Is that your final answer?
Trying to interface creationism with evolution is like saying the medical diagnosis from 300 years ago were correct when they said there's a demon or dwarf living in the stomach of the patient. I mean, can't bacteria be considered a demon and can't a virus be considered a dwarf? Can't a tape worm be a demon?
They knew what they were talking about. The bleeding was the right thing to do and they knew it. We are just now learning just how smart they were.
I have to agree with Blake leave religion in the church and leave Evolution in the Myth / fiction area of Borders books store.
Something to ponder......if your willing to support Science and Evolution then you have to defend it when it claims the Earth is "4 Billion" years old.
There is ample evidence its not.
Religion is stupid and pointless and it constantly destroys societies! The evidence for that is endless.
Then say goodbye to America.
Like America for instance.
Militant religious zealots and militant atheists are no ing different. Get along people.
They are different. Both are annoying, but they are different. Militant atheists are zealous about getting the truth established and the bull mysticism squelched. Religious zealots are by and large ignorant of anything.
Where did I read this....
There He stands that bull-father God with his gleaming phallus in his hand pissing on humanity. He made us then abandoned us, rumor has it He's sorry. He wasted His time, He sees us as a failure. A big mistake. our prayers.
One meaning of the original word is cycle. The story of the creation may have been seven cycles of unstated lengths.
So?
It doesn't exclusively mean that. That is the general interpretation, but is may be wrong.
You need to start thinking outside the box. Why can't natural evolution be aided with intelligent guidance? Aren't we doing that in small ways today?
What evidence do you have that some alien race didn't terraform this world, then manipulate the genetics to suit their desires? There is old Sumarian text that can be interpreted to say that about 60,000 years ago, the slaves of this world that the Gods used to gather resources for them were altered. Made smarter.
Have you ever considered how many diverse religions have similar creation stories, similar stories of the flood, etc? Maybe there is a reason for it outside of mans necessity to explain things.
Granted, evolution is more likely, but you are saying that ID is impossible. How can you say that? At our progress in science, we are manipulating DNA and have hypothesis on how to terraform.
LOL...
Planned and unplanned...
If playing a dice game that has random and unplanned outcomes, while you are looking, someone changed one of the die, is it still unplanned and random?
Leave mouse in the troll forum
There is ample evidence you're an idiotSomething to ponder......if your willing to support Science and Evolution then you have to defend it when it claims the Earth is "4 Billion" years old.
There is ample evidence its not.
Someone made that up.
Just like every religion.
still waiting for you to answer who created that alien race.
you're making up your own box to think outside of
Does it take more faith to believe in evolution or creation?
Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
Except that the Theory of Evolution is proven through and through. It is fact, just like the Theory of Gravity.
but it isn't.
Fossil record? Nope.
Bone record. Look, humans come in all shapes and sizes from 7 footers to pygmies. Taking a jawbone of an ape and fabricating the rest of the drawing to form the 800th sensational find of "Ape Man" is not proof.
Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Ins ute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.
The facts. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”23
In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B.Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.25
So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.27
Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
Myth 3. The fossil record do ents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately do ent macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28
The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual ac ulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change ac ulates in most species.”29
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
Last edited by Fabbs; 09-04-2012 at 12:45 PM.
Insecure much in your evolutionism?
Never discuss the points but rather sling.
You also didn't cite your sources, which makes you a plagiarist.
Apparently he's also a jehovah's witness.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233
The "truth" as you call it comes in many different shades of gray and can be spun or twisted, so I strongly disagree with the sentiment that militant atheists only care about establishing truth. See Hitler and the Master Race bull or the millions sent to the gulags in the Soviet Union. Obviously these are an extreme but not so much of an extreme that hundreds of millions didn't subscribe to them and tens of millions didn't die for them.
As long as you keep it scientific in basis I don't see any reason why an atheist is establishing truth while a believer in _____ is not.
I don't think Hitler was an atheist.
Basically all of his writing and speeches are very disdainful of religion. If he wasnt openly atheist its because of the political ramifications nothing else. The entire master race agenda was firmly rooted in pseudoscience which is my real point. The truth is rarely so simple as to be unable of being twisted.
There could have been evolution that brought a race to where they are. We might be such a race, we might not.
You keep forgetting. I am not saying that we are a product of intelligent design. I am just not dismissing that hypothesis/theory.
It is those who are certain that either evolution or creation is what happened that have the religious type faith of things, rather than having proper scientific values.
There is no scientific value in, "God did it."
Who cares. The ID community is trying to show their hypothesis is correct, and they may do that some day. Even if they don't, what proof do you have that it is impossible? Our continued scientific advances tell me that some day, we will be capable or terraforming a world, and altering life on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
