<p>"Could someone please try to disprove my thoughts on this so I can see where some of you are coming from?"</p>
<p>Disprove? No. We believe what we want to believe. Some believe science, some believe things old guys wrote.</p>
<p>by saying disprove i just was wondering why you guys thought that way, and operadad did it. i wasn't asking someone to change my opinion, just to understand others' viewpoint</p>
<p>and i really don't see the point in this arguing. in my opinion, if one believes that we are the product of our god, and he also believes in jesus christ, then the details of creation really aren't worth worrying about.</p>
<p>"Disprove? No. We believe what we want to believe. Some believe science, some believe things old guys wrote." </p>
<p>Isn't The Origin of Species something that some old guy wrote??? Seriously though, I'm not a creationist, but don't try to win an argument by oversimplifying things into "science" vs. "old guy book." The Bible is the most comprehensive and accurate ancient text that is available to man, and it shouldn't be disregarded so quickly as just outdated myths. I think there is a balance between science and the Bible, but unfortunately people are (for the most part, and I don't necessarily mean you, vossron) too stubborn to try and find a reasonable compromise between the two.</p>
<p>You do mean me. :) We just disagree; I see no reasonable compromise. I do see it as black-and-white science vs. myth.</p>
<p>^keep in mind though that many myths have proven to be true stories. I am not saying that creationism is real, I think its stupid. My point is that as far as many historical aspects go, the bible is a great text to use( IE noah+flood>mesopotamia, isrealites V assyrians>actually happened). The one big thing in the bible with no historical evidence to back it up is the exodus, and I don't believe that happened. But please do not use the bible as a science book. The catholic church did that 500 years ago and told us the sun revolves around the earth...</p>
<p>I am a liberal and there are too many scientific holes in evolution. I think that evolution should be treated as a religion as there is no evidence to back it up. I consider myself a Christian but I think the more information we get, the better, so I wouldn't mind evolution presentations if they included all the facts, like the fact that there is no evidence of any kind to back it or if evolutionists weren't so pushy.</p>
<p>No evidence to back it up?</p>
<p>... Really?</p>
<p>Sigh... Research before making statements like that, please? It's a scientific theory. A commonly ACCEPTED scientific theory. It's commonly accepted because it's currently the best explanation, and why is it the best explanation? Because the observations and the evidence we have support it best. But the thing is about science, you accept the best explanation. And if someone finds a better explanation that is more strongly supported by the evidence we have, then we move on to that. Which is why it's ridiculous to say a scientific theory should be treated as a religion - religion is largely based on faith and devotion, and if someone comes up to you and shows you their religion which has a nicer god and whatnot, you don't jump on their bandwagon just because you like that god better now. In science, you are supposed to accept the explanation that best fits. And that may change. It's not a matter of faith.</p>
<p>(Just to point out where I stand in this - in life, generally, I believe what seems to make the most sense and is most backed up by the observations I make and the evidence I am presented with. However, I do not discount the possibility of God's hand in the works, it is possible. However, I tend to find the natural world much more fascinating if God formed it through the intricate laws of the universe he created, instead of saying "poof! there's a planet!")</p>
<p>"the fact that there is no evidence of any kind to back it"</p>
<p>:) :) :) This is a college web site, not a religious web site, so why post here? You won't find religious evidence of evolution here or anywhere else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No evidence to back it up?</p>
<p>... Really?</p>
<p>Sigh... Research before making statements like that, please? It's a scientific theory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science is something that is observable, testable, provable, etc. The theory of origins has none of those properties. While micro evolution is well proven, there is no evidence for macro evolution.</p>
<p>There is no proof that there was a primordial soup (and if there was, nothing could have survived long in those environments). There is no evidence that information is being added to the genetic code that wasn't already there (bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a loss of ability of the cell that makes it less susceptible to the antibiotic). There is no postulated hypothetical way that the Eye could have evolved, let alone independently at least twice (occurred after supposed branching of a species without eyes). Even if it was postulated, there is no way to prove that is the way it happened. Ergo, it is not science, but as much "faith and devotion" as any other theory of origin. Hence none of them can be considered "theories" in the scientific sense. They are all religious theories, not scientific ones.</p>
<p>In all the years humans have been breading animals, humans have not yet created a new family of animals. If it is so easy for macro evolution to do it by chance, it should be infinitely easier for humans to do it on purpose.</p>
<p>"There is no proof..."</p>
<p>The issue is not proof, it's theory. Evolution is just a theory, but it's the best one we have.</p>
<p>"If it is so easy for macro evolution to do it by chance, it should be infinitely easier for humans to do it on purpose."</p>
<p>Give it time. Evolution has had billions of years to work; human science is at the beginning.</p>
<p>I just hope most of us can get beyond this contempt for science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolution is just a theory, but it's the best one we have.
[/quote]
That is a belief, not science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just hope most of us can get beyond this contempt for science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not a contempt for science. "Origin science" is religion, not science.</p>
<p>After all, true science (observable, testable, provable, etc.) was created by believers in order to understand the hand of God better. It is taking science beyond that - into what is not testable, provable, observable, etc., that is what we have contempt for.</p>
<p>I am fascinated by big bang theories. As I recall, it is testable, back to the first 30 to 180 seconds. It still begs the question: How did the first 30 to 180 seconds happen. As I also recall, a lot of big bang scientists are starting to have their doubts about the theory. </p>
<p>The most secular nation on earth: People's Republic of China, has a lot of scientists that are seriously looking into macro evolution, and have serious doubts that the current theories are workable. At least they are willing to have an open mind about the "science".</p>
<p>The fossil record is the science being ignored. Scientists' believe that evolution is the best theory to explain the fossils. Creationists say evolution is not science, and have no scientific explanation for the fossils: "God works in mysterious ways."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fossil record is the science being ignored. Scientists' believe that evolution is the best theory to explain the fossils. Creationists say evolution is not science, and have no scientific explanation for the fossils: "God works in mysterious ways."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Creationist explanation for the fossil record: world wide flood resulting in catastrophic deposits of large amounts of sediment that buries animals alive.</p>
<p>Actually, evolutionists have a harder problem of explaining fossils. Just think about how they are formed. How is something expected to remain intact for the years it takes for sediment to slowly bury it? How many "young" fossils do you find? Why not? How do you explain a fossilized tree that spans millions of years of rock layers? How do you explain the fossils of one fish in the process of catching another fish; of nests with developing eggs in them; of animals with fossilized newly eaten prey in their stomach; etc.</p>
<p>Animals and plants are consumed and/or decay fairly quickly after death. It takes catastrophic events to bury them intact in order to give the fossilization process a chance to occur without some animal (including worms and bugs that live underground) or bacteria getting to it first.</p>
<p>"Creationist explanation for the fossil record: world wide flood resulting in catastrophic deposits of large amounts of sediment that buries animals alive."</p>
<p>The significant part is the record of gradual change over eons from, e.g., ape-like to human-like fossils.</p>
<p>The bigger question is why this one science is singled out for disbelief (except that we know it's because some think it contradicts the bible, due to a mistranslation of the original text) but other sciences are accepted. The same scientific method governs all the sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The significant part is the record of gradual change over eons from, e.g., ape-like to human-like fossils.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The significant part is that it exists at all. What are the conditions that permit fossils to form.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The bigger question is why this one science is singled out for disbelief (except that we know it's because some think it contradicts the bible, due to a mistranslation of the original text) but other sciences are accepted. The same scientific method governs all the sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because "Origin Science" is not "Science". You can't prove/test/observe/make predictions/etc. Origin Science. Hence it is a "belief" not "science". You can postulate all you want that life evolved on Mars first, and then moved to Earth when conditions on Mars become too harsh. But, until you have any type of "proof", it is just a belief (religion), not science. BTW: proof of micro evolution is not proof of macro evolution.</p>
<p>Perhaps only scientists believe that evolution is a scientific theory. That's okay!</p>
<p>The purpose of the Bible is to give us a way of life. It is a book of Faith, not science.</p>
<p>Operadad, I think you misunderstand many of the scientific concepts you are talking about. First of all, there is a widely postulated and observed theory for the evolution of the eye that is considered accurate by the scientific community. </p>
<p>Evolution</a> of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>In addition, most of the fossils we have records of were animals that were captured during natural catastrophies like earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, or tar pits. The reason there are not fossils EVERYWHERE and that the fossil record is incomplete is because these events rarely occur.
[quote]
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all you people spout off as “Evolution the Theory”. Well, there are many facts to back of this theory. Countless numbers of them. Not to mention that the study of geology makes the bible look like a well written tall tale. Scientist and other professionals are very careful when saying something is a law. It takes many years, a belief has to stand the test of time, and undergo countless criticism and critique by many educated professionals. But you however, go ahead believing in whales eating men, and the earth is 6000 thousand years old. That every living creature was put in a boat, male and female, and they somehow survived a huge flood, which carved the grand canyon, lol. But when you learn things such as carbon dating, faunal succession, plate tectonics and others, you quickly see that it is nothing but a mere wives tale. These so called believers always claim everything is black and white. Books such as the bible and others have no mention of evolution as a means of creation. The bible clearly states that man was created by god. Not the drunken madness running through a mine field that is evolution. I find it quite hilarious that Christians are so deranged they take what is the word and cannot even accept it for what it is. They look at science and then try to combine the two together. Listen, why can’t you just face reality. I rather someone tell me they believe the earth is 6000 years old and we were all created by a supreme god, than here people say that god somehow used evolution to create us. Well, doesn’t say to much for the god does it. I guess you have a logical explanation for all the starving people in the world too. How do you sum that up? Oh, they just aren’t good enough, or they are sinners. Please, go back to Sunday school.</p>