Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[munzter666]

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!

no...that's your dirty water magic.

in the scientific realm, a fact is accepted because other explanations haven’t proven to be worth consideration; not because it’s true. science deals with provisional explanations to invite better ones, religion insists on dogma to survive them.


i think that you have to understand these terms.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

no...that's your dirty water magic.

in the scientific realm, a fact is accepted because other explanations haven’t proven to be worth consideration; not because it’s true. science deals with provisional explanations to invite better ones, religion insists on dogma to survive them.
i think you should understand these terms as well.

certainly i do. for as long as these provisional explanations don't start breaking known scientific laws and facts by all means.

and by the way to say that everything came from dirt and here we all are is nothing short of a religious dogma and it is not science at all.

i think that you have to understand these terms.

[munzter666]

and by the way to say that everything came from dirt and here we all are is nothing short of a religious dogma and it is not science at all.

yes, i believe that has been established already....creationism is NOT science.

[brownprose]

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!

all i'm saying is -- it's quite obvious that inspite of the overwhelming physical/material evidence pointing to the tenability of evolution creationists dismiss them to be all "speculative." and YET creationists insist on the idea to believe explanations (to the origins of life) using non-scientific references as the Bible! I don't think that's fair or even right at all.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

all i'm saying is -- it's quite obvious that inspite of the overwhelming physical/material evidence pointing to the tenability of evolution creationists dismiss them to be all "speculative." and YET creationists insist on the idea to believe explanations (to the origins of life) using non-scientific references as the Bible! I don't think that's fair or even right at all.

sir with all due respect. not at all. bringing forth their own kind is what the bible teaches and any creationist knows that. what we reject is total manipulation of scientific facts.

would you want a repeat of ernst heackel in our science history? definitely not, that is why we need to be careful in assessing if indeed what this guru of science is saying is true or his mere speculations and manipulations for whatever self-centered purpose he may have.

again, lets be open to scientific advancement. do research and do more of it, but until we have the proof undisputed proof, it will remain to be a non-fact theory. that's all!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

yes, i believe that has been established already....creationism is NOT science.

really? are you sure?
it was established as scientific fact? ------dirt and all came to be. -----

can you please show the facts (scientific)? please.......

[brownprose]

Ernst Haeckel is just one part of our history, who I would agree, was among the many"hoaxsters" that came out from the evolution frenzy...but they don't preclude to be enough reason to dismiss altogether the existing findings done by well-meaning researchers and scientists.

I don't think that researches on evolution were done with the sole intent to make a fool out of creationists...researchers wouldn't care less.

[Tattva]

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!

proof is for math. This is science. I think the proper word here is evidence not proof.

Simply... if According to this brilliant people, Pasteur wasnt able to disprove it because he has no theory of molecular biology to establish his claim then the argument still stands. Do you have evidence countering that it is impossible for life to sprung from rocks and dirt? Thats the question you should be asking, why? because the proponents of this theory was able to establish their theory.

[munzter666]

really? are you sure?
it was established as scientific fact? ------dirt and all came to be. -----

can you please show the facts (scientific)? please.......

hehe

read this post again: yes, i believe that has been established already....creationism is NOT science.

*what you posted earlier depicts more about creationism than evolution


who do you think weeded out ernest haekel....it wasnt the creationist, it wasnt the church,....it was SCIENCE and its self correcting mechanism at work. same can be said about the pilt down man fiasco.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Ernst Haeckel is just one part of our history, who I would agree, was among the many"hoaxsters" that came out from the evolution frenzy...but they don't preclude to be enough reason to dismiss altogether the existing findings done by well-meaning researchers and scientists.

I don't think that researches on evolution were done with the sole intent to make a fool out of creationists...researchers wouldn't care less.

that is exactly my point. unless proven. that's about it none-fact theory!