religion has a book written like thousands of years ago when man knew nothing other than sheer basics science has theory's and evidence and is changed frequently while religion stays the same. You tell me whats more credible?
That's been said several times. What I was saying earlier is that this is just thread is getting filled with repetitios posts.
lock this now plox the thread has proved one thing only science beats science and only religion beats religion. thread over lock it no ones beliefs will change and as such this is a pointless argument.-java
Evolution. I'm not going to even bother pointing out why... On another note; Three things create wars: 1. Money/greed 2. Power 3. Religion Imagine if everyone believied in evolution. Actually, I'll rephrase that. Imagine if everyone accepted evolution...
Watch the south park episode Go God Go Parts 1 and 2 ( South Park Studios ), they make an excellent point about what you just said. Humans will find reasons to kill each other no matter what, its just their nature.
I have to say... the same for Evolution for all its tests could be proven wrong.. later on... Which Doesn't mean its TRUe! Or for Nitrous position Fact...
But here's the thing: if evolution is somehow proven to be wrong, the scientific community would throw evolution out the window and happily incorporate the new information. But if religion is somehow proven wrong, or if it is somehow proven that God doesn't exist, religious people will not abandon their views. They'll say that it's just a test for true believers and that they still have faith. Science can admit when it is wrong, religion cannot.
^^^^^^^^ No religion does, they're just more stubborn about it. I think most religious figures accept that the earth is not the center of the universe.
What Earth isn't the center of the universe. What are you going to tell me next it isn't flat either. But seriously In my opinion I think God created everything, but why cant that mean he left it open for it to evolve on its own. I believe that is well within the limits of God to for see and to make happen.
This is a bit harder to get... But what has really Challenged my faith? Nothing has disprove God Exist... there is a chance of him not existing..but in the same line of thinking he can Exist... its just how you look at it.. we aren't arguing Fact which is my point Furious...its still saying the unknown which Again... is a point of view... Religon hasn't changed because It hasn't failed... maybe the people of faith Failed but what was recored...is right on the dime.. simply saying it doesn't change and it fails is horrible... its just like saying a kid who every one hates... saying I told you so... this was going to happen.. I keep saying it.. but you ignored me... that kid didn't need the facts he saw it coming... maybe from your point of view you couldn't understand it but also couldn't see the event possible... its kinda faith as well understanding... just to say something isn't changing is a fault is wrong... that would be a miss use of debate...its not backed up with any thing but miss understanding of history ...
I am a very passionate follower of science, but kinda feel I have to stick up for religion here. The idea of trying to argue the case of evolution using scientific evidence against a creationist is kinda doomed to failure, just as the argument is the other way around. Using scientific evidence as a basis for an argument seems pretty silly when a creationist doesn't believe in the scientific premise. You can't expect someone to be convinced by an argument when they don't accept its basic premise. The same is true the other way around. A creationist may use excerpts from the bible or from other religious writings/teachings as evidence, faith being the basic premise of the argument, and a supporter of evolution theory will never accept this as a premise, and so will never be convinced. Try to think of the opposite view as objectively as valid as your own. Obviously you perceive your view to be the correct one other wise you wouldn't hold it, but consider the minute perspective that any individual has on the universe. We have only our 5 senses to perceive the universe, and who's to say what we perceive within this universe is actually true? One christian statement that I've been told a few times is actually pretty astute here: It goes along the lines of - We cannot hope to understand why God has done everything that he has done, as God is fundamentally different from us, our minds (if God has a mind as we understand it) work in completely different ways and we have completely different perspectives, we are on different levels and so it would simply not make sense to us. Now, I don't believe in God, but I think this train of thought should be looked at by a few more scientists. Obviously you aren't going to consider it in terms of God, but think of the size, the timescale etc of the universe. Think of us as humans, finite minds that are not really objective, they are inherently linked with emotional response. From a truly objective viewpoint, one that accepts that we will probably never understand all of the universe as it actually is, science and religion are equally valid. Both require a trust in certain premises, be they the most basic scientific theories, or faith itself, both require a kind of belief. Each person follows religion or science (or sometimes a mix, as science is hardly a unified, take it or leave it idea) based on what is most likely to be true in their eyes, based on what they think and perceive to be truth and evidence. It seems pompous to think that your viewpoint is somehow more valid than another human, when you have the same basic perspective on the universe. You may disagree with them, but don't look down on them. So to all self righteous scientists who stand there as if holding a torch of truth and cry "Hurrah for Science!", looking down on all those who disagree with them, get a grip. Science is not a definitive answer to anythings, its not even meant to be one. It is merely a set of models that is supposed to provide as accurate a rendition of the universe as we need. Think of it like an equation that isn't actually the same as what its trying to represent, the process may be completely different from how we understand it, but if you put the right numbers in and get the right numbers out then its done its job. Take nuclear physics for example. Our understanding of the atom is that of a nucleus (of a rough size, we do no know exact sizes) surrounded by electrons. You've probably all seen the picture in a textbook somewhere, lots of little balls all forming one large rough ball, with tiny tiny balls orbiting around it. We know this model not to be the case, but it suffices when trying to harness the properties of matter so far. In fact, the edge of the nucleus is undefined and pretty hazy, there is no real border that we can find (I did try to cite this, but finding specific physics on the net is pretty difficult, I learned it in my A-level Nuclear Physics class). But the model suffices when doing our calculations and has done us well enough so far in discovering nuclear fission and fusion. The problem becomes clear when people study atoms for the first time. They say "what does it look like?" and there is no real answer. Nuclear physics is on a scale which we cannot perceive with our 5 senses, it just doesn't work in the same way at an atomic level. so we just try to imagine it in a way we can comprehend and absorb with one of our senses. Just remember that scientific theory isnt the be all and end all of the universe, it has proven to be wrong and will again. This links on to what Furious D 18 was saying about science, that when a theory is proven no longer useful in modeling the real world (not proven wrong, most theories accept that they are wrong in the strictest sense of the word), then it is abandoned or heavily modified. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the scientific approach, it has more scope for discovery than religion, which can hardly turn round now and say that God has changed his mind and its actually this way. Based on the evidence I've seen, what I've been taught so far and what I've looked into myself, I choose to think that evolution is the most likely solution in my eyes. The progression that the scientific theory gives just makes more sense to me and so, in a way, its a kind of belief. It is based on nothing empirical as I don't pretend to think that I have enough perspective on the universe to fully appreciate the facts and truth of it all, I just perceive them in an individual way and make the best decision I can based on that. Science is not truly better than religion, nor is religion truly better than science, each person follows their own path in this respect so don't have a go at each other when you can't resolve the argument in terms of science of religion. Its not the reasoning that they don't follow, its your basic premise, and this is one of those 'agree to disagree' kinda situations. Trite I know, but its pretty accurate.
I am tired of this people only see two sides evolution or no evolution they dont consider their own beleifs they say what they are taught in school and church and by their parents i dont beleive that half of you have your own opinions you have only the opinions of others how about this god created life and evolution what if evolution is another great gift of god you cant say evolution is a lie how do you know you people are soo stupid i just cant belive it
OMFG, this is still going on. Its the same crap, thrown back and forth. Someone talks about religion, is attacked by a few evolutionists, arguement begins, shot at religion how its close minded, some one gives their point of view on religion, and the circle goes on. This thread is so repetitious and predictable.
Anyone seen this yet? Fossil fills out water-land leap By Matt McGrath BBC science correspondent Scientists say a fossil of a four-legged fish sheds new light on the process of evolution. The creature had a fish-like body but the head of an animal more suited to land than water. The researchers' study, published in the journal Nature, says Ventastega curonica would have looked similar to a small alligator. Scientists say the 365-million-year-old species eventually became an evolutionary dead end. Counting digits About one hundred million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth, Ventastega was to be found in the shallow waters and tidal estuaries of modern day Latvia. According to lead author, Professor Per Ahlberg, from Uppsala University, Sweden, this creature had the head of a tetrapod, an animal adapted to live on land. The body, though, was fish-like but with four primitive flippers. "From a distance, it would have looked like an alligator. But closer up, you would have noticed a real tail fin at the back end, a gill flap at the side of the head; also lines of pores snaking across head and body. "In terms of construction, it had already undergone most of the changes from fish towards land animal, but in terms of lifestyle you are still looking at an animal that is habitually aquatic." Experts believe that Ventastega was an important staging post in the evolutionary journey that led creatures from the sea to the land. Scientists once believed that these early amphibious animals descended in a linear fashion, but this discovery instead confirms these creatures diversified into different branches along the way. Professor Ahlberg points to the discovery of a fossil called Tiktaalik in Canada in 2004. It is believed to be the "missing link" in the gap between fish and land mammals. Ventastega is a later species but is a more primitive form of transition animal. " Ventastega fills the gap between Tiktaalik and the earliest land based mammals. All these changes in these creatures are not going in lockstep; it's a mosaic with different parts of animal evolving at different rates. Ventastega has acquired some of land-animal characteristics, but has not yet got some of the other ones." For instance, the creature had primitive feet - but with a high number of digits. Superb sands "I would draw the inference that Ventastega probably had limbs very much like Acanthostega (another transitional species). These were little things sticking out of the sides, with a strangely high number of digits. You would have seven, eight, maybe even nine toes per foot, rather than five or so which you would expect to find in modern day animals," the Uppsala scientist explained. Unfortunately for Ventastega, a multitude of toes does not inevitably lead to evolutionary success. It eventually died out. Other creatures went on to become our very distant land-living ancestors. Scientists are delighted with the quality of these Latvian fossils, saying they are really well preserved. Professor Ahlberg believes it is due to some of the geological characteristics of the area. "This region has had a very quiet geological history since that time, and as a result the rocks have not been folded or squashed up to form mountains. "We still find sediments not yet properly turned to rock. These fossils were found in compact, wet sand. It's not sandstone, it's sand; you dig it with a breadknife. "Once you take it back to the lab very carefully, you can remove the remainder of the sand with brushes and needles. These fossils are fragile but superbly preserved. They are actually three dimensional, not flat. It makes it very easy to interpret the skeleton." Story from BBC NEWS: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossil fills out water-land leap Published: 2008/06/25 18:00:09 GMT © BBC MMVIII
That article just backs what embryologists and geneticists have known for years. People will still reject the find. It was a nice article nonetheless. Evolution, on this planet, is set in stone. Any new information will be incorporated to the system we currently use. There is no POSSIBLE way to overturn evolution, on our planet.
Alright ..seems like we are missing the point of where I am kicking the door down... alright I never said evolution was wrong as a whole I mean the theory of evolution has tons of finds tests and events that explain the changes of life over time ...but simply looking at all the facts shown in evolution do not disprove the bible.. I am not arguing evolution... I have agreed time and time again..It happens..its a fact it happens..as long as creatures are reproducing naturally they will evolve...NOW.. Science can be wrong... and thats again has been proven by earlier posts.. I don't think I need to say it again... but simply said..evolution can be wrong in some parts ... and in all said and done its a belief in a system which produces acceptable answers... So in the end your not getting around it... it proves nothing but its the trend of the case at the moment...