Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

Evolution: Theory or Fact?

evolution:theory or fact

Posted by sugarfoot on 2004-08-30 02:28:33

Many think that just because a scientist said something that they belive to be true ,is true.I have noticed for a few years that some of the things that scientist say,will change later on down the road.Many scientific discoveries of the early man have turned out to be mistakes,bones are an example that turn out to be animal bones of pigs teeth or elephant knee caps.The question I keep wanting to know is,If evolution is the beginning of all life and the sustaining of life,why can't we find life forms that are part living and part dead?Evolutions say,all living matter came from none living matter.We can find many scientist that deny evolution and have proofs.There have been scientist that supported evolution but have since rejected their earlier findings and rejected evolution.As one man told me years ago,"it take more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation."So far I have to agree.

Posted by Stu2000 on 2004-09-08 17:45:57

========== In Reply To ==========

Many think that just because a scientist said something that they belive to be true ,is true.I have noticed for a few years that some of the things that scientist say,will change later on down the road.

That's the nature of science; ideas change as the body of evidence increases. Unfortunately creationists don't seem to accept scientific method (hence "Creation Science" isn't a science).

If evolution is the beginning of all life and the sustaining of life,why can't we find life forms that are part living and part dead?

I beg your pardon? Either something's alive or not. Where you draw the boundary is a different question.

Evolutions say,all living matter came from none living matter.

Yep. Scientists can create organic chemicals from inorganics, and have done for ages.

We can find many scientist that deny evolution and have proofs.There have been scientist that supported evolution but have since rejected their earlier findings and rejected evolution.

I haven't heard of any reputable scientist with any scientific evidence for creationism.

As a Christian and a scientist, I believe in the validity of the scientific method, and evolution is the model we have which best fits the facts. Creationism is a myth created by ancient people to explain where they came from, which is not backed up by science.

Posted by sugarfoot on 2004-09-15 02:08:01

========== In Reply To ========== Stu2000,How can you claim to be a christian and still believe in the theory of evolution? Either you are a christian or you are an athiest,no straddling the fence.To be a christian is to believe and follow the teaching of The Son of God,Jesus christ not in name only but in actions.Maybe you need to read your Bible more,like John1:1-3,14.Also I Corinthians3:18-21 and II Thessalonians 1:7-10.

Posted by Stu2000 on 2004-09-15 18:04:03

I may be falling asleep this evening, but I may be missing the point of your argument. I can't see what those Bible verses have got to do with Evolution?

Could any Creationist provide any evidence (scientific or otherwise) for Creationism?

Unless one is naive enough to take the Bible as the literal truth (which no-one does, else how do you reconcile, e.g., the Old Testament "'If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10) with Jesus's 'The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."' (John 8:3-11)?) then I can't see any way in which one could accept Creationism as the truth.

The Genesis story of creation is never said to be the Truth; if it were, one would have to explain everything from dinosaur fossils through potassium-dating to the cosmic microwave background by some other method. I'm also not entirely sure why God would want people to believe a creation myth descending from what I think was a Babylonian story as literally true.

Interpreting the Bible can be done in many ways (look at all the different denominations of Christians), and who is to say a way supporting evolution is better or worse than anyone elses?

Posted by Lillymon on 2004-09-18 12:46:24

========== In Reply To ========== The Genesis story of creation is never said to be the Truth.

Actually, it quite frequently is by fundamentalist Christians. Try looking at http://www.chick.com for a good example.

========== In Reply To ========== If it were, one would have to explain everything from dinosaur fossils through potassium-dating to the cosmic microwave background by some other method.

The fundamentalist Chrisitan way is to simply say God made it that way when he created the universe and everything in it 6000 years ago. Ridiculous, but impossible to disprove.

========== In Reply To ========== I'm also not entirely sure why God would want people to believe a creation myth descending from what I think was a Babylonian story as literally true.

Me neither.

========== In Reply To ========== Interpreting the Bible can be done in many ways (look at all the different denominations of Christians), and who is to say a way supporting evolution is better or worse than anyone elses?

There is no way to 'interpret' the Bible to support evolution. You have to discard large portion of Genesis. Seeing how much modern society (including the fundamentalists) have discarded, the Bible seems to have lost all meaning now.