Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Renee Tahass]

That's like saying that no one rejects Christianity if they truly understand it because that would be irrational. Or better yet, that no one would reject ID if they really understood it because that would be completely irrational.

Those instances are imaginary so everyone should reject them.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh they have, ask the most eminent pseudoscientist that ever lived: Dawkins! Apparently something that is not even a proper theory is a"s close to being a fact as is possible to get!" If that doesn't mean proven true what does?

Wrong. There is a difference between a "fact" and "proof".

You claim to have a scientific background. With such junior high school errors in understanding, I very much doubt it.....



.

 

[Alithis]

What a strange thing for you to say when you know nothing about evolution, I say that because if you knew about evolution you would not say it is not true, you may not like it but evolution BTW is a fact.

its a fact you say that .. and thus ends the list of facts

 

[Renee Tahass]

None of those things establish the theory of evolution. A new species emerging is different, as a creationist would argue, from a whole new family of organisms emerging which are radically different. And yes, that would take many years to observe, it doesn't happen instantly, which is my point.

Am I right in thinking that if it doesn't happen instantly you feel justified in not believing it?

 

[Alithis]

Correction. Men said both things....


.

in your extreme biased opinion only .
in my extrem biased opinion atheists dont exist ..(& how did you get past my ignore list ?)back on it you go

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Am I right in thinking that if it doesn't happen instantly you feel justified in not believing it?

No, but seeing something in a lab, over whatever timeframe, is more convincing then making educated guesses about fossil records and genome similarities from the distant past.

 

[Mountainmike]

As far as I am aware the Chromosome 2 fusion evidence (as a mechanism for ape to human, rather than biologic possibility) is little more than conjecture, not least because the genomic material so produced, or even at the fusion site, is at best similar, not the same. But also the hooker...it needs two of these accidents to occur, be viable organisms for mating, and find each other to breed. You make it sound far more defined than it is.

Perhaps you should ask the opposition question, how did the higher numbers of chromosomes come to be, to allow a fusion. Surely the fewer number is a stage on route to the larger, not the other way round.

Fact is it is all conjecture. And even if a pathway is shown viable, is no demonstration it occured that way.

Oh, in the lab...?

Do you mean like the Endogenous Retroviral evidence we can observe in the lab....?

Do you mean like the fusion that took place in human chromosome 2 that we can observe in the lab...?

Do you mean like the cases of new species having emerged, that we have observed, both in the field and in the lab....?

That kind of science......?



.

 

[SteveB28]

None of those things establish the theory of evolution.

They are all examples of something that you said doesn't exist....evidence we can observe in a lab. And there is more.

A new species emerging is different, as a creationist would argue, from a whole new family of organisms emerging which are radically different.

Except that no two of you can agree on that. A creationist claims that new species cannot form. When it is demonstrated that they do, they change the requirement to the level of genus. Now, we see you demanding that "whole new families" should be observed appearing....!

Get your own house in order before you start questioning the genuine work being done in this field....!

And yes, that would take many years to observe, it doesn't happen instantly, which is my point.

I am so glad that people like you aren't responsible for solving crime.....!



.

 

[Renee Tahass]

its a fact you say that .. and thus ends the list of facts

You not accepting evolution means nothing but teaching children to reject evolution is unforgivable and should be considered to be abuse.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

They are all examples of something that you said doesn't exist....evidence we can observe in a lab. And there is more.

Evidence that actually proves evolution I have not seen.

Except that no two of you can agree on that. A creationist claims that new species cannot form. When it is demonstrated that they do, they change the requirement to the level of genus. Now, we see you demanding that "whole new families" should be observed appearing....!

Get your own house in order before you start questioning the genuine work being done in this field....!

Well ultimately we don't know. We don't know what level of genus is appropriate, the fact remains however that these large changes are not being observed.

I am so glad that people like you aren't responsible for solving crime.....!

Well yes that's my point. It's detective work, not lab science. It's investigating a crime scene, without any witnesses. Clearly this doesn't hold up to the same level of truth that observing something in a lab would.

 

[Alithis]

You not accepting evolution means nothing but teaching children to reject evolution is unforgivable and should be considered to be abuse.

yes and desiring to murder me off the planet to silence me for it and make yourself happy , is of course in your mind "not " abusive at all .. -

 

[Renee Tahass]

in your extreme biased opinion only .
in my extrem biased opinion atheists dont exist ..(& how did you get past my ignore list ?)back on it you go

Instead of facing the truth head on a Christians instinct is to lash out and yell.

 

[Mountainmike]

Wrong. There is a difference between a "fact" and "proof".

You claim to have a scientific background. With such junior high school errors in understanding, I very much doubt it.....
.

As a practicising scientist, I never cease to be appalled at the errors in both science and philosophy such as Dawkins make.
And I am poking fun at all those like him, who let their atheist faith, get in the way of science.

He describes evolution as a "theory" it is not.
He describes abiogenesis as a "hypothesis" it is not.
He makes Errors of simple scientific definition - and he uses the word proven , of things which are not even supportable statements, so direct your remarks to him not me.

 

[Alithis]

Instead of facing the truth head on a Christians instinct is to lash out and yell.

speak a truth and i will accept it

 

[Renee Tahass]

yes and desiring to murder me off the planet to silence me for it and make yourself happy , is of course in your mind "not " abusive at all .. -

Not at all, if you decide to believe something it's OK, why not allow children to enjoy the same freedom to choose for themselves as you had? of were you not given the choice?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

As a practicising scientist, I never cease to be appalled at the errors in both science and philosophy such as Dawkins make.
And I am poking fun at all those like him, who let their atheist faith, get in the way of science.

He describes evolution as a "theory" it is not.
He describes abiogenesis as a "hypothesis" it is not.
He makes Errors of simple scientific definition - and he uses the word proven , of things which are not even supportable statements, so direct your remarks to him not me.

What would you classify evolution as if not a theory? I was under the impression most if not all of the scientific community classified it as a theory.

And what is your field of study as a scientist?

 

[Renee Tahass]

speak a truth and i will accept it

Evolution is a fact.

 

[Alithis]

Not at all, if you decide to believe something it's OK, why not allow children to enjoy the same freedom to choose for themselves as you had? of were you not given the choice?

what freedom do you speak of ? the freedom to be herded into groups called schools like cattle and TOLD what is fact regardless of whether it is or not then socially bullied into submission to it ..- noo thats ,. not abusive at all .. -in your eyes

 

[Renee Tahass]

what freedom do you speak of ? the freedom to be herded into groups called schools like cattle and TOLD what is fact regardless of whether it is or not then socially bullied into submission to it ..- noo thats ,. not abusive at all .. -in your eyes

I was obviously right because it sounds as if you were not afforded the freedom to choose for yourself.

 

[Tull]

Just something else for people to argue about,i don't care how the world came to be,God said he created it and that's fine with me,my only concern is the fate of my soul,i don't care about the Universe or how it works or when it got started,one day I will know those things but for now I'm just trying to stay on that "narrow path"