Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[munzter666]

---

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.

i think the problem here is because some people, believes it negates the Genesis version of the beginning of the universe. And if the Bible is supposed to be the perfect word of god, and one part is proven to be false, then everything can come tumbling down.

correct me if i'm wrong, but almost all major christian denominations(RC, eastern orthodox, and lutheran.) accept evolution.
apparently....It's those literalist and fundamentalist movements who keep on asserting these...
this blokes are insisting to take the bible as a science textbook.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

I am a fake evolutionist? and your basis is my exclusion of organic and chemical evolution.

My friend let me say this to you. In Religious context there are misrepresentations as well, like, the argument of trinity. Some people would say that TRINITARIAN believes in three gods w/c of course according to Trinitarian theologians is a misrepresentation of the word TRINITY. Why? because by definition trinity do not mean that there are 3 gods but three person in one God but unfortunately there are people out there for the sake of pounding points against believers of trinity still sticks to this exaggerated definition of the word trinity.

Here in our context of evolution unfortunately you are doing the exact mistake that the anti-trinitarian did. In my study about evolution i never came across any definition that states that life came from rock n dirt, chemical and cosmic evolution. Makes me wonder the kind of stuff you are reading.


Before the different books of the bible were compiled into one book there were lots of false teaching going around in the community,for that reason the elders of the church were called to detect w/c book contained authentic presentations of Jesus and His teachings and probe those that are untrue. Definitions w/c contain misrepresentation were rejected and those proper definitions were accepted.

In the same way my friend, Evolution and its definition has misrepresentations cause by extremist and other ignorant creationists. Thats why proponents of Evolution intelligently came up with a proper definition of what evolution is about and what area is it limited. Now if you cant accept that fact and will continue to stick with your misrepresentation, then here is an advise for you-- Get updated. Why? because i cant argue with you anymore, why? because my basis is different from yours. You are a picture of a confuse person. Get it right first. :mrgreen:

because tattva. Evolution is not exclusive only to life form evolving to a much higher and complicated organisms. because tattva, evolution is supposed to have science in explaining the start of everything. from nothing to simple life, to complex organisms. it is also an alternative to creation that everything was created by GOD.

if indeed evolution proves to be scientific than creation, then by all means prove everything with science! including cosmic, chemical, organic evolution! simple raman na. don't tell me you wont accept GOD creating the elements in the periodic table but what alternative do you have that will explain the existence of these chemicals, dba evolution? otherwise to say that it just appear just like that in not scientific at all, wouldn't it?!

we are not discussing the bible here. it is a religion, by faith no question about it, you will have all the arguments in the world that will say the bible is wrong, not trustworthy, etc etc etc. that is not a problem at all, because it is by faith that we accept the bible to be true and trust worthy.

but for you to say that evolution has all the scientific facts, that you have science and scientific evidence is nothing but a LIE! because you don't have concrete solid evidence!

but if you say that evolution indeed don't have the scientific evidence, proof, facts and that it is also based on your hope and your faith that it is true, then we don't have anything to worry about! you have all the right to exercise your belief and your religion! just like i have the right to exercise mine.

but for you to say and mislead people into believing that you have scientific facts is another story!

don't blame creationist of your incapacity to support your theory. because if you indeed have the evidence it will be much easier to silent and shame everyone who are skeptics about evolution, but you know what your problem is? you don't have one! you try to manipulate evidence and plot it as the scientific truth even if it is not! you try to use words, and tie it with scientific terms and processes and then in passing insert evolution. hahaha. nice try! maybe for typical people like you can easily fall for that, but please there are alot of other thinking people in the world that see the flaws of that manipulation!

you better bring your acts together, because you are indeed a confused buddhist/evolutionist/atbp!

hehe, you never said that the Discovery of fossils,dinosaur,cloning are proofs for evolution? hehe, why quote such thing in reference to what we are talking about? and if you drop those? what evidence do you still have?

indeed clear manipulation of science arun pagka ing-nun nga scientific, actually you say one thing which are scientific facts and jump to discussing scientific imagination. hahaha, clever strategy, buddha please have mercy on your evolutionist monk! bwahahaha!

I think tattva, you should exercise self restraints and meditate some more, because you are loosing the buddha in you. calm down relax and make up your mind, be a buddhist or an evolutionist, so you won't be confused. I pity your serenity because it is something elusive in your quest of Buddha! tsk tsk tsk. confused. kaluoy!

micro-evolution as i have said is sceintific facts, it can be explained in full details, but to upgrade it to a full scale macro-evolution is a dream, and goes beyond known scientific facts. clear na?


see how you de-bone evolution? hahaha. you're brand again. it's so funny how you take the meat and throw the noens for your brand of evolution to stand.

first you get rid the origin of life, origin of cosmic bodies, get rid of chemicals. simply because you can't explain their origin. you simply don't have the means, nor the science to prove how it all started ( you are about to close to attribute it to buddha, hahaha, but i don't have problem with that either)

then you go into scientific words and processes, like cloning, mix-breeding, micro evolution, those with proven facts and tie it up with scientifc advancement. hmmm... clever and cunning!

then you suggest a possibility, about 500 years more or so, anything is possible you say with science and we have to trust you with it.

and finally after tying everything you zero in microevolution and the possibility of a macro evolution and present is as scientific facts for darwin's evolution. hahahaha! MANIPULATION to say the very least.

again! where is your scientific evidence? the best and in full details? well, the real answere is NONE! just an imagination.

so in the end, it is all about your hope and faith and all the possibilities there is. well, tattva, i have 2 words for you ---- NO EVIDENCE!

still a system of belief!

by the way Ernst Heackel, tattva, that's his name, i just coined fraud of fraudulently fabricating evolution evidence that stayed over 100 of years in science books which are peer reviewed supposedly! and it has all the things to do with evolution! and it is worthy topic, you see, that's the ploy of uncertain people, they negate from issues they can't support just to resurrect a dying stand.

hahaha, for things you cannot explain you run to buddhist teaching but for some that science can explain you run to science, hahaha, nice strategy there, having the best of both worlds!
it's admirable but credibility is at stakes! that's why you are confused. calm down don't be hysterical, compose your self and make up your mind! simple!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

adam and eve story is magic too. dirty water magic. ]

yes you did. noticed the too?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

[br]Posted on: March 29, 2008, 03:09:27 PM_________________________________________________

Yes its nothing NEW,its been going on for millions of years but discovered during this time.

millions of years? Are you sure? hahaha. Prove it! lets get that evidence of yours! (scientific please and not buddhism)

[Mr.Ho_chia]

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.

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?

Bigbang started it and everything evolve from there right?

I have a problem calling it a science! but if you say yours is by faith as well, then by all means no problem. you have all the right to exercise religious freedom.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

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

wrong. evolution(macro) has no observable evidence but a kilo imagination and full sack of speculations!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

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.

and you have proven that life came from non-life? by this? bwahahaha. again the burden of proof is on the affirmative! prove your claim that non-life can produce life form! please........... hehe!

[munzter666]

yes you did. noticed the too?

no.. no.. no..

it was my amazement, you see...if YOU consider evolution as magic........adam and eve is magic too....whats the point sticking up with adam and eve which is magic?

Bigbang started it and everything evolve from there right?

I have a problem calling it a science! but if you say yours is by faith as well, then by all means no problem. you have all the right to exercise religious freedom.

ahhh, big bang is another topic, hey man...evolution as it is....is a "Broad" topic already.
religious freedom?? who in the world started the religious movement on evolution...thats highly absurd, bro.haha

[Mr.Ho_chia]

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.

if you look at Hyracotherium and the modern horse now from a 30 feet distance, undoubtedly they sure look like a horse, abig one and a small one. even wikipedia says that, a horse.

the Bible state that as well, they will bring forth their own kind. not ape turning into humans. apes, monkeys, chimp, gorillas and others are all that...... apes!

humans- black, yellow, brown, red, white. still humans. bringing forth their kind.

there is no, not one concrete evidence that will prove that kind of evolution, neither there is concrete, technique/s on how to date the earth accurately. and so to assume that monkeys can and will be humans by natural selection, random mutation and that the earth is billions of years old is of no concrete scientific evidence!. and is all but speculations.

I admit we will and shall be open to any possible scientific advancement, experiments have to be done, data have to be gathered, things have to be discovered. but please let us not take unsubstantiated claims to be scientific facts even just because we are hopeful that someday it will, because that is not science at all!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

no.. no.. no..

it was my amazement, you see...if YOU consider evolution as magic........adam and eve is magic too....whats the point sticking up with adam and eve which is magic?

ahhh, big bang is another topic, hey man...evolution as it is....is a "Broad" topic already.
religious freedom?? who in the world started the religious movement on evolution...thats highly absurd, bro.haha

the argument will be the same. so where is science there now? hehe

yah indeed a big topic, but very related. it's actually not absurd at all. from dust everything came to be..... that's not science! it is a system of belief! a religion to say the least. not science! no evidence!