Because people don't understand what they're talking about. But that's not very fair of me to say. The only person you can know is thy self and by saying they don't understand I'm making a judgment I'm not qualified to make, and by them saying babies and people who haven't heard of Christianity are atheists then I say the same thing. People deserve to speak for themselves, not to be spoken for.
No...in the act of saying people have the right to speak for themselves you are not speaking for them so its not a contradictory statement to make.
I haven't read through this whole debate yet so I don't know what's been covered. Anyway my biggest problem with evolution is the intermediate stages. Why don't we find fossils of those? They should be everywhere. There should be millions of them. The ones that I have seen claimed as these intermediate phases were either stretched way out of proportion or turned out fake. I just don't see any facts for it.
because they havent heard about God, He wants us to minister to those who havent heard the good news.and that is why so many Christians do things like missions trips to foreign countries to spead the word of God.
Transition The claim that there are no transistional fossils is an outdated argument that has been used by creationists for some time. There are many, many, transitional fossils. I think Nitrous posted a list of examples somewhere in this thread. Here's a video that will bring you up to speed on the scientific reality. You can also do a google search to find them yourself, but try and stay away from religious websites when looking for scientific information. Remember, science is not anti-religion. It is simply the search for truth through observation and experimentation. There is no underlying motive to disprove Creationism, only an urge to further our understanding of biological processes. The religious links(there are plenty of them), undoubtedly have an alternative motivation other than simply reporting the evidence they find. For some time now religious "scientists" have been bending over backwards to try and make the evidence found match their 2000 year old version of our origins. The more evidence found, the harder it is getting to warp the data. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY&feature=player_embedded
If someone has already posted this, damn! Straight from Wikipedia, the not 100% true website! The wide range of evidence of common descent of living things strongly indicates the occurrence of evolution and provides a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why life changes over time. Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. Evolution with common descent also provides the best explanation for a variety of facts concering the geographical distribution of plants and animals (biogeography), especially island biogeography. Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. ^^ Wikipedia ^^ If you can't read the highlighted, hold down right click on the mouse and mark the word. I believe in evolution. people are asking, "Why are'nt we evolving now?" We are not evolving now because it takes thousands/millions (possibly) of years for us to change one thing about the Human Body. What I have just pasted onto this comment is evidence in science. I am Christian for those who would like to know, yes, I believe in God, but not religions theory. I believe science has made us find out so much more about everything around us. The environment, Earth, space and a lot more things. In the old Testement, it is said God created the Earth in 7 days, while science has a theory that says the Earth was made by chunks of rock sticking together to form what we call Earth. Other than this, I'm only 13 and have not learned a lot about how the Earth was made in Sciences' full theory, I've learned about God and his theory in the old Testament however, but I'll go with Evolution on this debate. If your going to quote.reply to this message, make sure you read it all first. Source
That's blog material right there. I'll edit this post to a link to a blog, hopefully before the weekends out.
Wow I love how you include that Christians are trying to twist "science" to fit their veiws and non-christians are being the good guys and just trying to seek out the truth. There was no bias in that statement at all. I can't understand a word that guy is saying in the video he mumbles so much. That video wreaked of stupidity. They practically claimed they can't explain transitions only the results.
Re-read his post. He never even mentions the word "Christian" once. "Hey guy, it's implied that he's talking about Christians so shaddap." No, it's not implied; notice how maki referred to religious websites, not specifically Christian ones. Of course, all this is generally speaking. You'll also notice that on all legitimate science sites the intent of their articles are to inform you of a certain topic. It is never to put down a religious belief. I often find that when a religious site goes to explain a scientific topic, it strives to disprove it simply because it doesn't agree with their beliefs. Also, vestigial organs.
I'd like to say this I haven't read through any of this besides the past few pages but..if you look at this chart/image (Look at the right four) Humans on the far right) As Humans, Pigs, Dogs and horses develop when they are fetuses we look and share similar characteristics. Now? Where did we get these same characteristics? When we Humans are growing we have tails and gils Which we don't need and we grow out of those features. Strange we'd have them if we were not evolved from some kind of other animal that had to use those to survive? So I whole heartily believe in evolution even through the little gaps that make that trail dead..it still has Way more evidence for that being true than god... Oh and heres the thing that really annoys religious people off that I use. Okay so if god made everything and everyone one who made god? Exactly crushes that believe into the ground usually their response is oh well you just have to believe. Sickens me I tell you. Oh and if you couldn't tell I'm atheist so yup. Oh and sorry if I offended some of your religious people. (If I did)
That's actually very easy to answer. The Bible states God is eternal "no end, no beginning" plus if God were created it would be impossible for him to be God.
yes...God is the beginning and the end... and adelyss, you really sound like one of those people who are real jerks in life.
I believe religion is a tool leaders of oldworld civilizations used to control their people. It makes sense, and its a brilliant idea, If you truly believed there was an all powerful force over you you would definitely stay in line and not commit any crimes. People need to learn more about evolution to believe in it more. The fish that is a faster swimmer survives the shark attack and makes babiis that can swim fast. Thats why sex is good, because people who like sex have more babies, and those babies like sex too. Fear, The human that is afraid of the snake doesn't get poisoned and lives to make babies that are afraid of snakes aswell. We are still evolving, it is a slow process as you can imagine, and chances are the apocalypse will strike before humans evolve any further.
I don't understand how these two can stalemate eachother on this topic. As far as I know science has been for the pursuit of the scientific truth. Can you elaborate?
No, because the fact that science cannot fully explain Dark Matter is not tied to the rest of the knowledge that has been attained. However, God is the root of every religion. Now, that is not to say that he can be disproved by pointing out flaws in the descriptions people give him; but the descriptions themselves could be disproved. That is why I mentioned vestigial organs; if creationism is true, then why are there these remnants of organs that are no longer useful? (Diablo, I understand that creationism is not your view, but I am speaking to the others.) And consider the bones in a whale's flipper: Why would a whale need bones like these in its flippers? Why are they so similar to the "hand" bones of other species? What's with these homologous structures?
Because we didnt evolve from apes, and not all evolved the same way. This has been discussed already anyway... but, Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Darwin's studies on the galapagos island's showed speciation, that certain types of a species, that may have been similar, evolve to be different through their environment. Humans evolved from whatever our environment was, to adapt to it and survive to it. Apes evolved in a different environment, and so are different than humans, but come from a similar ancestor.
Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today. Another example is that of canines: Chihuahuas, great Danes and every other type of dog were bred from wolves, but there are still wolves in the world. And what breeders do deliberately can happen naturally: when a species splits into separate populations that cannot interbreed, these populations can evolve in very different ways. The emergence of a new species does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the old one, although in fact the apes we evolved from are long extinct - chimpanzees and gorillas are our cousins, not our ancestors.