Way is it?

That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

The evolutionists are wrong.....and the Christian creationists are wrong also, and this is why you both have your never ending battles.

Originally posted by Dasa
The evolutionists are wrong.....and the Christian creationists are wrong also, and this is why you both have your never ending battles.

So was there no creator?

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Because that's what ideological -ists do for their -isms when in conflict with another -ism's -ists.

Originally posted by RBHILL
So was there no creator?

Yes of course there is a creator........but it is not how the Bible presents it.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view?

Because we believe they are wrong. Surely that is a valid enough reason. At least most of us try to explain why we feel this way instead of resorting to insults. If you think you are right and I am wrong then explain why.

They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?
Why is being hostile 'ignorant'? Ignorant of what?
And no, evolution does not hold a key place in my world view. If evolution was proven wrong, it would not lead me to believe in a creator.

I heard something interesting the other day. As every generation passes the next generation has more mutations. We currently have tons of mutations apparently. If this idea is ran in reverse then man could not have been on earth for millions of years but more like 1000's can anyone validate or refute this idea?



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
I heard something interesting the other day. As every generation passes the next generation has more mutations. We currently have tons of mutations apparently. If this idea is ran in reverse then man could not have been on earth for millions of years but more like 1000's can anyone validate or refute this idea?



Manny

I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I will have a go.
1. A mutation is a change in a gene from the previous generation.
2. We can tell that a mutation exists if two people with a common ancestor have different genes.
3. Genes are responsible for much of the appearance and other characteristics of humans.
4. The differences you see between humans, even between two brothers are largely a result of mutations.
5. Mutations are an ongoing process in all species. No gene can truly be called an 'original'.
6. All this tells us nothing about how many years man might have been on earth. It can however be used to tell when we last had a common ancestor in the male line of descent of the female line of descent. There is no evidence that we had a common ancestor overall.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Their hostility has nothing to do with their non-belief in a creator. You have to understand that accepting an evolutionary process doesn't automatically translate to not believing in a creator. I think most hostility comes from a sense of not being taken seriously. For instance, if I learn through study that the human kind is mostly consistent of bacteria and you don't like that idea, so you just dismiss that as ridiculous, pointing out how we're so much more than just bacteria, I would naturally be annoyed. The facts are clear, but you refuse to consider them simply because they don't fit with your own idea of how things should be. In time, with enough discussions going down that same road, I might seem hostile, rude and ignorant from your perspective as I start losing my patience with you.

It always takes two to create a conflict, so it's likely you're not as innocent as you may think.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

just who created evolotion?

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Their hostility has nothing to do with their non-belief in a creator. You have to understand that accepting an evolutionary process doesn't automatically translate to not believing in a creator. I think most hostility comes from a sense of not being taken seriously. For instance, if I learn through study that the human kind is mostly consistent of bacteria ...[text shortened]... ys takes two to create a conflict, so it's likely you're not as innocent as you may think.

True that the Evolution Theory first propounded by Darwin is the one that convincingly explains the Origin of Man and many other concepts. It is also proved by fossils and other evidence. Unquestionably Darwin developed it logically although he had not much benefit of modern scientific advances such as knowledge about DNA,Genes,Chromosomes et al. The fossil data available to him was also not complete etc. A great achievement and a scientific breakthrough.
But is it infallible? Are there any grey areas ?
Many things in the development of human foetus as well as the sequence of giving birth in -say in vertebrates- gives rise to a possible Design in these things.
For example,the human baby is sent out to face the world without the skull bones having been fully joined. The gap at the top of skull gets covered by a bone/s after some time,with only a skin covering the brain at that location at the time of birth. Seems to me,a case of Fast Track Project Management i.e. as if it was decided that the present stage of bone development is good enough for survival and let the baby grow bones outside the mother's body.
Similarly the babies of humans-may be of all vertebrates- come out of the mother's body with head facing the exit i.e. allowing the new born to breathe immediately. Is it not good design ?

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Your statement is too broad. There are 2 factions who disagree with creationist. One is the atheist. The second one are evolutionist who do not believe creation science ( a misnomer as it is not science) as it is a religionist view should not be taught in schools.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Way not?

Originally posted by Thomas Lavery
Your statement is too broad. There are 2 factions who disagree with creationist. One is the atheist. The second one are evolutionist who do not believe creation science ( a misnomer as it is not science) as it is a religionist view should not be taught in schools.

Well, should not be taught in science classes. I have no problem teaching that crap in a religion class, even though it is pure propaganda aimed at increasing the already insanely bloated number of Christians on the planet.

Originally posted by RBHILL
That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view? They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view?

Correct. If a person does not believe in there being a God who created the Heavens and the Earth - then people who do believe in such an entity (such as myself) may appear to them as being irrational in their thinking, as it is impossible to prove that God does exist. At the very least, holding to such a belief appears silly.

They are always hostile: that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but a creator?

Incorrect. I have lots of discussions with atheists here and elsewhere without any acrimony. However rudeness is not exclusive to either 'believing' or 'not believing' - it is merely a flaw we all have and some of us choose to express it more often. Evolution will not be proven wrong because it is still theory not fact, when it comes to the claim “the origin of life”. Part of the concept of evolution is natural selection; natural selection is proven fact.

Until such time as it is possible to prove the existence of God then theists should wind their necks in a little and stick to the philosophical debate or demonstrate the fruits of holding to such a belief. Similarly until it is possible to prove otherwise, perhaps atheists should keep an open (albeit sceptical) mind on matters of the supernatural.