Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[tripwire]

---

You mean the word evolution or the whole process of evolution isn't scientific?

[tripwire]

As for me, I believe in the process of evolution. Why? to be directive, you can see changes around you. To others it maybe a theory but I lean on both, it is a fact and a theory. Some leaned on creationism - which others entitled to it but all evolution have been presented a numerous studies.

"Intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution implies that if one believes in God, the evolutionary "theory" is unacceptable no matter how powerful its explanatory power. In fact, belief in "intelligent design" is completely compatible with scientific acceptance of evolution. The design is inside the model, not something intruded from the outside. It is not up to science to validate such design. It merely reports what it sees and leaves to the religion and the religious believer to judge whether it was a wise God who launched the process, just as She launched the "Big Bang" with the polymers and parameters for human life on this planet built-in. Science can't say whether God did that or not -- and moreover shouldn't. (source: www.commondreams.org/views05/0211-25.htm)

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it. (source: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

[SPIKE_CSA]

You mean the word evolution or the whole process of evolution isn't scientific?

no i mean sa evolution from apes to humans... what is scientific is LIKE BEGETS LIKE.. frog begets frog, fish begets fish, apes begets apes and humans begets humans..

ug dili sad ko mosugot nga gikan ko sa onggoy oi hehe and of course ikaw sad siguro mam.. ka cute nimo nya gikan lng ka sa onggoy? hehe i dont think so

[SPIKE_CSA]

As for me, I believe in the process of evolution. Why? to be directive, you can see changes around you. To others it maybe a theory but I lean on both, it is a fact and a theory. Some leaned on creationism - which others entitled to it but all evolution have been presented a numerous studies.

"Intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution implies that if one believes in God, the evolutionary "theory" is unacceptable no matter how powerful its explanatory power. In fact, belief in "intelligent design" is completely compatible with scientific acceptance of evolution. The design is inside the model, not something intruded from the outside. It is not up to science to validate such design. It merely reports what it sees and leaves to the religion and the religious believer to judge whether it was a wise God who launched the process, just as She launched the "Big Bang" with the polymers and parameters for human life on this planet built-in. Science can't say whether God did that or not -- and moreover shouldn't. (source: www.commondreams.org/views05/0211-25.htm)

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it. (source: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

i agree with you nga naa evolution around us but to be particular sa evolution of human beings dili gyud ko motoo. maski tanan scientist karon wala pa sila proof gyud miss nga ang theory of evolution tinood... its just a theory... pero i dont think makakita sila ug proof kay maski unsaon humans are created by God jud.. hehe

[rodsky]

but to be particular sa evolution of human beings dili gyud ko motoo.

...because you simply cannot picture coming from an ape, like the rest of people who cannot accept the validity of the theory. Again, I stress that I'd rather be an honest ape than a dishonest human.

-RODION

[SPIKE_CSA]

...because you simply cannot picture coming from an ape, like the rest of people who cannot accept the validity of the theory. Again, I stress that I'd rather be an honest ape than a dishonest human.

-RODION

hahaha validity of the theory? nganong theory ra man na? simply because dili na tinood hahaha

[SPIKE_CSA]

why call theory if tinood man galing? hahaha you have a big problem dude.,.

[rodsky]

hahaha validity of the theory? nganong theory ra man na? simply because dili na tinood hahaha

Just because something is a "theory" doesn't mean it is untrue. You are basically saying that no televisions exist in the world because Einstein's relativity is just a theory hahaha but in order for electrons to behave the way they do (and thus flow through the cathode tube to produce the various images you see on the screen), they have to follow the theory of relativity...kung dili pa ni tinood, then wala unta nimo nabasa akong post on your computer screen hahaha nalingaw ko sa imong pagka-self-contradictory, and thus murag you're the one who has a bigger problem, dude.

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

-RODION

[SPIKE_CSA]

hahaha yopu have the biggest problem dude The term "theory of relativity" was coined by Max Planck in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the principle of relativity.

dili na intawn na theory oi.. hahaha

[rodsky]

LOL sa wikipedia na nimo gihuka, and ang title sa article kay "Theory of Relativity" hahaha bistado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Now tell me--is there a statement in that article that says dili na intawon theory ang relativity karon!?? If so, bow ko sa imo

hihihi Shakes head hihi nalingaw ko kaayo bay, sige make my day and keep posting I just love how people build up what they deem to be a "sense of credibility" in these boards--fascinating indeed.

*grabs a bag of popcorn and lays back on the couch*

-RODION