DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

No, it is fact, and there are people out there that believe in evolution and God.

people who say there is no proof can't comprehend the proof

and as lil' bush once said, "what class would jesus skip?"

well, god must have been selectively more kind to some than others, huh?

I am more willing to believe that Odin and his brothers killed a frost giant and created the world and all living creatures from his body than your myth, which says the earth and all it's creatures were created out of nothing a couple thousand years ago.
But I gotta admit, your argument is really making me start to doubt evolution, because if humans have evolved, then how can I explain somebody with as primitive and ignorant beliefs as you?
Evolution has years of studies and evidence and brilliant minds to back it up, you have a book of fairy tales written by bored ancients who believed in a geocentric universe on your side.

to be fair... i can appreciate that some people are harder to sway in their beliefs and that they require that they ACTUALLY comprehend what they buy... i can respect that on some level

in order to really understand evolution these days... it takes a lot more than just taking an evolution course which gives an overview of the older theories (at even darwin's level of understanding)... and it's a lil more complex than saying, yeah i buy micro evolution (bacterial evolution ect)... (though honestly, it should be evident from these foundational theories... but like i said, some people need more and that's ok... i just dont like it when the people who require more say that there isn't anymore... when there totally is)

you have to get a full education in many aspects of biology... like genetics, population dynamics, a good appreciation for math...

it's much easier to just sit around and pontificate alternate interpretations from the bible that are congruent with evolution but provide no mechanism... and fall back on the "god did it cause he's awesome"

science and the bible do different things... science doesn't necessarily preclude the bible.... and maybe science did arise out of rleigious aspirations... but so what? religion was the first to start casting stones in saying that THAT IS NOT how God did it, which is irksome when the bible doesnt say HOW god did it to begin with. it's a pointless boring argument... for both ends. science cant disprove god, and religion cant account for evolution because people didnt understand that stuff when the bible was written (which by the way, is the weakest link in the whole christianity argument... validity of bible =word of god verbatim... cause people recorded the bible... and people are shady... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SHORT OF JESUS (im willing to give you him))

if you can't amend evolution with your religious beliefs... not my problem, though i feel pity for you. i think it is a spiritually uplifting concept that is both wondrous and beautiful.

The only two countries which have significant numbers of creationists are the U.S. and Australia. Last I checked, the percentage was around 45% in the U.S.

The point to keep in mind, however, is that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution. Only a tiny minority are creationists or intelligent design proponents (IDers). That, by definition, makes evolution a scientific fact. From a scientific standpoint, what nonscientists in a particular field feel about some issue is largely irrelevant.

For this reason, there is really no point engaging in a debate with creationists or IDers. For the most part, they get their knowledge from their ministers or from websites and books put together by either nonscientists or by fringe scientists who cannot generally get their views published in mainstream refereed journals.

In technical terms, evolution is the dominant scientific theory, with no credible compeditors to replace it in the scientific field. The facts are the data that support evolutionary theory.

It depends on one's definitions. The late Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, commonly said that evolution was both a fact and a theory. By "fact," I believe he had in mind that evolution was almost universally accepted among scientists. It is also true, however, that evolution is based on other facts.

You forgot the none of the above option.

well by all means.... don't tease! show us some of that creation "science"

A better term for what the late, great S.J.Gould meant would be 'law of nature,' maybe not quite on a level with
F =mA, but getting there.

What Gould meant was that evolution is fact. There really aren't any serious scientists who dispute that. The theory of evolution is the scientific theory which explains the causes for the fact of evolution. An analogy: things fall down when you drop them. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain this.

When Gould said that evolution was both fact and theory, he meant merely that it was factual that evolution happens, and there is a scientific theory that explains why this is.

The post that I am responding to is gigantic, and so I will limit myself to the more obvious nonense. I also note that it would be nice if you would learn how to properly embed quotes in your messages, so that one can respond to them without a half hour of reformatting.

No. That is simply incorrect. The existence of the so-called 'vine dresser' is a hypothesis, which you must give evidence in favour of. The theory of evolution and the existence of a god are totally separate issues.




I never claimed that there is a 'stop-evolution phenomenon'. More to the point, this is utterly irrelevant in regards to the existence of a god or gods.



That is true, I have not been 'born again'. If you want to claim that this invalidates my statements regarding god, that's fine. I shall apply the same principle, and say that those who aren't muslims have utterly invalid viewpoints regarding Islam, and that those who haven't been to China can't speak about Chinese history, and that those who don't smoke can't have a valid opinion on lung cancer.

I have taken no leap of faith. That is the entire point. No leap of faith. I don't believe. Do you understand that simple point? There isn't any leap of faith, because I see no reason to believe in any gods.



Actually, the anthropic principles don't demonstrate very much at all. The very most that it shows is that we do indeed live in this universe, and that it contains intelligent life.. How impressive.



Yes. There are also several studies which demonstrate that these experiences are caused by the brain, and by specific biochemical processes therein.



It appears that you don't know the what atheist and agnostic mean. The former is a statement of belief. The latter is an epistemological statement. They are not mutually exclusive. Carl Sagan was an agnostic atheist.



So the godly folks glow, and those damned atheists don't? Amazing. Astonishing. This utterly subjective assertion is nearly enough to convert me

Actually it lacked this option: All life evolved, but a supreme being intervention is unknown.

Exactly, the theory of evolution and even the big bang theory do not deny the existence of God actually, they do not confirm it either.

Theories are better than blind faith. You can spend years coming up with a theory that makes the most sense to you, or you can just give up and go with some fairy tale that a magic invisible hand in the sky did it all, but I'd much rather go with the one that at least tries to make sense and wasn't made up a couple thousand years ago by people who had nothing better to do than MAKE UP STORIES!!