What are the "facts" of Evolution?

[LuisDantas]

Creationism is also modern trend.

A sociological trend, true. Not at all a scientifical one, since it lacks (and will forever lack) evidence and credibility.

Creationism is essentially doomed.

How are we any different from people of ancient civilizations? . .

In many ways, including the fact that we ought to know better than to deny evolution, since we are so very aware of its reality.

 

[doppelganger]

Creationism is also modern trend.

Exactly. It's a reaction to something. What might that be?

 

[doppelganger]

Not true.
A couple of centuries ago creationism was the only game in town.

Not really. It wasn't really a scientific inquiry either before or after the Enlightenment. It's just a story that was handed down from generation to generation to give people a sense of belonging and purpose.

 

[painted wolf]

Not sure what atheism has to do with this.

I was merely pointing out that there was no justification for those claims, as I would have done with the same fervour if someone had, for instance, claimed that group selection is viable, or any equally unsupported claim.

Can we save the "religious justification" for another thread and stick to evolution?


wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not really. It wasn't really a scientific inquiry either before or after the Enlightenment. It's just a story that was handed down from generation to generation to give people a sense of belonging and purpose.

Fair enough.

Creationism, as in the opposition towards the Theory of Evolution is fairly new.
A couple of centuries ago though, creationism was simply implied since there wasn't much in the way of an alternative.

More accurate?

 

[doppelganger]

Creationism, as in the opposition towards the Theory of Evolution is fairly new.
A couple of centuries ago though, creationism was simply implied since there wasn't much in the way of an alternative.

More accurate?

Yes. Much better.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Can we save the "religious justification" for another thread and stick to evolution?


wa:do

By all means.
I wasn't the one who brought religious claims into this.
Again, I merely pointed out that they were baseless.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Exactly. It's a reaction to something. What might that be?

I think most Creationists are working to combine science with faith/religious belief.

 

[doppelganger]

I think most Creationists are working to combine science with faith/religious belief.

Does the scientific method call for assuming a conclusion based on assertion of belief and interpreting evidence and making all assumptions necessary to support this already established conclusion?

Is that even a prudent way of approaching faith?

 

[waitasec]

Does the scientific method call for assuming a conclusion based on assertion of belief and interpreting evidence and making all assumptions necessary to support this already established conclusion?

Is that even a prudent way of approaching faith?

wow i got dizzy reading that....



must be my hormones

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does the scientific method call for assuming a conclusion based on assertion of belief and interpreting evidence and making all assumptions necessary to support this already established conclusion?

Frubals to the person who can say that three times fast.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think most Creationists are working to combine science with faith/religious belief.

Most creationists mistake religious belief for science.

 

[Skwim]

I think most Creationists are working to combine science with faith/religious belief.

Most creationists work to suppress science with religious belief. Not all science of course, just the stuff that conflicts with their faith. It's pretty much a black and white issue with them. If there's a conflict then faith wins by default---ALWAYS! No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Facts:

What does this mean? How do we interpret this? . .

 

[waitasec]

What does this mean? How do we interpret this? . .

check this out...if you haven't already...
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...4-why-do-men-have-nipples-14.html#post2479483

post 135

 

[David M]

I'm not a scientist, but I don't see how anyone can deny the geologic column (if that's the right term).

There is no denying the geologic column, even if the claims that radiomectric dating is unreliable due to varying decay rates held any water that just means that the rocks would be younger than the dates we get, it would not change the facts that the rocks that date to be older than the ones above them would still be older. The absolute dates would change but the relative dating would be unaffected.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What does this mean? How do we interpret this? . .

Read from A-N. It shows a natural progression of early hominids to current day homo sapien.

This video should help. It's excellently done and lays the timeline out for you.

[youtube]sZ2WoHFc7eE[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Human evolution and missing links (Meet the family)‬‏

 

[fantome profane]

Creationism is essentially doomed.

Wishful thinking. So far creationism has shown itself to be completely immune to evidence, logic and reason. What do you think will spell the doom of creationism if these things have had no effect so far?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wishful thinking. So far creationism has shown itself to be completely immune to evidence, logic and reason. What do you think will spell the doom of creationism if these things have had no effect so far?

Time and alienation from the larger culture. Flatearthers and Geocentrists can't function in our culture, and I think Creationists will go the same way. I feel sorry for them. They can't even read National Geographic or watch nature shows on the Science Channel -- must less could one of them pursue a career in biology or some other hard sciences.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

How do Evolutionists explain how exotic birds got their bright colors? . .