• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

Two thousand American lives later, remember the beginning. One commentator quite plainly made the case that every few years or so, the United States should "throw a small nation up against the wall" to prove that it means business. And Idiot America, which is all of us, cheered.

*chocolate* right. Gimme another. And see what the superpowers in the back room will have.

AUGUST 19, 2005, was a beautiful day in Idiot America.

In Washington, William Frist, a Harvard-trained physician and the majority leader of the United States Senate, endorsed the teaching of intelligent design in the country's public schools. "I think today a pluralistic society," Frist explained, "should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith."

That faith is not fact, nor should it be, and that faith is not science, nor should it be, seems to have eluded Doctor Senator Frist. It doesn't matter. He was talking to the people who believe that faith is both those things, because Bill Frist wants to be president of the United States, and because he believes those people will vote for him specifically because he talks this rot, and Idiot America will take it as an actor merely reciting his lines and let it go at that. Nonsense is a no-lose proposition.

On the same day, across town, a top aide to former secretary of state Colin Powell told CNN that Powell's pivotal presentation to the United Nations in which he described Iraq's vast array of deadly weapons was a farrago of stovepiped intelligence, wishful thinking, and utter bullshit.

"It was the lowest point in my life," the aide said.

That it has proven to be an even lower point for almost two thousand American families, and God alone knows how many Iraqis, seems to have eluded this fellow. It doesn't matter. Neither Frist with his pandering nor this apparatchik with the tender conscience—nor Colin Powell, for all that—will pay a substantial price for any of it because the two stories lasted one day, and, after all, it was a beautiful day in Idiot America.

Idiot America is a collaborative effort, the result of millions of decisions made and not made. It's the development of a collective Gut at the expense of a collective mind. It's what results when politicians make ridiculous statements and not merely do we abandon the right to punish them for it at the polls, but we also become too timid to punish them with ridicule on a daily basis, because the polls say they're popular anyway. It's what results when leaders are not held to account for mistakes that end up killing people.

And that's why August became a seminal month in Idiot America.

In its final week, a great American city drowned and then turned irrevocably into a Hieronymus Bosch painting in real time and on television, and with complete impunity, the president of the United States wandered the landscape and talked like a blithering nitwit.

First, he compared the violence surrounding the writing of an impromptu theocratic constitution in Baghdad to the events surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Undaunted, he later compared the war he'd launched in Iraq to World War II. And then he compared himself to Franklin Roosevelt. One more public appearance and we might have learned that Custer was killed by Hezbollah.

Finally, we saw the apotheosis of the end of expertise, when New Orleans was virtually obliterated as a functional habitat for human beings, and the country discovered that the primary responsibility for dealing with the calamity lay with a man who'd been dismissed as an incompetent from his previous job as the director of a luxury-show-horse organization.

And the president went on television and said that nobody could have anticipated the collapse of the unfortunate city's levees. In God's sweet name, engineers anticipated it. Politicians anticipated it. The poor *chocolate* in the Ninth Ward certainly anticipated it. Hell, four generations of folksingers anticipated it.

And the people who hated him went crazy and the people who loved him defended him. But where were the people who heard this incredible, staggeringly stupid bafflegab, uttered with conscious forethought, and realized that whatever they thought of the man, the president had gotten behind a series of podiums and done everything but drop his drawers and dance the hootchie-koo? They were out there, lost in Idiot America, where it was still a beautiful day. Idiot America took it as a bad actor merely bungling his lines. Nonsense is a no-lose proposition. For Idiot America is a place where people choose to live. It is a place that is built consciously and deliberately, one choice at a time, made or (most often) unmade. A place where we're all like that statue of Adam now, reclining in a peaceful garden of our own creation, brainless and dickless, and falling down on the job of naming the monsters for what they are, dozing away in an Eden that, every day, looks less and less like paradise.
 
Sorry for the massive string of posts, but I think it's very relevant here. Evolution isn't a "theory", and creationism is just the vile perversion of scientific fact married to religious superstition - of course it doesn't need to be taught in favor of evolution, or at all. Everyone is convinced that their own beliefs are the sound ones and that yours are the byproduct of a whimsical dart toss, but sadly, this isn't the case. There are experts, there are facts, and they both point to creationism being a load of crap and evolution being exactly what it's taught as in schools across the country - fact.
 
God-Is-Holy said:
Ephesians 4
17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
(NAS95)

The Holy Spirit offers confirmation to believers. But not everyone believes.

This is just a circular argument. You are trying to use the Bible to prove itself.

God-Is-Holy said:
You need God's help. I can't convince you if you don't want to hear it.

Can you put forth any evidence to give credence to your claim that it was God? And, more specifically, the God that you believe in instead of the other dieties that man has worshipped.

God-Is-Holy said:
I'm more than glad to discuss these things, but thus far some have only thrown retaliatory accusations towards me in the context of this thread. Instead of providing validation for their wild evolutionary theories. That's hardly debate.

Very true, that isn't debate. However, I've never heard any sort of valid argument from the creation/ID crowd. The best that I've seen has been more than arguments from incredulity. They seem to think that by pointing out possible problems with evolutionary theory they are proving creationism/ID.

God-Is-Holy said:
That's up to you.

God cares.

Science is ignorant of spirituality. Spirituality is not measurable by classic scientific methods.

In other words, it is just baseless speculation.

God-Is-Holy said:
In your eyes perhaps. Not God's.

Actually, the point was that in the scientific method being an atheist or theist is irrelevent, as is belief and feeling. It had nothing to do with Demosthenes' personal opinion on the matter.

God-Is-Holy said:
Then you'd have to throw out the whole evolution theory, if you wanted to do that. What facts would you like to present? I haven't seen any yet.

What would you like? The fossil record? That the evolutionary theory of common descent predicts a nested heirarchy (groups within groups) that is clear and consistent in the "tree of life"? Or that different studies give us the same nested heirarchy (i.e. morphology, genetic and biochemical traits)? That all fossils and living organisms fit into the tree of life? That all fossils are consistent when looked at chronologically, and consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years?

God-Is-Holy said:
The whole ape thing is rather wild.

This is either another agrument from incredulity, or a demonstration of a misunderstanding of evolution.

God-Is-Holy said:
It's lack of factual basis.

LOL. Sorry, but it is incredibly ironic for someone who claims that everything was done by a supernatural being (with absolutely NO supporting evidence) to deride anything else for a percieved lack of facts.

God-Is-Holy said:
Actually, I'm waiting on you. Simply give me a scientific fact (beyond mere theory) which supports evolution. I honestly believe that you don't have one.

Seeing you use the phrase "mere theory" shows that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. The best explanation that I have yet found is from Jerry Wilson (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)

"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena."

God-Is-Holy said:
You're just now arriving at this conclusion? I was hoping that this was understood awhile back when it was insinuated that God is false.

But you've not given me any facts to support your wild theory.

I already have. And was met with mere retaliatory accusations instead of sincere debate. Now I'm waiting on you. Present a fact.

What arguments have you put forth? You seem to have only made the claim that "God did it" without any supporting evidence other than trying to use the Bible to prove itself.
 
Athough this is not as entertaining as the Bible.....Perhaps if you read it.....you might understand a few things about this debate.

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

just a snippet of who the author is......credentials if you will

Stephen Jay Gould grew up in New York City. He graduated from Antioch College and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1967. Since then he has been Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University. He considers himself primarily a palaeont ologist and an evolutionary biologist, though he teaches geology and the history of science as well. A frequent and popular speaker on the sciences, his published work includes Ontogeny and Phylogeny, a scholarly study of the theory of recapitulation; The Mismeasure of Man (Penguin 1983), winner of the National Book Critics' Circle Award for 1982; the popular collections of essays Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (Penguin 1980), which received great acclaim: 'Unreservedly, they are brilliant' - New Scientist; The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History (Penguin 1983), which won the 1981 American Book Award for Science; Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History (Penguin 1984); The Flamingo's Smile (Penguin 1987); Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle (Penguin 1988); An Urchin in the Storm (Penguin 1989); Wonderful Life (Penguin 1991), winner of The Science Book Prize for 1990; Bully for Brontosaurus (Penguin 1992); and Eight Little Piggies (Penguin 1994).
 
Steen'


I'm going to have fun with you when I have time to read that link (two kids breakfast time etc...) It shall be picked apart. I do have valid questions to. Don't have time to read the whole thing and post now....my kids are demanding.
 
God-Is-Holy said:
God created both gravity and the elements. Man didn't.
Ah, another "because I say so" postulation with no evidence and no actual bearing in any kind of observable reality. This one is right up there with your claim that evil spirits cause disease.
Actually I didn't originate the belief. God did.
Do you have any evidence of this accusation against God of being downright stupid and deceptive?
Which makes it more than a theory.
Why? What Scientific Evidence is there for your claim?

Or did it completely slip out from between your ears that when talking Science, there need to be Scientific Evidence for the claims?
Apparently you have a personal problem with other people's beliefs.
I think the problem lies with people who excuse their wild and unsubstantiated claims on their belief. God didn't tell you to bear false witness, either deliberately or per extreme ignorance, because such display of idiotic falsehoods detracts from God.
Do you believe my belief to be bad or something?
What you profess to be your beliefs, such as that evil spirits causae disease, has solidly been disproved, and is harmful in that it might stop people from seeking medical treatment. SO yes, what you spout is bad, directly, and hurts people.
Your methods of dissuasion aren't working. You'll have to do better than that.
Oh, you mean like lying the way you do, either per deliberate malice or deliberate ignorance?
 
God-Is-Holy said:
Actually, this quote that you've emboldened didn't originate from me. You're debating the wrong person on this point. You're using misrepresentation in a futile attempt to reinforce your psuedo-arguments.
You claimed evil spirits to cause disease. That you now cowardly try to detract from that lie of yours now is just further evidence of you being a liar.
Luke 13
11 And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. (NAS95)
Yes, a Biblical allegory. How nice. Are you saying that this is evidence of diseases being caused by evil spirits? You can not be that lame?
Declaring someone a 'dumb liar' hardly demonstrates competent debate skill.
It does when it is true.
 
I read your entire link, Steen........

Lets see, Where to pick it apart first?............

In eukaryotes, DNA always stays inside the nucleus, so that it won't be damaged. In prokaryotes, the DNA simply floats around in the cytoplasm (this is why bacteria can so easily mutate). You cannot compare eukaryote DNA to prokaryote DNA.

What do man made computers have to do with this debate?

Jurassic Park, are you kidding a fictional sci-fy movie?

My whole argument is: DNA in bacteria is very vulnerable, therefore more susceptable to mutations.....Human DNA is protected by a tough nucleus STEEN.........SORRY, still doesn't work.
 
That link was based on Bacteria mutating....which is a given, not humans mutating into other species.......very, very, weak Steen.
 
alphieb said:
That link was based on Bacteria mutating....which is a given, not humans mutating into other species.......very, very, weak Steen.

Humans will not "Mutate into another Species", surely you arent suggesting such, as this is rediculous. Mutation takes place on a Micro scale....whereas a Human works as a Macro creature, or at the very least a combination of Many Micro systems combined to create the Macro.

I would very much like to hear your opinion of the article I posted....to at least see if it helped you understand in some way....the fundamentals of evolutionary theory.....If you dont mind to terribly.
 
tecoyah said:
Humans will not "Mutate into another Species", surely you arent suggesting such, as this is rediculous. Mutation takes place on a Micro scale....whereas a Human works as a Macro creature, or at the very least a combination of Many Micro systems combined to create the Macro.

I would very much like to hear your opinion of the article I posted....to at least see if it helped you understand in some way....the fundamentals of evolutionary theory.....If you dont mind to terribly.

What page or post # is it? Going out to dinner.....get back with ya later.
 
alphieb said:
What page or post # is it? Going out to dinner.....get back with ya later.

Nevermind.................
 
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11177&highlight="Evidence+Evolution"
Me said:
What is Evoltuion??
Evolution is the change of a population of a species over time, or if you prefer the change of alleles over time.

Evidence of Evolution
Fossil Record
Fossils provide a record for species that have lived in the past. Often they are in sediment layers where the deeper the layer the older the fossil. In this way scientists can see how species change over time. For example scientists have observed the change of oyster fossils (in shell size) through time on the layers of sediment. This provides conclusive evidence that species change over time.

Biogeography and Comparative Anantomy
Animals from different continents but similar environments are similar in structure. A very good example is the striking similarities between placental mammals (wolves, rabbits, ect.) and marsupials (Tasmanian wolves, wallaby, etc.). These species have Analogous Structures, where they have similar appendages ect. because they evolved in similar environments. This provides evidence that species evolve to their environment. Certain species also resemble each other because they evolved from a common ancestor, they have Homologous Structures. The forelimbs of cats, bars whales, and humans are all similar in how they are put together and work. This provides evidence that species evolved from common ancestors.

Embryology and Molecular Biology
Species that are more related have similar stages in the development of the embryo. Species that are more related share higher percentages of nucleotide and amino acid sequences of DNA than more distantly related ones. Further all living things share the same genetic code (DNA/RNA). This is strong evidence for evolution of different species through modification of ancestral genetic information.
 
I haven't been in this thread for a while and just spent the last half hour 'catching up'.
Is God-is-Holy for real???? Has he never been to a museum? Never opened a newspaper?
God made gravity???
It absolutely boggles my mind that with all the scientific evidence, ie; fossils, carbon-dating, archeologists, anthropolgists, complete skeletal remains of long-extinct animals and humanoids, that there are really people out there who think evolution is a 'theory' without fact.
It is a daily micro-event. Just in the last 150 years, the average height of an adult male has gone from an average of 5'5" to 5'8". Thousands of life forms, from single cell organisms to mammals have become extinct or mutated to better survive their environs.
I simply can't understand how there are people out there who think we all started from two people who magically appeared and every animal is here because some old guy built a huge boat. NO evidence exists to prove that God ever existed, that any of the characters in the bible existed, yet that they choose to believe instead of hard science.
Truly mind-boggling
 
alphieb said:
Why????????
Maybe because he posted at length right before you on the previous page and you're oblivious to it?
 
ngdawg said:
Maybe because he posted at length right before you on the previous page and you're oblivious to it?

religion is a theory as evolution is a theory.....We have made the decision to believe in GOD.....there is no other way...pray to GOD and you shall find your answer, but pray in faith.
 
alphieb said:
I read your entire link, Steen........

Lets see, Where to pick it apart first?............

In eukaryotes, DNA always stays inside the nucleus, so that it won't be damaged. In prokaryotes, the DNA simply floats around in the cytoplasm (this is why bacteria can so easily mutate).
How fascinating, as there is no evidence of procaryotic DNA being more succeptible per location. Rather, both mutate at the same rate, but the procaryotes don't have the same repair mechanisms to fix the mutations.

So after that nice display of ignorance you served up, lets look at what you have to show us next.
You cannot compare eukaryote DNA to prokaryote DNA.
And I didn't. See, that was fun. NEXT.
What do man made computers have to do with this debate?
Meaning?
Jurassic Park, are you kidding a fictional sci-fy movie?
And not served up as evidence, only as example. NEXT
My whole argument is: DNA in bacteria is very vulnerable, therefore more susceptable to mutations.....Human DNA is protected by a tough nucleus STEEN.........SORRY, still doesn't work.
Ah, but the point of the link that you obviously missed was that it is possible for a single mutation to generate a new species. I am glad you admit this happened, and that you thus show G-i-H that his claim of its impossibility is a flat-out lie. I am glad that you didn't deny that in this case, a single frameshift mutation resulted in an entirely new species of bacteria with a radically and brandnew means of obtaining nutrients.

And, of course, the silly rant about the protected DNA is again showing your ignorance of the process of cell mdivision and mutations

So thanks for proving G-i-H wrong and showing your own ignorance as well.
 
alphieb said:
That link was based on Bacteria mutating....which is a given,
BINGO. Thank you, as that was what I was proving to G-i-H.
not humans mutating into other species.......
But then, I haven't talked anythign here about humans mutating into other species, only about how a single mutation does have the ability to generate an entirely new species. Which this site showed. But thanks for giving me the chance to again showing that God-is-Holy is utterly clueless and spew false claims all over the place.:2razz:
 
steen said:
BINGO. Thank you, as that was what I was proving to G-i-H.
But then, I haven't talked anythign here about humans mutating into other species, only about how a single mutation does have the ability to generate an entirely new species. Which this site showed. But thanks for giving me the chance to again showing that God-is-Holy is utterly clueless and spew false claims all over the place.:2razz:

You guys stay up WAYYYY past my bedtime.......night...night
I shall respond tomorrow...and once again depart your so called argument.
 
alphieb said:
religion is a theory as evolution is a theory.....
Nope, you are lying. Not that this surprises me.
We have made the decision to believe in GOD.....there is no other way...
So have I, but that doesn't mean thta I have decided to spew lie after lie and bearing false witness all over the place. So there must be something else that separates us other than Christianity. Somehow, your version of Christianity accepts lying all the time while mine doesn't, me paying attention to not bearing false witness.

SO I wonder where your version comes from.
pray to GOD and you shall find your answer, but pray in faith.
really? You are encouraging us to pray for an answer that allows us to lie like you do? No thanks. I prefer my own Christianity of God's love and Jesus admonishion of us not bearing false witness. And I must encourage you to pray to also find that answer in God, the answer that makes you decide to stop lying so much.
 
alphieb said:
religion is a theory as evolution is a theory.....We have made the decision to believe in GOD.....there is no other way...pray to GOD and you shall find your answer, but pray in faith.

No, religion is not a theory (nor is creationism/ID). In order to be a theory, there has to be supporting, verifiable evidence. Evolution has supporting evidence from multiple fields of study, ranging from biology to geology to physics to genetics. Predictions can be, and have been, made based on evolutionary theory.

You haven't put forth any evidence, nor have I ever seen any from any other person who tries to support creationism/ID. The only things that I've seen have been arguments from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how it could be that way, therefore, it can't be that way.), putting forth possible discrepencies in evolution and thinking that that is the same as proving creationism/ID, or misrepresentation and misunderstanding of facts.
 
alphieb said:
religion is a theory as evolution is a theory.....We have made the decision to believe in GOD.....there is no other way...pray to GOD and you shall find your answer, but pray in faith.


HAH!
I find my answers by reading books with facts, not books with chapters about what happens to people when they don't listen to some guy in the clouds.
Riddle me this, Batman: How do you explain, with all your biblical, godly knowledge, how fossils of dinosaurs, early man and vegetation that no longer exists came to be? Why aren't those creatures here? Why has the basic physiological characteristics of humans been in constant change for thousands of years? Why wasn't electricity, the automobile, indoor plumbing around one million years ago?
How big was Noah's Ark? Explain how Methuselah lived for 782 years.

Faith in something unfounded has nothing to do with the scientific evidence of evolution. The fact this is even an argument at all is astounding to me.
 
God-Is-Holy said:
Yes, but God makes clear in his word that man's perception is darkened. As is quite evident in your responses. It seems that you're already decided. Nonetheless, I'll be glad to proclaim God's truth all the more. God proves himself through divine miracles as recorded in the scriptures. But not all believe.

O, really? Divine miracles, huh?:2razz: Sorry, the Bible is not proof of anything. Please post proof of the existance of this god you seem to snuggle so close too.
Or else please refrain from absurd assertions.

You reinforce my assertion that you have a problem with other people's beliefs. This is common among many of the angrier atheists. Nor have you validated your wild theory of evolution. Get to it. I'm waiting.

Well, suggest something about evolution, and I'll try my best to validate it. Get to it. I'm waiting.:lol: I only have a problem when people troll on forums, attempting to convince others to subscribe to their asinine agenda. One should inform without convincing.

You're just excited because God doesn't believe in your atheist theories. Nor have you substantiated them.

Dude, I can't prove that god doesn't exist, nor can you prove such an entity actaully does. You're just excited because noone buys into you're Bible-thumping theories.:lol:
 
MrFungus420 said:
No, religion is not a theory (nor is creationism/ID). In order to be a theory, there has to be supporting, verifiable evidence. Evolution has supporting evidence from multiple fields of study, ranging from biology to geology to physics to genetics. Predictions can be, and have been, made based on evolutionary theory.

You haven't put forth any evidence, nor have I ever seen any from any other person who tries to support creationism/ID. The only things that I've seen have been arguments from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how it could be that way, therefore, it can't be that way.), putting forth possible discrepencies in evolution and thinking that that is the same as proving creationism/ID, or misrepresentation and misunderstanding of facts.

You are right, Sir!

Evolution is a very simple and confined law rather than a theory! It simply says that new species evolve out of existing species due to natural selection. It's easy to see in the fossil records and in the laboratory! All the baloney printed about man descending from monkeys/apes comes from half baked media type scientists and religious opponents of Evolution. There is pretty good evidence to show man evolved from earlier hominid forms, but no good scientist would state that there is clear proof that man evolved from single celled organisms or apes. Opponents of the obvious law of Evolution love to hang the straw man of "We came from chimps!" on Evolution to try to discredit what is so obvious to anyone not clinging to a religious ideology. Intelligent Design is warmed over Creationism and obviously religion. Teach it in comparative religion classes, but don't call it science!

Those that have a fundamentalist religious ideology to defend will never look at the evidence openmindedly. "Fundamental Christian Scientists" always start with the religious answer and work backwards looking for evidence to support it, and then they pretend they were being scientists! To argue with fact against faith is a usless endeavor. It just irritates people who are commited to a religious ideology! If they will just keep their religion out of our public schools we'll all get along!
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom