Should we reopen the book on Evolution?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by flabengal, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. LSUGradin99

    LSUGradin99 I Bleedeth Purple 'N Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    475
    flabengal,

    Woudl you be able to believe that evolution is God's process of creation? As opposed to the very simplified version of creation that we read about in the Bible?
     
  2. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Sure, God could do it that way if he wanted to. I just don't think the evidence points in that direction.

    To sum up my position:

    -Evolution and Creationism are the only two explanations available.

    -For atheists to be correct Evolution MUST BE TRUE.-If Evolution is untrue then the atheists must admit they have no plausible explanation for Life without a Creator.

    -Because of the position they are in atheists will push the Evolution theory and "cook the books" in their favor. I don't believe that scientists are the only human beings that are incapable of corruption.

    -So the question is whether there is evidence that the "experts" or in this case scientists have in fact cooked the books and I believe there is plenty of evidence that this does take place.

    Examples:

    -Scientitst- Global Warming

    -Sociologists- The Idea that Men and Women are essentially the same and gender differences are a result of socialization.

    -Financial Realm- The Treasury is committed to a strong dollar.

    -Government Bodies- The Warren Commission; 9/11 Commission; The Federal Reserve

    -Medical Field- Abortion is not the killing of an unborn child (obviously it is).

    Religious- Anglican Bishops say homosexuality is not against Christ's teachings.

    Athletic- SEC Office says the refs are correct regarding Peterson interception. (Sorry Bama fans, just an example. Webster also should have been flagged against Bama a few years back in Tiger Stadium.....oh well...)

    Judicial- The Supreme Court legislating from the bench. This is completely unconstitutional. The Congress should make the laws.

    just some examples to clarify the point. Experts and authorities are not exempt from human failings and corruption. In fact, the more power they have over others then the more likely it is that they become corrupt.
     
  3. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    mostly creationist science tries to poke holes in evolutionary science.

    man existed with dinosaurs. nessie and some strange aquatic animal caught by jap fishers 40 yrs ago prove it.

    carbon dating is inaccurate because it is based on the speed of light. einstein was wrong because the speed of light is not constant, it used to travel exponentially faster so the earth really is 6000 yrs old.

    the "firmament" was a layer of water in the atmosphere that protected pre-Noah people from more cosmic rays and explains why they lived 900+yrs. the firmament doesnt exist anymore because it came down in the flood.

    blah blah blah

    so this explains it. heston caught some monkey (excuse me, chimpanzee) virus that caused him to go crazy and cling to guns and religion.

    "www.conservapedia.com" youve got to be kidding!

    if you are going to suspend reason to believe in a god then why not suspend it to believe in any and everything?
     
  4. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Not to be an ass here but I think that is one of the most flawed things about this board. I don't understand how you think whether or not a statement is true depends on the speaker.

    A scientist says that global warming is true. A truck driver says he thinks global warming is untrue and is an excuse to charge him more money to drive his truck.

    The globe warming is not dependent upon these two people. Either it is or it isn't. Period.

    I don't understand your objection to the info I posted previously. Is it true or not? Do you want me to find a nicer sounding website? Are you telling me the Piltdown man was not, in fact, a fraud?

    You people need to stop bowing down to the secular authorities...they are no better than the religious authorities. Think for yourselves.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Ohhhhh . . . I see . . . . :grin:

    Well, we were discussing evolution, which is a scientific issue. You seem to want to introduce some sort of religious element. Good luck with that.

    But it's just a religious concept, not a scientific theory. There exists no scientific evidence for a Creator or for supernatural processes (not magic, you understand :wink:).

    I'm not an atheist and I'm not making a case for atheism. I'm making a case for the validity of evolution as a scientific process. I waiting for you to make a scientific case for doubting evolution.

    Who says? Let the Supreme Being speak if we are to accept divine intervention instead of pursuing the scientific method of studying a phenomenon. Or provide proof of this intervention. Saying "it was the will of God" does not constitute proof.

    Science believes that it is incorrect. In any case the topic is about evolution and again, this is being confused with the origin of life. Why don't you finish making your case for evolution being wrong before moving on to abiogenesis.

    Of course you may assume there is a supreme being, but this is a matter of faith. In a scientific argument, divine intervention, miracles, sorcery, supernatural transformation, and other forms of magic must be supportable under scientific scrutiny, just as any other process.

    As an agnostic, I do not deny that God may exist and that there might be a supernatural Creator. But if true, we have no way of knowing it and have no idea what God expects from us, if anything. We can only pursue knowledge using the brains we have been provided with to find what answers are relevant to us. Evolution is the result of a very long and thorough search for answers about the facts we have discovered and are still discovering.
     
  6. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Well, science is about the material world. It would be hard to test the immaterial world using material tools.

    Also, regarding the supernatural processes I think they have done some experiments regarding the ability of people to pray and affect the material world. If I can find it wouldn't that be evidence of the ability of immaterial things to affect the material?

    My point hinges on the idea that there is an immaterial world.

    And regarding the origins of life and evolution, I think that the one totally depends on the other. If evolutionary theory can't explain the origins of life then isn't the theory dead in the water?

    Also, regarding evidence directly contradicting evolution what about the polonium?

    bbl
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Let me reiterate once again. THIS STATEMENT IS SIMPLY FALSE.

    Transitional fossils exist in abundance for most species. Far more than enough to prove that evolution has happened and is happening. Only when one examines the earliest, long extinct species, when the fossil evidence is so sparse does one find it impossible construct a complete transitional sequence. But on more recent species, this is no problem at all!

    To suggest that evolution must be incorrect based on the rarety of million-year-old fossils is scientifically dishonest.

    Transitional fossil evidence

    List of transitional fossils

    Vague suggestions of mistakes and corruption do not obviate the preponderance of clear scientific evidence supporting evolution. List these mistakes and corruptions for us, please, and explain how it precludes evolution.
     
  8. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Red:
    Was Piltdown Man a hoax or not? Are there known hoaxes still published in textbooks? You are more involved with this than me....I assume this is part of your walking around knowledge.....

    link:

    Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation - Conservapedia
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    It's a hypothesis. And the fact that it cannot be tested is its major flaw, as is its blythe assumption that divine intervention "must" be responsible. It's why I call it magic, not science.

    [​IMG]

    They have done much professing of their faith, but no scientific supporting evidence.

    If you would only give your supporting evidence, we could discuss it.

    I keep asking you to make it. i knew it wouldn't be easy.

    If this is an argument for creationism, it is a pathetic one. You fail.

    Sorry, I'm not going to conduct a discussion with a linked article. Make your case and utilize these for supporting evidence if you wish and I will agree with you or dispute you as seems appropriate.
     
  10. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Piltdown man is not a very good example. It was always questioned and scientific scrutiny is what exposed it as a hoax. It did not fit with the evolutionary theory of the day, and that was recognized immediately after its discovery, and what led to its exposure as a fake.
     

Share This Page