propaganda, imo. If enough people begin to associate evolution with atheism, which is what Dawkins and his ilk are trying to do, then eventually they begin to believe that they go together. Many Christian, Catholic, and even some Jewish scientists (believe it or not, even a few atheists and agnostics too) have made quite compelling arguments for the compatibility of the Abrahamic religions with evolution. But I think too many people will just ignore what might challenge what they already believe, especially when they fancy that that belief warrants them to consider themselves better than other people.

 

[Robert_Bay]

not a news article