First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Religion vs. Science is a Myth
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08
Anyone dare to say evolution as a law? hahaha, I think you miss the point here. Evolution is a FACT, used to explain how organism can undergo a change. Hoever, the consequence is the explanation of CREATION with evolution.

What is creation? it is the explanation of how this world is created. In biology, it is how life is created. None of them are facts!!! The difference between biblical and evolution creation is the basis of the theory. One requires COMPLETE faith, and one requires EVIDENCE. I don't want to argue how biblical creation takes less faith and any other stuff with you. If anyone can prove that macro evolution is completely impossible, then I am sure Scientists will, with no doubt, discard the macro evolution theory as the explanation of CREATION. Because that's what science is, logic-theory-experiment.

If you want disprove evolution creation by saying it's impossible, then you have to learn about it. The argument that you gave about how macro evolution is unexplainable is an archaic theory. It's not even darwin's, it's lamarck's theory of evolution (which we all know is wrong). I already suggest you some readings (which I don't think you have read), they are people who develop the evolution theory to a very scientific extent (they even use mathematics for predictions), not just fossil matching that you people like to attack on. The explanation on how macro evolution occurs can be explained with micro evolution. I suggest that you really read darwin's theory of evolution, rather than arguing it's wrong while you are talking about Lamarck's theory of evolution. Darwin never said that macro evolution happened because micro evolution is affected by environment. The only way evolution may happens is the mutation of the dna, and it always happens. However, how the mutation can change the whole population is by the natural selection. Natural selection is the driving force of the gene flows(This is Darwin's evolution). That is the evolution theory based on hardy weinberg law(the one I suggest you to read). The reason why evolution is said to need a long time, is because we have to wait for the gene flow to dominate, that means a lot of sexual interaction to push the gene flow. And, by the help of other science field, it is safe to say evolution is probable, we have about 3.400.000.000 years(correct me if I am wrong, but I don't accept the earth that is 6000 years old.). And if you think it stops at that, you are wrong. That law is founded in 1970's so there are a lot of progress in the theory(A lot of dispute, but they still hold on in evolution). So if you really want to know, take biological science; don't play around only with fossils.

peace.
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
Difference between a scientific "theory" and a "law" has nothing to do with religion or any debate. They are different and not the same. Evolution is a field of biology that's contains theories but I don't know of any laws per se that strictly falls under "evolution".

Having said that there are huge missing links in macro evolution. In fact, if you found those missing fossils or you came up with an explanation for those missing links you could probably win the nobel prize for science. That's not just lamarckism. Darwin predicted these missing links would be found. None has been found. You make whatever implications you want out of that but that's a fact.


tweety_cool wrote:

Anyone dare to say evolution as a law? hahaha, I think you miss the point here. Evolution is a FACT, used to explain how organism can undergo a change. Hoever, the consequence is the explanation of CREATION with evolution.
..................f other science field, it is safe to say evolution is probable, we have about 3.400.000.000 years(correct me if I am wrong, but I don't accept the earth that is 6000 years old.). And if you think it stops at that, you are wrong. That law is founded in 1970's so there are a lot of progress in the theory(A lot of dispute, but they still hold on in evolution). So if you really want to know, take biological science; don't play around only with fossils.

peace.


710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08
Science is all about making predictions based on observation and repeatable experimentation. That's it. Religion, at least Christianity, isn't about giving scientific explanations about the material world. Christianity is about existential truths like purpose of life, who is God, love, good, evil, etc.. Science is about understanding the materialist universe we all live in.
6051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
i agree.
but that sure was some long explanation --"
but it's detailed. so thanks =)
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08

Narc_7 wrote:
My apologies for the plagiarism. You have all failed to prove that evolution (Macro) exists. At this particular point in time as I stated earlier it requires more faith to accept evolution as opposed to biblical creation. But very impressive effort but you take this thing why too too .............passionately. Its at the end of the day more or less a triviality and people there's no need to be unkind
Are you all die hard atheists or agnostics? Yo leviathan theories, you misinterpret, once theories posses irrefutable evidence then they become a fact but if there is the absence of irrefutable evidence (which consequently is what evolution lacks fundamentally) it remains a theory.Genius.
But serious calm down and try not to get unnecessarily passionate about this argument because it is fundamentally opinionated.


Um, no. Facts are included to support a theory; theories themselves are never considered absolute fact. Why? Because they can always be readjusted in light of new evidence.

I'm an atheist, but I regard that as an entirely subjective belief. I respect religious belief, as long as the people in question admit that it is a subjective belief.

This is in the wrong thread. Move it to the other thread.

While we are on the subject, macroevolution in action: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Macroevolution is incorrectly associated with a long period of time purely because a large number of generations usually takes a long time to evolve. However, bacteria and fruit flies are a rare exception because they reproduce and die rapidly.
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
Seems like everyone agrees that Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Nice. What's more interesting to me is that without believing in God, there's no reason why abstract truths exists. Things like love, truth, morality, human rights don't and can't exist without a belief in God.
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
You may think your atheist belief is "subjective" but that's an illogical belief because you believing that everyone's beliefs are "subjective" is itself an objective belief. Basically you OBJECTIVELY believe that everyone's beliefs are subjective hence disproving your own claim that all beliefs are subjective.


leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:
My apologies for t......nionated.


Um, no. Facts are include......t to the other thread.

While we are on the subject, macroevolution in action: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08

melonbarmonster wrote:

You may think your atheist belief is "subjective" but that's an illogical belief because you believing that everyone's beliefs are "subjective" is itself an objective belief. Basically you OBJECTIVELY believe that everyone's beliefs are subjective hence disproving your own claim that all beliefs are subjective.


leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:
My apologies for t......nionated.


Um, no. Facts are include......t to the other thread.

While we are on the subject, macroevolution in action: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html




I never disputed the existence of an objective world.

More evidence of macroevolution: http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08
Well if you believe in an objective truth then you shouldn't disparage others who believe their view is objectively true.

And thanks for that article. I read it but I think it's pretty hogwash. The macro/microevolution distinction was around long before creationism was even invented and if the macro-microevolution distinction really is arbitrary as the article suggests per wikipedia, then I don't see how you can then claim e coli developing ability to grow in citrate in oxic condition is proof for macro-evolution and not micro-evolution.. a distinction the article is claiming is arbitrary.

Real evidence for macro-evolution would be fossil evidence of missing link species or creating entirely new species of animals. Problem is that with too simple an organism like e. coli distinguishing between microevolutino and macroevolution is unclear. Are bacteria that develop immunity to anti-biotics considered a new species? I don't think so as far as I know.


leviathan343 wrote:

I never disputed the existence of an objective world.

More evidence of macroevolution: http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory


710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08
I belatedly read the new scientist article and it says basically what I was pointing out about the dbskeptic article. Newscientist mentions the experiment was evidence of evolution not macro-evolution.


Narc_7 wrote:

While we are on the subject, macroevolution in action: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08

melonbarmonster wrote:

Well if you believe in an objective truth then you shouldn't disparage others who believe their view is objectively true.

And thanks for that article. I read it but I think it's pretty hogwash. The macro/microevolution distinction was around long before creationism was even invented and if the macro-microevolution distinction really is arbitrary as the article suggests per wikipedia, then I don't see how you can then claim e coli developing ability to grow in citrate in oxic condition is proof for macro-evolution and not micro-evolution.. a distinction the article is claiming is arbitrary.

Real evidence for macro-evolution would be fossil evidence of missing link species or creating entirely new species of animals. Problem is that with too simple an organism like e. coli distinguishing between microevolutino and macroevolution is unclear. Are bacteria that develop immunity to anti-biotics considered a new species? I don't think so as far as I know.


http://www.mlgpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183339&highlight=missing+link

This thread is getting off-topic.
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/08 , edited 7/28/08
This is the same type of bogus claim as your other article.

You do know that the problem of "missing links" is a problem that Darwin himself posed and has been worked on by scientists since Darwin's time all the way upto and past when ID was invented a few years ago. The "missing link" issue was NEVER considered to be solved and no new batch of missing link fossils have been found since ID came onto the scene.

And as was the case with your last article when you actually go to the real scientific source for the bogus atheist claims, you find that the article has nothing to do with, and makes no claims about having resolved Darwin's "missing link" problem.

Your article is a bogus reinterpretation of old evidence that was around long before ID was invented. The same body of evidence that generations of scientists have used in searching for missing link species can't suddenly be used to claim that Darwin's challenge has been met. You need new data like fossils or some other data.

Also from I know I thought looking for missing species in a linear chain of evolution like in the diagram had been rejected by evolutionary scientists? Although on that note I don't know why Nova used such diagrams. I'm not sure what's going on there.


leviathan343 wrote:

http://www.mlgpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183339&highlight=missing+link

This thread is getting off-topic.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08

melonbarmonster wrote:

Difference between a scientific "theory" and a "law" has nothing to do with religion or any debate. They are different and not the same. Evolution is a field of biology that's contains theories but I don't know of any laws per se that strictly falls under "evolution".

Having said that there are huge missing links in macro evolution. In fact, if you found those missing fossils or you came up with an explanation for those missing links you could probably win the nobel prize for science. That's not just lamarckism. Darwin predicted these missing links would be found. None has been found. You make whatever implications you want out of that but that's a fact.


tweety_cool wrote:

Anyone dare to say evolution as a law? hahaha, I think you miss the point here. Evolution is a FACT, used to explain how organism can undergo a change. Hoever, the consequence is the explanation of CREATION with evolution.
..................f other science field, it is safe to say evolution is probable, we have about 3.400.000.000 years(correct me if I am wrong, but I don't accept the earth that is 6000 years old.). And if you think it stops at that, you are wrong. That law is founded in 1970's so there are a lot of progress in the theory(A lot of dispute, but they still hold on in evolution). So if you really want to know, take biological science; don't play around only with fossils.

peace.




yes it doesn't have anything to do with any debate... hardy weinberg law.... I think it falls under the population or genetics, yes, it does not fall to evolution. (did I say it does? if so sorry )

But, I think we know how we can't depend on missing link. Fossils are pretty much made out of luck. That is why biology is peeking on mathematics, as we have it now in biology ^^. Hardy-weinberg is the start, but revolutionary biology which deals with biochemistry, molecular biology, and bio-informatics is pretty much promising in the development of theory of evolution. It has provided a more reasonable information than what we have in darwin's time. That is why we shouldn't stop on fossils. btw non has been found?... hmm I doubt that ^^. And I didn't say darwin doesn't depends on fossil, i mention lamarck because the other guy is pointing out that micro evolution won't explain macro evolution. That is completely true if it is lamarck's theory. Darwin have different explanation of evolution than lamarck.

OH BTW... it is really out of topic.... sorry leviathan.. couldn't keep my balls


658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

zendude wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

This is a continuation from where actually left off.
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.


Ahem. The fact that God created all animals and plants in the beginning of time doesn't go against evolution? The idea that humans are entirely separate beings from other primates and other animals in general doesn't defy the theory of evolution?

I suppose the sun stopping in the middle of the sky for an entire day doesn't exactly go against all scientific knowledge about Earth and the solar system. Or the fact that multiple people was resurrected from the dead. Nice try though.

Add in the fact that evolution doesn't attempt to show the origins of life at all, but merely attempts to describe changes in life over time, and this part of the post fails entirely.


Narc_7 wrote:
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


Uh, read my other post on the fallacy of defining 'transitional forms'. Not to mention, there are transitional forms.


Narc_7 wrote:
Therefore the presence of micro evolution does not offer irrefutable proof of the presence macro-evolution. You ignoramus. Now please STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF.


One, this argument is in the wrong thread genius boy. Second, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. If there was, theories would be dogmatic as Catholic theology. Luckily, we see it fit to alter theories according to the evidence and not the other way around. Which is why quantum mechanics and relativity can be accepted by the scientific community; because the evidence suggests it. Stop called people ignoramuses when you clearly know nothing about the subject you criticize so passionately.

P.S. If you copy and paste an argument, have the decency to alert other people to it. You know, like this (your site):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

The fact that you're the most blatant plagiarist I've ever seen makes me lose the little respect I had for you before.


My apologies for the plagiarism. You have all failed to prove that evolution (Macro) exists. At this particular point in time as I stated earlier it requires more faith to accept evolution as opposed to biblical creation. But very impressive effort but you take this thing why too too .............passionately. Its at the end of the day more or less a triviality and people there's no need to be unkind
Are you all die hard atheists or agnostics? Yo leviathan theories, you misinterpret, once theories posses irrefutable evidence then they become a fact but if there is the absence of irrefutable evidence (which consequently is what evolution lacks fundamentally) it remains a theory.Genius.
But serious calm down and try not to get unnecessarily passionate about this argument because it is fundamentally opinionated.


I am not an Atheist, as I am actually a Contemporary Christian. I have to agree with leviathan, as religion and science do have their separate fields, as you have a home life and a professional life, as some things just don't mix, or at least mix as much.

About Atheists and Christians, the real conflict is that both camps are holding things too dogmatically, like Richard Dawkin and fundamental Christians and the Catholic church. I see no see reason why a scientist can't be a person of faith as well, like the leading geneticist Francis Collins (a Christian), who headed the Human Genome Project for 10 years. The person who helped with the quantum theory was a Catholic priest. About 25% of the scientist professing Christians, not necessarily Christian scientists.

Here is a good philosophical stance for you:
- Maybe Evolution is just how God made us. This doesn't necessarily answer why He made us.

~Zen is of the essence.


religion and Science, separate entities? yes and no. Religion requires dogmatic faith which in essence oppose the very principles of science, however science usually is conceptualize on the basis of theories which not necessarily factual, hence they are theories but through FAITH as Darwinism was accepted as a fact for nearly a century until it was more or less discarded. Both SEEMINGLY contradictory entities differ primarily at the point at which dogmatism takes over but both do contain some amount of faith.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.