First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Religion vs. Science is a Myth
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

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.

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.


And these books will offer sufficient proof of the existence of macro evolution without use micro evolution as a foundation for the THEORY (not fact)? I thought based on Leviathans earlier comments that Darwinism was a remnant failed thoeory of past ut you seem to be quite the Darwinist.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

leviathan343 wrote:

Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.


Elaborate please.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08

Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.


Elaborate please.


Well, how can we justify that anything we experience through a subjective medium is true or real?

Modern evolutionary theory is not pure Darwinism. I honestly can't believe I have to state this.
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.


That cannot be true. If you are a Christian you must know that contradicts the the creation stories in
Genesis. You seem lost. Unsure of the correct path. Christianity or Science? I believe both are one in the same. True science is a constituent of Christianity. Through history, there is more or less biblical references of all accepted facts in the bible.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Did anyone actually read the OP? Just checking.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

Narc_7 wrote:


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.

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.


And these books will offer sufficient proof of the existence of macro evolution without use micro evolution as a foundation for the THEORY (not fact)? I thought based on Leviathans earlier comments that Darwinism was a remnant failed thoeory of past ut you seem to be quite the Darwinist.


LOL

huh? who says it neglects micro evolution? that's why you have to read. And who says darwin is completely right? that is why you have to read. I am just saying you only know lamarck evolution, not darwin's. That is why you have to read. Read dude.
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.

I thought you were a Christian. You must know that evolution severely contradicts th genesis account of creation. You seem lost. Christianity or Science? True science is a constituent of Christianity. Throughout history all accepted scientific facts have in some same been alluded to biblically.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
true science remain objective. has nothing to do with religion. Even if it luckily match with some of the teachings of religion, it doesn't favor any religion.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

leviathan343 wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.


Elaborate please.


Well, how can we justify that anything we experience through a subjective medium is true or real?

Modern evolutionary theory is not pure Darwinism. I honestly can't believe I have to state this.


The Theory is none the less essentially a derivative of Darwinism. Which consequently has lost credibility in the scientific community, more or less.


"Well, how can we justify that anything we experience through a subjective medium is true or real?"
You tell me.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

tweety_cool wrote:

true science remain objective. has nothing to do with religion. Even if it luckily match with some of the teachings of religion, it doesn't favor any religion.


Luckily? Therefore true science is not necessarily, what has been practiced throughout the centuries, therefore occasions on which the dogmatism of "true science" rivals that of the church.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08
I don't see why everything connected to darwinism lost its credibility. I'll agree if you see that darwin's theory is not scientific, but borrowing the idea of darwin is a good thing. I am not saying darwin is right . However he made a good speculation, and a new point of view ( a good point of view).

oh btw, christianity is subjective medium.

Oh, about the "dogma" of science? what do you mean it rivals the church? what dogma in the church rivaled by this "dogma"?
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
There are occasions where despite the fact that some scientific theories are but theories the are dogmatically accepted as truths in the scientific community. Darwinism, for example was but a theory but for almost a century was as accepted as a fact until some aspects of it were attacked. Irrelevant of the fact that it may not have necessarily been a fact was accepted as a truth, now honestly in your opinion is that FAITH?
(I'll b back soon, going for lunch.) Didn't I send you a buddy request?
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08

Narc_7 wrote:

There are occasions where despite the fact that some scientific theories are but theories the are dogmatically accepted as truths in the scientific community. Darwinism, for example was but a theory but for almost a century was as accepted as a fact until some aspects of it were attacked. Irrelevant of the fact that it may not have necessarily been a fact was accepted as a truth, now honestly in your opinion is that FAITH?
(I'll b back soon, going for lunch.) Didn't I send you a buddy request?


yes, that's true. Darwinism (what I mean is anyone who use evolution as.... "religion"?) is one of the shame in science, as it polluted by some atheist who are trying to fight against existing religion. I am aware of that. However, the people are the one mistaken, the idea itself is brilliant. Yes, it became faith for some people, but not all people. I never see it as truth(the macro evolution). I see it as research project ( Haven't even finish bachelor degree and I am talking about research? LOLZ). Not a research project, but something to be studied OBJECTIVELY...... I already accepted you buddy request.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

zendude wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

I thought you were a Christian. You must know that evolution severely contradicts th genesis account of creation. You seem lost. Christianity or Science? True science is a constituent of Christianity. Throughout history all accepted scientific facts have in some same been alluded to biblically.


Okay, knowing, learning, and understanding evolution doesn't necessarily doesn't make you a Christian. Christian is defined as a "Servant of Christ," one who shows Christian character, and someone who sacrifices his or her being to be Christ-like. Not to mention, one who believes in Him, the Messiah.

James 2:17 (New International Version)
17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Jesus only commanded several things to us before he left this earth.
- Matthew 22:35-40 (New International Version)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
- Hence, look at those passages, it doesn't necessarily tell you anything about knowing or believing in evolution, nor does it tell you that you are less of a Christian if you know or believe in evolution. Like what I stated to you earlier, Genesis is inspired, and evolution is probably the logic God built into this world.

Their is no way of knowing how God specifically made this world as it is written:
- Psalm 90:1-5 (New International Version)
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

- 2 Peter 3:8 (New International Version)
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

There are many who are professing Christians and still believe in evolution and other branches of science that seems to be in conflict with the Bible:
- Francis Collins, a geneticist who headed the human genome project, is a Christian.
- Pope John Paul II said that, "Evolution is Compatible with Christian faith"!!
- Erwin Schrodinger, the father of quantum physics, is a Catholic.
- Georges Lemaitre, a person that helped with the Big Bang, is a Catholic priest.
- John Polkinghorne is a particle scientist and a theologian.
- There are many more.

I will conclude that science can be used as either for or against Christianity, as many people in history has proven this. Science doesn't necessarily rule out an Almighty Being, but doesn't necessarily prove that there is one. As much as I want science to be pure, it can never be because it will always be with humans.

So by faith, science answers to God. But in this world, science answers to the natural and material, but should never be dogmatic, as new scientific discoveries change laws and theories.


You are confused. You cannot selectively omit and accept individual conceptions in the bible (unless instructed to do so in the bible) Its black and white. All scripture is 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,for correction, for instruction in righteousness

There's nothing wrong with learning and comprehending evolution, I personally find it utterly fascinating, but when accepts when it so blatantly contradicts the Genesis account of creation. Then there is an error

You misinterpret in the scripture ref. James 2:17. Read it again and analyze thoroughly the context in which it was used, you will realize that concept that was actually being instructed was the fact that we should not only have faith but use this faith to carry out good deeds pleasing to the Lord.

True. There is no way of knowing how God specifically made the world but it is stated that God made man, not through evolution but simply through creation.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Furthermore, you seem unsure about your faith, even "lukewarm" (inclusive of the 'christian' evolutionists you named above)
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot I will spew thee out of my mouth.

In conclusion, Its either one or the other. No compromise.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.