How can you not believe in evolution?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by FNBrown


Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

So what is it then. It involves modification by mutation and selection of the phenotypic traits of the bacterium through...so, what is it. The cellular machinery of a bacterium is essentially the same as our own.

[Aeson]

It is if they didn't have it, and then their progeny did have it...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by FNBrown
The Theory of Evolution is just that... a theory. There are no facts to prove it.

Oh really?

Take fossil records for example. That is evidence... and micro-evolution. I am not to knowledable about science but there is certainly a hundred more things to prove evolution. Creationism is just completely built up a foundation of lies and contradictions.

How old is the earth? Some creationists say 6,000, some say 10,000 and some say 12,000 years old.

But they do not know they theory (creationism) has already been disproven by ice core driling that shows weather patterns from millions and millions of years ago... so how can the world be 6,000 years old when ice core evidence (which is infalliable) shows otherwise?

[Zero]

Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

correct. Its selection, not an evolution. But selection leads to an evolution in that species in the long term

EDIT: damn people respond fast... added in quote to reduce confusion...

[monkspider]

The bible does appear to be fallible, but that's okay. I used to be of the belief that it's absolutely necessary that the bible be entirely infallible. But I have realized that the existence of a fallible Bible necessitates the discovery of God's pure truths be saved for those who actively search them out.
Of course, that's not say that the Bible is hogwash. Quite on the contrary, it's a very sacred book. The overwhelming majority of which is inspired by none other than God himself. This fallible bible however makes it necessary that people not blindly accept whatever is the trendy dogma of the time, and actively search out the truth themselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by FNBrown


Name one contradiction.

The order of Creation is given differently within the first few books of Genesis. They couldn't even start it without a contradiction.

[Zero]

Originally posted by monkspider
The bible does appear to be fallible, but that's okay. I used to be of the belief that it's absolutely necessary that the bible be entirely infallible. But I have realized that the existence of a fallible Bible necessitates the discovery of God's pure truths be saved for those who actively search them out.
Of course, that's not say that the Bible is hogwash. Quite on the contrary, it's a very sacred book. The overwhelming majority of which is inspired by none other than God himself. This fallible bible however makes it necessary that people not blindly accept whatever is the trendy dogma of the time, and actively search out the truth themselves.

And you think science at its current state is infallible?

Im a believer of science, I have to admit. It takes faith to also believe in science. Tfaith comes from our ability to trust our senses, logic and math to lead us to the truth. Who said those things arent fallible anyway?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Isn't accepting something is true the same as believing it to be true? Symantics, I suppose!

You could say I'm just playing with symantics but I would argue that its a matter of degree. I might believe that god exists (for example). That type of belief requires no evidence. On the other end of the scale I accept that atoms exist i.e. that their existance is a 'fact'. But to me that too is a belief, but it is a belief that I can test in a scientific manner. Somewhere in the middle are ideas such as relativity that are far beyond my expertise to truly test and that require my belief in others expertise and opinion.

[Giancarlo]

I am also a believer in science, but science must be questioned to. Science isn't infallible but it provides a better reason to the order and processes of the universe than religion or the belief in god does.

[Zero]

The contradiction within the bible is quite irrelevant. Whether God exists or not, or whether God gave a message to some prophet to write the bible, it is ultimately written by a man. Man who is suceptible to lies deceit and exaggeration. To point out that this writer made a contradiction within his own writing does not prove/disprove the existance of God.

[ayronis]

Originally posted by FNBrown


Name one contradiction.

Genesis 1:25-27, Humans are created after the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-19, Out of the ground God forms each animal and brings it before Adam to name.

How could Adam name the animals as they were created if he was created after them?

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


So what is it then. It involves modification by mutation and selection of the phenotypic traits of the bacterium through...so, what is it. The cellular machinery of a bacterium is essentially the same as our own.

So, you're saying that over a process of millions (billions?) of years, said bacterium, given the proper environmental stimulus, will eventually evolve into an intelligent bipedal life form?

[Boris Godunov]

Science IS always questioned, that's what makes it science. Peer review isn't rubber stamping, you know.

Creationists hold to a dogma they view as unquestionable because they take on faith it is God's doing, and questioning God is not allowed. That's why it's not science.

However, Creationism doesn't stand up under scientific observation. Evolution, so far, has. Ergo it is a scientifically valid theory, Creationism is not.

[Giancarlo]

Evolution also has been updated numerous times (based on new findings) since its discovery by Charles Darwin.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fez
I am also a believer in science, but science must be questioned to. Science isn't infallible but it provides a better reason to the order and processes of the universe than religion or the belief in god does.

I dont think science is necesarily a "better" reason. To me that sounds like someone who already believes in God telling me God is a better reason.

If you beleive in God, you expect God's will to answer the mysteries within this universe

If you believe and trust in your ability to observe and reason, you expect your reasoning and observations to answer the mysteries within this universe.

Different approach. same result.