What's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"

[Twilight Hue]

Hello everybody

I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

It is persistent. The association of evolution with abogenesis.

Nobody seems to know why that is the case.

 

[gnostic]

Hello everybody

I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

Creationists opposed the concept of evolution, because they don't like the idea of natural processes, like human evolution.

Personally, I think creationists are ignorant, and worse, dishonest.

They preferred primitive superstitions that some deities had magically grown them from dust or clay.

That's not science.

Neither the bible, nor the Qur'an, are science textbooks, because the scriptures doesn't explain. And yet creationists will go out of their ways to twist verses here or there, and twist some science to meet the two match. That's shameless misinformation and propaganda, not science.

The main issue is not about origin of first life, but with creationists opposition human evolution, which started only a few million years ago, and us Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens didn't come from dust or clay, or even worse stupidity - from "nothing".

According to what palaeontologists have discovered, that the Homo sapiens are direct descendants of earlier Homo species - the Homo heidelbergensis.

And the Homo heidelbergensis is offshoot of older (species) still Homo erectus.

I think that creationists who think that modern human evolve directly from chimpanzees or monkeys, only showed they don't understand evolution, and in my book - complete idiots.

 

[Kirran]

Yes,I deny macroevolution,because it's does not proved.it's just based on theories/claims.

So the 99+% of biologists in the world who accept evolution fully are just foolish? It seems to me some old men in the mosques who don't know know what they're on about have decided it can't be true, and so everyone toes the line. Fortunately, more intelligent strains of Islam do exist.

 

[Godobeyer]

So the 99+% of biologists in the world who accept evolution fully are just foolish? It seems to me some old men in the mosques who don't know know what they're on about have decided it can't be true, and so everyone toes the line. Fortunately, more intelligent strains of Islam do exist.

Can you please try to avoid my religion or personal way,I just despise this low level of speech.

I suspect this is big lie and exageration.
I very doubt it's just evolutionists, not ALL 99% biologists.

All humans agree on microevolution (variations in same kind)
Macroevolution no.

 

[Godobeyer]

Creationists opposed the concept of evolution, because they don't like the idea of natural processes, like human evolution.

Big lie, and generalizing.

I do beleive evolutionists oppose the creationists for no reason.since evolution don't oppose creation in matter of origin of life.

Personally, I think creationists are ignorant, and worse, dishonest.

Same these apply on some evolutionists as well , in some degree. especially in origin of life.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Kirran 99% of biologists agree on macroevolution ?
Really ?

How do you knew that,by magic or by poll or vote ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Your denying macroevolution holds no weight.
Why?
Because you do not even know what evolution is.

Why should I accept theory as fact?

 

[Kirran]

Can you please try to avoid my religion or personal way,I just despise this low level of speech.

You get your requirement to reject evolution from the form of Islam prevalent within your society, I can't help but see it's relevant. If I caused offence with my wording I apologise but I stand by the point.

I suspect this is big lie and exageration.
I very doubt it's just evolutionists, not ALL 99% biologists.

@Kirran 99% of biologists agree on macroevolution ?
Really ?

How do you knew that,by magic or by poll or vote ?

Well if you're gonna call me a liar, I've got data here and here about scientists in general, as well as the general public. One found 98% of scientists accepting evolution, another reported 99.9%.

Additionally, this is only anecdotal, but I've worked as a biologist for over three years, and I've never met a qualified biologist who didn't believe in evolution. The only people in that area I've ever met who are fuzzy on human evolution are students who haven't been fully trained, and they were all of one particular religion. Many of them shifted their views as they were presented with the evidence, although often they'd avoid classes where they'd have to learn about evolution.

 

[Godobeyer]

You get your requirement to reject evolution from the form of Islam prevalent within your society, I can't help but see it's relevant. If I caused offence with my wording I apologise but I stand by the point.

I am not auto accept everything told me even by Muslim scholars.

Well if you're gonna call me a liar, I've got data here and here about scientists in general, as well as the general public. One found 98% of scientists accepting evolution, another reported 99.9%.

In case of 99% biologists accept macroevolution,you wrong and just exageration.

Additionally, this is only anecdotal, but I've worked as a biologist for over three years, and I've never met a qualified biologist who didn't believe in evolution. The only people in that area I've ever met who are fuzzy on human evolution are students who haven't been fully trained, and they were all of one particular religion. Many of them shifted their views as they were presented with the evidence, although often they'd avoid classes where they'd have to learn about evolution.

You did not work with some biologists,that not sample to apply on all biologists of world.
That's all about personal believer about macroevolution.

 

[Kemosloby]

99% of bioligists accept evolution. 99% of Catholic priests accept Catholicism. See how that works?

 

[Godobeyer]

99% of bioligists accept evolution. 99% of Catholic priests accept Catholicism. See how that works?

In term of theory of marcoevolution,I don't think so.

 

[Kemosloby]

In term of theory of marcoevolution,I don't think so.

Yeah that sounds as complicated as the pope talking about Macroeconomics, in Caritas en Varitate. encyclical of the Pope. I wonder if there's any connection between macroevolution and the popes macroeconomics. But I do know he recommends more pawn shops for us on the microeconomics side.

 

[McBell]

Why should I accept theory as fact?

I do not have the patience to go through this denial workshop with you.
Others have tried to explain it to you ad nauseum, but you refuse to learn it.

Now I understand that you are going to take it as a "win", which is sad, really.

 

[Godobeyer]

Now I understand that you are going to take it as a "win", which is sad, really.

It's theory
Finally I win

 

[Kirran]

I am not auto accept everything told me even by Muslim scholars.

Well that's good.

In case of 99% biologists accept macroevolution,you wrong and just exageration.

You did not work with some biologists,that not sample to apply on all biologists of world.
That's all about personal believer about macroevolution.

I showed evidence of the vast majority of scientists accepting evolution. You told me I was wrong. This is not discussion, you're not actually listening to anybody or aiming to learn anything,

Right, I know, that's why I said that part was anecdotal.

 

[Kirran]

This is why people get rude with creationists. The vast majority, sadly, do not listen, act condescending and then gloat.

 

[McBell]

It's theory
Finally I win

sad really.

 

[Godobeyer]

I showed evidence of the vast majority of scientists accepting evolution. You told me I was wrong. This is not discussion, you're not actually listening to anybody or aiming to learn anything,

Right, I know, that's why I said that part was anecdotal.

You didn't show any evidence, just claims 99%.

I just find it It's impossible that you count their opinion or their faith.

 

[McBell]

This is why people get rude with creationists. The vast majority, sadly, do not listen, act condescending and then gloat.

Don't forget the whining about the truth of their ignorance being mentioned...

 

[Godobeyer]

This is why people get rude with creationists. The vast majority, sadly, do not listen, act condescending and then gloat.

For my experience here,with you and some others, you (despite I gain some apologies) and others being rude many times with me ,just because I am in disagreement with you.