How can you not believe in evolution?

[Zero]

Originally posted by FNBrown


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?

I think ur underestimating the amount of time you have stated over there....

[Giancarlo]

Calc, I think I worded that incorrectly. Science provides me with a better idea of how the universe works whereas creationism does not. Also I don't think there is a god. That is why I am atheist. So you are right on the trusting of my ability to observe and reason.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by FNBrown


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?

I am not even going to answer that question as it is so oversimplified...it depends on the environment and selection pressures involved, but there will be change in a varied environment. What the end point after such a lengthy time depends on the environment...well alright, I did answer the question...more concisely, there is no reason why it wouldn't.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Calc II
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.

The existence of God isn't the issue, it's the scientific validity of evolution versus the validity of the Biblical account of Creationism. The Bible can't even keep its own ducks in order, much less stand as scientifically valid against evolution. Since Creationists rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible for support, saying it is the infallible word of God, even one demonstrated contradiction shows it is indeed fallible. A fallible source sans scientific support is no basis for a legitimate theory.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by ayronis



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?

The first chapter of Genesis gives a summary of the events on all six days of creation; the second chapter provides more details of certain events of the sixth day.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I am not even going to answer that question as it is so oversimplified...it depends on the environment and selection pressures involved, but there will be change in a varied environment. What the end point after such a lengthy time depends on the environment...well alright, I did answer the question...more concisely, there is no reason why it wouldn't.

So why haven't years of scientific laboratory experiments produced anything but stronger bacteria? I'm not over-simplifying anything - I'm just asking a straightforward question.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by FNBrown


The first chapter of Genesis gives a summary of the events on all six days of creation; the second chapter provides more details of certain events of the sixth day.

That doesn't explain anything.

One account gives a precise order of the creation of animals and then man. The second account gives a precise and opposite account. The only way you can say one is not precise is by playing the kind of symantic games that make a literal interpretation of the Bible impossible anyway.

[ayronis]

Originally posted by FNBrown


The first chapter of Genesis gives a summary of the events on all six days of creation; the second chapter provides more details of certain events of the sixth day.

That doesn't change the fact that Adam cannot both be created after the animals, and name the animals as they are created. It is a contradiction because only one of them could have happened.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by FNBrown


So why haven't years of scientific laboratory experiments produced anything but stronger bacteria? I'm not over-simplifying anything - I'm just asking a straightforward question.

Do you have any idea of the temporal difference between even a hundred years and a BILLION years? It's an enormous difference.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The existence of God isn't the issue, it's the scientific validity of evolution versus the validity of the Biblical account of Creationism. The Bible can't even keep its own ducks in order, much less stand as scientifically valid against evolution. Since Creationists rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible for support, saying it is the infallible word of God, even one demonstrated contradiction shows it is indeed fallible. A fallible source sans scientific support is no basis for a legitimate theory.

Sigh, basically you are sayig that base 8 math is fallible since under decimal system, 5 + 5 = 10. And base 8 math will not give you a 10. You're making a scientific validity on a concept that isn't based on science? c'mon..


Wait...Why am I helping out creationism arguement anyway?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by FNBrown


So why haven't years of scientific laboratory experiments produced anything but stronger bacteria? I'm not over-simplifying anything - I'm just asking a straightforward question.

How does a short period of time in a small lab compare statistically with millions of years with all the oceans in the world. There was a lot more time and a lot more grand a scale. The numerical comparison between the two is imcomprehensible, but put it this way, the chances of putting bacteria on a plate and expecting something to crawl out the next day would be negligable...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Do you have any idea of the temporal difference between even a hundred years and a BILLION years? It's an enormous difference.

Like I said before... You or FNbrown and I probably cant grasp what billions of year is like.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Calc II


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?

You're absolutely right of course. Science is far from fallible. As are most things in this world. In fact, I have stated my unwillingness to fully accept current evolutionary theory in this very thread. I used to be a most outspoken proponent of evolutionary theory at my university, what with Kansas outlawing it's teaching and all. I have subsequently come to realize that it does have some very serious holes. I don't dismiss evolution as a whole, because it goes without saying there are some aspects of it which are literally cold, hard scientific fact. But I have simply come to realize that it can't be end-all theory of everything that many claim it to be. I think a healthy deal of skepticism toward both evolutionary dogma and religious dogma would be good for everyone.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Calc II


Sigh, basically you are sayig that base 8 math is fallible since under decimal system, 5 + 5 = 10. And base 8 math will not give you a 10. You're making a scientific validity on a concept that isn't based on science? c'mon..


Wait...Why am I helping out creationism arguement anyway?

Not at all. Creationists are the one saying their theory should be taught as science, alongside of or in place of evolution. If so, it has to be subjected to the same scientific standards as evolutionary theory. The fact that it ISN'T science is exactly the point!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by monkspider

I don't dismiss evolution as a whole, because it goes without saying there are some aspects of it which are literally cold, hard scientific fact.

Like what?