Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Sinyalan]

---

creationist have no problem having faith. and i have been saying that from the very start.

Instead you have a big problem. I can recommend a psychiatrist if you like.

You can recommend a psychiatrist that is not a christian or creationist in nature. Can you provide that? surely pre, I am not the problem here... I think you look at me as your problem.

[Sinyalan]

i certainly understand where you're coming from, since i myself sometimes QUESTION the theory of CREATIONISM and tend to lean towards the theory of EVOLUTION. but that doesn't give me the right to EXCLUSIVELY believe in either principles, since the limit of my knowledge doesn't go far beyond what SCIENCE or BIBLE has discovered. therefore, i can consider some or MOST statements here as BASELESS.

WHY are there so many FLAWS in the design? that question REMAINS to be unanswered. and like COMPUTERS, PROTOTYPES, and the likes, everything i believe has an END. if everything were so LIMITLESS, then EVOLUTION wouldn't exist in the first place. do you agree?

Chad, good points. I agree that everything has its end and that is part of evolution. We die, our body decomposes, turns to an organic fertilizer and rotates the cycle. Evolution at work. My answer to ...why flaw in the design (ID)?, because it is untestable "scientific" theory. Who can test theorem that provokes a notion that it was all along ID di ba? Why question god in the first place, it was his design not science. Do you follow me pre? If ID is the answer to all living things, might as well no SCIENCE AT ALL.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

You can recommend a psychiatrist that is not a christian or creationist in nature. Can you provide that? surely pre, I am not the problem here... I think you look at me as your problem.

I actually don't know their stand on that. but surely these are doctors who will certainly treat you with procedures and medication that is with unquestionable evidence. it's life they're dealing,

[chad_tukes]

Chad, good points. I agree that everything has its end and that is part of evolution. We die, our body decomposes, turns to an organic fertilizer and rotates the cycle. Evolution at work. My answer to ...why flaw in the design (ID)?, because it is untestable "scientific" theory. Who can test theorem that provokes a notion that it was all along ID di ba? Why question god in the first place, it was his design not science. Do you follow me pre? If ID is the answer to all living things, might as well no SCIENCE AT ALL.

if Intelligent Design were a probable solution to an existing problem, then you're right, we wouldn't have any problems at all since every life forms would be considered INFINITE. but here's the thing, the QUESTION as to why there IS a FLAW remains to be unanswered. if i follow your logic, you start from the very CORE which are the PROTOTYPES, but the prototype itself isn't at all perfect, which gives us the notion that every organism---big and small---has its end.

but to question something that is UNTESTABLE does not always end up in SCIENCE, which grounds can be correlated to EXPERIMENTS---since SCIENCE itself doesn't have sufficient EVIDENCE that MAN indeed came from APES. until now, there have been no conclusion to support their findings.

that's why it's called THEORY.

[Sinyalan]

I actually don't know their stand on that. but surely these are doctors who will certainly treat you with procedures and medication that is with unquestionable evidence. it's life they're dealing,

It's a waste of my money if they don't know their stand. I may end up treating them... so, if you're sure they can help me but you don't know what their stand... what does that make you?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

It's a waste of my money if they don't know their stand. I may end up treating them... so, if you're sure they can help me but you don't know what their stand... what does that make you?

this makes me human! I can not simply know each and everyones leaning, whether they are pro - creations or evolutions. unless I ask and they volunteer that information.

but apes will never understand it. because apes think nothing but of themselves, you see they are animals.

and if I may ask do you know their stand? are you human too or more of an ape?

[munzter666]

EXACTLY!! that is the MAIN POINT. but the problem is, posters in this thread seem to be so pre-occupied as to WHICH IS REALLY legitimate and BELIEVABLE. so it all boils down to GOD vs. SCIENCE whether you like it or not.

a person may hold 2 beliefs, it's his/her choice to favor which is which and which is more legit....often times, holding or opening to scientific ideas conflicts "religious" beliefs....as often seen in this threads(obviously). undergoing cognitive dissonance is stressful, some even go the extent to lie and cheat themselves and others to avoid such stressful event.

@mr.ho

i'm quite confused with your statements bro, you said you dont believe in evolution....yet you believe in microevolution. evolution is a broad topic....and it covers both micro and macro evolution.

[mordecai_327]

...an inter-related topic on the "Big Bang Theory" and the Biological Evolution of Darwin:


Big Bang and Biological Evolution
David Dean

There are serious logical and scientific problems with the theories of the “Big Bang” and biological evolution.

First, the “Big Bang” does not explain the origin of the universe – it merely attempts to explain the observed fact of the universe’s expansion. Cosmologists (scientists who study the history of the universe) are strangely silent about the origin of the matter that makes up our physical universe. If you push them, their answer is typically “it has always existed” (in other words, physical matter itself has the property of eternality). Is that really any less difficult philosophically than the idea that the universe is not eternal, but that it was created by an eternal God? I don’t think so, and I doubt you do either; in fact, the exact opposite is more likely.

Second, to suggest that the first living creatures were assembled by random chance is mathematically and physically absurd. The level of complexity of the simplest living creature far exceeds that of the most complicated modern computer. Even if the simplest chemical “building blocks of life” were to come into existence by chance (which is extraordinarily unlikely), the idea that they could somehow be “assembled” by random events is as silly as insisting that you could disassemble Rolex watch and put the pieces inside a jar – and if you then shook it long enough, out would pop a working watch. You know what would really happen – you’ll end up with a mess of bent and broken metal and shattered glass. The reality is that the building blocks of life (DNA, RNA, and other complex organic molecules) are far more fragile and complicated than the tiniest parts of the finest watch – and much harder to assemble into a working final product.

Third, to suggest that random mutations (which are nothing but instances of damage to the genetic code of living organisms) could produce improved living creatures is ridiculous. The genetic code is like the instructions for assembling a complex device. Let’s imagine that you own a computer-controlled factory that builds black-&-white television sets. The idea that a random mutation in an animal’s genetic code would produce improved offspring is analogous to saying that a random error in the program that controls your TV factory would suddenly cause your assembly line to start producing color TV’s! You know how silly this idea is. If anybody really believed it, software companies would fire all their programmers, and instead have monkeys dance on the keyboards of their computers – and then sell the best of the wonderful new programs that would appear “by chance”. You may laugh at the image of dancing monkeys – but the idea of beneficial mutations leading to improved creatures is actually even more laughable, scientifically speaking.

Fourth, in the 150 or so years since Darwin popularized the theory of biological evolution, no beneficial random mutation has ever been observed in nature. If evolution was ever occurring, it certainly seems to have stopped since Darwin! Actually, this is no surprise. Modern science is showing that the genetic code seems to be specifically designed so that any damage to that code renders the animal so defective that it dies, or of it survives, it is unable to reproduce.

Finally, let’s just pretend that a beneficial random mutation should occur. Suddenly we have an improved animal – perhaps a termite that can eat rock and not just wood. Such a wonderful new creature would have a greatly improved chance of surviving compared to normal termites that can only eat wood. Presto, a new species! Right? Wrong! There is a little problem here. Our stone-eating termite may never run out of food – but he will be lonely all his days, and die a bachelor, because there are no rock-eating female termites to be found. His wonderful new genes will be lost to posterity, because the accident that made him what he is is certainly not going to “accidentally” produce a genetic compatible mate for him in the same locale at the same moment in history.

“But if biological evolution makes no sense, why do all the scientists and universities teach it?” you may ask. Yes, evolutionism is the dominant theory in the academic world, but recent advances in genetics, biochemistry, physics, and mathematical theory are pushing more and more scientists to admit that evolution is simply an unworkable theory. The theory of evolution is just plain bad science.

Why doesn’t the entire scientific community come out and admit that evolution is a dead theory? One reason is that it is embarrassing to admit that they have been wrong all along. Another is that it would mean re-training an entire generation of science teachers, and throwing out millions of biology textbooks that teach evolution. But the real reason why most scientists won’t give up the theory of evolution is that the only workable alternative to evolutionism is to admit that the Bible’s account of God creating our universe is true – and people have strong religious and philosophical reasons why they are unwilling to do so.

[Sinyalan]

this makes me human! I can not simply know each and everyones leaning, whether they are pro - creations or evolutions. unless I ask and they volunteer that information.

oh, human eh, I thought you're magically made by god and you're not human because you are btw made from the image of god.

but apes will never understand it. because apes think nothing but of themselves, you see they are animals.

apes never understand it? Are you really a nurse hio chia? In your profession "as a nurse" you neglected some discoveries on apes. Do you really think that apes are brainless? and here you are tongue-lashing about apes that they don't think nothing but themselves... and humans don't? And you are not an animal, ho chia? where did you get your profession/diploma btw? Carbon market?

and if I may ask do you know their stand? are you human too or more of an ape?

I know where I stand and that doesn't make me a creationist. If you ask me if I'm human or ape? I am both! Check your local library ho chia and look for comparisons on human DNA and Apes DNA structures. That also makes you an Ape... err, superhuman diay ka because you are fwiw made by god... magically.

[Tattva]

yes I believe in micro evolution and you cannot apply it to macro evolution, you see in microevolution the genetic codes are already present. and as such it eventually do show. but to say a banana will eventually becomes an elephant in macro evolution name is but magical.

haha. already present? maybe you are referring to butterfly evolution and the likes. Sir FYI, some are even lost and evolves into another genetic codes. Banana turning into an elephant? I dont know i never read something like that. Evolution never said anything like that, maybe this is a way of giving misinformation to the public coming from You know who.

I am asking you to explain it because there are too many assumptions which i don't think you even understand it. in fact you just made statement that evolution doesn't say that life form started from a rock. hehe. please do read about evolution, you seem to be missing a lot and make factual statements as if you knew it all along. bwahahaha!

I will never bring myself in a situation where i am not sure of what i am about to get into. Trust me i know my evolution. You can even test it. But judging from the way you misrepresented Evolution i would say that you are not qualified.

Sorry my friend but you are one of those million victims out there that believes in the creationist's misrepresentation.

Evolution says that life came from a cell and not from a rock. tsk tsk!

and are you a scientist tattva? I don't need to be one to know it. just like your gravity example remember those?

really thousand of uncharted codes in our DNA, and who knows after 500 years? tsk tsk tsk. that's not evidence sir.

if I say to you, that creation is true who knows after a 1000 year we will have tools to travel space and heaven.

No i am not a scientist thats why i dont make conclusive statements like "Lets not call it Science huh". As if i have the credentilas to know w/c is science and not. You on the other hand is playing Dr.Ho_chia.

Yes thousands of uncharted codes in our DNA thats what science said. Well who says that its evidence? I am only telling you the possibility of discovering a complete explanation of evolution. You know why im telling you this? To save your face, because you sound like the millions of christians who used to say that there is no ounce of evidence for evolution but what happened? biology discovered microevolution,haha. what a shame. The point is dont close your mind until all potential evidence are being exhausted.

if creation is true? well then lets find out. I will be glad to travel in space to heaven.