Jump to content
31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The reason that there isn't 'free speech' in the scientific commuinity is because that you need to have solid evidence to support your claims. If I were to discover that spiders spin webs, and then come to the conclusion that it is because aliens caught them to (with no evidence to support these aliens) I too would come under fire.

 

Also, the video makes it out like evolutionary biologist believe that all of this happened on some random off chance. Really, if one looks into the probability of things, its actually quite likely for things to turn out the way they have. Intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is anti science. You don't start with an observation, you start with the conclusion that there is a God and work backwords to try to prove it.

Darwinism must require proof as well. Darwinism requires that the formation of the cell must be "taken on faith."

 

You say 'Darwinism' as if it is some cult like scientology.

You believe in gravity, do you not? You're adhering to the laws every day, anyway.

 

The theory of evolution is so well established now, there is very little evidence (if any) to doubt it.

 

I can't see how you say 'faith' is required for Darwinism or any scientific theory to work. Science is never about faith, but finding a way to deny faith and instill facts.

Gravitism? :censored2: I don't believe in gravity... (or was it something i smoked?)

 

The creation of the universe and the current science about it is severely lacking, so it is not contradicting that it was created (or not). Whether you believe the evidence of Darwin's theories (or any well known sciences) are as usual in the eye of the beholder, but if you want to deny it you should come up with some antithesis you should also be able to defend.

You say 'Darwinism' as if it is some cult like scientology.

You believe in gravity, do you not? You're adhering to the laws every day, anyway.

 

The theory of evolution is so well established now, there is very little evidence (if any) to doubt it.

 

I can't see how you say 'faith' is required for Darwinism or any scientific theory to work. Science is never about faith, but finding a way to deny faith and instill facts.

Sorry, but there is much more evidence to disprove evolution, than to prove it. And yes, to many Darwinism is blindly followed like a cult religion.

Many of us could go head to head, fact to fact....whatever to whatever till the end of time. But, have you truly looked at the facts with an open mind? Have you examined for your self? Many have in the past set out to disprove creation, and the existance of a loving God, only to come to faith in God.

I cannot tell you what to believe, I'll not even try. But I would like to suggest that you invest some time in seeking the truth, with am open mind.

As Ben Stein says in the trailer, "If you want to believe that, fine."

I just ask you and the others to offer the same to those who differ with you.

Kenny

BTW, if you have investigated the facts already, and are settled in your mind, great. But lets face it most people don't know why they believe what they believe anyway, on either side of the issue.

Sorry, but there is much more evidence to disprove evolution, than to prove it.

 

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution is God's tool.

 

Many have in the past set out to disprove creation, and the existance of a loving God, only to come to faith in God.

 

Very true. Ever heard of C.S. Lewis?

The reason that there isn't 'free speech' in the scientific commuinity is because that you need to have solid evidence to support your claims. You don't start with an observation, you start with the conclusion that there is a God and work backwords to try to prove it.

Well said :blink:

 

there is much more evidence to disprove evolution, than to prove it.

LOL :D The discovery of Gliese 581C and Gliese 581D all but prove evolution, which brings us to a question that will shoot down your religious theory like a brick. If evolution isn't true, then why is it that with billions and billions of planets, that only a handful can sustain life? (cue Jeopardy theme music) :D

 

In 2009 NASA will launch the Kepler spaceborne telescope which will prove evolution once and for all, just like it's been proven that the world is not flat :blink: Enjoy your religious propaganda while you still can :(

Well said :D

 

 

LOL :D The discovery of Gliese 581C and Gliese 581D all but prove evolution, which brings us to a question that will shoot down your religious theory like a brick. If evolution isn't true, then why is it that with billions and billions of planets, that only a handful can sustain life? (cue Jeopardy theme music) :D

 

In 2009 NASA will launch the Kepler spaceborne telescope which will prove evolution once and for all, just like it's been proven that the world is not flat ;) Enjoy your religious propaganda while you still can :whistle:

 

Wow, thay found a planet. Wow, it might have water. This may cause one to think or hope may at some time have been life there. But I don't get how it could prove evolution. Help me out, please.

 

The earth is not flat? ;) Can you give us a round about date for this discovery, with in say 20 or 30 years?

 

So far as "religious propaganda", evolution falls under that definition also my friend. Now let's play nice.

Kenny

Again, the question is: "If evolution isn't true, then why is it that with billions and billions of planets, that only a handful can sustain life?" Surely if your theory is right about what the bible claims and that's why we're here on this planet, then why can't God put other beings on other nearby planets? From your last response it would appear that you're either avoiding, or you simply can't answer the question posed to you. Is that true? :lol:

Expelled

After watching the preview, the movie might be interesting or it might be horrible. I think public debate would do well to start with the two-sphere idea--that science and religion are different spheres. Not that I like that treatment, but I do see the belligerents on both "sides" advocating intolerant religious views. And we could do worse than keep either religion out of science education. A lot of people miss that most science education is not science. Most of it is more history of science, and generally the books are well out of date.

 

Mr. Stein definitely seems to be painting the conflict as belief in "random chance" versus belief in a personal Creator, which will play well with conservatives. There are definitely those who believe in both indeterminism and a personal creator, and I am sure their numbers are growing. Being a liberal and conservative modern, I think belief in indeterminism/chance/probability is sloppy thinking--actually illogical--though it may occasionally work okay.

You say 'Darwinism' as if it is some cult like scientology.

You believe in gravity, do you not? You're adhering to the laws every day, anyway.

 

The theory of evolution is so well established now, there is very little evidence (if any) to doubt it.

 

I can't see how you say 'faith' is required for Darwinism or any scientific theory to work. Science is never about faith, but finding a way to deny faith and instill facts.

 

Darwinism IS a Cult. It meets every definition that defines cult practices. The same as Freemasonry.

Darwinism IS a Cult. It meets every definition that defines cult practices. The same as Freemasonry.

 

Perhaps it is a cult, but when it's true, it's not a problem.

Also, people who are darwinists don't stand in the street saying "God Hates {censored}" or "God Hates Sweden" (lol!)

Nor does darwinism promote anti-intellectualism, rather faith in an entity who not only shows no proof of existent, but also seems to hate all of America.

Perhaps it is a cult, but when it's true, it's not a problem.

Also, people who are darwinists don't stand in the street saying "God Hates {censored}" or "God Hates Sweden" (lol!)

Nor does darwinism promote anti-intellectualism, rather faith in an entity who not only shows no proof of existent, but also seems to hate all of America.

 

Anything followed without being questioned is a cult. Saying that the cell was formed out of "thin air", or "gene pool" is a cult. Something

as complex as DNA didn't come from any "gene pool". The darwinian theory stinks of cultism, and are the ideals of a mad man.

 

Your statement could be stated in reverse as well. Such as "{censored} hate God", and "Sweden hates God". There are a lot of {censored} out there

that do believe in God. So don't say that you speak for them.

 

Although, you cannot speak for anyone other than yourself, since other's speak for themselves.

Anything followed without being questioned is a cult. Saying that the cell was formed out of "thin air", or "gene pool" is a cult. Something

as complex as DNA didn't come from any "gene pool". The darwinian theory stinks of cultism, and are the ideals of a mad man.

 

Your statement could be stated in reverse as well. Such as "{censored} hate God", and "Sweden hates God". There are a lot of {censored} out there

that do believe in God. So don't say that you speak for them.

 

Although, you cannot speak for anyone other than yourself, since other's speak for themselves.

You are using a very wide definition of the word 'cult.' By what you are saying, most things would be 'cults,' including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and using Apple hardware.

(No offense to anyone who reads this, I am not saying that any religion is a cult.)

Anything followed without being questioned is a cult. Saying that the cell was formed out of "thin air", or "gene pool" is a cult. Something

as complex as DNA didn't come from any "gene pool". The darwinian theory stinks of cultism, and are the ideals of a mad man.

 

But the theory of evolution does not state that cells were formed from thin air.

There are several organic molecules (so called because they are the building blocks of life) that over time combined in numerous combinations to form genes, and ultimately RNA, DNA and cells.

Look at viruses - they were probably the first type of life.

 

At least the theory of evolution shows extensive proof, rather than then myth of creationism

Look at viruses - they were probably the first type of life.

Yes, scientist now have proof that this could well be how it all started, BUT this virus that they point out is not like any other virus, so people get confused when they hear that a 'virus' was the start of it all. A person needs a lot of logic to conclude that evolution happened, where as those who think that it's 'intelligent design' just need tradition and the ability to repeat myths.

×
×
  • Create New...