What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

AKMVP said:
Sure he can. Just why would anybody take any of those 0.14% scientists who do not agree with evolution seriously is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...

I guess if they ask questions that ring true it would be valid to take them seriously until you heard the answer to those questions. And as soon as we stop listening to those with dissenting opinions, regardless of the topic, then we stop really learning and progressing. Progress generally comes in asking the questions that others take for granted, imo. Generally the only realm where dissenters are actively ignored, or even persecuted, tends to be religion. And I find it interesting that Darwinism has been labeled as such by some dissenters. I think when we have realms of science where it is not a settled debate, but new evidence supporting either side is either long in coming to light or open to multiple interpretations, it is natural for the groups to resort to name calling. You can only debate the interpretation of the same piece of data for so long before everything has been said about it and the only way to get traction is to go after the credulity of the other side.
 
Hantlers said:
These are my thoughts on it: I'm not smart enough to understand the science behind any of this, and I never will be. That's ok though, because I know somebody who is. Obviously, I'm referring to God...yup, the same God you believe in Colton. I have no reason to not believe the Bible, and quite frankly, I don't see the point in picking out which parts of the Bible that we agree with. You either agree with all of it, or none of it.

Now Creationism isn't a salvation point, but when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible.
Click to expand...

wow... I knew this thread would provide real joy, but I didn't expect it to reach its apogee by post #7

fundamentalism ftw!!1!!!!!1
 
heyhey said:
Now I have not heard any objections from you about the hominid fossils that we have found since then and that I furnished a link for. Do you doubt the validity of these fossils? On what grounds? Or did you not even bother to look at the evidence you were presented?
Click to expand...

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees". In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct."

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange! Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???
 
carolinajazz said:
Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???
Click to expand...

To little time for us to see what may happen within hundreds of thousands of years. But see this and ask yourself same question again.

gorilla-walking-upright-o.gif
 
LogGrad98 said:
I guess if they ask questions that ring true it would be valid to take them seriously until you heard the answer to those questions. And as soon as we stop listening to those with dissenting opinions, regardless of the topic, then we stop really learning and progressing.
Click to expand...

That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?
 
carolinajazz said:
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees". In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct."

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange! Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”
Click to expand...

Evolutionary theory does not have a scale to go up. That is your own preconception. The other apes occupy a niche like every other creature. I would also remind you that we are threatening their existence now.

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???
Click to expand...

Yeah. Humans killed or mated with them. It seems we did both to the Neanderthal. It would only make sense, given that we love both sex and war, that apes would have to be sufficiently different than us to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
AKMVP said:
That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?
Click to expand...

Because "evolutionary science" is a belief system that doesn't matter. It is atheist apologetics. It doesn't make the world a better place to believe a fish bladder became a human lung by accident. I would think most scientists go into scientific fields that make a difference in the world.

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. ~ Crichton
 
PearlWatson said:
Because "evolutionary science" is a belief system that doesn't matter. It is atheist apologetics. It doesn't make the world a better place to believe a fish bladder became a human lung by accident. I would think most scientists go into scientific fields that make a difference in the world.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly why nobody takes creationists seriously - because you talk nonsense and do not spend time to learn about subject. No evolutionist will ever say that fish bladder became human lung by accident. So why even mention such absurd as any part of evolution?
How about first woman created from Adam's rib? Does it make sense or difference in the world?
 
AKMVP said:
No evolutionist will ever say that fish bladder became human lung by accident.
Click to expand...

They certainly don't say it happened by design.

It is just a random (accidental) occurrence for a bladder to turn into a lung, like when you roll a 6 sided dice every million rolls or so you roll a 7.
 
AKMVP said:
That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?
Click to expand...

It only takes one person to ask a valid question. It is the merits of the question that determine validity, not the size of the fanclub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top