Desputing Evolution or the bible

wow
i guess i must be a creationist as i have never read Darwin’s book.
Weird.

ha, Darwin was wrong. :-?

I guess I’m a creationist too since I didnt read Darwin’s book, though as I’m explaining to mini_phreek right now, I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

evalotion all the way :D

@EmuGod:

I guess I’m a creationist too since I didnt read Darwin’s book, though as I’m explaining to mini_phreek right now, I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

i agree w/ EmuGod
also i understand that there were many inconsistancies w/ Darwin’s book, and there were also some lapses in scientific acumen.
Having said that, i wouldn’t read the book - at this point it would be like looking at a picture of a person with little labels pointing to the arms and legs after studying human anatomy. I’d be surprised if many scientists outside of some biologists and anthropologists have, actually.

@mini_phreek:

just becase you have not read Darwin does not mean your atamaticly a creationist just that you can’t have the total understanding of evolution.

There is way more to the evolutionary “theory” than what Darwin contributed. If the only thing you know about evolution is Darwin’s interpretation, I think you are misinformed.

@mini_phreek:

the main reson i belive in evoution is the fact that i can see it hapaning around me. i can see farmers selectivly breeding animals to produce variations. how come all domestic dogs are the same species but they look so much diferent? if god made man in his own image, why are we divided into seperate races each with unique fetures.

All that this shows is speciation. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information. In speciation, there is no new genetic information.

Darwin did not have all the tools for I to follow to his conclusions…

Keep in mind, Darwin wrote the Origin of Species over a hundred years ago.

yea, so was Marx’s Manifesto…

Can I be both an Evolutionist and a creationist? :)

No. :roll:

There is way more to the evolutionary “theory” than what Darwin contributed. If the only thing you know about evolution is Darwin’s interpretation, I think you are misinformed.

Right ! Darwin’s explanation is out of date, science change, now we use different tools to understand evolution. You does not have a full understanding of evolution just by reading “the origin of species”… but anyway it’s an interesting book.

I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

The important is that the two does’nt go along in school, creationism “should” be taught in religion, evolutionism in biology.

also i understand that there were many inconsistancies w/ Darwin’s book, and there were also some lapses in scientific acumen.

Darwin was the second grand evolutionist, you cannot ask a theory to be perfect in the first time. It was still a lot better than Lamarck’s theory. And now our theory are far more advance than that.

@TG:

No. :roll:

In fact yes. You can believe evolution exist, but with the guidance of an anthropomorphic being (some people really need that). It’s what we call “Old Earth Creationism”, but there is also “Yougn Earth Creationism”, it’s the belief that evolution does’nt exist, just creation, it’s base on Fixism.

Wow FinsterniS!!!
i think that’s possibly the most objective post i’ve ever seen you present. Also i tended to agree with most of the statements you made (to some degree - at least those that i know something about.

@cystic:

Wow FinsterniS!!!
i think that’s possibly the most objective post i’ve ever seen you present. Also i tended to agree with most of the statements you made (to some degree - at least those that i know something about.

It’s because we often speak of subject like God and thing i have a very firm position. But you will certainly not like the message i just write in “The end of the World” (or something like it).

@FinsterniS:

Right ! Darwin’s explanation is out of date, ….it’s the belief that evolution does’nt exist, just creation, it’s base on Fixism.

clap clap clap

@FinsterniS:

Darwin was the second grand evolutionist, you cannot ask a theory to be perfect in the first time. It was still a lot better than Lamarck’s theory. And now our theory are far more advance than that.

The reason Darwin’s version was considered better was because Lamarckian Evolution was proven to be false. The current “version” of evolution has not been proven to be false because it is unfalsifiable.

One thing people miss about evolution is that the theory does not predict anything. All it does is take the data and tries to explain it using a naturalistic approach. However, the only explainations it has been able to provide thus far is not scientific. Many of the explainations contradict other explainations, are tautologies, or are metaphysical.

Lamarckian Evolution in my opinion was science, because it made a hypothesis that was falsifiable. Evolution under this criteria of testability, is not.

The reason Darwin’s version was considered better was because Lamarckian Evolution was proven to be false. The current “version” of evolution has not been proven to be false because it is unfalsifiable.

That is as falsiafiable as the theory of the big bang. If you are able to refute every supporting evidence you will be able to refute evolution.

One thing people miss about evolution is that the theory does not predict anything. All it does is take the data and tries to explain it using a naturalistic approach.

Sure it’s a naturalistic approach, we cannot go and ask every shaman or priest what they think about X or Y. And it does make prediction (whales with legs, Darwin’s Finches, et cetera…).

However, the only explainations it has been able to provide thus far is not scientific. Many of the explainations contradict other explainations, are tautologies, or are metaphysical.

Like what ? There is nothign metaphysical about evolution. It’s a scientific theory base on indirect proof, fossils, embryology, vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, genetic.

Lamarckian Evolution in my opinion was science, because it made a hypothesis that was falsifiable. Evolution under this criteria of testability, is not.

His theory was base more on intuition than science, he said that “the need create the organ”, not that he was not a brilliant man, but i simply cannot understand how you can say he was scientific.