kadzbiz
..........................
Sunstone, did you mean fins to legs or legs to fins? The former I think you meant. Anyway, by the looks of the thread, it didn't seem to matter either way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Evolution?
- Thread starter Aasimar
- Start date
Sunstone, did you mean fins to legs or legs to fins? The former I think you meant. Anyway, by the looks of the thread, it didn't seem to matter either way.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
BTW, to those "unconvinced," what scientific model are you proposing as the alternative that better fits the evidence than the evolutionary theory to explain the diverse species found on Earth?
With a good understanding of each, I think you'd find that ravine small eough to step across. Back and forth.
That is just silly and superstitious and has no bearing what so ever on the question that has been asked. If you don't believe it why even bother to say it. And no there is no logic, wisdom, virtue or reason to even conceive of the idea that the 2 are compatible one is based on fact, science and reason while the other is based on a book written over 2,000 years ago, prejudice, speculation and blind faith. I was trying to keep the answer simple with my first reply if you want to know the facts I will be happy to post them but if you want to debate bring fact not opinion or belief.
McBell
Unbound
Oh, so you can provide compelling evidence that it is merely silly superstition?
If so, you will be the first in, what, 2000 years to do so.
No, I won't be the first, I'm banging my head on the wall with the rest of the people who have proved it over and over again in so many different ways and the best answer we get from the opposition is "but god said". How can you debate with someone that can't have an independent personal thought and put it into some form of a logical premise. Seriously quote Kant, Locke even Descartes but have a rational argument to put forth that can turn to a logical discussion.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
I created all life, but got lazy so I used the same bits over and over again. Then I got bored and wiped out animals who displeased me.doppelgänger;1032253 said:
Francine
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as micro- or macro- evolution, only descent with variation. Creationists are in effect saying, "Sure, I believe in erosion, it's happening in my garden right now, but only God could have scooped out something as big as the Grand Canyon."
kadzbiz
..........................
It is the law of our physical universe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet there is matter all around us and the "best evidence' (since you want to go the logical route) is that the universe is not static. That requires an explanation, I think. What is yours?
McBell
Unbound
Really?
And where does one find all this evidence that God is merely a silly superstition?
By propaganda war I refer to the cosmological and biological sciences. Both science and archeology began with a motivation to prove the bible true and the God of the bible real. This bias was obvious to all involved so a movement began to separate them from the theistic monopoly. With Darwin's theory of evolution, Communism found a philosophical foot-hold in the modern world and it was soon apparent that atheists had a bigger axe to grind than creationists when it came to the subject of origins. This drew a disproportionate number of non-religious to the field of science. Atheists were more passionate and were fortunate enough to claim the few great minds that only tend to come along every 20-30 years or so. By the 1920's - science and religion were at odds for the first time in history. For the next 50 years, evolutionary theory became pseudo-science and entered the public school system as fact throughout most of the western world. If you wanted to pass your college class, you did not dare to buck the system either. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Humphrey is the only creation scientist to come along in modern times to respond to the evolutionary propaganda with models that have proven accurate again and again.
The religions of the world have been infected with this bad science and I see it getting worse before it gets better (if at all). Most theists are just not that passionate about proving that they God they already serve, does not exist. Contrast this with someone who has no such allegiance and prefers to keep it that way.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
What you call a law of our physical universe doesn't seem to be so absolute as you think.
Scientists Use Light to Create Particles
Simply stated... the occurrences of gene duplications are too rare and volatile to fit the evolutionary models.
But here is what's next... evo-devo (evolutionary development theory). :bow: Macro-evolutionary biologist claim (with a great deal of experimental evidence behind them) that the content of the genome is not the primary determinant of identity; it is the epigenetic control system that decides how the genes are used. A surprisingly small number of genes ("tool kit genes) are the primary components for building all animals, and these genes emerged before the Cambrian explosion. That means the essential genes have not changed significantly over time, contradicting the central claim of neo-Darwinism.
I find one of the most interesting phenomenon in this movement is how evolution must wait for the next field of science to develop *before* it finds its next explanation.
Francine
Well-Known Member
Fortunately, evolution has learned patience in 4.55 billion years.
<*laughing*> How many years will it take for evolution to pick a story and stick to it?
McBell
Unbound
Not nearly as long as it takes religion to accept change.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Evolution is as "hard" a science as physics or chemistry, and has as much (if not more) evidence supporting its theories. We're a product of evolution, all life is a product of evolution. There are debates about the exact mechanics of evolution, like in any science, but that it occurred is w/o question.