Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 258112 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
Without wanting to seem... out of place - aren't we getting a little bogged down on one specific study. Shouldn't we move on and debate/discuss other studies performed by both sides of this argument?
What about the evidence for evolution of species and subspecies, etc. showing that, for example, although all types of bear are different in size and colour as well as environmental adaptations (showing that natural selection does happen) - there is proof that they came from a common ancestor. Now, you can't deny that part of the Theory of Evolution can you? So open up your minds a little bit. Try and see things from a more scientific perspective. It is hard to conclusively prove evolution - if only because it is a process of adaptation and change that takes millennia to even become apparent. But looking at the overwhelming degree of evidence that does point to/connect to the idea of evolution. Denying it would be an act of futility.
@Yielee
What is wrong with the idea of old world creationism or theistic evolution? Neither would effect our beliefs as Christians and neither would go against science. Sure evolution isn't a perfect idea and requires some amount of faith but doesn't Christianity as well?
Without wanting to seem... out of place - aren't we getting a little bogged down on one specific study.
I think you may be right we are getting a bit to bogged down on a specific study.
What is wrong with the idea of old world creationism or theistic evolution?
I would dispute old world creationism as being false. Theistic evolution basically is just saying God created life then evolution took over or God nudged evolution. debating this aspect really gets more into being more of a debate on the existence of God then the actual theory itself.
While the first part would be debating an entirely different theory. The second one of God nudging evolution comes across as seeming a bit like taking credit for holding an automatic door open.
Neither would effect our beliefs as Christians and neither would go against science.
If the belief is that the Bible Genesis story is entirely true and not just a moral story it would have some effect, otherwise your right.
Sure evolution isn't a perfect idea and requires some amount of faith but doesn't Christianity as well?
No evolution doesn't take faith just evidence. Really got to stop trying to put science and religion on the same platform. They aren't really comparable.
No evolution doesn't take faith just evidence. Really got to stop trying to put science and religion on the same platform. They aren't really comparable.
You missed the point. You can no longer say that evolutionism just relies on evidence. Mothman showed us that the belief of the evolutionist doing the experiments is what determines their conclusions. That's because he had so much faith in evolutionism that he changed the evidence.
You missed the point. You can no longer say that evolutionism just relies on evidence. Mothman showed us that the belief of the evolutionist doing the experiments is what determines their conclusions. That's because he had so much faith in evolutionism that he changed the evidence.
Again with the evolutionism, NOT AN -ISM
And again it was with the scientific method that the flaws were caught and are being worked to be corrected. So yes I can say it's not based on faith but evidence.
With the Kettlewell experiments he had them artificially on tree trunks. Current research has since show there true resting place not to be on the trunks but on the branches of the trees.
âWhen Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus studied the natural resting sites of peppered moths in various parts of England, they concluded that âexposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for any form of B. betularia.â In 1987, British biologists Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield confirmed Mikkolaâs observations that âthe species rests predominantly on branches.... Many moths will rest underneath, or on the side of, narrow branches in the canopy.â
Cyril Clarke research only turned up one of these moths resting on trunks naturally, however later studies indicate they do rest on trunks showing as much as 25-37% of them doing this.
So while we could dismiss Kettlewells experiments as evidence for it's flaws, further research still is pointing to the findings to basically be correct.
Observation: the peppered moths changed color as the trees were darkened. There was an overwhelming number who did this in the areas that were effected.
Hypothesis: they did this as an evolutionary response to there environment.
Test Hypothesis: tests turns out that this is correct.
Further testing finds flaws in original conclusions that the change in tree color should not have had effect on the moths.
Even further testing finds while the trunk change was not necessarily a heavy influence,they do have a common resting place in trees.
Anyway as Avorne said this is really getting bogged down with plenty of other examples that can be used. So for the sake of argument lets just say your right and non of the peppered moth evidence is valid.
We can still point the the nylonase which wouldn't have even been able to exist before the invention of nylon.
Avornes example of bears.
On a more practical level, the fact we have to keep developing new flu vaccines. If it wasn't for the viruses ability to adapt and change we wouldn't need new vaccines.
Changes needed to be made in pesticides. Many insect become immune to pesticide mixes over time through the processes indicated by evolution.
Since I have gotten on the subject and have shown practical applications for evolution, what practical application does creationism have?
Observation: the peppered moths changed color as the trees were darkened.
Hypothesis: they did this as an evolutionary response to there environment.
Test Hypothesis: tests turns out that this is correct.
This would be Lamarckism. Are you saying that evolutionists revert backwards to outdated and rejected beliefs whenever it comes under scrutiny?
You can't have it both ways.
No evolution doesn't take faith just evidence. Really got to stop trying to put science and religion on the same platform. They aren't really comparable.
*Sigh*
Are you a molecular biologist? No. Then your putting your faith in those who are and who are doing the experiments. Also I'm sure you know the odds of abiogenesis (it's not evolution whatever; you believe in it :P) yet alone the odds of the evolution of a human life form. The number is nearly more than the predicted number of atoms in the universe; it's astronomical.
Again with the evolutionism, NOT AN -ISM
He's right the school of thought is called Darwinism and not all evolutionists subscribe to the idea.
This would be Lamarckism.
Actually epigenetics has shown that Lamarck wasn't completely wrong. I'm sure you can google up a wikipedia article or something.
No evolution doesn't take faith just evidence. Really got to stop trying to put science and religion on the same platform. They aren't really comparable.
On the contrary when we look at the idea of intelligent design (AKA creationism) we find some strange things, and so we have certain ways to look at science and religion in the same light. Some of the best scientists are one's who follow a creed
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein
I would like to thank Acid for this quote. I really exemplifies how I feel on this entire issue
Are you a molecular biologist? No. Then your putting your faith in those who are and who are doing the experiments.
I don't need to have faith in the scientist to be able to review the experiment and findings.
Also I'm sure you know the odds of abiogenesis (it's not evolution whatever; you believe in it :P) yet alone the odds of the evolution of a human life form. The number is nearly more than the predicted number of atoms in the universe; it's astronomical.
Considering recent findings the odds seem pretty good. And where are you getting those odds from?
On the contrary when we look at the idea of intelligent design (AKA creationism) we find some strange things, and so we have certain ways to look at science and religion in the same light.
Like what? I've yet to see anything valid from this.
Some of the best scientists are one's who follow a creed
But it's not the hunches we rely on but the experiments proving those hunches.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
He was basically just saying that ones inspiration ca be derived from religion.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.-Albert Einstein
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
I don't need to have faith in the scientist to be able to review the experiment and findings.
Because clearly nothing proposed by Scientists has ever been proved wrong. You consistently deny any faith in anything but your wrong like legitimately your objectively wrong.
Considering recent findings the odds seem pretty good. And where are you getting those odds from?
Here
I'm curious what recent findings?
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
Faith much? I think so.
Because clearly nothing proposed by Scientists has ever been proved wrong. You consistently deny any faith in anything but your wrong like legitimately your objectively wrong.
I never said they are never wrong.
I'm curious what recent findings?
As I've pointed out a number of time the experiment that created an RNA molecule using compounds found on Earth under similar early earth conditions. The findings indicated that such a formation would have been quite easy. This planet was filled with just such material. It would have been unlikely that life didn't form.
Scientists are wrong, or at least missing information, most of the time. That is why science is based mostly upon theories - theories can be improved, rewritten and retested. I don't see what this fact and faith have to do with each other. Faith is a trust in something - you don't have to trust a scientist to review their findings. if the findings can be repeated and proven over and over again - then they become reliable findings and whatever information those findings present is passed forward. If the findings are not reliable and can't be repeated - then they are discarded as false or tested in later years to see if the findings are accurate.
Scientists are wrong, or at least missing information, most of the time. That is why science is based mostly upon theories - theories can be improved, rewritten and retested. I don't see what this fact and faith have to do with each other. Faith is a trust in something - you don't have to trust a scientist to review their findings. if the findings can be repeated and proven over and over again - then they become reliable findings and whatever information those findings present is passed forward. If the findings are not reliable and can't be repeated - then they are discarded as false or tested in later years to see if the findings are accurate.
faith:confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
Quite.
As I've pointed out a number of time the experiment that created an RNA molecule using compounds found on Earth under similar early earth conditions.
Haven't been active on this thread mind linking me?
Thread is locked!