Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Why not? In terms of "random chance and natural selection" the gas stove would sure appear to be even more complex creature than a human being.

 

Since the assigned task is to prove the point to you, then you as adjudicator must render verdict, you may not dismiss my evidence without a hearing.

 

What you type so far doesn't prove that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science.

Next.

 

Only whole-hearted openness to the possibility that nothing is ever going to stay the same, that we live in a constant state of flux, is going to help our species mature. I don't see how denying evolution is going to help that. On forums we often get so defensive. How come nobody is open to hearing the other, but rather likes to play ego-games with one another ?

On the other hand, I would like to hear what you think and why. We both may have something to learn.

 

Thank you Lucy, for moving the goal post. The truth speaks many dialects. Every alligators head you bop will be mine.

 

Quite so. Antipathy teaches us nothing, solution is equal dispersal. I would hope that bright minds would continue on to crack the egg begets chicken begets egg problem. No question is more endearing to us than how we are. We are looking for a third coordinate that heretofore is occupied on every corner by some measure of faith.

 

Doesn't look like any evolutionist wants to answer my post. Shame too, it's perfect opportunity for them to show their mass of evidence...

 

I have not read the treatise, "Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution", do you have a copy that I may examine?

 

Can anyone produce any shred of relevant evidence and plausible argument to prove that Religious Theory of Darwin has anything to do with Science ?

 

I do not take any oaths, but there is truth to behold in any endeavor. Macro and micro are scales. Perhaps there is something to be gleaned from the economies of those scales. Gravity, the weakest force governs the largest mass. I have heard the relative distance of electron to nucleus compared to distance of planet to sun. How long does it take to bridge that gap between nucleus and electron from the macro perspective, the blink of an eye, perhaps near the speed of light? Perhaps a brilliant wholesale, improbable over geologic time, yet possible in infinity event can change a morphological process resulting again in geologic time, the appearance of an entirely new species.

 

.

 

How can we when you made it up and we cannot taste its' qualities?

 

.

:sifone:

 

Your goofy looking but endearing.

 

Transparency of who and what we are, in this present moment---humanity's most transformative apparatus!

 

I don't think I'd consider myself an evolutionist. Thinking about it, I've been raised on the idea and there is evidence for the universe being in a constant flux. And, honestly the more I study the more evidence there is across many disciplines. For instance, I found it amazing to know that after many generations of stars, new kinds of elements were formed that are the building blocks of life. Complexity over time. Astounding stuff really, that the whole universe, through generations of stars creating new kinds of organic compounds, and biological evolution which eventually we emerged from. It's quite a beautiful cosmology. Humbling yet enlightening.

Speaking of which, you know there are more middle-way theories on evolution and spirituality. Have you or anyone ever read Teilhard de Chardin? A Jesuit scientist and theologian. He had an unique conception of evolution, being God "super-animating" the physical world towards ever greater complexity, ever greater consciousness and Spirit.

At any rate, just thought I'd put a few words into the discussion. What exactly was your question? This is a response to your second-to-last post.

 

Here was the post I refer to. I've been encouraging believers in evolution to dispute it but as yet, no-one has attempted. I am awaiting all that evidence for evolution that so far no-one has bothered showing yet.

 

Actually, I want to make an observation of the types of people in this thread and the apparent "role reversal".

Most people expect those who believe in Creation to be very pushy in their beliefs, and saying "Either believe us without question or you are a moron." Instead this is what those believing in evolution are saying.

Most people expect those believing in Evolution to be very Science-savvy and have a grip on the evidence and proof of their theory. So far, no evolutionist has put forward any evidence backing up their statements.

 

If Darwin's theory is incorrect why do so many biologists believe otherwise, is it some kind of conspiracy to keep the truth at bay?

Are they all grossly incorrect and unable to see the points against evolution(?) that have been made in this thread?

Just for the sake of argument of course

 

I do not believe it is scientists who cover it up. I believe whatever fault there is to be assigned, should be placed on mass-media. Just like many other scientific theory, the public at a mass is told that evolution is fact, end of story and those who doubt "obviously" have some sort of problem.
Of course the opposite is still true. I disapprove very strongly of Christians who force the Creation story down children's throats and order them not to think against it.
Either way, I believe the problem lies with people too readily believing what they are told to believe and not questioning it.
And that's what creates the problems like I have seen in this thread. So many people without any evidence but claiming to have tons. Where are they getting all of this from? If it was truly their own research they would present it already. Because they don't seem to posses any actual evidence, my only guess is they are repeating what they hear in the media or from school.

Scientists on the other hand, many believe in evolution, many believe in Creation, and some believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters flying around. So yes, many scientists do not believe Darwin's theory is incorrect, but many others do. It all depends on who you talk to I'd suppose.