Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Creationism / Evolution

[PJKru]

Originally Posted by __earth

if any of you contemplating of converting into FSM, halt! consider of joining the invisible pink unicorn too! cooler deity!

if its invisible. how do you know its pink? are you the messenger?

[__earth]

Originally Posted by PJKru

if its invisible. how do you know its pink? are you the messenger?

that my friend, is exactly the point.

[Shoblast]

A quick Necroing of this topic..




Not only do we have creationists.. there is also POKEMON.


That will be all.

[Leen]

There will never be a solid proof to prove/disprove another theory.

However, people are free to choose whichever one that they believe in. And because of that, people think that whichever one that they choose is the right one. Therefore, we have this argument. If everyone in this world converts to Christianity, then there might not even be the word "evolution" today. In the same manner, if Darwin had lived before the bible was written and that the whole world had been atheists, then the theory of creation would not have even come out.

For me, I just choose to be ignorant (yes I admit to ignorance) and believe in creation because I believe in Christ.

[youngyew]

When someone sees a cruel neighbor stoning his dog to death, he would naturally be convinced to believe in the strong evidence - the vision and sounds of the neighbor stoning the dog. But the neighbor can somehow suggests an alternative theory that the pink invisible unicorn is somehow conjuring an illusion of himself stoning the dog, while the real him didn't commit the crime.

In this case, one might also say that there's never a solid proof to either hypothesis - how do you know the neighbor you see is the actual neighbor, but not an illusion created by the almighty invisible pink unicorn?

Just because two different explanations are not 100% proved or 100% disproved, doesn't mean that they hold the same validity and should be held with the same respect or taboo. In the case of evolution vs. creation, the overwhelming evidence displays that evolution is happening, has happened, and it gives a rigorous framework for making predictions and describing patterns. Yes it's true that it can't be 100% proved - no scientific theory could be 100% proved, anything could have been an illusion created by the pink invisible unicorn, even the fact that an apple always falls to the ground. It's also possible that one day evolution can be replaced by something more accurate and correct, like how newtonian time-space continuum is improved by Einsteinian relativity theory. There are many questions which can't be 100% explained by the current knowledge of evolution yet, but that doesn't mean that the alternative answer - "God did it" must then be the right answer.

Having said all that, it could still be possible that creation is after all the truth. But in that case, the designer must have been pranking the human race by fabricating so much fake misleading clues about the diversification of life.

People are free to choose what they want to believe in, just like I wouldn't mind if my neighbor chooses to believe in alchemy and try to turn steel into gold - as long as he doesn't blow all the smouldering smoke to my house. It's a similar thing with creationism and evolution. The problem with creationism nowadays is some people are trying to pass the pseudo-science as a valid scientific hypothesis and place it in the scientific curriculum. In that case, it would already be an encroachment of freedom of belief, and it should be stopped. On the other hand, if people believe in the literal biblical account of creation, I am totally fine with it, as long as they don't try to shove their unsupported claim down my throat.

[vseehua]

Sure, nothing can completely prove or disprove anything, but proofs can give credibility to one side of the equation.

It's like the justice system determining whether a suspected is guilty of criminal activity or not. After a certain threshold is passed, the jury will decide whether the person is guilty or not. At certain times, misinterpreted clues may lead to the suspected being sentenced to jail when he is innocent, or vice versa. And the justice system may call a retrial if such things happens.

In the debate between evolution and creationism, the current line of observations lead more credibility to the theory of evolution rather than the events depicted in the Holy Bible. Unless we have terribly misinterpreted the events from the Book of Genesis, the current scientific community will take our currently modified Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the stronger candidate to be the more 'correct' theory

[azlanhussain]

I found this online and though of sharing it with you guys...

"The December 2007 Edition Of The Well-Known French Magazine Science Et Vie Devoted Nine Pages To Harun Yahya?s Atlas Of Creation And Its Impact On The World, Particularly France. The Comments In The Magazine Regarding The Atlas, From A Confirmed Evolutionist Publication, Clearly Revealed The Defeat Of The Theory Of Evolution And The Traumatic Psychological Effect This Has Had On Evolutionists."

More info here

[qedx]

I'll let an actual biologist do the talking here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,28...ichard-Dawkins

[youngyew]

Harun Yahya is a pseudo-scientist who is famous for rambling on "disproving" evolution and "proving" creationism. He has trolled the online talk forum talk.origin for years. Unfortunately, he has no standing in the scientific circle, and all his arguments are either weak, fallacious or simply nonsensical. This is quite a generalisation; but I have read his books before and even an amateur reader like me find it easy to refute his arguments. Feel free to table any of his points and I shall try to dissect it.

Typo: I have read some of his webpages; not his books.

[azlanhussain]

Have science found any prove that human came from ape.. can you give me any link to any site that proves we did came from ape.

Originally Posted by qedx

I'll let an actual biologist do the talking here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,28...ichard-Dawkins

I can't trust his (Richard Dawkins) review. He was only commenting based on few parts of the book. But he can't even comment on so many other issues that this book has managed to put up.

The fact is he is an atheist. He describes faith as "the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Even so many evidences have been brought up upon but still he refuse to believe.

In his blog, it portrays so much about the personality of Harun Yahya and not about his findings. In that case, maybe you should also read about him from other people point of view. http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/20050124JJ.shtml

Lets not close our mind to what we believe. Lets think of it rationally. I might be wrong in some cases. I hope this thread could bring the light at the end of my journey for seeking the truth.

--------------------------------

Evolutionist: ‘You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.’

Wise man: ‘But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.’

Evolutionist: ‘Well, they told me they were my ancestors.’

What a joke..


The fact is:

Evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution—because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

Human did not evolved from ape..