Thread: Evolution vs Bible

Originally Posted by Stocky

Was Begbie talking to you or me? I thought it was me, hence the dates I was at Kingston, I'd already assumed you were probably still at your mother's tit

hell I only stopped that when I discovered Thai girls 6 years ago!

......would have you believe that evolution is a theory and that scientists
are divided about opinion on this matter....

THIS IS NOT TRUE AND THERE IS NO DEBATE AMOUNG SERIOUS SCIENTISTS!

^He is correct. The observation of change is true, however, how things change is still unknow.

I'm still bothered by the fact that seemingly random events led to where we are today.

That being said, I find it hard to believe that God has always existed and always will. I don't accept that. I don't accept what a human wrote in a religious book as a basis for living my life.

Why do other things in nature degrade (iron oxidizes, for example, to reach a state of equilibrium) but the purpose of life is to progress and upgrade (to become more complex)? Hows does one explain such a contradiction in nature?

Is evolution responsible for the desire to live? And why would some organisms have the ability to change the environment but most do not?

Evolution is considered to be fact.

By who?

Originally Posted by Bung

I mean there is scientific proof of it! It is proven that we are desendant from apes.

This is often misquoted. We are NOT descended from apes, apes and man have a common ancestor. They are two separate branches of the same tree.

Facts & Theories

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
- Stephen Jay Gould

Kerux: 99% of natural scientists accept evolutionary theory, what debate there is is over the mechanisms. If you wish to dispute this put up some evidence, your little animated gifs add nothing to the debate, they just indicate you're out of ammunition, in effect just a white flag!

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by BillyZ

Anyway, I'm an evolutionist. But there were some parts in the book that made me think, "How can this all be?"

I can see why creationists are so adamant that they are right.

That's theories (Darwin) that match evidence that's been found, and that same evidence.

lets be clear about something... I do not believe in the evolutionist vs creationist debate.

The scientologists would have you believe that evolution is a theory and that scientists are divided about opinion on this matter....

THIS IS NOT TRUE AND THERE IS NO DEBATE AMOUNG SERIOUS SCIENTISTS!

Darwin did not propose the so called theory of evolution! His work was about the mechanism of evoltution! Or natural selection. His work was not controversial. His mistake was to include a small section in his book that suggested Homo sapiens were descended from a common ancestor to the apes and monkeys - this is what upset everybody!

But I find that I have to go with proof. A few months ago, I posted a thread asking that if the two camps went to court, who would win?

They already did! (i'll provide the source of this later when I find it again, as I've just moved many of my texts and files are still packed away)

The Supreme court of America (i think it was this court) a number of years ago oversaw the case of something like Scientologists vs the rest of the sane world. Some of the witnesses included well respected scientists in all fields, major leaders from the worlds major religions (ie Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc)

Their findings......

Scientology (now remodeled as Natural Design but really we are talking about the Christian fundamentalists, or Bible literalists) was

NEITHER A REAL RELIGION AND WAS ALSO NOT A REAL SCIENCE!

Scientology = cult

Scientologists, Had their headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, USA. They were rejected by all christian faiths there.

Originally Posted by surasak

Hows does one explain such a contradiction in nature?

Randomness, cahos ? who said God had to be "order". It might as well be a complete cahotic mess. Would explain a lot of things even the contradiction in the Bible.

Most ancient beliefs are based on some kind of "ghosts", catastrophe gods etc... hardly the perfect being we are trying to describe here.

Kerux: 99% of natural scientists accept evolutionary theory, what debate there is is over the mechanisms. If you wish to dispute this put up some evidence, your little animated gifs add nothing to the debate, they just indicate you're out of ammunition, in effect just a white flag!

If 99% of scientists were to say that the earth is flat, would you accept that?

Majority rules now, when it comes to science?

Did you take a poll among every single scientist in the world to come up with your fighure?

And maybe my use is because I want to point out BS and don't necessarily have the time right at that moment to refute the BS, only enough time to flag it to warn others not to step in it.

Scientology = cult

Scientologists, Had their headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, USA. They were rejected by all christian faiths there.

Too bad there isn't a :truthflag:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

So, now Gould is transforming faith into fact.

Originally Posted by kerux

Kerux: 99% of natural scientists accept evolutionary theory, what debate there is is over the mechanisms. If you wish to dispute this put up some evidence, your little animated gifs add nothing to the debate, they just indicate you're out of ammunition, in effect just a white flag!

If 99% of scientists were to say that the earth is flat, would you accept that?

Majority rules now, when it comes to science?

Did you take a poll among every single scientist in the world to come up with your fighure?

And maybe my use is because I want to point out BS and don't necessarily have the time right at that moment to refute the BS, only enough time to flag it to warn others not to step in it.

I think you'd term that a strawman. 99% of scientist aren't trying to tell us the Earth's flat and if they were it would probably be because it was. As it happens I'm an earth scientist by profession and having studied the evidence for evolution and the theory of natural selection I am satisfied that this mechanism best fits the data we have. Perhaps you should do the same.

Let's see your evidence that evolutionary theory isn't accepted by the majority of scientists, or are you just going to hoist that white flag again?

kerux: You certainly fooled me, gotta hand it to you.

Your Godposts came to my notice when I returned online yesterday, and I must confess to having taken the early ones seriously, thinking you had staked yourself and was eager to state and defend your position, hopefully with a conversion or two, or at very least some angular thought by those who disagree with your beliefs.

Since, though, it seems you are little more than the proverbial resounding empty vessel, pulverising nonbelievers from all sides with nothing more profound than the usual snipes from the statutory blind faith boltholes, with the occasional contention such as, 'prove it!', thrown in to keep the opposition busy.


Consider: You have declared a rational faith and the onus is therefore upon you to respond coherently to fair enquiry, and in this way demonstrate your certainty in the existence of your biblical God, not on the evolutionists to undertake the absurd task of proving their negative.

Amen to that, brother!

Let's see your evidence that evolutionary theory isn't accepted by the majority of scientists,

Never said I could no more than I would say that the majority of people believe God.

Being in a minority doesn't make one wrong any more than being in a majority makes one right.

And it was the Christians arguing for a round earth, not the non-believers. Check your history you puffed up The Majority Must Be Right Society.

Scientists can prove how long it takes for something to fossilise and how long it takes for oil to be made.

Show us. Copy and pasting is okay. Back up your

Evolution: the fossil record; Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods by Michael Benton, Ph.D.

Kerux I bet you will be glad when you ban over on ajarn ends. you are taking a bigger hammering here than you did there and you were a bloody mess over there

No Allah, no God, no Bhuddah, and if you believe in ANY of them, then you believe in Santa Clause also.

Originally Posted by keda

The problem with each of the holy texts that rely on miracle, is that people tend to take them literally. Once this happens, they have no choice but to fall back on the absurd, or the ever present bolthole of blind faith.

When I once asked a respected religious figure about the scientifically provable age of planet Earth to the nearest billion or so years, he offered me a figure in the region of some 6000 years, though we may be confused, he added, because God had another universe up and running long before this one, but destroyed it because of Man's evil...leaving behind remnants, such as heavenly bodies, fossils, oil and other time-produced minerals, and other traces that tend to confuse the uninitiated.

I was taught by a bloke that had a Doctorate in Divinity.He never mentioned the "other" universe.Shame on him.

Originally Posted by kerux

Show us. Copy and pasting is okay. Back up your

yes please - i am waiting.... i have seen very little of anything u have backed up on this thread or any of the others.