N
NinjaTurtles2
Guest
I believe that intelligent should be taught as an equal possibility to evolution or nothing should be taught at all. I do agree that Christianity is not science. I know it isn't, you can't test it but I don't think that you can test any kind of evolution except microevolution. If you haven't figured it out I am a christian and I think that there is plenty of evidence that shows that evolution is not probable. Here are a couple of my favorites feel free to respond. I do believe in microevolution though, for instance humans getting taller.
1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?
By this I mean that of all the tornados in the world and there are plenty, I live in tornado alley, you'd think that at least something, I just used the car as an example, would be made. There are I believe at least two tornadoes per day in the summer in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas alone!
2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?
3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.
What I meant by this is that in nearly every culture and religion there is a worldwide flood. Not a small localized flood.
INTELIGENT DESIGN: The study of who created the earth and how it was created.
NATURAL SCIENCE: The study of how the Earth came into being on its own.
Let's say a man is found dead. The task of the CSI people is to determine whether the man died of natural causes or was murdered. If the evidence suggests that he died naturally, then the question before the CSI guys is, "what caused him to die?" And if the evidence suggests murder, than the questions are, "who killed him and how was he killed?"
It's the same with the earth. Intelligent Design seeks to identify the creator and study his methods. Natural Science seeks to figure out how life came into being without creator. Evolution is a theory embraced by both camps, but primarily embraced by the Natural Science enthusiasts. Because of this, it is associated with atheism.
Science leaves many gaps. Theists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to some form of god. Atheists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to chance.
Neither the "god factor" or the "chance factor" are falsifiable (sp?), so one is just as "scientific" or "un-scientific" as the other. Both have a place in "science" because both are unproven theories with scientific elements.
There's a difference between teaching the possibility of Inteligent Design in schools and teaching religion. Intel. Design should be taught and explained in the context of, "nothing is 100% proven, and this is the theory that many people believe." Natural Science should be taught in the same manner. A child's education is not well-rounded unless he/she has been taught BOTH sides of the debate.
There is not one single piece of 100% verifiable indisputable evidence that indicates that evolution had to have happened the way many scientists currently say it did, and to state that true science does not search for a creator because there is not enough evidence to do so warrants the reply that there would not be enough evidence to support evolution had scientists not already made the assumption that their theory is accurate. Any observations made by evolutionary scientists is made with the assumption that evolution happened and whatever they find must therefore assist in its proof, which taints all of their research. True scientists approach the evidence without assumptions and with objectivity. That is something evolutionary "science" lost long ago. Working from what you've already said intelligent design is at least as much science as evolution is.
The Bible states that all life came from God and that he created everything and was done. No evolving. No new life. Nothing. Period. If you wish to debate this further I will start quoting. (My Dad's a former assistant pastor. Don't think you will win any kind of Biblical interpretation war with me.)
I have read books quoting the statistical probability that evolution happened. The only way one can be sure it happened is if you believe it happened. Read the books from which biology today is being tought. They do not even mention the possibility that anything other than evolution could possibly have happened. People evolved from monkeys which evolved from microbes over millions of years. End of story. All I would ask is that evolution never be treated as a certainty in the classroom and that intelligent design be at least mentioned alongside it. Even if only the first part of that were done without any mention of another theory except in the most ambiguous of terms then the situation would be worlds better than it currently is.
---------------
Also, gravity and evolution are entirely different so don't bring them up. Natural science assumes that no "Creator" was ever a factor.
But Natural Science also attributes a lot to chance, an equally unfalsifiable assumption.
---------------
What surprises most people is that the theory of Intelligent Design was created by former evolutionary scientists, not a religious group. They met to discuss their personal problems with Evolution and decided it had no real scientific basis due to life's enormous complexity, which led them to believe life points to a creator.
I've seen way too many arguments against evolution to believe it. Many of the complaints come from scientists. Evolution is, at its base, completely theoretical. There isn't one example of one species changing into another.
The white/black moths are an example of "microevolution", which the Bible has no problem with. Natural selection of already existing traits has been proven. The big problem is "macroevolution". Can these changes eventually make a new species?
For this to happen, new traits must be created. Evolutionists explain this is due to mutation.
But there hasn't been one observed mutation that has been beneficial to an organism. Most are harmful.
There's also the question of "Ireducible Complexity". A structure (like a bacteria's flagella) can only be produced by evolution if one part is evolved at a time. But it doesn't work unless all the parts are there, so natural selection doesn't apply.
There are different theories of evolution from my understanding.
One states that organisms gradually change at a steady pace over time.
Another claims evolution happens in bursts. There is a period of much mutation (like in X-Men), and then a period of stabilization in which nature selects the best traits.
Some scientists who rally against mainstream evolution actually claim to be evolutions, but not "orthodox" ones.
The biggest question is where are all the fossils? We find a bunch of skeletons of many species (especially dinosaurs), but nothing in between. Even Darwin questioned where all the missing links were. Evolution is, at its base, theoretical.
The only problem is, no one has try given an alternate explanation for the history of the world. There are many anamolies: Aztec drawings of a T-rex, the overwhelming history of a worldwide flood within all cultures (not to mention fish fossils found on mountains), and virtually everything that's being used for young-Earth geology. The reason people believe evolution is because anything else suggests religion and is therefore deemed unscientific.
-----------------
Here are some comments I think sum up the creationists standpoint very well can you refute it because it certainly "debunks" evolution.
1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?
By this I mean that of all the tornados in the world and there are plenty, I live in tornado alley, you'd think that at least something, I just used the car as an example, would be made. There are I believe at least two tornadoes per day in the summer in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas alone!
2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?
3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.
What I meant by this is that in nearly every culture and religion there is a worldwide flood. Not a small localized flood.
INTELIGENT DESIGN: The study of who created the earth and how it was created.
NATURAL SCIENCE: The study of how the Earth came into being on its own.
Let's say a man is found dead. The task of the CSI people is to determine whether the man died of natural causes or was murdered. If the evidence suggests that he died naturally, then the question before the CSI guys is, "what caused him to die?" And if the evidence suggests murder, than the questions are, "who killed him and how was he killed?"
It's the same with the earth. Intelligent Design seeks to identify the creator and study his methods. Natural Science seeks to figure out how life came into being without creator. Evolution is a theory embraced by both camps, but primarily embraced by the Natural Science enthusiasts. Because of this, it is associated with atheism.
Science leaves many gaps. Theists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to some form of god. Atheists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to chance.
Neither the "god factor" or the "chance factor" are falsifiable (sp?), so one is just as "scientific" or "un-scientific" as the other. Both have a place in "science" because both are unproven theories with scientific elements.
There's a difference between teaching the possibility of Inteligent Design in schools and teaching religion. Intel. Design should be taught and explained in the context of, "nothing is 100% proven, and this is the theory that many people believe." Natural Science should be taught in the same manner. A child's education is not well-rounded unless he/she has been taught BOTH sides of the debate.
There is not one single piece of 100% verifiable indisputable evidence that indicates that evolution had to have happened the way many scientists currently say it did, and to state that true science does not search for a creator because there is not enough evidence to do so warrants the reply that there would not be enough evidence to support evolution had scientists not already made the assumption that their theory is accurate. Any observations made by evolutionary scientists is made with the assumption that evolution happened and whatever they find must therefore assist in its proof, which taints all of their research. True scientists approach the evidence without assumptions and with objectivity. That is something evolutionary "science" lost long ago. Working from what you've already said intelligent design is at least as much science as evolution is.
The Bible states that all life came from God and that he created everything and was done. No evolving. No new life. Nothing. Period. If you wish to debate this further I will start quoting. (My Dad's a former assistant pastor. Don't think you will win any kind of Biblical interpretation war with me.)
I have read books quoting the statistical probability that evolution happened. The only way one can be sure it happened is if you believe it happened. Read the books from which biology today is being tought. They do not even mention the possibility that anything other than evolution could possibly have happened. People evolved from monkeys which evolved from microbes over millions of years. End of story. All I would ask is that evolution never be treated as a certainty in the classroom and that intelligent design be at least mentioned alongside it. Even if only the first part of that were done without any mention of another theory except in the most ambiguous of terms then the situation would be worlds better than it currently is.
---------------
Also, gravity and evolution are entirely different so don't bring them up. Natural science assumes that no "Creator" was ever a factor.
But Natural Science also attributes a lot to chance, an equally unfalsifiable assumption.
---------------
What surprises most people is that the theory of Intelligent Design was created by former evolutionary scientists, not a religious group. They met to discuss their personal problems with Evolution and decided it had no real scientific basis due to life's enormous complexity, which led them to believe life points to a creator.
I've seen way too many arguments against evolution to believe it. Many of the complaints come from scientists. Evolution is, at its base, completely theoretical. There isn't one example of one species changing into another.
The white/black moths are an example of "microevolution", which the Bible has no problem with. Natural selection of already existing traits has been proven. The big problem is "macroevolution". Can these changes eventually make a new species?
For this to happen, new traits must be created. Evolutionists explain this is due to mutation.
But there hasn't been one observed mutation that has been beneficial to an organism. Most are harmful.
There's also the question of "Ireducible Complexity". A structure (like a bacteria's flagella) can only be produced by evolution if one part is evolved at a time. But it doesn't work unless all the parts are there, so natural selection doesn't apply.
There are different theories of evolution from my understanding.
One states that organisms gradually change at a steady pace over time.
Another claims evolution happens in bursts. There is a period of much mutation (like in X-Men), and then a period of stabilization in which nature selects the best traits.
Some scientists who rally against mainstream evolution actually claim to be evolutions, but not "orthodox" ones.
The biggest question is where are all the fossils? We find a bunch of skeletons of many species (especially dinosaurs), but nothing in between. Even Darwin questioned where all the missing links were. Evolution is, at its base, theoretical.
The only problem is, no one has try given an alternate explanation for the history of the world. There are many anamolies: Aztec drawings of a T-rex, the overwhelming history of a worldwide flood within all cultures (not to mention fish fossils found on mountains), and virtually everything that's being used for young-Earth geology. The reason people believe evolution is because anything else suggests religion and is therefore deemed unscientific.
-----------------
Here are some comments I think sum up the creationists standpoint very well can you refute it because it certainly "debunks" evolution.
