Why do guys are so sure?

I precise that I'm neither creationist nor evolutionist at all, I think both of them should be less pretentious and stubborn, and I know both of them have something interesting to say in a scientific point of view.
I have great respect for scientists and people who say they don't know (about the hot topic "creation/evolution") than someone saying he knows, everyone should have his/her own point of view, and I respect that, but how can you guys say , in such a complex subject that is evolution, that this is our ancestor, or this is...or this.. and so on!! i can't take it because I know one scientist says this, another says that, sometimes they literally disagree, because the evidences are so poor, for instance the newbaby of huanity found in Chad by a frenc and african team, by a lake or something, how do they dare proclame that this is our oldest ancestor whereas we see nothing on this skull says it was an ape or something similar maybe extinct like dinosaurs, or a mere animal, that we don't know.
What do you think guys?
But don't get me wrong I respect what you think and say, but I can't bear when you say statements like if they were th total proof, if we really had real proofs about evolution we won't argue on this forum but the fact is that the so-called proofs are so ridiculous, or it can be another explaination like extincts mammals, but whatever I expect your answers to be harsh or something,
but have a kindda smilin' day!!
Sincerely,
David

Science doesn't deal in "proof". There is no such thing as incontrovertable scientific proof. We have evidence, and science seeks to explain that evidence within a framework.For something to be scientific, there has to be the possibility of some evidence, if discovered, counting against it.This is why scientists argue and disagree. Over time, with repeated survival of severe tests, the scientific theories which are most useful and have the most predictive and retrodictive power, will survive and be considered "robust" theories.The Theory of Evolution is a very robust theory.Creationism and Creation 'science', since it is based in a religious doctrine and not in evidence, and since that religious doctrine is held to be infallible to it's proponents, it is not in any way to be confused with science. It is religion masquerading as science as it misuses science.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Thanks for replying,
I agree with you that religion has nothing to do with public science (it's a matter of faith especially in this domain "The Meaning Of Life") and I am a little bit disappointed by creationists who sometimes don't realize that there are sincere and true scientists who do their best in their respectives fields (I know some creationists are really sincere, but some have lose credibility to me) that's why I respect true scientists no matter what they think and if they have really searched for clues in several realms of life, science, sociology..etc..because everything is linked together in life, that's what I actually think.
Here in France we are taught since our young age that evolution is a fact, with prehistoric people...., but I'm realizing today that I didn't really believe evolution, I still think that it took a lot of times as experiences show, but there can be various explanations, speculations, to all what make the Evolution Theory. Such as for the Fossils.
I think this is such a hot topic we can't realy assert for sure that one thing is at 100% sure.
But I still like to hear about new discoveries, I'm not afraid, if evolution did occur then it did occur, I'm not complicated-minded, but so far there is slight evidences (and I understand people who believe in Evolution, it seems true, it's quite logic after all) but as far as I'm concerned when I was a kid it was more like a Walt Disney movie, if you see what I mean, ok gotta go Folks!
thanx for replying with still kindness,
david

I agree. Personnally, I'd rather tend more to the Creationists point of view, but, although I would probably never accept evolution, I do hold the posibility that I might be wrong. All that can be determined from a fossil is what it looked like (If they're lucky enough to find the entire skeleton), and how old it is. It is up to personal interpretation if it were created that way, or if it evolved into that. Evolusionists often says that evolution is purely based of facts. However,if you do not believe in a God, you have to believe in evolution, how else would everything have come about? The assumption that there is no creator, is just as unproven that the believe that there is. Ofcause, science is based on that which you can detect, and thus cannot be used in this religious discusion: You cannot learn much about the creator when studying the creation, accept, perhaps, that he must have been very wise. You cannot proof Picaso had lived by studing his work, can you? Evolution theory is therefore a necesary result of the believe that there is no God. (Ofcause, once the theory is there, nothing stops religious people to adopt it as well.)But if animals did evolve, there is no telling who is who's ancestor. It's pure speculation and educated guess work. There is no way of knowing how may animals really existed, no way of telling how many were never fossilized. How, for instance, can they pinpoint for sure the ancestor of the dinosaurs? It might just as well have been some other species. Just like "ape men" that were previously concidered an ancestor of man, which is now believed to have lived side by side with our "real" ancestor. And this is then tought as "facts" in schools, not theories.The evolusionists need to realize they are building a puzzle, without knowing how many pieces there is, and how many are missing. If 99.99999% of the pieces are missing (And we do not know the percentage, this is purely hipothetical), the picture we will have would be greatly obscured. And if you try and explain everything from what we have, even more so. The last thing you need then, is a preconcieved idea where the pieces you do have, should fit. You can make educated guesses, but when educated guesses are made, it should not be presented as facts.
Ofcause, this goes for the Creationists as well. It is not for us to know EXACTLY how God made the universe. God gave us a very rough idea in Genesis 1, but for all we know, the details of "..and there was light..." can fill encyclopedias. Besides, we as Christians have a have a comforting assurance from our Father that we will be with Him after we die. We do not need proof of this, because God Himself planted this faith in our harts. Therefore, the details of how God created/evolved us, borders on irrelevance. (It is nice to argue about it for a bit, though ) For the rest, they can only believe in that which is detectable. Though I understand this view, I pity them. They can never know the peace we have, when saying goodbye to a loved one for the last time. In their minds, that person ceased to exist. In the detectable world, life becomes irrelivant, our survival as a species becomes irrelivant, because what good is it the species survives,when all the members have to die anyway? Why procreate if live is empty, with no purpose? Some people tell us we are superstitious and backwards to believe in Someone (God) we cannot detect. But they need to ask themselves: Are you really better of believing that we are nothing but a speck of dust, a coincidence, a chemical concoction with no meaning in live, to exist purely for the sake of existing? Are they beter off than the person believing He was created by a alpowerful and loving God that cares about him, guide him and give him reason to exist? I do not believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that other Christains can believe in evolution as well. God created the very laws of physics, and we are mearly uncovering His secrets. Being scientific does not mean you cannot believe in God as well. To be able to believe, specifically in Jesus Christ, is a gift from heaven. The more people I meet that believe otherwise, the more I become aware of this. "Nothing can seperate us(the believer) from the love of God, the love there is in Jesus Christ" Not even if evolution realy happend

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
I agree. Personnally, I'd rather tend more to the Creationists point of view, but, although I would probably never accept evolution, I do hold the posibility that I might be wrong. All that can be determined from a fossil is what it looked like (If they're lucky enough to find the entire skeleton), and how old it is. It is up to personal interpretation if it were created that way, or if it evolved into that. Evolusionists often says that evolution is purely based of facts. However,if you do not believe in a God, you have to believe in evolution, how else would everything have come about? The assumption that there is no creator, is just as unproven that the believe that there is.

---

JM: Ok, let's put paid to this poor assertion. It is constantly claimed that if one finds evolution a satisfactory explanation of how changes in organisms come about, then that person cannot believe in God. Now, you left some wriggle room and can claim that you did not say exactly that, but the implication is clear. There are scientists who accept evolution based on data and those scientists range in their religious beliefs from atheists to fundamentalist Christians so I don't buy the false dichotomy. As for your assertion that all we can know is what it looked like, that too is false. We can estimate brain size, document activities and life style in some cases, we can analyze social aspects and behavior of the organisms. I don't mind if you disagree with the conclusions, but at least take the time to find out what science has discovered and stop portraying it in cartoon fashion.

quote:

---

Ofcause, science is based on that which you can detect, and thus cannot be used in this religious discusion: You cannot learn much about the creator when studying the creation, accept, perhaps, that he must have been very wise.

---

JM: Why? If there is a possibility for one creator, then there is a possibility for many creators! Furthermore, from a purely engineering perspective, our backs, feet and knees were poorly designed (if they were designed at all).

quote:

---

You cannot proof Picaso had lived by studing his work, can you? Evolution theory is therefore a necesary result of the believe that there is no God. (Ofcause, once the theory is there, nothing stops religious people to adopt it as well.)

---

JM: Baloney. Now you've made the claim. I personally know dozens of scientists who are both strong in their faith and also find evolution a perfectly acceptable theory. What you do, on the other hand, is limit your God based on your incomplete knowledge of science. You are basically concluding that God could not create via evolution because YOU can't fathom God creating that way. Who has the strongest faith? One who artificially decides what God can and cannot do or one who accepts that God is all-powerful and chose evolution as his creative tool?

quote:

---

But if animals did evolve, there is no telling who is who's ancestor. It's pure speculation and educated guess work.

---

JM: This is a naive view of science. Show that this statement is true.

quote:

---

There is no way of knowing how may animals really existed, no way of telling how many were never fossilized. How, for instance, can they pinpoint for sure the ancestor of the dinosaurs? It might just as well have been some other species. Just like "ape men" that were previously concidered an ancestor of man, which is now believed to have lived side by side with our "real" ancestor. And this is then tought as "facts" in schools, not theories.

---

JM: What are you talking about? I teach in the schools and I teach evolution is both a fact and a theory. You can close your eyes and pretend that evolution (or gravity or heat) doesn't exist, but it's gonna happen anyway! You can stand on the top of a building, rebuke gravity and jump off. Do you think gravity will care? Evolution is a theory because we don't know all the mechanisms for why evolution occurs. Gravity is also a theory because we do not know why gravity exists and how it relates to the other fundamental forces. Stop protesting so hard and try learning what evolution and science really says rather than repeating some ill-prepared cartoon version of it. You might be pleasantly surprised at how your faith and science are not at odds.

quote:

---

The evolusionists need to realize they are building a puzzle, without knowing how many pieces there is, and how many are missing. If 99.99999% of the pieces are missing (And we do not know the percentage, this is purely hipothetical), the picture we will have would be greatly obscured.

---

JM: The government must realize that they are building a puzzle without knowing how many pieces there are. If 99% of the pieces are missing (also HYPOTHETICAL), the picture of who was responsible for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown is greatly obscured. Do you see the problem? You eschew the fact that evolution happens, is observable and repeatable. You forget that evolution has both predictive and retrodictive power. In short, you have been spoon fed some cartoon version of science and are mercilessly beating it into your head. Learn what science says, then attack it.

quote:

---

And if you try and explain everything from what we have, even more so. The last thing you need then, is a preconcieved idea where the pieces you do have, should fit. You can make educated guesses, but when educated guesses are made, it should not be presented as facts.

---

JM: You've yet to support your case that this is true.

quote:

---

Ofcause, this goes for the Creationists as well. It is not for us to know EXACTLY how God made the universe. God gave us a very rough idea in Genesis 1, but for all we know, the details of "..and there was light..." can fill encyclopedias. Besides, we as Christians have a have a comforting assurance from our Father that we will be with Him after we die. We do not need proof of this, because God Himself planted this faith in our harts.

---

JM: The remainder of your post is a personal statement of faith (good for you) and a personal statement of incredulity. You can't imagine that your God could create via evolution (because someone told you that) and have therefore turned your back on science in favor of your own creation of God. It is your privelege to do so, but stop pretending that everyone else must also follow your lead. As I said, there are many Christian scientists who have examined the evidence and found that God's creative tool was evolution. This view does not conflict with their beliefs nor does it lessen their God.I would be happy to discuss real science with you at any time, but you need to present real science in your posts rather than this caricature.CheersJoe Meert

I do not have the time to go through lengthy responses, but in this case I feel I must.**************************
Ok, let's put paid to this poor assertion. It is constantly claimed that if one finds evolution a satisfactory explanation of how changes in organisms come about, then that person cannot believe in God.
***************************Bull. You are putting words in my mouth. If you followed my argument correctly, you would've known what I said. I said if you are an atheist, you have no option but to believe in evolution. It is the only why the existance of live can be explained without a creator. However, if you DO believe in a creator, then there is the option to believe in (Creator guided) evolution, or creationism. Creationism implies the existanse of a Creator, therefore an atheist cannot believe in it, and the conclusions he makes when handling prehistoric artifacts will reflect this view. However, his views can be easily be accepted by a religious person, by believing that evolution was guided by God. And, as I said, if you're a Christian (O Jew or Muslim) this doesn't really matter. It is more important to believe IN the Creator, that in HOW He created.***************************
As for your assertion that all we can know is what it looked like, that too is false. We can estimate brain size, document activities and life style in some cases, we can analyze social aspects and behavior of the organisms.
****************************Fair enough, but this wasn't the point I was making, was it? The point was that, since no genetic material was left of the animal ,say a dinosaur, you cannot determine beyond any doubt what its evolutionary tree looks like. It is pure speculation based only on its form, age, and type. (Reptile, mammal) This is aspecially true, since we do not know how many forms of live never fossilized. Example:Animal A 300 000 000 years old
Animal B 200 000 000 years old, looks similar to Animal AConclusion: Animal B evolved from Animal AWRONG!!! Both Animal A and B evolved from C:
A D
| |
| |
| B
+-+-+
|
CNow if no animal from species C and D were fosilized the following will be tought as fact:A
|
|
BThe reason for this error? An incomplete fossil record. And, since C and D never fossilized, this mistake will never be corrected. THAT was my main point.*********************************
JM: Why? If there is a possibility for one creator, then there is a possibility for many creators!
***********************************Once again, this is a matter of faith. This is what I meant when I said you cannot use science to learn who God is. There are many religions, but Christianity is the only one that (In the first 300 years, at least) grew despite the fact that it was repressed, and that the Christians did not fight back. If Christianity was invented by man, then that man would have had no guarintee that it would ever get off the ground, never mind survive. And if this is not guarinteed, why start a religion? Technically, the Christian God is both 3 and 1. (Don't even try to understand this concept, it is just to be believed) That is why God said: "Let US make ..."*************************************************************
Furthermore, from a purely engineering perspective, our backs, feet and knees were poorly designed (if they were designed at all).
*************************************************************I would love to see your plans with the improvements. Besides, I studied argitecture for 2 years, and I learned that designers also return to nature. Asspecially in advanced robotics, those that mimmic nature, are usually more effisiant.******************************************
But if animals did evolve, there is no telling who is who's ancestor. It's pure speculation and educated guess work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------JM: This is a naive view of science. Show that this statement is true.
************************************************As I showed before. It is not necesary for me to proof this statement, because our prehistorical data is incomplete. It is you that need to proof to me that my statement is false.*************************************
JM: Baloney. Now you've made the claim. I personally know dozens of scientists who are both strong in their faith and also find evolution a perfectly acceptable theory. What you do, on the other hand, is limit your God based on your incomplete knowledge of science. You are basically concluding that God could not create via evolution because YOU can't fathom God creating that way. Who has the strongest faith? One who artificially decides what God can and cannot do or one who accepts that God is all-powerful and chose evolution as his creative tool?
******************************************The first part I already handled. As for the next part, you demonstrated that you have no understanding of my believe system. And although I know it's futile to try and explain it to you again, I will do it anyway. I am not limiting God. If I were, I wouldn't have allowed for the posibility that I might be wrong. However, God reveals Himself to us in the Bible. He inspired the words to those that have written it. (Please do not ask me to prove the authentisity of the Bible. This is a totaly different field, and a lot of research has been done on this topic. This is, however, not the subject I'm debating.) And in that which HE revealed to US, I found enough evidence to show that the possibility exists that God did not use evolution. And how many times do I need to say this to you :"I BELIEVE THAT I CANNOT SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT GOD DID NOT USE EVOLUTION." I am only 80% sure of that. What part of that tells you "HARD CORE CREATIONIST"? I beg you, tell me what part! The Bible tells the truth. Maybe the scientists are a bit off, and maybe I misinterpret Genesis 1. I don't really care, because on the new Earth, when we're with God, we'll know the exact truth anyway. I can wait 70, 80 years for the awnser. The Bible itself tells us God did not reveal everything to us, so it is ok not to be 100% correct.******************************JM: What are you talking about? I teach in the schools and I teach evolution is both a fact and a theory. You can close your eyes and pretend that evolution (or gravity or heat) doesn't exist, but it's gonna happen anyway! You can stand on the top of a building, rebuke gravity and jump off. Do you think gravity will care? Evolution is a theory because we don't know all the mechanisms for why evolution occurs. Gravity is also a theory because we do not know why gravity exists and how it relates to the other fundamental forces. Stop protesting so hard and try learning what evolution and science really says rather than repeating some ill-prepared cartoon version of it. You might be pleasantly surprised at how your faith and science are not at odds.***********************************This might come as a suprise to you, but even the most conservative, narrow minded fundamentalist believe in evolution. Think about it: All humans come from Adam and Eve. Today we have black people, white people, asians, indians and coloured people. If we did not EVOLVE into seperate races, why don't we all look alike? The issue is not evolution, but inter-species evolution. Take the common cold. It keeps on evolving, constantly. But it remains a cold. I doesn't become Ebola or Aids. Likewise with bacteria and insects. You have to be stupid not to believe in some measure of evolution. But you guys also still have to proof how one specie can become something else. And not just in micro live. Macro live forms have all kinds of complex systems which you don't find in bacteria. Here is a posible example of how you can proof your version of evolution. Take a flock of sheep. Take one animal, modify it genetically, and do all those things you say happens when a specie develop. Do something totally out there (e.a. make it grow fins). Then, let it loose in the heard and wait. If all its offspring in the 2nd, 3rd 4th generation maintain these mutations, so that the entire flock changes into this new form, then I will be happy to accept evolution. The
n evolution theory can become a fact, because it was applied in real live. (Ofcause then you'll have to figure out how these genetic changes occured naturally, but we'll get to that when we get there.).****************************************************
The government must realize that they are building a puzzle without knowing how many pieces there are. If 99% of the pieces are missing (also HYPOTHETICAL), the picture of who was responsible for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown is greatly obscured. Do you see the problem?
*********************************************************
I did not follow the Simpson trail, but I believe there is quite I huge disagreement on this case? Is that not exactly because we do not have enough evidence either way? Remember, if there is reasonable doubt, then the guy is declared innocent. That means the evidence is insufficient to proof guilt OR innosence AS WELL. I simply love your "detective" argument. Detectives prefer to work with FRESH evidence. They know the more time passes, the less the evidence can prove. For instance, if only a skeleton remains, you cannot proof that the person was knifed, unless the knife touched a bone. The older a case is, the more likely it becomes that it would never be solved. Detectives work with evidence that is at most, a few decades old. Your fossils, on the other hand is millions of years old. Yes, you can still make a few deductions, but that's it. A million things could have desturbed the evidence before it fossilised. Then there is also the matter that detectives know the proccesses involved in commiting a crime before hand. Therefore they know what to look for. The main picture is there: murder was commited. All he does is fill in the who, when, where, how and who. Evolutionists, on the other hand, had to draw up a picture from scratch, with nothing to guide them but the blind believe in evolution.(The over all picture was the evolution theory which was not yet proven). In the beginning they did not have a evolutionary table, and they cannot explain to this day what is the mechanism that causes evolution. Mutations and natural selection (Whatever THAT is) are likely candidates, but has not yet been proven beyond doubt. And then, the final flaw with the "detective" argument, is that it is not 100% reliable. That's one of the main reasons why people protest against the death penalty, because there is a risk that the person is innocent.(Might I just say here I cannot see how the death penalty is less humane than a live time of hell in a maximum security prison and the alienation from friends and family) Even forensic evidence has to be interpreted by humans, which allows for human error. I have seen a documentary a few years ago, showing how innocent people were "proven" guilty with forensics. Yes, I agree, it helps solves crimes, and is more that 50, even 70% of the time correct. But unfortunatly, unless we invent a way to actually see into the past, detectives can never be 100% sure of their outcome. Your "detective" argument is therefore not valid. Interpreting human remains of a crime scene and interpreting fossils are not the same.***********************************
And if you try and explain everything from what we have, even more so. The last thing you need then, is a preconcieved idea where the pieces you do have, should fit. You can make educated guesses, but when educated guesses are made, it should not be presented as facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------JM: You've yet to support your case that this is true.
******************************I don't have to. My view is not taught in schools, yours are. And then as a science. If it is science, then my "lack of evidence" for my view cannot be used as evidence for evolution. Furthermore, as I already demonstrated, you cannot proof from a creation who the creator was. I believe it was you who asked me to proof that Jesus really existed. Now I can assume, since the religion exists, therefore its founder must have exised too, but that is not proof. Luckily, there are Roman references to a man called Jesus that did wonders. You might not believe anything else that is said about Him, but at least there is evidence that He existed. (If you do not believe me, I'm not going to search for the sources myself. If you really want to know if this is true, then you would search for it yourself. I am not a scientist, and therefore I don't remember the source of everything I know.)**********************************************
u can't imagine that your God could create via evolution (because someone told you that)
*********************************************Unless you're Catholic and believe the pope is infalible, this statement is absurt. Christianity today is based only on the Bible, not on what people say. That is how we determine if something is (acording to christianity) a false teaching: by comparing it with what the Bible says. Sects form when a persons word becomes more valid than the Bible. My believe is based on both Genesis 1 and 2, and Romans 8:20. Like I said, it is posible that I misunderstand these scriptures, but I think that not very likely.PS. On a personal note. As I said before, I have only my lunch hour to browse the internet, and I have other interests too. It is difficult for me to write a reply when you touch so many subjects. If you keep your reply short and to one subject (preferably not with pieces of my letter in between), I can reply to you again. Otherwise, I'm not even going to read it. Nothing personal, It's just that I have limited time to spend on this site, and I would like to read other peoples view as well.

quote:

---

Creationism implies the existanse of a Creator, therefore an atheist cannot believe in it, and the conclusions he makes when handling prehistoric artifacts will reflect this view. However, his views can be easily be accepted by a religious person, by believing that evolution was guided by God. And, as I said, if you're a Christian (O Jew or Muslim) this doesn't really matter. It is more important to believe IN the Creator, that in HOW He created.

---

So you actually have no problem with evolution in general, you're just attacking some personal interpretations. Why bother?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
I do not have the time to go through lengthy responses, but in this case I feel I must.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

I will try to keep it short...but no promises
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

Bull. You are putting words in my mouth. If you followed my argument correctly, you would've known what I said. I said if you are an atheist, you have no option but to believe in evolution. It is the only why the existance of live can be explained without a creator. However, if you DO believe in a creator, then there is the option to believe in (Creator guided) evolution, or creationism. Creationism implies the existanse of a Creator, therefore an atheist cannot believe in it, and the conclusions he makes when handling prehistoric artifacts will reflect this view. However, his views can be easily be accepted by a religious person, by believing that evolution was guided by God. And, as I said, if you're a Christian (O Jew or Muslim) this doesn't really matter. It is more important to believe IN the Creator, that in HOW He created.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

An atheist has to believe in abiogenesis and a creationist has to believe in a creator...but both can believe that evolution took and is taking place.

​

Fair enough, but this wasn't the point I was making, was it? The point was that, since no genetic material was left of the animal ,say a dinosaur, you cannot determine beyond any doubt what its evolutionary tree looks like. It is pure speculation based only on its form, age, and type. (Reptile, mammal) This is aspecially true, since we do not know how many forms of live never fossilized. Example:

​

Animal A 300 000 000 years old
Animal B 200 000 000 years old, looks similar to Animal A

​

Conclusion: Animal B evolved from Animal A

​

WRONG!!! Both Animal A and B evolved from C:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

Ummm this is a misunderstanding or strawman argument on your part...nobody would say that Animal B evolved from Animal A...they both evolved from a common ancestor and this is regardless of whether that ancestor has a fossil representative or not.

​

*********************************
JM: Why? If there is a possibility for one creator, then there is a possibility for many creators!
***********************************

​

Once again, this is a matter of faith. This is what I meant when I said you cannot use science to learn who God is. There are many religions, but Christianity is the only one that (In the first 300 years, at least) grew despite the fact that it was repressed, and that the Christians did not fight back. If Christianity was invented by man, then that man would have had no guarintee that it would ever get off the ground, never mind survive. And if this is not guarinteed, why start a religion? Technically, the Christian God is both 3 and 1. (Don't even try to understand this concept, it is just to be believed) That is why God said: "Let US make ..."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

Islam is the fastest growing religion, there are over a billion buddhists, there are hundreds of millions of hindus....that lots of people follow a religion does not make any religion true...but as you stated..it is a matter of faith.

​

*************************************************************
Furthermore, from a purely engineering perspective, our backs, feet and knees were poorly designed (if they were designed at all).
*************************************************************

​

I would love to see your plans with the improvements. Besides, I studied argitecture for 2 years, and I learned that designers also return to nature. Asspecially in advanced robotics, those that mimmic nature, are usually more effisiant.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

​

Ah but if your creator is perfect why did he not make a perfect construct?

​

******************************************
But if animals did evolve, there is no telling who is who's ancestor. It's pure speculation and educated guess work.

---

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++there are easy ways of getting data to support phylogenetic relationships and search for common ancestors so it is not pure speculation nor guess work.

[QUOTE][B]Evolution theory is therefore a necesary result of the believe that there is no God.[/QUOTE][/B]That's the Genetic Fallacy. Even if you could prove that this is the origin of evolution that proof would have no bearing on the validity of evolution. [QUOTE][B]But if animals did evolve, there is no telling who is who's ancestor.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually morphology and time-of-existance are strong indicators in species known from fossils. Genetic work is also a strong indicator in extant species (such as humans and chimps). Human Endogenous RetroViral elements (HERVs) are a smoking gun between humans and other primates, we "just happen to have" the same viral DNA piggybacking on Human Chromosome 7 that other primates also have. Tranquility Base is working on relating this to the fall but it is the fact that we all have same HERVs that I find fascinating. [QUOTE][B]It might just as well have been some other species. [/QUOTE][/B]We don't have to know the exact species. As you know from taxonomy species tend to occur in clusters of similarity that descended from a common ancestor. Because of the uncertainty involved it is ok if our transitionals are actually first cousins instead of direct ancestors, the match is close enough anyway. [QUOTE][B]The evolusionists need to realize they are building a puzzle, without knowing how many pieces there is, and how many are missing.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not sure if there is any 'complete' theory anywhere in science. Nor is there any need for a theory to be absolutely complete and finished to be useful. To say that species evolve does not require an unbroken lineage all the way back to the first living thing. [QUOTE][B]Therefore, the details of how God created/evolved us, borders on irrelevance.[/QUOTE][/B]No, it's not irrelevant. The most aggressive YECs will argue that an unfailing belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary for salvation.Geologists will tell you that Earth history is vital to uncovering the resources necessary to (literally) fuel modern society. Biologists use evolution to advance their work, and medical breakthroughs are the ultimate result of their work. [QUOTE][B]Though I understand this view, I pity them. They can never know the peace we have, when saying goodbye to a loved one for the last time.[/QUOTE][/B]That may be so but getting comfort from a belief does not make the belief correct. [QUOTE][B]In the detectable world, life becomes irrelivant, our survival as a species becomes irrelivant, because what good is it the species survives,when all the members have to die anyway?[/QUOTE][/B]Actually in the 'detectable world' (ignoring the possibility of a supernatural world) life is still important. The reason to live is to cherish existance, because when it's over, you decompose. You only have a short time here and you can't afford to waste any of it.Survival of the species remains important, perhaps even more so, because, whereas we believe in a judgement the alternative is open-ended; the march of the species goes on because there is no greater end than survival. I would say that, secondary to submitting to the will of God (if the person is a believer) in any person, then the greatest responsibility to that person is the survival of the species. This is, of course, excepting groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement who honestly believe it is our moral responsibility to cease to be. [QUOTE][B]Why procreate if live is empty, with no purpose?[/QUOTE][/B]Life isn't empty, even to an atheist. [QUOTE][B]But they need to ask themselves: Are you really better of believing that we are nothing but a speck of dust, a coincidence, a chemical concoction with no meaning in live, to exist purely for the sake of existing? Are they beter off than the person believing He was created by a alpowerful and loving God that cares about him, guide him and give him reason to exist?[/QUOTE][/B]The crux of the issue is not if people are 'better off' believing in something but whether we *should* believe in something. This is a search for the truth, not social engineering. [QUOTE][B]Being scientific does not mean you cannot believe in God as well. [/QUOTE][/B]True. [QUOTE][B]To be able to believe, specifically in Jesus Christ, is a gift from heaven.[/QUOTE][/B]I happen to believe in the same deity but why not some other religion?

Great post,You did look at both sides of the issue."Evolution theory is therefore a necesary result of the believe that there is no God."How can evolution which is in the Magesterium of Science be the result of no belief in God? Are you not mixing two separte Magesteria. Science does not acknowledge the existance or denial of God. It is not in the realm of Science. Let us call God, x. And let us call the result which is a scientific thory (s+x). Define: The set, science S and the set Religion R. Set R contains all the varaibles which have to do with questions pertaining to the supernatural and the meaning of life. Set S contains all the varaibles which have to deal with questions pertaining to the natural world and the answers from asking these questions. How on earth can X, God enter the domain of science. It is undefined. It cannot happen. Therefore any thoery that is in science is not a result related to Set R, and vice versa. Keep the two separate as they are two different ways of learning and asking questions. Their parameters are differrent.Are you creationist not building a puzzle too? You do not actually build yours, you just accept the blueprints by faith. But what if someone falsified them? THen where would you be?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Sorry, this reply is long, but it needed to be.I usually do not post to long and lengthy posts, but in this case I need too.I have not read the other replies, becuase I want to state things my own way. Even at the risk of repetition."The point was that, since no genetic material was left of the animal " - Have a suggestion for this one, read the first chapter of the book GENOME by Matt Ridley. The first chapter has to do with a gene sequence that is found in our genome that leaves genes from our predecessors.And your exmample, sure this may have been one circumstance, but you are ruling out a myriad of other circumsances. It is possible.
Do not get me started on mathematical probablities, this is my major and passion. I will rip apart any misuse of mathematics of grossly exaggerate the claims on one side or the other. Mathematics is pure, and I will not see it MISUSED."why start a religion? " I forget the thread that I addressed this one, but go and check out the faith and belief forum. You should find the answer there. Besides there are many religions that have been started that are widely accepted. You just seem to believe the religion that seems most acceptable to you,"Besides, I studied argitecture " - I do not mean to be rude, just a little sarcastic. But after two years of study you cannot spell architecture. LOL"As for the next part, you demonstrated that you have no understanding of my believe system"Clearly from these two posts in this thread, you do not show the complete understanding of the Magesterium of Science. To turn the tables upon you fairly: Do you understand you Belief system completely? Meaning do you know everything about it? Can you explain everything? I do not think so, becuase if you did, you would be equating yourself with God [if he exists]. Noone completely understands any one field. They take what they know and apply it within the field. I do not mind you responding in the Magesterium of Religion, I will not disagree with anything unless you contradict your own beliefs, but with the Magesterium of Science, I will attack any inconsistencies or misuse of it."It is you that need to proof to me that my statement is false." We cannot show why one Magesterium is false with the proof of another Magersterium. Any educated person worth his salt would not encroach upon another discipline with their own ex. creationism vs. evolution. It makes your discipline look weaker and less credible and it annoys the heck out of us you are approaching. Approach us with our terms and we will be able to talk to you.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
And your exmample, sure this may have been one circumstance, but you are ruling out a myriad of other circumsances. It is possible.
Do not get me started on mathematical probablities, this is my major and passion. I will rip apart any misuse of mathematics of grossly exaggerate the claims on one side or the other. Mathematics is pure, and I will not see it MISUSED.

---

Intresting... I've seen biologists, geologists, philosophers and theologians defending evolution, and now there's a mathematician defender! Can't wait to see some other comrades; maybe a chemist or preacher, defending evolution?

I don't know about preachers, but all chemists I know are really scientists, beginning with Harold Urey and Stanley Miller.

Andya,Have you read my signature that accompanies my posts. I am also a musician. And yes, thanks.I think, I may be the only mathematician in here, but I do not know for sure.See you around.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Yes, I know people is going to come down hard on me, but, I'm not the one that invented my religion, I just follow it. You ask why not any other religion? Because that's the path God chose for us. You will not find salvation through any onther religion. The reason? Since Adam and Eve, (Or who ever they really were, since many of you don't believe in them...) fell for temptation, the entire human race is covered in sin and imperfection, making us all deserving of hell. The only way to be saved were to follow Gods commandments, without ever failing even once. That is imposible, and that's why other religions can't be acceptable for God, because they suppose that we can make ourselves "acceptable" for God by following laws. Christianity is the only one that teaches that God came to us to save us, not us to Him. He took our punnishment on Himself, so all who believe in Him can be saved. Christians do not follow laws in order to be saved, they follow them out of gratitude for Gods mercy. That's also why I can't think myself better than non-Christians. I too, deserve to go to hell, and my salvation is a mercyfull act from God, not my own prestige.I wish to close my partisipation of this debate. When I started this debate, I did not think I would be convinced. I'm still not 100% convinced. As far as I'm concerned, there is a 50/50 chance God created the world either way. The Genesis account of the beginning is not complete, it is simply an over view of what happend. Neither is the evolution theory complete. For all we know, the evidence that might topple the theory might still be out there, waiting to be discovered. It came to my attension that there are creationists that actually plant evidence to support their view. This is regretfull, because they give creationism a bad name, and it also shows they do not really believe in creationism. To those evolutionists actually in the field, I ask patience. Please do not insult those believing in creationism, like some did to me. (You're giving evolutionism a bad name.) You claim evolution is based purely on science, so respond in a purely scientific manner: reasoning. As for the (honnest) creationists,keep up the good work. I believe having rival theories to the origins of live can only be healthy.Cheers