Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Tattva]

well thanks for admitting that evolution is as magic as creation. therefore, evolution is not science at all.

but evolution has observable evidence, special creation has nothing but speculation.

[Sinyalan]

I stumbled in to these sites... kind of what creationist always think that evolution is religion and faith.

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

http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ossil-ape.html

http://www.livescience.com/animals/a...or_041118.html

or anyone can read this: The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, By Jeffrey H. Schwartz

[munzter666]

well thanks for admitting that evolution is as magic as creation. therefore, evolution is not science at all.

uhhh, i never admitted evolution is as magic as creation....did you watch the simpsons's episode i linked?
focus on lisa simpson...not on flanders the fundie.haha

it has evidences...some evidences may be incomplete but you cant disregard such evidence, we are getting there pa nga eh.

no oi, dili protien, rocks and dirt! and magic. then apes and now you have sinyalan. bwahahaha!

i dont know, but this is about evolution....not big bang.hehe
so you have a problem coming from rocks and dirt then apes(which i believe is not evolution is about)....and dont have a problem with dirty water magic?

[Tattva]

Since now i know where Mr.Ho_chia gets his brand of evolution then let me quote John Wilkins. In his statement he mentioned about Pasteur's refutation on organic and chemical evolution.

and i quote...


So we must ask - what did Pasteur prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally, only theoretically, and he had no theory of molecular biology to establish this claim. What he showed was that it was highly unlikely that modern living organisms arose from non-living organic material. This is a much more restricted claim than that primitive life once arose from non-living non-organic material.

So far we have seen that neither Redi, Spallanzani nor Pasteur disproved the origination of life in all cases, only in particular cases. Moreover, we have seen that the claims "all life from eggs", "all cells from cells" and "all life from life" are generalisations not fully supported by the experimental evidence available at the time they were made.

[Sinyalan]

like i said in my previous post, even if we take all the neccesary building blocks of life an put it in one location, all the perfect conditions, all the right sequence in assembling. it would still take a miracle to make life and continue to evole into us in under 2 billion years*. (why just 2 billion? because much of the 4 billion years was a cooling down process of the earth since it's fiery birth. and that is according to science.)

Miracle? Meaning, that there is a common designer and no common ancestor? Well, fossils discoveries proved that already. Earth was never 6000 years old. Miracle will not be a sufficient enough though because CHANGE is constant. We see them everyday and have been doing since "4 billion years of cooling down process". But your idea is duly noted.

[munzter666]

i believe this quote is very appropriate for this thread...

"Summarizing, the widespread prevalence of agnosticism in scientific circles is for a great part caused by the stupidity of many theists."

- Jan Willem Nienhuys

[Tattva]

dirt, water and magic sounds more like the special creation in Genesis.

...out of the dust of the ground...man was formed.


Sorry OT

[Sinyalan]

i believe this quote is very appropriate for this thread...

"Summarizing, the widespread prevalence of agnosticism in scientific circles is for a great part caused by the stupidity of many theists."

- Jan Willem Nienhuys

hahahaha... I couldn't agree more.

[brownprose]

From what i've read so far, most that have spoken against evolution are merely citing improbabilities. I don't see however, point-per-point arguendos or counter-evidences presented by any of the creationist scientists today (although i don't know if they should be called scientists in the first place) who refute the mechanics of the evolutionary process itself. I can only surmise it is just too difficult for them to challenge the wealth of scientific evidence at hand.

The Evolutionary Process: Adaptation > Genetic drift > Gene Flow > Mutation > Natural selection and Speciation are all supported by overwhelming evidence pointing to Common Descent or evolutionary synthesis. (You may refer to wikipedia or an encylopedia to know more about their individual definitions). It's strange and quite observable that most creationist scientists dismiss altogether the idea of evolution without digging at how evolution actually takes place.

Furthermore, a very good example pointing to the validity of evolution is the horse from Hyracotherium (45-52 Million Years ago) to Equus (Modern-day Horse) substantiated by the vast amount of unearthed fossils discovered by paleontologists since the 19th century.

Wikipedia has fairly provided a good discussion on the Evolution of the Horse or you may find the evidence of evolution, also found in horses, presented by Tufts University HERE

It isn't only the horse or humans that have evolved from a common descent but most of the animals that we know of today. If one has to examine or trace the evidences at hand, you can deduce that practically all of them follow the same pattern.

I believe in God and I believe that God is also a god of process...and we see all these processes everyday unfolding before man FROM: seed to trees; a fertilized egg to human and from such other examples. It isn't shameful or humiliating for humans to have "simian" origins (if you will) "transmuting" into a much better kind because it is part of the Natural Law for species to perpetuate its own kind in their best possible physical form in the long term.

Frankly mas mauwaw pako kung gikan ko sa semelya kay sa gikan ko sa unggoy.

It's likewise logic-defying to believe that a "creator" had to cause man to just pop out of nowhere and then cause the existence of another (man) when the same creator can just easily pop out many of them like popcorns, right? Do creationists also have their scientific explanation as to why the creator all of a sudden entrust the "re-creation" to man? Or did creationists find any recorded conversations with God as to why He had instructed man to "Go to the world and multiply" and why God had to stop creating them?

Looks like they got it (the Bible) all wrong.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Ho chia, you are absolutely ignorant about evolution! Nars man unta.
Asa gud? Sagad ka lang.
Hehehehe… shallow fantasy, like your creationism? And, oh btw, I don’t really really have to take your viewpoints ho chia because why? You end up lying na sad. There is no absoluteness whatsoever about your views in radioactive dating. Because of untrustworthy super-ho-chia made by god. Wait a sec, I haven’t noticed your rebuttal about this whole issue “you as being made by god”. Are you really made by your god ho chia? If you are. Can you stop natural disasters, crimes, jobless citizens and killings? Hmmmm? You are btw, made by your god, isn’t it? Or was it just a cover-up for creationism.
To you, because your creationism is branded as religion! For those who knows evolution, it is not. You really need to update your outdated bible pre. Well, I don’t know how did you get your diploma or degree pre because you are no nurse at all. Or this is one of your lies too. You have no background whatsoever in evolution
Like I said, you climb trees too! Climb bananas? Op kors… kaon pa man gani. I don’t deny eating banana pre… unlike some one here that is erratic on his lies that don’t eat banana nya diay to – apil diay pud ug kaon. you're such a hypocrite pre, Hehehehe… At least I am one of the civilized ape here in my workplace… I am not that kind of magician like you. Lastly, I don’t have to lie for being an ape. Di man ko parehas nimo nga kusog mamakak. Hehehehe…
You’re definition is nothing to me because – for all I know this could be a lie too. Hehehe…

ignorant you say? hahaha. how fake can you get! dodong, asa man nag gkan ang start of any form of life in evolution? see now how a fake and a sham evolutionist is exposed? You don't even understand the reached of evolution! and you say you worked as VP for loan shark? hahaha. kataw-anan!

Go eat some more banana so that you'll evolve completely.... Bwahahaha!

I didn't lie to you. but again if you cannot understand simple english, well, not my problem isn't it. i can't blame you, sometimes brain evolve last! hahaha. and to say that you don't lie is nothing but a stupid LIE! wow sinyalan has never lied before. that's just great! dba you wanted to be identified with ernst heackel the great evolutionist fraud! anoither expose here! hahaha.

kaya nga i wanted you to prove evolution in the most scientific way known to you eh. How did matter, space, time, energy came about? how did life form evolve, where did the first sign of life came from. you tell us! you're silent on this part like the other fake evolutionist here who hapeen to say that this is not part of evolution because you don't have a single proof! but instead you just keep on saying irrelevant things! hahaha

see even empirical science you don't know, you don't just take my word for it, you check it in the dictionary... and you say your what? VP? bwahahahahaha............!

and who is being childish and lacking in reason? surely not me. I ask you scientific proof but you end up adulterating this thread. and you want to clear yourself, ala ponto pilato, "wash off my hands" thing, what a desperate move. you don't do wrong things deliberately and apologize before getting caught what a lame excuse and a cheap shot!