Evolution? How?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Rosborne, why do you have such a problem with creationists objecting to evolutionist conclusions?

Before I can respect anyone's objection to something, I have to see that they understand the thing they are objecting to. And quite frankly, the objections being posed by creationsts are so off base that they demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the very thing they are objecting to.

How can I be expected to take an objection seriously if the person making the objection repeatedly misrepresents the basic tenets of Evolution.

RL's "tornado" challenge is a good example. Anyone who would make such an analogy either doesn't know what they are talking about, or are intentionally trying to mislead others who don't understand the theory. How can I have respect for someone (or an objection) like that.

Real you don't seem to get it.

There is evidence and logic in evolution. This is not the case in most religions. It does not take incredible faith as you paint it so. Those who believe in evolution (at least me in this case) do not do so because we put faith in it but because we have seen WHY it is an established theory and accept it. Don't pull anymore bullshit by reducing evolution into a faith-driven thing or as a process in which we have found no evidence for.

"How ya been tonight?" Well, actually, I watched a program on t.v. for a change, and enjoyed it. It was about saving a Chinese CIA agent with some secrets that has great value to us. Fun! I don't watch t.v. often.

farmerman does not "hate" creationists. He disagrees with the "belief system" that equates ID to evolution.

What seems to upset him is some of those candid moments when prominent evolutionists admit that the evidence is scarce, shaky or nonexistent for parts of their theory, but they believe it anyway.

Please, let's not kid ourselves. Assembly and continual refinement and improvement of extremely complex organisms by random forces is exactly what we are supposed to believe, isn't it?

I can understand why many Evolution 'purists' don't like bringing Abiogenesis into the picture because it's so laughable. But the theories are like peas of a pod. They rely upon the same driver, Blind Chance; they share the same fatal scientific weakness, Unobservability; and they are sold to the public and to school kids in one package.

real life, As there are many priests who cannot be trusted, there are also scientists who cannot be trusted. You can't discredit evolution on the basis of one book or one scientist - or several. You must learn to evaluate what is true science and what is bogus science. They are all part of our lives, and we must learn to separate the wheat from the chaf. Some people may call themselves "christians," but you know as well as everyone that not all who claim to be christians are christians. If you don't understand these simple concepts, you have much larger problems of understand the world in which we live.

wand, I hate to say it, but religious people turn off their brains when it's a challenge between religion and everything else. That's the reality.

. . . The biggest concern for the scientists are the protection of Tennessee's cave creatures by protecting the cave ecosystems. . . ?

thunder,

You are honest in describing these as "ministries". However, there are religious people who see intelligent design not only as bad science but also as bad religion.

wand, Now, if you can only spread that message to all the religious people on this planet. I know; it can't be done, and never will be. My guesstimate is that over 50 percent of religious people have religion confused with science.

farmerman, I'm root'n for you, but the IDers are large in number and influence. We now have a president that wants ID to be taught along side evolution.

"...unambiguous evidence..." ROFLMAO It's evident that t.r. learns about evolution from the same source as real.

The one comment that real life made that was correct was that our evidence is primarily circumstantial. We do draw conclusions and try to develop a synthesis from thee evidence. . .

neo, Don't forget; many trials can use only circumstantial evidence to support the innocence or guilt of the defendant, because there were no eye-witness. Circumstantial evidence can be over-whelming to the point that most can be accepted as factual. ** I was a jury member in a rape-murder trial many years ago (for three months in Santa Clara County, CA). The defendant is now spending his life in prison without the possibility of parole, because we found him to be guilty of the crimes. Finally, each person must determine the credibility of information we have available, and in this endeavor, it behooves the observer to have some skills in balancing the available information against the rhetoric of some people that do not have knowledge about the subject. In this regards, common sense and logic are good tools.

Hi El-Diablo, It seems religious people for some unknown reason lose their ability to observe science for what it is - no matter how many ways it proves evolution. Their inability to grasp the scientific method is even more mysterious. It seems in order to accept their religion, they turn off their common sense and logic switch. What is so dumbfounding is the fact that their intelligence level seems to be above average in every way except when it comes to science and evolution.

Just because you feel something is proven to you, does that mean it is the truth?

What we do understand is that the miracle of the science comes from God and not man.

I have offered you proof of God's existence and so have others.