I just keep getting reminded of the God of the Gaps reading this thread - just because science hasn’t proven something yet does not mean that it never will be. Putting God in just sets Him up for a fall 
[quote]rocksolid wrote:
Interesting reading the posts. So many evolutionists get militantly angry when challenged and assume that all creationists are idiots who have no knowledge of science and the scientific process. What it boils down to is that evolution is their religion and when they feel their religion is attacked they get very defensive, which is understandable. I get defensive if someone attacks my God too.
For the evolutionist, the concept of God brings with it too many uncomfortable feelings. If God exists, they will have to answer for their lives and admit that there is someone or something more powerful than they. In the evolutionist world, they are Neitzche’s Uberman and they answer to no one.
Bottom line, a belief in God makes them have to question themselves.
We will all find out when we die what the truth is. I for one would rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. If the creationists are right, and I believe they are, then we will all answer to our Creator one day. When that day comes you better hope you were on the right team.[/quote]
I am a christian, believe in god and think that evolution is a sound theory…evolution is NOT my religion…
so who’s team am I on?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
emember physics class, and Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics? The universe and everything in it, is in a constant state of chaos and constantly decreaasing order.
I’ll add that it refers to total entropy, and even though organization into life seems like a decrease in entropy, all living things, by living, increase total entropy.[/quote]
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to life on Earth as the Earth is NOT a closed system. It recieves the input of energy from the sun.
Can we talk about periodization now?
: /
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bonzi50 wrote:
ProfessorX Wrote:
"Actually, the alternative is more like:
- The Universe came into existance all by itself one day with a huge “bang” that no one really has proof of."
Actually, the Big Bang has been proven. Dr. Muller a Scientist at UC Berkeley has identified radiation expanding from the explosion nearly 15 billion years ago.
Sounds crazy but you can see and photograph the light from billions of years ago, all the way back in time to seconds before the singularity exploded.
I’m sorry, but the Big Bang is still a theory. It has not been proven yet to have happened as fact that the entire universe blew up from a single point of matter or antimatter. It also begs the question of what created that point of supercondensed matter that held the ability to create an entire universe.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but you can even debate the color of the sky but the excepted “theory” throughout all reputable academia is that of the big bang and regardless of whether or not you know or have heard that the radiation cloud has been photographed it is still more “proof” than anyone else can come up with any other ?theory?.
While we’re talking evolution (or lack thereof), I’d like to point out that there are other possible explanations out there, which are just as plausible–if not more so–than Creationism.
For example:
This website is making me question some firmly held beliefs. Maybe it can do the same for you…
Take the time to read it with an open mind.
[quote]
Computer’s don’t “evolve”. They’re designed and built. Let’s be careful with the metaphors. 
My point exactly; they were CREATED.
Well, yes, of course they were. Computers are not living things, they don’t self-repair nor self-replicate. They don’t adapt to their environment. It’s the watchmaker argument with a computer instead of a watch.[/quote]
The " computer" would be earth. The genes are trying to replicate inside of that environment just like computer viruses try to replicate inside of a computer.
I don?t even know if that is an analogy, digital information is digital information and in a certain environment, given competition, it follows certain rules. In the end that is was ET is all about.
[quote]bonzi50 wrote:
Excuse me, but you can even debate the color of the sky but the excepted “theory” throughout all reputable academia is that of the big bang and regardless of whether or not you know or have heard that the radiation cloud has been photographed it is still more “proof” than anyone else can come up with any other ?theory?.[/quote]
You now accept that it is a theory so what are you arguing about? Are you mad because it is still a theory?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bonzi50 wrote:
Excuse me, but you can even debate the color of the sky but the excepted “theory” throughout all reputable academia is that of the big bang and regardless of whether or not you know or have heard that the radiation cloud has been photographed it is still more “proof” than anyone else can come up with any other ?theory?.
You now accept that it is a theory so what are you arguing about? Are you mad because it is still a theory? [/quote]
I think his point is in science a set of ideas cannot be promoted beyond being a theory. There is nothing above the theory status. Saying that something is “still a theory” makes it a successful theory because noone could prove that it?s wrong. Yet.
If something is “still a theory” after 100+ years, it has survived a lot of attempts to contradict it. Saying something is “still a theory” is like saying “soandso is still only the reigning heavy-weight champion”.
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bonzi50 wrote:
Excuse me, but you can even debate the color of the sky but the excepted “theory” throughout all reputable academia is that of the big bang and regardless of whether or not you know or have heard that the radiation cloud has been photographed it is still more “proof” than anyone else can come up with any other ?theory?.
You now accept that it is a theory so what are you arguing about? Are you mad because it is still a theory?
I think his point is in science a set of ideas cannot be promoted beyond being a theory. There is nothing above the theory status. Saying that something is “still a theory” makes it a successful theory because noone could prove that it?s wrong. Yet.
If something is “still a theory” after 100+ years, it has survived a lot of attempts to contradict it. Saying something is “still a theory” is like saying “soandso is still only the reigning heavy-weight champion”.[/quote]
The creation of the universe is held to a 100+ year limit on how long you hold a theory before it is accepted as truth? Think about what you just wrote. The universe is older than our concept of time, yet you think that humans, who could arguably be related to only being here in a relative blink of an eye, understand enough of it already to believe that if a group of humans believe a theory for over 100 years, then that means it is truth?
Ridiculous.
It is a theory and no matter how hard you try, it holds no more “scientific” merit than intelligent design.
Beyond that, understand that many who believe in God are “scientists” themselves…including me. Believing in God does not make someone a scientific moron like it seems to be held by many in this thread.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bonzi50 wrote:
Excuse me, but you can even debate the color of the sky but the excepted “theory” throughout all reputable academia is that of the big bang and regardless of whether or not you know or have heard that the radiation cloud has been photographed it is still more “proof” than anyone else can come up with any other ?theory?.
You now accept that it is a theory so what are you arguing about? Are you mad because it is still a theory?
I think his point is in science a set of ideas cannot be promoted beyond being a theory. There is nothing above the theory status. Saying that something is “still a theory” makes it a successful theory because noone could prove that it?s wrong. Yet.
If something is “still a theory” after 100+ years, it has survived a lot of attempts to contradict it. Saying something is “still a theory” is like saying “soandso is still only the reigning heavy-weight champion”.
The creation of the universe is held to a 100+ year limit on how long you hold a theory before it is accepted as truth? Think about what you just wrote. The universe is older than our concept of time, yet you think that humans, who could arguably be related to only being here in a relative blink of an eye, understand enough of it already to believe that if a group of humans believe a theory for over 100 years, then that means it is truth?
Ridiculous.
It is a theory and no matter how hard you try, it holds no more “scientific” merit than intelligent design.
Beyond that, understand that many who believe in God are “scientists” themselves…including me. Believing in God does not make someone a scientific moron like it seems to be held by many in this thread.[/quote]
I did not say it was true. I said it?s the best we could come up with so far. In my understanding the scientific method is about acknowledging what you stated above.
Yes, we are only human. Yes, our scientific progress is painfully slow. Yes, we have held beliefs for hundreds of years that were completely wrong. A lot of todays ideas very likely fall into that category and ET might be one of them.
But that is why the scientific method is not about thruth. It is about inventing ideas and then ritually killing them. If one of them survives however, it is the best we came up with so far. Right now it?s ET. In so far I disagree that ID is as scientific as the ET, because usually it is formulated in a way that makes it unkillable aka unscientific.
I never stated that all religious people are scientific morons. I do know enough about the human psyche however to know that humans can reject anything they do not want to believe in. In the end I think I invest much less emotion in ET than most people invest in their religion, so who is more likely to be led astray by firmly held beliefs?
Last but not least, I do not think you are a moron of any kind, and you should know by now that I?m not shy to call someone a moron if I think he is one.
[quote]DPH wrote:
I am a christian, believe in god and think that evolution is a sound theory…evolution is NOT my religion…
so who’s team am I on?[/quote]
Half of you is going to heaven, the other half to hell 
The heavenly paperwork on that would take eons to sort out.
ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be disproven by scientific means. Therefore it has no place in a science class.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
DPH wrote:
I am a christian, believe in god and think that evolution is a sound theory…evolution is NOT my religion…
so who’s team am I on?
Half of you is going to heaven, the other half to hell The heavenly paperwork on that would take eons to sort out.
ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be disproven by scientific means. Therefore it has no place in a science class.[/quote]
And that’s cool with me. However i spoke to a few college students and they all are convinced that evolution is a proven FACT and no longer a theory. This is where i have a problem. The evolutionists are very zelaous in teaching their theory by skimming over the fact that this is still an unproven theory.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
DPH wrote:
I am a christian, believe in god and think that evolution is a sound theory…evolution is NOT my religion…
so who’s team am I on?
Half of you is going to heaven, the other half to hell The heavenly paperwork on that would take eons to sort out.
ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be disproven by scientific means. Therefore it has no place in a science class.
And that’s cool with me. However i spoke to a few college students and they all are convinced that evolution is a proven FACT and no longer a theory. This is where i have a problem. The evolutionists are very zelaous in teaching their theory by skimming over the fact that this is still an unproven theory.[/quote]
THERE ARE NO OTHER THEORIES!!!
NO SUCH THING AS A PROVEN THEORY!!!
So could we please get the “it?s only a theory” out of the way please? I?m sorry, but that argument says nothing about the theory in question, but a lot about the understanding of the scientific method of the person making that statement.
Claiming evolution is fact, is also kind of strange.
Have any of you pro-evolutionist out there ever studied statistics? Try it out and you’ll see how believable this all is. Oh yeah, the whole DNA thing doesn’t mean anything. Every species has DNA, that could also mean that every species had the same Designer or Creator. Chevrolet put the small block chevy in dozens of cars. Are you going to tell me that the Camaro is really the same thing as the Impala??? Since when do scientist believe things that they can’t prove or apply the scientific method too?
[quote]superpimp wrote:
Actually as far as evolution not being able to be proven, if you look at the African Elephant you will see that due to poaching more and more elephants are being born without tusks. This genetic mutation was found in 1/100 elephants but because paochers kill the elephants with the tusks the non-tusked gene is becoming more dominant.
[/quote]
There is so much crap on this topic I can’t even begin to list it all. But this one has to take the cake!
Yeh, sure, the genetic makeup of the elephant knows why it is being killed, so it’s adapting to it. Right!
Next, maybe cows will develop a mutation that causes their tissue to taste like crap so people will stop eating them!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beyond that, understand that many who believe in God are “scientists” themselves…including me. Believing in God does not make someone a scientific moron like it seems to be held by many in this thread.[/quote]
For a scientist, you sure seem to have a lot of problem distinguishing between hypotheses and theories, and show little understanding about how science basically works.
I’m starting to think that army doctors are to medecine as army cooks are to gourmet cuisine.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Beyond that, understand that many who believe in God are “scientists” themselves…including me. Believing in God does not make someone a scientific moron like it seems to be held by many in this thread.
For a scientist, you sure seem to have a lot of problem distinguishing between hypotheses and theories, and show little understanding about how science basically works.
I’m starting to think that army doctors are to medecine as army cooks are to gourmet cuisine.[/quote]
I’m not in the Army but have done gene research in Iowa. I understand how science works. I also understand it’s weaknesses. I feel sorry for anyone who bases absolutely everything they believe only in what can be shown directly to them.
[quote]DPH wrote:
I am a christian, believe in god and think that evolution is a sound theory…evolution is NOT my religion…
so who’s team am I on?
[/quote]
Everyone has the same evidence to work with.
Evolutionists have their script that they go by; the fundamental idea that man evolved. So they continue to test and re-test this hypothesis, which has never tested true. And yet they march right along as if it was true because they have no other hypothesis at the moment. Technically, this is not scientific as the scientific method demands that your revise you hypothesis once it is proven wrong. So since evolutionary theory is not consistent with the currently excepted process of scientific discovery, it must be based on something other than hard science; and that is; faith that it is true.
Creationists have their script they go by; the idea that man was created. This is based on a very old historical document and not on recent or modern theory development. Just like evolutionists, they can use the available evidence to support their position. They also cannot prove, using any modern means of scientific discovery, that man was created. So their position is also based on faith.
So with the lack of scientific proof utilizing the scientific method correctly, both theories have nothing more than faith to support them.
So what do you call a theory that has faith as its foundation? Religion!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DPH wrote:
Evolutionists have their script that they go by; the fundamental idea that man evolved. So they continue to test and re-test this hypothesis, which has never tested true. And yet they march right along as if it was true because they have no other hypothesis at the moment. Technically, this is not scientific as the scientific method demands that your revise you hypothesis once it is proven wrong. So since evolutionary theory is not consistent with the currently excepted process of scientific discovery, it must be based on something other than hard science; and that is; faith that it is true.
[/quote]
evolutionary theory has never been proven wrong…in fact fossil evidence (if it is to be believed) has shown that evolution does indeed happen…
evolutionary theory IS consistent with the currently excepted process of scientific discovery…
only the ID ‘theory’ needs a very literal interpretation of biblical faith as it’s foundation…
although I am a christian and firmly believe in GOD I do not believe that every sentence in the bible is literally true…
this leaves me open to believe in both evolution AND a christian GOD…