|
I AGREE we are constantly changing as humans and adapting, as are other species. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Obviously, knowing the history of people gives you more understanding of what the scriptures say.
But studying other history, you can understand some things the Bible says that people say are
impossible....for instance....there's averse that talks about how God told one guy that the sun
would go back in the sky ( for you non-thinkers, he spoke in ways this man could understand) But the
Chinese in their history record a very long day, how could that happen? We know the sun didn't
move....so something must have happened with the earth....remember the Chinese aren't Christians,
they just recorded history.
Seven plagues of Egypt, all happened in other places, including fire and ice falling at the same
time. The plagues of Egypt was a miracle of timing....Like Moses, get to what they thought was the
Red Sea and the water parted.....perfect timing.....etc. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pretty much. I’m not sure mechanism is the right word but for some reason I can’t think of a
better one at the moment. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pretty much. I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, as it is the most logical conclusion. |
| |
 Mark  07 May 2008 17:21
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes i agree
if you want me to write a few paragraphs to explain fine but not until you comment on this lack of
content |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natural selection and other naturalistic means work extremely well to explain the diversity of life.
As there is no need to introduce other elements, such as the supernatural, science doesn't do
so.
Now it rests on the theists to demonstrate that their supernatural explanation actually works better
than a purely natural explanation. Unfortunately for them, I think we'll all fossilize before they
manage to come up with anything but ridiculous empty claims and mystical mumbo-jumbo. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natural selection appears to be the most adequate explanation as of the current time. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
What the record reveals
"David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies
fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum. However, he admits that the fossil
record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized, stating: "A large number of
well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten
the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the
oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: Low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and
so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his
advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found— yet the
optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, July
1981, p. 289," |
| |
 v00v 13 Oct 2008 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is like saying Santa Claus really exists, just his mechanism for getting presents under the
tree is in question. Some "Santa" presents are there by the parents' doing; some are by
grandparents, not to mention secret Santas, organizations that give children presents, etc.
The handy part of this argument for evolutionists is that no evidence is required. Just claim that
evolution is true, "we just aren't sure how all this evidence fits, but we know it points to
evolution." Try that in a court room some time. "We know he killed her, we just aren't sure how
this evidence proves it." THAT is what is said when "we don't know the mechanism" is brought up. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As I have said before, true scientists do not say that anything is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt
except from maths and logic. Only fundamentalists say something is proved beyond a shadow of a
doubt. True scientists say that "Up to now all the evidence shows....if new evidence contests this
view then i will reassess my own view in light of this new evidence" |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That IS THE DUMBEST THING i HAVE EVER HEARD. The whole point to it being called the EVOLUTIONARY "
THEORY" is because it is a theory and it hasn't been proven. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course evolution exists. Things do change over time. The theory of evolution has evolved over
time and is becoming harder and harder to support as we gain more knowledge through science and
other evidences. Of course, Darwin's special theory of evolution is supported in things like skin
color changing with environment, finch beaks getting longer and shorter in order to adapt, etc. Etc.
Etc. Life does adapt within limits.
However, the preponderance of evidence does not support the major tenet of Darwin's general theory
(or neo-Darwinism, if you prefer) that all of life and its complexities are derived from one species
to another, or common ancestry.
Darwin's general theory is not a "that it happened" but its a "HOW it happened". Your perceptive,
accurate admission that the mechanism is faulty is a fine argument refuting general evolutionism.
Thank you.
What you are really saying is this: "I don't know Darwinism happened or how it happened, but that
it MUST have happened because I am committed to the religion of Naturalism, apriori. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, evolution has not been proven at all let alone behind a shadow of a doubt. Actually there's
more proof against evolution than for it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity