Originally posted by grandslam842Read the thread and get back to us.
guys, God made this earth. IN evolution there is a lot of things where what people believe is what scientist "think". You really think that one little bacteria started and made this perfect world. How and where did this little bacteria come from. see these are some of the empty holes in evolution
Originally posted by grandslam842Okay, we've established you can cut and paste a previous thread.
guys, God made this earth. IN evolution there is a lot of things where what people believe is what scientist "think". You really think that one little bacteria started and made this perfect world. How and where did this little bacteria come from. see these are some of the empty holes in evolution
Now try telling us something interesting.
Oh, and see if you can think for yourself for a change.
Originally posted by grandslam842Why not go out and read a book on evolution. It's patently clear you have no understanding of the process, or the evidence for it. By the way, how is that empirical evidence for God coming along?
guys, God made this earth. IN evolution there is a lot of things where what people believe is what scientist "think". You really think that one little bacteria started and made this perfect world. How and where did this little bacteria come from. see these are some of the empty holes in evolution
Originally posted by grandslam842The very name you use - God - is a human construct that you've learned from others. We could've called this construct anything - Cheese for example, or Bob.
no it's put ther by God. I know it's hard to fathom
Now you know the name God, or Cheese, or Bob because someone's told you these things.
Maybe you feel this stuff deeply in your inner being, I don't know. But whether you feel it or not, the reality is that you have learned these things.
I'm assuming you're a christian.
So ask yourself, why am I a christian, and the guy in the next county/state is a muslim, or a buddhist, or a jew?
The answer? Your parents, your friends, your community are all christian. Now isn't that a coincidence, if you all just magically develop your beliefs why should a bunch of people that happen to live near you all share the same internally developed beliefs?
The only sensible explanation is that you share the beliefs because you learned them together.
Originally posted by amannionWhy bother with this little kids?
The very name you use - God - is a human construct that you've learned from others. We could've called this construct anything - Cheese for example, or Bob.
Now you know the name God, or Cheese, or Bob because someone's told you these things.
Maybe you feel this stuff deeply in your inner being, I don't know. But whether you feel it or not, the reality is ...[text shortened]... nly sensible explanation is that you share the beliefs because you learned them together.
Originally posted by telerionThere are many highly educated scientists, professors, etc. of all fields who have great insights into evolution, but “who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
If by creationists, you mean people who reject evolution, then please name one creationist who is a leader in his/her respective field. The top natural scientists all support evolution. I cannot think of a single prominent creationist or even IDer who is anything close to a leader in their field.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
I highly recommend the website below. It contains a press release about the Dissent list, a PDF copy of the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” list (link posted above), and “the arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
A press release regarding the dissent list provided by the above link:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
A few articles that have "the arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis" also provided by the above link (articles are easy to read):
(I don't think the "arguments [completely] unravel the Darwinian synthesis", but they could.)
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
“The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking.”
“Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely.”
Naturally, there is still not a consensus among scientists regarding aspects of both microevolution and macroevolution.
“According to:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
95% of scientists (and over 98% of "life and earth scientists" ) in the US support the basic tenants of evolution. (A minority, like biochemist Michael Behe, claim there is evidence of an outside "designer" ).
Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm
Anyway…
A very recent article that provides evidence for microevolution:
[New York Times, A15, December 14, 2006]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/opinion/14thu4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
A response to a Washington Post article regarding evolution:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/postresp.htm
I highly recommend reading the article provided by the above link if you have an interest in evolution, and seriously take into consideration to the response to the article (in red), and then post evidence that supports the arguments for evolution presented in the article and I would appreciate it.
The material presented in the website below is very interesting and thoroughly addresses evolution. Perhaps someone may have insight into the evidence and conclusions obtained.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Within this website, particularly:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity
And this, the bird-reptile transitions, is perhaps most interesting to me (and hence in the process of researching this thoroughly):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
Transitional forms, transitional forms – evolution is completely dependent on the transitions/changes/evolutions. 🙂 If macroevolution is true, we are accepting that every single minute transition would have occurred between all species. There are many factors which affect these transitions that may enhance our understanding of evolution, but in considering the authenticity of macroevolution, we only need to account that the transitions happened.
If the essential intermediate forms were in place, then yes, macroevolution would be an extremely viable theory after considering the irrefutable evidence of microevolution. But even if it is found to be true that all species evolved from a common ancestor, we are still no closer at finding the origin(s) of life.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001If you believe anything put out by either the Discovery Institute, a right wing evangelical *think tank* (although there is little evidence of them actually thinking about anything), and Michael Behe, a reasonable biochemist, but with little real concept about how evolution works (check out the court transcripts, when he was recently called as an expert witness - perhaps ammanion, twhitehead or someone would be kind enough to supply the case name) then you will never want for moonshine and fairy stories.
Here is a website that regards Darwin's theory.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm