ChatterBank11 mins ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elderman, //If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly?//
Your 'explanations' can only possibly be guesses - and no one preaches louder than you.
Birdie, I knew something was awry with Sandy's Bishop's name and with the 8000 years. That'll teach me to check before calling someone a silly old fool! :o)
Your 'explanations' can only possibly be guesses - and no one preaches louder than you.
Birdie, I knew something was awry with Sandy's Bishop's name and with the 8000 years. That'll teach me to check before calling someone a silly old fool! :o)
Jomifl, I just Googled lion/tiger crosses.
I wouldn't want to bump into that fella in the dark!!
http://video.google.c...=-6710211402317199827
I wouldn't want to bump into that fella in the dark!!
http://video.google.c...=-6710211402317199827
Elderman, are you Theland with a new frock?
Your argument is a load of hoary old canards that are extensively debunked and which you could research for yourself if only you could stop copying and pasting from creationist websites, but I just want to concentrate on one of your remarks, as follows:
"The evidence answers no! defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
Please give evidence to support your claim that there are limitations on mutations in the manner you describe. By evidence, I do not mean vague waffly nonsense C&Pd from creationist sites, I mean credible evidence, such as scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
Your argument is a load of hoary old canards that are extensively debunked and which you could research for yourself if only you could stop copying and pasting from creationist websites, but I just want to concentrate on one of your remarks, as follows:
"The evidence answers no! defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
Please give evidence to support your claim that there are limitations on mutations in the manner you describe. By evidence, I do not mean vague waffly nonsense C&Pd from creationist sites, I mean credible evidence, such as scientific papers that have been peer reviewed.
HaHa as we all know you don't believe in evolution so you take one fake and use it as an example to deny it.
Why don't you take your little book and start at Genisis and apply a little critical thinking to the lies therin oh no you can't do that.
At least they prove a fake fossil even if it actualy made up of two other things that are 2m years old.
Why don't you take your little book and start at Genisis and apply a little critical thinking to the lies therin oh no you can't do that.
At least they prove a fake fossil even if it actualy made up of two other things that are 2m years old.
Do you ever feel a bit put off by the debate that rages on the subject of evolution.
After all, on one side of the issue are some learned scientists and academics, often using very technical language, who insist that if you are educated and intelligent, you must accept the theory of evolution as fact. On the other side are some equally overbearing religionists who use emotionally charged rhetoric to say that if you have genuine faith, you must agree with their brand of creationism.
Such extremist viewpoints alienate many reasonable people. The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions. Remember, this question is more than a subject for debate, more than a mere intellectual exercise. The issues involved can affect your life and your future.
After all, on one side of the issue are some learned scientists and academics, often using very technical language, who insist that if you are educated and intelligent, you must accept the theory of evolution as fact. On the other side are some equally overbearing religionists who use emotionally charged rhetoric to say that if you have genuine faith, you must agree with their brand of creationism.
Such extremist viewpoints alienate many reasonable people. The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions. Remember, this question is more than a subject for debate, more than a mere intellectual exercise. The issues involved can affect your life and your future.
//Do you ever feel a bit put off by the debate that rages on the subject of evolution.//
Never. I find it fascinating and educational.
//Remember, this question is more than a subject for debate, more than a mere intellectual exercise.//
No it isn't. That's all it is.
//The issues involved can affect your life and your future.//
Pure supposition. Where's your verifiable evidence?
Never. I find it fascinating and educational.
//Remember, this question is more than a subject for debate, more than a mere intellectual exercise.//
No it isn't. That's all it is.
//The issues involved can affect your life and your future.//
Pure supposition. Where's your verifiable evidence?
Elderman - “Do you ever feel a bit put off by the debate that rages on the subject of evolution...”
To echo Naomi, no I don't. And I would remind you that it was you who posted the original question about the veracity of the theory of evolution. If you are put off by robustly argued debate about evolution then might I suggest that you don't ask questions on such matters if the answers you receive upset you?
You continue, “... Such extremist viewpoints alienate many reasonable people. The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions...”
That's rich! What is your position if not dogmatic? The fact that you believe in god and do not doubt his existence makes you dogmatic by definition... “dogma [noun]; an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.”. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma)
Let's be clear here. You are dogmatic. Those of us who think that evolutionary theory is correct are not dogmatic. The reason is that if a fossilised human skeleton was discovered alongside the fossilised remains of a dinosaur (ie. the two entities could be categorically said to have existed at the same point in history as one another), the entire theory of evolution would be completely blown apart. It would have been disproved and everyone from Darwin to Dawkins would have to start again. If a scientific theory can be disproved by observable, testable evidence (which all valid scientific theories can) then it can never be accurately described as a dogma.
Question: What piece of observed evidence would disprove the existence of god? Answer: None. The existence of god can never be proved nor disproved. That is the very essence of dogma.
You further state, “The issues involved [god's existence] can affect your life and your future.”. You're right there. The supposed existence of god profoundly affects my life and that of everyone else in this county and others. Just one example of the supposed existence of god is that it denies people with degenerative, debilitating illness and conditions, the right to die a dignified death at the time of their own choosing. The dogma of the church which says that only god can give and take away life has been enshrined in law. It's a prima facie example of faith intruding on people's private lives with no concern for their physical or mental well-being.
But that's a different debate entirely.
To echo Naomi, no I don't. And I would remind you that it was you who posted the original question about the veracity of the theory of evolution. If you are put off by robustly argued debate about evolution then might I suggest that you don't ask questions on such matters if the answers you receive upset you?
You continue, “... Such extremist viewpoints alienate many reasonable people. The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions...”
That's rich! What is your position if not dogmatic? The fact that you believe in god and do not doubt his existence makes you dogmatic by definition... “dogma [noun]; an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.”. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma)
Let's be clear here. You are dogmatic. Those of us who think that evolutionary theory is correct are not dogmatic. The reason is that if a fossilised human skeleton was discovered alongside the fossilised remains of a dinosaur (ie. the two entities could be categorically said to have existed at the same point in history as one another), the entire theory of evolution would be completely blown apart. It would have been disproved and everyone from Darwin to Dawkins would have to start again. If a scientific theory can be disproved by observable, testable evidence (which all valid scientific theories can) then it can never be accurately described as a dogma.
Question: What piece of observed evidence would disprove the existence of god? Answer: None. The existence of god can never be proved nor disproved. That is the very essence of dogma.
You further state, “The issues involved [god's existence] can affect your life and your future.”. You're right there. The supposed existence of god profoundly affects my life and that of everyone else in this county and others. Just one example of the supposed existence of god is that it denies people with degenerative, debilitating illness and conditions, the right to die a dignified death at the time of their own choosing. The dogma of the church which says that only god can give and take away life has been enshrined in law. It's a prima facie example of faith intruding on people's private lives with no concern for their physical or mental well-being.
But that's a different debate entirely.
Most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain “doctrines.” Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution, they are in reality implying: ‘You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics.’ Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference so the dogmatic theories on the origin of life that appear in many textbooks must be considered invalid.
The consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect. It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.
But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?
True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.
The consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect. It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.
But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?
True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.
When and why did we stop evolving, can someone point to any living thing that has recently evolved from what it was to something new via the process of natural selection , if going back further than a common ancestor between apes and humans why didnt every living thing crawl out of the water after all isnt that where we all originated from? Religion also has had its fair share of fakery, the turin shroud instantly springs to mind. The battle to win the hearts and minds of humans goes on............
Craftypig // When and why did we stop evolving, can someone point to any living thing that has recently evolved from what it was to something new via the process of natural selection //
We haven't stopped evolving. Indeed scientists believe we are currently evolving faster then we have for a long time. The genes that allow us to deal with lactose as adults and gluten both evolved in the past 10,000 years.
The transition from one species to another happens little by little over many generations which is why it isn't possible to show you a "recent" example unless you are happy to accept examples over the past million years as recent.
We haven't stopped evolving. Indeed scientists believe we are currently evolving faster then we have for a long time. The genes that allow us to deal with lactose as adults and gluten both evolved in the past 10,000 years.
The transition from one species to another happens little by little over many generations which is why it isn't possible to show you a "recent" example unless you are happy to accept examples over the past million years as recent.
@ Elderman - Science does not have to "rely on argument from authority" to support evolution. Observation, experimentation and analysis do that. There is a multiplicity of data that supports evolution, from all a wide range of scientific disciplines. It doesnt require faith- just education and a basic understanding of science. Unlike the religionistas position, which is to say "GodDunIt", which is based entirely upon faith, and with no evidence at all.
@CraftyPig. Evolution has not stopped. It can take lots of time for creatures to evolve, although there have been several instances of new species of bacteria, for instance, pointing to the truth underpinning the basic mechanism.
Hang around for a few million years, and you may see changes in some of the larger, slower growing species as well :)
@CraftyPig. Evolution has not stopped. It can take lots of time for creatures to evolve, although there have been several instances of new species of bacteria, for instance, pointing to the truth underpinning the basic mechanism.
Hang around for a few million years, and you may see changes in some of the larger, slower growing species as well :)
Latest Posts
Crosswords28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
Body & Soul87 mins ago
