For those that don't like God

[ahabion]

you are a fuckin moron.."the darwin bandwagon"..what the fuck are you talking about..all darwin offered was a different possibility of existance..atleast there was some scientific background behind his reasoning..christianity is based on something that you cannot prove..which makes more since

agreed that darwin did offer another possibility into how things were to be and there is some scientific background to back up his reasoning... like the iguanas on the galopagos islands and some species of birds, hence came the theory of evolution.

But evolution itself is still a theory, not a fact. True that the iguanas on the the islands lived because those that knew how to swim and those with longer claws survived to breed... those that didnt, of course died (natural selection) But it still doesnt go to show how we came from a gelatinous compound into human beings. Or how dinasaurs became birds or how a cow became a whale and/or vice versa. Bones are being excavated of so called "eve" skeletal structures that suggest that we may have had a "monkey" like evolutionary process, but again, those bones that they are finding are scattered which suggest they could have been deformaties and outcast from their tribes. Drawing the same parallel, with dinasaurs and birds... yes dinasaurs are maybe more closely related to birds, but where is the evolutionary process which suggest that... meaning if we are finding bones of the human evolutionary process, which of course takes millions of years, why are we not finding the other (dinosaurs, cows, whales, etc.) evolutionary processes as well? Its all still theorized and is still open, which the same can be said about a Religious belief in an omnicient being. So i'm not banging on evolutionist/scientologist, just answering the the thread "For those that don't like God..." and the why part of it.

[b@d @pple]

agreed that darwin did offer another possibility into how things were to be and there is some scientific background to back up his reasoning... like the iguanas on the galopagos islands and some species of birds, hence came the theory of evolution.

But evolution itself is still a theory, not a fact. True that the iguanas on the the islands lived because those that knew how to swim and those with longer claws survived to breed... those that didnt, of course died (natural selection) But it still doesnt go to show how we came from a gelatinous compound into human beings. Or how dinasaurs became birds or how a cow became a whale and/or vice versa. Bones are being excavated of so called "eve" skeletal structures that suggest that we may have had a "monkey" like evolutionary process, but again, those bones that they are finding are scattered which suggest they could have been deformaties and outcast from their tribes. Drawing the same parallel, with dinasaurs and birds... yes dinasaurs are maybe more closely related to birds, but where is the evolutionary process which suggest that... meaning if we are finding bones of the human evolutionary process, which of course takes millions of years, why are we not finding the other (dinosaurs, cows, whales, etc.) evolutionary processes as well? Its all still theorized and is still open, which the same can be said about a Religious belief in an omnicient being. So i'm not banging on evolutionist/scientologist, just answering the the thread "For those that don't like God..." and the why part of it.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

[ahabion]

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

That (evolution) is still a hypothesis and conjectures, it has yet to be confirmed. We're 1 or 2 chromosomes closer to frogs than we are to apes. Humans evolving from ape-like ancestors have yet to be proven factual. The same goes for dinosaurs and birds or reptiles for that matter.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Truth is relevant. If you were to draw a line between evolutionists and creationists, and you were that line.. you can argueably say that neither side has any hard evidence to show for it at the beginning of time. Since that time, we've dug out bones of what appears to be an ape-like ancestor from millions of years ago but can we really say from that bit of evidence that we evolved from that? or maybe the apes today evolved from that?

[Hulud]

That (evolution) is still a hypothesis and conjectures, it has yet to be confirmed. We're 1 or 2 chromosomes closer to frogs than we are to apes. Humans evolving from ape-like ancestors have yet to be proven factual. The same goes for dinosaurs and birds or reptiles for that matter

i have a question for you....

so your saying that evolution is wrong because its a theory?

what about god? he cant be proven...

[ahabion]

i have a question for you....

so your saying that evolution is wrong because its a theory?

what about god? he cant be proven...

I never said that evolution was wrong because it is a theory, but it doesnt mean that its right or fact or has been proven.

God in scientific terms is also a theory or hypothesis the same as evolution but it also doesnt mean that its right or factual.

For both, you have historical data (bone carbon records, dna, instant rock, etc and of course the oldest record of history being the Bible itself.) all of which has its probability of flaws and gaps, but its all in what you put your money in or what you want to believe in, find out which way the evidence points to the most for YOU, whether it be evolution or creation.