Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too ... See more
See more
See less

Evolution and Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by loseyourname You have still yet to propose an alternative. If there is no connection between old and new species, why are they so closely anatomically related? Furthermore, if point mutation and natural selection are not the culprits, how does speciation occur?
    Propose an alternative? Isn't it obvious what the alternative is? Creation. A finch is a finch. Adaptational differences don't make it anything else.

    As for close anatomical relationship, for all we know God was perfecting his creatures, creating one with the blueprint of the previous. Who knows, I don't claim to know, why does science assume it alone knows?
    Achkerov kute.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by loseyourname You have also yet to name a contradiction or a flaw.
      Well, my initial post to this thread should give you an idea, furthermore I'll be adding stuff when I return.
      Achkerov kute.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by loseyourname If you think science leaves no room for polemics, you don't know much history. Every single revolutionary scientific theory that has ever been formulated has been met with fierce resistance, in particular by religious organizations. Nobody within the mainstream scientific community questions whether or not evolution happened. The questions all lie in how it happened. Religion's place is to question why it happened.
        I meant "no room for polemics", not from a social point of view, of course, but for the science itself.
        This is to say: if there is a scientific point bringing polemics, then it is not (yet) a science. It becomes science when it is proven.

        Thks for the religion point, loose and sleuth, i didn't get that.
        Anyway, my point of view is different. I don't believe in this creation religious craps, but i still believe in God. And i'm wondering why. The fact is that faith is not as bounded to science as mentionned in this thread.

        Sciences tend to discredit religion, but as i said very early (badly) in this thread, the idea of God is natural when we look at mankind. Religion and God are definitely not the same things. At least, it's my opinion.

        Comment


        • #44
          note the terms which they use to describing evolution

          evolutionary dogma
          A scientific religion
          A satisfactory faith

          Man's world view


          As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it".
          I'm a monstrous mass of vile, foul & corrupted matter.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, my initial post to this thread should give you an idea, furthermore I'll be adding stuff when I return.
            Extend the timeframe and Gould's punk-eek looks exactly the same as Darwin's original notes. No one less than the staunchly Christian Norman Miller pointed this out.

            Comment


            • #46
              felizitation

              there are evolutionist scientists and creationist scientists. religion based on creationist scientists' theory or theire theory based on creation who is GOD...
              did u get that? geeee
              I'm a monstrous mass of vile, foul & corrupted matter.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by sleuth note the terms which they use to describing evolution

                evolutionary dogma
                A scientific religion
                A satisfactory faith

                Man's world view


                As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it".
                So, what about religion and faith ?

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by sleuth note the terms which they use to describing evolution

                  evolutionary dogma
                  A scientific religion
                  A satisfactory faith

                  Man's world view


                  As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it".
                  Whoever called it those things was an idiot. Evolution and natural selection are a theory to explain speciation. Nothing else.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by sleuth there are evolutionist scientists and creationist scientists. religion based on creationist scientists' theory or theire theory based on creation who is GOD...
                    Yes, the young earthers. Why don't you tell us more about them and their theory that plants grew legs and climbed to the top of the sediment accruement during the great flood?

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by sleuth felizitation

                      there are evolutionist scientists and creationist scientists. religion based on creationist scientists' theory or theire theory based on creation who is GOD...
                      did u get that? geeee
                      Ok, ok I get that.
                      What I was saying is that God is no more no less an idea, and religion attach to this idea material facts.

                      Gelor gelor ge tarnank ...

                      Comment

                      Working...