i totally agree with Jezza
PCS & Stuart M. Grant - Cichlid Preservation Fund - Details here
The Evolution / Creation Debate
Started by Den, Feb 17 2009 07:09 PM
110 replies to this topic
#41
cichlidsrule
-
- Forum Member Joined: 29-January 09
-
Location: Hillarys
Posted 21 February 2009 - 06:37 PM
#42
Meghan
-
- Forum Member Joined: 15-December 07
- Location:Leeming, WA
-
Location: Leeming, WA
Posted 11 March 2009 - 09:35 PM
Ooh, interesting topic. As a raised Catholic (13 years of Catholic education, baby - pre-primary through to year 12), I feel I'm very familiar with religion. And that has been a large factor in my rejecting it.
I won't say I believe in Evolution - I respect the theory, and think it is the most likely scenario. I've studied it academically and out of personal interest, (whoo for access to the biol library) and yes, while there are gaps in the evidence (as you would expect in millions of years of natural history), but I believe that the evidence that has been discovered so far, and the studies that have been done, are quite convincing. Sure, we can't concievably set up experiments to test evolution proper - but we can test Natural Selection, and there is extensive evidence supporting that. I've seen it in action myself, though at the time I didn't realise it.
When I was little I had two guinea pigs. The male, Moley, was black, and the female, Rosie, was white with a tan band. (I had another male who was white and called Ratty but he died.. Yes, I was a keen fan of The Wind in the Willows) Guinea pigs being Guinea pigs, they soon started breeding so prolifically that we soon didn't have room for them all in the hutch. After expanding the hutch twice, we eventually just secured the backyard so that they couldn't escape. Now, after about two years of this, a new neighbour moved in, who owned something like three cats. The guinea pigs had developed a myriad of colours in this time, with white, white with tan band or white with a tan hood being the most common, followed by full brown and full black. White mixes were by far the most common, however. By day, the guinea pigs would hide in the plants and shrubs of the garden, as well as the hutch, but at night they would come out to feed on the lawn. It didn't take long at all for all of the white and white mix guinea pigs to disappear, falling prey to the cats with their highly visible coats. These Guinea pigs didn't survive to pass on their genes, and by the time we had decided enough was enough and given away our last guinea pig four or five years later, we had 100% black guinea pigs, at most with a speckling of brown. A clear example of natural selection in play, though of course in a very small, localised situation.
I respect religions and what they have done for human society, but I can't say that I believe in any organised religion any more. I disagree with many, many things that the Catholic church teaches. I'm not going to get all ranty out of respect for people here who belong to the religion - but I have serious misgivings with a great number of stances that the Church and the papacy have taken. (A brief list - homosexuality, abortion, contraception... education...)
The way that RE teachers (Religious Education... easily my least favourite subject in highschool, though religions are interesting things) dodged around holes in the bible, and refused to answer my questions, soured my feelings towards it. If you question Evolution in a science classroom, you are almost guaranteed an interesting and engaging discussion with your teacher, leading to learning and enlightenment. I found that questioning the bible in re class almost guaranteed a stern glare and suspiciously harsh marking on my written reports! But, that's more of a personal grievance than a reason not to support creationism!
All that said, I personally don't think that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. Religion requires faith - an acceptance of a possibility, or rather, a belief in an "absolute Truth" - Science, on the other hand, requires testable parameters. Even something as widely accepted and as well researched as Evolution or Gravity (yes, Gravity is still a theory), are still termed "theories." If someone were to say "Humanity came from pies left by inter-stellar, six-winged crows," that wouldn't be added to the possible sources of life as we know it. But, if someone approached the scientific community with a rational, well researched hypothesis, they might be met with great resistance, but scientists wouldn't reject it because it wasn't evolution. The two theories would be tested and re-tested, again and again, until one became the dominant, most widely-accepted theory.
My personal feelings towards Religions is that they are a set of moral codes to help people understand / survive in the world. My feelings on the bible is that it was written millenia ago for a people almost unrecognisably different from our own. If a child asked "Where do cows come from?" "Where do people go when they die?" parents needed an answer.
Enough procrastination from me, I think.
Interesting topic though, very thought-provoking.
I won't say I believe in Evolution - I respect the theory, and think it is the most likely scenario. I've studied it academically and out of personal interest, (whoo for access to the biol library) and yes, while there are gaps in the evidence (as you would expect in millions of years of natural history), but I believe that the evidence that has been discovered so far, and the studies that have been done, are quite convincing. Sure, we can't concievably set up experiments to test evolution proper - but we can test Natural Selection, and there is extensive evidence supporting that. I've seen it in action myself, though at the time I didn't realise it.
When I was little I had two guinea pigs. The male, Moley, was black, and the female, Rosie, was white with a tan band. (I had another male who was white and called Ratty but he died.. Yes, I was a keen fan of The Wind in the Willows) Guinea pigs being Guinea pigs, they soon started breeding so prolifically that we soon didn't have room for them all in the hutch. After expanding the hutch twice, we eventually just secured the backyard so that they couldn't escape. Now, after about two years of this, a new neighbour moved in, who owned something like three cats. The guinea pigs had developed a myriad of colours in this time, with white, white with tan band or white with a tan hood being the most common, followed by full brown and full black. White mixes were by far the most common, however. By day, the guinea pigs would hide in the plants and shrubs of the garden, as well as the hutch, but at night they would come out to feed on the lawn. It didn't take long at all for all of the white and white mix guinea pigs to disappear, falling prey to the cats with their highly visible coats. These Guinea pigs didn't survive to pass on their genes, and by the time we had decided enough was enough and given away our last guinea pig four or five years later, we had 100% black guinea pigs, at most with a speckling of brown. A clear example of natural selection in play, though of course in a very small, localised situation.
I respect religions and what they have done for human society, but I can't say that I believe in any organised religion any more. I disagree with many, many things that the Catholic church teaches. I'm not going to get all ranty out of respect for people here who belong to the religion - but I have serious misgivings with a great number of stances that the Church and the papacy have taken. (A brief list - homosexuality, abortion, contraception... education...)
The way that RE teachers (Religious Education... easily my least favourite subject in highschool, though religions are interesting things) dodged around holes in the bible, and refused to answer my questions, soured my feelings towards it. If you question Evolution in a science classroom, you are almost guaranteed an interesting and engaging discussion with your teacher, leading to learning and enlightenment. I found that questioning the bible in re class almost guaranteed a stern glare and suspiciously harsh marking on my written reports! But, that's more of a personal grievance than a reason not to support creationism!
All that said, I personally don't think that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. Religion requires faith - an acceptance of a possibility, or rather, a belief in an "absolute Truth" - Science, on the other hand, requires testable parameters. Even something as widely accepted and as well researched as Evolution or Gravity (yes, Gravity is still a theory), are still termed "theories." If someone were to say "Humanity came from pies left by inter-stellar, six-winged crows," that wouldn't be added to the possible sources of life as we know it. But, if someone approached the scientific community with a rational, well researched hypothesis, they might be met with great resistance, but scientists wouldn't reject it because it wasn't evolution. The two theories would be tested and re-tested, again and again, until one became the dominant, most widely-accepted theory.
My personal feelings towards Religions is that they are a set of moral codes to help people understand / survive in the world. My feelings on the bible is that it was written millenia ago for a people almost unrecognisably different from our own. If a child asked "Where do cows come from?" "Where do people go when they die?" parents needed an answer.
Enough procrastination from me, I think.
Interesting topic though, very thought-provoking.
#43
Chaddy
-
- Forum Member Joined: 09-November 08
Posted 12 March 2009 - 08:32 AM
I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so evolution for me!
#44
Den
-
- Forum Member Joined: 15-January 05
-
Location: Warnbro W.A.
Posted 15 March 2009 - 11:11 PM
"Flying Spaghetti Monsters" so original. 
obviously another Dawkins parrot.
To Evolutionists DNA is the template of evolution
To the Church DNA is the template of the creator
Both beliefs are very old.
Religion and Evolution, are two narrow minded views, in the possibility of infinite choices.
we need more choices
In this 21st Century could we try to think of something new? is anyone really trying?
a New idea? how preposterous!
No, not possible while the majority of the World seem content and happy to be plagurists.
I dislike Dawkins for many reasons but particularly for his narrow mindedness and arrogance, nothing exists outside his small life focused on tiny evolution theory, hes so committed now to the idea it would be impossible for him to take one step outside his little box " Dawkins attitude is: here is evolution and if you dont believe it you are an idiot", only those who follow you Mr Dawkins are more foolish than you.
I give credit to Darwin, wether right or wrong at least he was a pioneer of new thought, those who've followed him are nothing smarter than my grandmothers budgie.
Cheers
Den
obviously another Dawkins parrot.To Evolutionists DNA is the template of evolution
To the Church DNA is the template of the creator
Both beliefs are very old.
Religion and Evolution, are two narrow minded views, in the possibility of infinite choices.
we need more choices
In this 21st Century could we try to think of something new? is anyone really trying?
a New idea? how preposterous!
No, not possible while the majority of the World seem content and happy to be plagurists.
I dislike Dawkins for many reasons but particularly for his narrow mindedness and arrogance, nothing exists outside his small life focused on tiny evolution theory, hes so committed now to the idea it would be impossible for him to take one step outside his little box " Dawkins attitude is: here is evolution and if you dont believe it you are an idiot", only those who follow you Mr Dawkins are more foolish than you.
I give credit to Darwin, wether right or wrong at least he was a pioneer of new thought, those who've followed him are nothing smarter than my grandmothers budgie.
Cheers
Den
#45
BiGz
-
- Forum Member Joined: 08-May 07
-
Location: Ballajura
Posted 17 March 2009 - 02:45 PM
From a purely common sense point of view, the evolution theory is just that a THEORY with no supporting science which if you understand the meaning of the word science is conclusions based on fact. No where is there a single fact to prove evolution.
I amazed at how people think religion is totally segregated from science somehow. Goes to show not much actually gets taught in churches and the assumptions people have about the bible which majority have no idea what it actually says. I think this is thanks mainly to religious hypocrisy which leads to many people throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Science supports the bible and vice versa. How many people know the bible said the earth was a circle or sphere and hung upon nothing when the popular belief for centuries was the earth was flat. The cycle of rivers into oceans was not understood yet again correct reference was made in the bible, disposal of sewage so as to avoid disease again only relatively recently there has been an understanding of this. Archeologically speaking is where the biggest support for creation lies as this has continually proven bible facts. The command for the Jews by God was that on the 8th day a child was to be circumcised No explanation was given why the eighth day was specified. Medical research has discovered that the blood-clotting element vitamin K rises to an adequate level only by then. Another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the eighth day than at any other time during a child’s life. Based on this evidence, Dr. S. I. McMillen concluded: “The perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day.
So anyway you might wonder why I bothered to post all that. Basically I'm just highlighting a few points that impress on me that there's more too the bible than a old book. I like to think I have a decent amount of common sense. I liken it to a court of law. Substantial evidence and fact only and not theory win a case. Thats how I way up evolution vs creation. You can only draw a conclusion based on knowing all the facts. Which I feel in my short life I've pretty much done. I know most people have drawn conclusions based on emotions, rumor, bias, tuition, upbringing and what they read or hear in news reports.
So in a nut shell that's a small part of why I believe in creation.
P.S. This isn't meant to start a debate I just think its appropriate to give a reason why you believe what you believe.
I amazed at how people think religion is totally segregated from science somehow. Goes to show not much actually gets taught in churches and the assumptions people have about the bible which majority have no idea what it actually says. I think this is thanks mainly to religious hypocrisy which leads to many people throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Science supports the bible and vice versa. How many people know the bible said the earth was a circle or sphere and hung upon nothing when the popular belief for centuries was the earth was flat. The cycle of rivers into oceans was not understood yet again correct reference was made in the bible, disposal of sewage so as to avoid disease again only relatively recently there has been an understanding of this. Archeologically speaking is where the biggest support for creation lies as this has continually proven bible facts. The command for the Jews by God was that on the 8th day a child was to be circumcised No explanation was given why the eighth day was specified. Medical research has discovered that the blood-clotting element vitamin K rises to an adequate level only by then. Another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the eighth day than at any other time during a child’s life. Based on this evidence, Dr. S. I. McMillen concluded: “The perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day.
So anyway you might wonder why I bothered to post all that. Basically I'm just highlighting a few points that impress on me that there's more too the bible than a old book. I like to think I have a decent amount of common sense. I liken it to a court of law. Substantial evidence and fact only and not theory win a case. Thats how I way up evolution vs creation. You can only draw a conclusion based on knowing all the facts. Which I feel in my short life I've pretty much done. I know most people have drawn conclusions based on emotions, rumor, bias, tuition, upbringing and what they read or hear in news reports.
So in a nut shell that's a small part of why I believe in creation.
P.S. This isn't meant to start a debate I just think its appropriate to give a reason why you believe what you believe.
#46
Donna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 14-October 07
-
Location: Rockingham
Posted 17 March 2009 - 04:03 PM
[quote name='BiGz' date='Mar 17 2009, 05:45 PM' post='121892']
From a purely common sense point of view, the evolution theory is just that a THEORY with no supporting science which if you understand the meaning of the word science is conclusions based on fact. No where is there a single fact to prove evolution.
Hi there,
The above statement is incorrect. The theory of evolution is proved everyday, it is an ongoing process.
Further to that, there is also no such thing as common sense. Common sense really means having a shared understanding with the people that you that you come in contact with. Common sense is socially constructed, and is often a white, middle class, male construct (but not always)
If you come from a background that rejects that humans may have orginated as a result of evolution [(Origin of the Species (humans)] then of course you are not going to explore the possibilities.
There is no reason to reject the process of evolution which is clearly obvious, in order to have faith that God created humans.
There is some confusion remaining with this debate which has flawed it and made it nothing more than expressing whether you have "faith" or not. The terms were never clarified...
micro evolution
macro evolution
Natural Selection
Theory of Evolution
Origin of the Species (particularly human)
The last point is what seems to lie at the heart of this debate. I think what we were being asked to consider in the first place is the possibility that humans could have originated as a result of evolution and not created and vice versa. This is where the debate is. We were invited to think beyond evolution and consider other possiblities outside that of evolution, not necessarily reject it.
Evolution is indisputable.....the origin of humans however, is open to debate. Maybe if things start from there, the debate could be clearer and people could explain why they think evolution (which really does exist) does not explain the origin of human kind rather than assume that evolution is not happening.
Regards,
Donna
(sorry ado...just had to get back on the horse)
From a purely common sense point of view, the evolution theory is just that a THEORY with no supporting science which if you understand the meaning of the word science is conclusions based on fact. No where is there a single fact to prove evolution.
Hi there,
The above statement is incorrect. The theory of evolution is proved everyday, it is an ongoing process.
Further to that, there is also no such thing as common sense. Common sense really means having a shared understanding with the people that you that you come in contact with. Common sense is socially constructed, and is often a white, middle class, male construct (but not always)
If you come from a background that rejects that humans may have orginated as a result of evolution [(Origin of the Species (humans)] then of course you are not going to explore the possibilities.
There is no reason to reject the process of evolution which is clearly obvious, in order to have faith that God created humans.
There is some confusion remaining with this debate which has flawed it and made it nothing more than expressing whether you have "faith" or not. The terms were never clarified...
micro evolution
macro evolution
Natural Selection
Theory of Evolution
Origin of the Species (particularly human)
The last point is what seems to lie at the heart of this debate. I think what we were being asked to consider in the first place is the possibility that humans could have originated as a result of evolution and not created and vice versa. This is where the debate is. We were invited to think beyond evolution and consider other possiblities outside that of evolution, not necessarily reject it.
Evolution is indisputable.....the origin of humans however, is open to debate. Maybe if things start from there, the debate could be clearer and people could explain why they think evolution (which really does exist) does not explain the origin of human kind rather than assume that evolution is not happening.
Regards,
Donna
(sorry ado...just had to get back on the horse)
#47
werdna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 10-March 07
-
Location: Coogee
Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:00 PM
QUOTE (Den @ Mar 16 2009, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Both beliefs are very old.
Religion and Evolution, are two narrow minded views, in the possibility of infinite choices.
we need more choices
In this 21st Century could we try to think of something new? is anyone really trying?
a New idea? how preposterous!
Religion and Evolution, are two narrow minded views, in the possibility of infinite choices.
we need more choices
In this 21st Century could we try to think of something new? is anyone really trying?
a New idea? how preposterous!
New theories? Why? Maybe we arent coming up with new one because one of them is correct.
What next, the two theories of the earth being round or flat are pretty old... propose that the earth is actually square!
The 4 stroke combustion engine is 200 years old, but we still use the same basic principles of it now.
Mazda tried bringing out something different, the rotary hasn't exactly taken off... although I believe all cars should have a 20b twin turbo tri rotor... Arrgghhhhhhhh
I think you will find that because evolution or creationism is fairly accepted, people dont try proving them right or wrong... there are more pressing matters. Like our need for thick smelly black liquid that is a limited resource and chokes the sky.
And if it is so easy to come up with a new theory... do it! Instead of bitching that people are plagurists. (no offense intended)
Andrew
#48
BiGz
-
- Forum Member Joined: 08-May 07
-
Location: Ballajura
Posted 17 March 2009 - 05:43 PM
I appreciate your comment. I think the word evolution needs to be put into context. I'm taking it as the blind chance theory of creation and changes of life human or otherwise. Sorry but I disagree with the point of evolution being proved everyday. Please show me the proof and I'll switch sides? In built changes of DNA as Meghan described with the guinea pigs doesn't constitute evolution. Common sense to me is generally a term used to describe weighing up pros and cons to an argument and choosing the logical. Example:
To me logic dictates that its preferable to choose a positive option with a sense of hope which in this case is creation. Evolution means that no matter what, we have no future than our average life span. But with this I base my beliefs on facts which convince me of the parts that require faith.
Evolution is still a belief that requires faith.
The bible has been around thousands of years and historical occurrences are being proved accurate through archeological findings. This is enough to give at least some credence to the bible. Just those few examples I used in my previous post would alone convince me enough, as that was written thousands of years ago with not a hope of anyone than living being able to come to those conclusions. Chance you reckon? Give me a firm archeological finding for evolution.
If I think Creation is true than why mix and match with evolution? If basing my belief on the bible which I do than I'd be flying in the face of God. You either take the bible in its entirety or not at all otherwise what is the point?
I'm not speaking for religions who believe in a God but not the bible.
carbon dating has been a tool used by scientists. Its common knowledge (at least among them) that its inaccurate up to a certain point. Explain for example the cylacanth which was supposed to have been extinct and been around 20,million years ago. Constantly theories are being disproved.
You may feel nothing proves the bible but nothing has (you are going to disagree so I'll use the word 'solidly') disproved the bible either. It would be nice before anyone decides to try disprove it that they do some thorough research. I've heard all the arguments about changes inaccuracy etc etc.
And I've even had a conversation with a scientist who professed to believe in evolution, she eventually admitted to thinking a higher being put evolution into motion. That to me showed a lack of "common sense" that is essentially admitting creation, as to believe a higher being put into motion an act of evolution to create life is still creation
To me logic dictates that its preferable to choose a positive option with a sense of hope which in this case is creation. Evolution means that no matter what, we have no future than our average life span. But with this I base my beliefs on facts which convince me of the parts that require faith.
Evolution is still a belief that requires faith.
The bible has been around thousands of years and historical occurrences are being proved accurate through archeological findings. This is enough to give at least some credence to the bible. Just those few examples I used in my previous post would alone convince me enough, as that was written thousands of years ago with not a hope of anyone than living being able to come to those conclusions. Chance you reckon? Give me a firm archeological finding for evolution.
If I think Creation is true than why mix and match with evolution? If basing my belief on the bible which I do than I'd be flying in the face of God. You either take the bible in its entirety or not at all otherwise what is the point?
I'm not speaking for religions who believe in a God but not the bible.
carbon dating has been a tool used by scientists. Its common knowledge (at least among them) that its inaccurate up to a certain point. Explain for example the cylacanth which was supposed to have been extinct and been around 20,million years ago. Constantly theories are being disproved.
You may feel nothing proves the bible but nothing has (you are going to disagree so I'll use the word 'solidly') disproved the bible either. It would be nice before anyone decides to try disprove it that they do some thorough research. I've heard all the arguments about changes inaccuracy etc etc.
And I've even had a conversation with a scientist who professed to believe in evolution, she eventually admitted to thinking a higher being put evolution into motion. That to me showed a lack of "common sense" that is essentially admitting creation, as to believe a higher being put into motion an act of evolution to create life is still creation
#49
dom
-
- Forum Member Joined: 06-July 07
-
Location: marangaroo
Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:10 PM
i believe in me ....and that the chicken came 1st
#50
dom
-
- Forum Member Joined: 06-July 07
-
Location: marangaroo
Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:19 PM
what you didnt like my answer ............GOD WHOS PLAYING GOD AGAIN
#51
Jezza
-
- Forum Member Joined: 29-January 07
- Location:Seville Grove
-
Location: Seville Grove
Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:39 PM
QUOTE (BiGz @ Mar 17 2009, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You either take the bible in its entirety or not at all otherwise what is the point?
well said!
#52
werdna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 10-March 07
-
Location: Coogee
Posted 18 March 2009 - 04:11 PM
QUOTE (dom @ Mar 17 2009, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i believe in me ....and that the chicken came 1st
I disagree, I believe the egg came first
#53
Jezza
-
- Forum Member Joined: 29-January 07
- Location:Seville Grove
-
Location: Seville Grove
Posted 22 March 2009 - 07:52 PM
QUOTE (werdna @ Mar 18 2009, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I disagree, I believe the egg came first
no, the chicken came first.
it was created on the 5th day of creation
#54
werdna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 10-March 07
-
Location: Coogee
Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:39 PM
QUOTE (Jezza @ Mar 22 2009, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
no, the chicken came first.
it was created on the 5th day of creation
it was created on the 5th day of creation
If you believe in creation the chicken came first.
If you live in the real world and believe in evolution, then its the egg!
#55
Jezza
-
- Forum Member Joined: 29-January 07
- Location:Seville Grove
-
Location: Seville Grove
Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:30 PM
QUOTE (werdna @ Mar 23 2009, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you believe in creation the chicken came first.
If you live in the real world and believe in evolution, then its the egg!
If you live in the real world and believe in evolution, then its the egg!
please explain to me where you think the egg came from. did it just appear from thin air?
was it laid by a different animal? perhaps a turtle laid a chicken egg?
i'd like to know why people believe in evolution.
what is it that makes evolution seem real to you?
if you think that all living things evolved from a single celled organism into a vast array of animals etc, explain to my why there are no new animals evolving now, but rather so many animals are becoming extinct.
i'm not trying to hang a go at you, i am genuinely interested in knowing why you believe it.
#56
Donna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 14-October 07
-
Location: Rockingham
Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:56 PM
HI Jezza,
There actually is evidence of new species...I will find the web page and post it...it might take me a while...got my wine goggles on
Regards,
D
http://www.toptenmyths.com/myth1.html
If you look at the other nine myths you will gain some insight. Please be open minded about this...Evolution is not the Antichrist...it is not random..it is beautiful and diliberate...it is not meaningless...check out the myths
There actually is evidence of new species...I will find the web page and post it...it might take me a while...got my wine goggles on
Regards,
D
http://www.toptenmyths.com/myth1.html
If you look at the other nine myths you will gain some insight. Please be open minded about this...Evolution is not the Antichrist...it is not random..it is beautiful and diliberate...it is not meaningless...check out the myths
#57
Jezza
-
- Forum Member Joined: 29-January 07
- Location:Seville Grove
-
Location: Seville Grove
Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:18 PM
QUOTE (Donna @ Mar 23 2009, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you look at the other nine myths you will gain some insight. Please be open minded about this...Evolution is not the Antichrist...it is not random..it is beautiful and diliberate...it is not meaningless...check out the myths
i have yet to read all of that site, but will do when time permits. - thanks for the link.
but you say that it is not random but rather deliberate - doesn't this then tell you that there is a powerful being that is in control of it all?
and if so, then this being is more powerful than anything else in existence.
that said, it would make sense that this being has existed longer than anything else as how could a being that powerful evolve from something else.
now this being is God.
He not only created all things, but also continues to control all things
#58
BiGz
-
- Forum Member Joined: 08-May 07
-
Location: Ballajura
Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:03 PM
Actually Donna I'll some what agree with your previous comment about the use of the word "common sense" as really its not so common.
Anyway I read that link and It honestly didn't answer a thing for me. Statements such as this: "The main problem with the textbook disclaimer has to do with two different meanings of the word theory (3). In popular speech, theory means a guess or a hunch that can be just as good as any other guess or hunch, as when someone theorizes that a light streaking across the night sky must be an alien spacecraft. When scientists use the word theory, however, they’re referring to "a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts" (4). Scientific theories are not guesses".
A fact does not prove the evolutionary concept. Ok for example. A fossil purporting to be the missing link does not make it the missing link and or make it a fact of evolution. Many creatures are going extinct year by year and also new species discovered year by year. Coming up with fossils of said creatures doesn't all of a sudden provide a fact for evolution.
The section 'Myth Nine: Intelligent Design is Science', is amazingly poorly founded. Comments like this one: "Teaching ID in schools as if it were a genuine scientific alternative to the theory of evolution will only confuse students about how science really works. And further, it will put those students who might pursue scientific careers at a serious educational disadvantage". That has to make me laugh, where on earth does believing in Creation put students at a disadvantage on how science "really works". If you wish I'll provide you with a comprehensive list of names of Scientists in varying fields who believe in creation.
Ok problem is most evolutionists and creationists are ignorant of what the bible says. So both fail in convincing arguments. Statements such as "the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old" is incorrect and that the 6 creative days and the 7th of rest are literal 24 hour days are also incorrect. We have no idea how long each creative day is but the 7th totals thousands of years which we are still in.
Anyway I read that link and It honestly didn't answer a thing for me. Statements such as this: "The main problem with the textbook disclaimer has to do with two different meanings of the word theory (3). In popular speech, theory means a guess or a hunch that can be just as good as any other guess or hunch, as when someone theorizes that a light streaking across the night sky must be an alien spacecraft. When scientists use the word theory, however, they’re referring to "a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts" (4). Scientific theories are not guesses".
A fact does not prove the evolutionary concept. Ok for example. A fossil purporting to be the missing link does not make it the missing link and or make it a fact of evolution. Many creatures are going extinct year by year and also new species discovered year by year. Coming up with fossils of said creatures doesn't all of a sudden provide a fact for evolution.
The section 'Myth Nine: Intelligent Design is Science', is amazingly poorly founded. Comments like this one: "Teaching ID in schools as if it were a genuine scientific alternative to the theory of evolution will only confuse students about how science really works. And further, it will put those students who might pursue scientific careers at a serious educational disadvantage". That has to make me laugh, where on earth does believing in Creation put students at a disadvantage on how science "really works". If you wish I'll provide you with a comprehensive list of names of Scientists in varying fields who believe in creation.
Ok problem is most evolutionists and creationists are ignorant of what the bible says. So both fail in convincing arguments. Statements such as "the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old" is incorrect and that the 6 creative days and the 7th of rest are literal 24 hour days are also incorrect. We have no idea how long each creative day is but the 7th totals thousands of years which we are still in.
#59
BiGz
-
- Forum Member Joined: 08-May 07
-
Location: Ballajura
Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:29 PM
Just to add, this so called "story" of Noah and the flood also answers many of scientists theories. If people are willing to do some fact finding you may find these "facts" interesting. The bible speaks of 8 people on the Ark. The ancient Chinese character for 'ship' also used by the Japanese consists of 3 characters the word 'boat' the number '8' and finally the character for 'mouths' meaning people. Other civilisations such as a tribe of American natives have the flood account in their tales. Is it just a lot of coincidences along with all the other "coincidences" in the bible?
#60
werdna
-
- Forum Member Joined: 10-March 07
-
Location: Coogee
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:07 PM
QUOTE (Jezza @ Mar 23 2009, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
please explain to me where you think the egg came from. did it just appear from thin air?
was it laid by a different animal? perhaps a turtle laid a chicken egg?
i'd like to know why people believe in evolution.
what is it that makes evolution seem real to you?
if you think that all living things evolved from a single celled organism into a vast array of animals etc, explain to my why there are no new animals evolving now, but rather so many animals are becoming extinct.
i'm not trying to hang a go at you, i am genuinely interested in knowing why you believe it.
was it laid by a different animal? perhaps a turtle laid a chicken egg?
i'd like to know why people believe in evolution.
what is it that makes evolution seem real to you?
if you think that all living things evolved from a single celled organism into a vast array of animals etc, explain to my why there are no new animals evolving now, but rather so many animals are becoming extinct.
i'm not trying to hang a go at you, i am genuinely interested in knowing why you believe it.
Actually I believe in evolution, so therefore the chicken evolved from another animal, now that animal would have been an egg layer, therefore the egg must have come first. Its my logic... I dont care if it makes sense or not!
If you believe in creationism, then the chicken was placed here... therefore the chicken was first.
I actually believe animals are evolving still, but it happens over millions of years, its not something you can watch over a lifetime.
I think evolution is very visible in cichlids, for example 6 Bar Frontosa.
They are all the same line of fish... Cyphotilapia gibberosa... However the ones from different areas of the lake look very different in terms of colouration.
I believe they have evolved to live best in the areas they have stayed in, that is why the different colours.
Andrew
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
