Gods view on evolution ?

[regnauld]

---

apil ba ang behavioural genetics sir reg sa evolutionary psychology? i have heard of it in a conference some 6 yrs ago...i am particularly curious on the subject. i just dnot know what it is.

Yes in Social Psychology we study Social Influence which underlies Genes, Culture and Gender. What I love about Evolutionary Psychology is that we study about the evolution of behavior using the Principle of NATURAL SELECTION.

[HALIKniHUDAS]

none yet. but it does not mean, one must sacrifice truth for praxis.

-- one must not only be skeptical with priests, one must also be skeptical with scientists.

always have been a skeptic, but i do not understand what you refer to as "fact" because, there are still studies that continuously challenges that idea. If we are to take as secured, foundational and demonstrable, then would it not be the case, that studies against it, which are also done in a scientific manner stop?

nobody questions, Galileo's notion of Free-Falling objects, thats a fact. but evolution? ah... that takes time. and for me, although not a scientist, i do not think traditional evolutionary theory is enough to explain the history of life much so with creationism.

praxis diay ng scientific theory sa Evolution. naa man silay ma present nga factual observation. nag assumed naman ka daan nga praxis na, e prove osa.

depende na oi, kong naay sakto nga proof dapat pa diay mag skeptical?

Ideas are always challenged specially sa field sa science.

[brownprose]

none yet. but it does not mean, one must sacrifice truth for praxis.

you got it wrong sir. the theory of evolution is a scientific truth not just praxis alone.

-- one must not only be skeptical with priests, one must also be skeptical with scientists.

of course. but what must be noted is that evolution is not only a claim of one field in science it is a corroboration and confluence of all evidence from the other fields related to it. it (evolution) is not just a claim of some scientists but a declaration of most (95 percent).

[The_Child]

you made a generalization sir, what then warrant a scientific truth? once you do that, youd realize traditional evolutionary theory stands in shaky grounds.

[HALIKniHUDAS]

you made a generalization sir, what then warrant a scientific truth? once you do that, youd realize traditional evolutionary theory stands in shaky grounds.

assumption na sab.

[brownprose]

you made a generalization sir, what then warrant a scientific truth? once you do that, youd realize traditional evolutionary theory stands in shaky grounds.

that's not generalization sir. the establishment of scientific truth is which that has been proven by evidence and scientific method.

[chad_tukes]

i'll try to be straightforward. what are the evidences that suggest an intelligent designer created everything? there are none, thus, i don't/won't believe it. creationism is a delusion; a theory that stands on blind-faith that unfortunately, people embrace and believe.

[brownprose]

Simply put it, everybody knows what gravity is but we don't know everything about it. But because we do not know everything about it doesn't mean that gravity is not a fact or cannot be proven. The same with evolution. Evolution is a established fact/scientific truth (on the basis of evidence as well as scientific method). And like gravity, we do not know many things about it.

Gravity, evolution and all the other fields in science are still works in progress.

[SEED OF LIBER]

there are a significant number of people from the religionist camp that accepts the idea of evolution and sees genesis as a symbolic sequence of events.

taka man lang ni nga statement. Rational man must look for rational answers. don't push your idea on the people that finds creationism ridiculous. It is THE theory.

just because creationism is non-factual, it does not mean that we have to embrace is alternative evolution theory as THE theory

OT: BTW, I love EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, sir!

<-------< LIBER >------>

[brownprose]

If we were to reconcile scripture and science it may be inappropriate to use Genesis as a scientific text, since it was written in a pre-scientific age and originally intended for religious instruction; as such, seemingly chronological aspects of the creation accounts should be taken in light of its literary framework.