E
estesbob
Guest
Actually most of us do.
- Status
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I have thought for many years that the so-called big bang sounds a lot like the first chapter of Genesis. God said, “let there be light,” and BAM there was light (hydrogen appeared along with the spark to ignite it).
E
estesbob
Guest
Me too! The difference is gGenesis acknowledges the obvios. Someone provied the hydrogeon and someone provided the spark. and it was no accident what developed afterwards,
A
Arkadin
Guest
Where’s the evidence and why have you been keeping it unknown?
Anyway, this is pretty neat to look at. I was particularly amazed to read about the finches on the Galapagos:
“Since 1973, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant, working on the tiny island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos, have studied a species of finch called Geospiza fortis (upper right in illustration, which appeared in Darwin’s 1839 book about his five-year journey aboard the Beagle). After a drought in 1977 devastated plants bearing small seeds, more than 1,000 of the 1,200 G. fortis finches on the island died. The Grants discovered that larger G. fortis, which could break open larger seeds than smaller G. fortis could, survived better. The survivors mated in 1978, and, on average, their offspring had beaks 4 percent larger than those of the previous generation. Following another drought in 2003, G. fortis with smaller beaks survived better, in part because of stiff competition for bigger seeds after a larger finch species, G. magnirostris, settled the island. Between 2003 and 2005, the Grants found, G. fortis beaks shrank by 5 percent.”
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
As I said above, I make no assertions about there currently being a verifiable theory of the origin of life.
But that life evolved from small organisms, all the way up to becoming mammals, and eventually primates, culminating in hominids, that is science. No alternate theory has come close.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Exactly. I think it is very productive for science to undercover the secrets of God’s creation, yet to go in assuming no creator exists seems like pure folly to me. In other words, if the evidence points to God, so be it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Which doesnt mean that it is correct.
I dont have a problem with evoluton. What I do have a problem with the absolutre hostility and mockery anyone who care question it in any way must endure
A
Arkadin
Guest
Do you have actual evidence or a story that was said around campfires for years before being written down? Why does this contradict other creation stories? Why is this one considered the “real one”? Under whose authority? Based on what? Has it been proven to be true? How so?
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
No alternate theory has come close to what? Being a theory?
Evolution isn’t “science”, it’s a scientific theory.
Just the same way man caused global warming was “settled” science.
The secular narrative is that religious folks and the Church are all self-interested hacks who can’t be trusted. “SCIENCE” and scientists are portrayed as the impartial arbiters of the real truth. This is false. It was clearly shown to be false for everyone to see with the whole global warming deception. It didn’t matter what the evidence said, most scientists agreed with the popular theory because they wanted to get grants and keep their jobs. Now that it’s become impossible for anyone to keep squawking about global warming with a straight face they’ve simply changed the name to “climate change” and now warming or cooling, flooding or drought, absolutely anything can be blamed on CO2 emmisions caused by man.
Scientists are men. They are subject to jealousy, greed, political pressure, etc as much as any other men.
E
estesbob
Guest
They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.
A
Arkadin
Guest
That’s just speaking about creationists.
But you haven’t provided evidence, just bible quotations.
A
Arkadin
Guest
The evidence does not lie though nor subject to human emotions or motivations.
A
Arkadin
Guest
The evidence for evolution is immense and further proving evolution. There is no other theory out there or one with evidence (or a large sum of evidence) supporting it.
People who claim creationism as a valid scientific theory of the origin of life are presenting a phony theory and provide no actually evidence for such theory except from religious beliefs. This idea of teaching creationism is just a mere attempt of getting religion into schools. Science is about looking at evidence and creationism has absolutely none.
For those criticizing a well-supported theory that is evolution, what is your alternative theory and what evidence do you have to show that it is a superior theory?
People who claim creationism as a valid scientific theory of the origin of life are presenting a phony theory and provide no actually evidence for such theory except from religious beliefs. This idea of teaching creationism is just a mere attempt of getting religion into schools. Science is about looking at evidence and creationism has absolutely none.
For those criticizing a well-supported theory that is evolution, what is your alternative theory and what evidence do you have to show that it is a superior theory?
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
But the theory is not the evidence.
The evidence doesn’t lie because evidence doesn’t talk. (Although evidence can be purposely falsified). But men can come to the wrong conclusions from evidence either willfully or not.
The evidence that the world was flat wasn’t wrong, but the theory was.
The evidence that man couldn’t travel faster than sound wasn’t wrong, but the theory was.
Another parallel between evolution and global warming is how the advocates try to argue that opponents are wrong because they are “out of the mainstream” and in an extremem minority.
Science isn’t a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter if 99 scientists believe theory A and 1 scientist believes theory B. That doesn’t make A or B more or less likely to be true.
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.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
The “only a theor” argument is just wordplay. In science the word “theory” doesn’t mean “maybe so, maybe not.” We still speak of the “Thery of General Relativity.” Are you going to throw that out too?
And are you aware that there are plenty of Christians, Catholics, and religious people in general who reject the “secular narrative” but have not only acknowledged the validity of evolution but are on the front lines of science, even evolutionary science. (see Francis Collins, Stephen Barr (a Catholic, author of "Modern Physics, Anciet Faith, a favorite ofmine), Gerald Schroeder; perhaps the most renowned mathematical biologist in the world, Martin Nowak, is an Austrian Catholic).
And global warming is irrelevant to this thread. For what it’s worth though, as one who thinks anthropogenic global warming is probably real, I think there is a measure of doubt on that subject that intelligent, informed individuals can disagree about it (but I still don’t appreciate the ad hominems and asinine and pretentious generalizations so often made by some enthusiastic ant0-AGWers on these frums about everyone who disagrees with them. With evolution, it isn’t so much room for doubt. Evolution is much much much much more accepted and we can be much much much more surer about evolution than about global warming.
A
Arkadin
Guest
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I don’t appreciate being mocked for my beliefs wither, though it happens enough on these forums that I’m getting used to it. I hold Dawkins/Hitchens, et al. as anathema as I do creationsists for their spite and meanness. They bring embarrassment science the same way creationsists bring embarrassment to the intellectual integrity of Christianity.
And as to whether it is correct or not, no scientific theory ever gets a stamp put on it saying “fact.” All that can happen is it gain the status “most correct,” best explanation based on available evidence." And that is what is taught in schools. Trying to teach biology without Darwin is like trying to teach physics without Einstein or Newton.
A
Arkadin
Guest
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
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
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.
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.
- Status