Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are thousands of kids in my city who finish high school and can barely read. It doesn't shock me that they may not have comprehended something like evolution.So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?
The 'Argument from Incredulity' - how refreshing; nice to see the old favourites still in use
Really???
I thought faith was that step you take when you venture beyond the evidence.
If faith is all about evidence, then you may as well just stick with scientific inquiry.
OK. So we need evidence AND faith.You need both, evidence plus faith. IMO Christianity requires faith whereas other religions require 'Blind' faith. Because I have evidence of A, B, C and D, i use that as my foundation to know that I am not committing intellectual suicide to take E, F, G, and H on faith. How much of an evidence to faith ratio do you need? This of course differs with everyone and it's why 2 Biblical/Archaeological/ANE historical gurus can know the same amount of data but come to different conclusions...how much evidence gets you to a point that you say to yourself 'This is beyond coincidental?' What is your evidence to faith tipping point?
Complicate it all with the argument people can have on whether or not that 'Evidence' of A, B, C, and D is actually legitimate evidence. Complicate it more with knowing that future discoveries may or may not vindicate current objections. Complicate it more with personal experiences as being a piece of 'Evidence' that has no weight in a data based argument...this is why I like that Blaise Pascal quote "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough obscurity for those who don't want to believe."
The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design. What is seen as a transitional can also be seen as natural variation with a species. What supporters of Darwinian evolution say proves evolution which is gradual changes through mutations and natural selection happens but it is limited to within species. So they turn that ability into evolution being able to make big scale changes beyond species. Whereas those who believe Darwinian evolution is false say it doesn't have the ability to make those big changes and there is no evidence. So believers in evolution will look for things that support the theory and only see things that support the theory. Those who dont support the theory will say that there is plenty of evidence that evolution isnt acknowledging that contradict evolution. So its a constant battle of interpretations.
You're wrong. The only people who think the evidence is open to that kind of interpretation are the same people who can't accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs, it is nothing to do with science or evidence.
Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....
The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.
You only have to read through the threads on this forum to realize that Creationist arguments are so weak they're laughable and they have to resort to repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum despite being shown it's wrong.
If you want to credit your particular version of God with creation, go for it, but please stop imagining that with nothing more than a casual interest in science and firm religious beliefs you can overturn a century established scientific research and endeavor.
I love quotes.Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....
The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.
Got the quote from here:Problem is,it was the publishers of the book,not Smalley him self that said that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley#cite_note-8 there is no link in wiki about this either..when it took place. Tuskegee University's 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents' Recognition Program
Even Nobel winners can be wrong at times..the prize does not make the winner infallible.
I love quotes.
Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley says it better than I could.....
"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."
Another one from a top chemist Professor Tours ...
"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard. I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you."
Everyone has a religious bias including evolutionist. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since living systems runs on both chemistry and physics so biologist can not totally ignore them.Thanks for proving my point.
As I said, the only stumbling block for accepting the realities of biology is religious bias, I notice Richard Smalley's a Creationist, that's a coincidence! I wouldn't necessarily ask a chemist or physicist about biology anyway. I wonder how many biologists are crying into their pillows about their wasted lives now he's dealt his devastating 'death blow' to the TOE.
Everyone has a religious bias including evolutionist. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since living systems runs on both chemistry and physics so biologist can not totally ignore them.
Tours has created nano-machines and knows just how tough it is to build them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?