The disprooveing of evalootion thread

what popthree said was 100% logical and worth taking some time to think about, and you reply to one sentence with "na". Youre beyond hopeless, and youre only 17 =\

 

Why does anyone believe there must be an either/or relationship between the scientific realm of physical phenomena and the theological realm of spiritual phenomena? Why should anyone have to "disprove" evolution in order for God to exist? Why do the extremists (on either side) insist so vehemently that only their narrowed "vision" of reality must be true? Can't more than one thing be true? Aren't Yin and Yang both equally existent and equally true?

Isn't it possible that the Big Bang is just another way of saying "Let There Be Light" . . . ?

 

according to campbell, the bible speaks in literal statements, theres no room for interpretation.

 

I think what he meant was that as of now, most/all scientists are living in their sin, and they like it, so the reason they won't give creation credibility is because they don't want to be accountable for their sins (they don't want to have to answer to God, which they don't believe exists)

Sorry if this isn't what you meant BTC...

 

yeah, probably
but i just had to get the whole "think before you post" thing out of my system
it's been there for a while...

 

religon is a crime

 

He's not beyond hopeless.

He's beyond the clouds!

( Duh. )

Well technically, NOT having a religion was punished in the past, especially by Christians. The non-religious are the real sinners here, for not believing in God, right?

 

That's exactly what I ment. This thread is going all over the place, and I want to get back on track with the following point: Evolution is impossible. A big point I know, but I'm saying that the basic process of evolution (one organism morphing into another one) is not possible. Mutations restructure DNA, but the mutations do not cause more net genetic complexity. Never has an animal shown to be evolving into another kind of animal. And I dare you all to throw that peppered moth example at me.

 

Creationists have used any one of thousands of different versions of the Bible to rationalize everything that their group has done since Paul started this new religion. The section about Noah's son Ham being sentenced to serve his siblings was long used to support slavery. The verses which laid the blame for the arrest, torture, and crucifixion of their Lord by the Romans on the heads of their defeated, oppressed, subjects, the Jews, has been used as motivation for anti-Semitic actions for millenia. The Bible has not only been used to defend noble actions... It's words have been used to defend injustice and intolerance too.
Some great scientists were Christians, and had no issue with accepting Darwin and God. And Darwin himself was clear that his theory was not the 'truth', and that he welcomed new data which would change or disprove his work. He knew that science is provisional, it is the best explanation based on the current data, and was bound to change as new data was presented. Since his times, scientists in many fields from chemistry, to biology, to genetics, have in many different instances, corroborated his theory. People have benefitted greatly from this work, for example in the area of agricultural pest control. Without the knowledge gained from expanding on his theory, crops such as wheat would not have been able to be protected from pests. So, the presence of bread on your table, thanks in part to Darwin's theory, is something to ponder.

 

What you are saying is the only thing that can be called a truly verifiable, observed and scientifically recored fact of life.

Its amazing to me how people (Evolutionist Fundies) will constantly pretend this is not worth talking about - then in the same breath demand 'facts'.
Fact: Evolution is Impossible.
By ANY defination it is not Scientifically 'Possible'.
Will some new evidence come along one say to change this?
Maybe?
Maybe some new evidence will come along and prove that Gravity can be reversed.. who knows.. Im not doubting that is possible!
Until then - what we do know is that, from a scientifc point of view, Evolution is Impossible.
(so far).

Thats fine if you want to 'believe' that somewhere in history all the rules were different and 'somehow' it 'was possible'.
Fine.
Hey..maybe you are right?
Just dont blame it on Science.

Plain and simple - Mutations do NOT cause a net gain in complexity.
Period.
Not only does it NOT happen..
Not only is any way known..
THere is not even a 'theoretical way' it can happen and even worse..
Almost everything known and observed or predictable tells us that the very OPPOSITE happens.
REDUCED Net Complexity.

Bottom Line: Evolutionists ARE onto something.. but they need to take the model... turn it upside down.. now turn it back-to-front.
OH!
Now it all makes MUCH MORE SENSE doenst it!
Bingo!

 

Well technically, NOT having a religion was punished in the past, especially by Christians. The non-religious are the real sinners here, for not believing in God, right?

haha yea

 

Well, when God gets some fruit flies to fuck and make a new kind of fruit fly, then breeds the new one into an entirely new breed altogether by breeding it with another mutant, you get something new. Maybe not entirely new, but different. Add up these differences over millions of generations and you have another thing. These differences accumulate.

 

That fruit fly post reminded me of some genetic engineering info.
If natural selection and the cross-breeding of same trait organisms over time leads to new things, well that explains alot about our veggies.
I remembered that brussel sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower are all hybrids, selectively developed from a single source plant, cabbage.
Evolution in action.

 

Neat.

 

But that's just rediculous! What makes him think scientists live any different kind of life than regular christians? It isn't like they eat babies in for breakfast or something. They live life no differently that any christian, except they don't pray to a god to forgive them for their misdeeds...but holding that against them is like a muslim having something against a christian for not praying to the east (which I am sure many do, and which is just as stupid). Basically he has a problem because they don't hold his same religious beliefs, which is not a good way to invaildate their science.

There is no reason to try to imply that they want to get away with doing bad things, and don't want to be accountable for their misdeeds, just because they don't necessarily hold the same religious beliefs that you do. (Not you specifically, Burby! It is a general statement.) I hate how religious people do this, it is a very frusterating quality many of them share - and a good reason for why I stay away from that whole crowd. Believe the way I believe, act the way I act, pray to the god I pray to, or you are a bad sin-loving person avoiding accountability! TOTAL BS.

 

The faith or absence of it is no measure of ones ethical conduct.
Isaac Asimov, sci-fi legend, author of over 400 books, was a pretty sharp-minded man. He was no fool, and my impression of him was that he was a kind, respectful, friendly fellow. He once said that he is not nice to people because he hopes to gain some post-death reward, but that he is nice to people in the hope that they in turn will be nice to, and he will live in a nice society. He was an atheist. And I admire him. His conduct from what I have seen, is impeccable. Even if there is a heaven, then I cannot see him being turned away. He was nice. What more can one expect from people?

 

"He was an atheist."

 

I see you echo my sentiments. I would be very surprised if he is still one. Anything is possible, though.

 

Isaac Asimov died in 1992. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_asimov)

Whether or not he was an atheist on his death bed,
He is certainly not an atheist anymore. He's dead. Dead men can't believe or disbelieve, or even choose a neutral stance of non-belief and non-disbelief.

Hence, he was an atheist, in the same way that he was a human.

 

am i the only one who finds this statement hilarious...

let me ask...if you were smart, would you still believe in creationism