The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Believing in deities is archaic and primitive, therefore it is not only logical but prudent to use and trust the scientific method in questions like this.

Says the one who limits himself to scientific evidence to answer questions of life.

That’s correct, because life consists of the sciences. People don’t pray for babies or perform incantations to make their illness go away.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Good you found the cure for your life.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Yes I have, and thank you for your heartfelt thoughts.

a reply to: TerraLiga

btw I like science, science brings flying toys.

Evolution is an interpenetration of the scientific method, not the bible.
Darwin him self, who was a religious man, was deeply conflicted by this.
Science is not , at this point' concerned with religion,
only theory and fact, that can in fact be plausible to our monkey minds.
For me, there is no conflict in science and religion.
Most scientist agree.
"Give me one miracle and I'll explain the rest"
All just words really.

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: midicon

Logic tells me nothing comes from nothing.

...
And just to add...I don't think scientists propose nothing either.

The debate below concerns a book written by the physicist Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing".

Of course, there is a conclusion regarding the origin of the universe that fits the facts perfectly. Accepted as the truth of the matter by many people across the world, including scientists. Some people not liking that conclusion and unwilling to come to that conclusion themselves, does not really negate or invalidate that conclusion. Nor does it warrant the statement: "The real answer to that is no one knows at the moment." I know what caused the universe to come into existence:


“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

"no one knows", is not really a good objection to the general conclusion by induction from the observations discussed in the video about "purposeful design". It's even more crappy a cop-out to avoid coming to that conclusion than an unverified hypothesis would be (such as Lawrence Krauss' suggested scenario promoted by Dawkins in the other video). Either way, the conclusion stands unrefuted, unchallenged (by anything serious or rational).

By the way, what Newton is describing above, is a proven effective method to acquire or discover facts/truths/realities/certainties, a proper proven effective scientific method if you will. Using this method, he discovered the factual/absolute/certain law of gravity, which also stands unrefuted till this day (no, nothing in quantum mechanics or special relativity disproves or contradicts it). One may even go as far as arguing that all scientific progress since Newton, i.e. all factual discoveries in the sciences, has or have been made using this methodology which centers around inductive reasoning (focussing on the correct application of it).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Of course, that would be in an ideal scenario, many scientists, in particular the philosophical naturalists who happen to be scientists, have ignored Newton's warning as to what not to do in response to general conclusions from experiments and observations by induction (properly used), in particular regarding one specific subject. The same subject I've been discussing here and is discussed in the video about purposeful design as the cause for both the origin of the universe and everything in it, including most notably, life. They more often prefer wishful speculation and tickling people's ears, intriguing them with fancy ideas/philosophies that often are not just unverified, but actually can't be verified by experimental means or observation; as is the case with various evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines (often described as "models", i.e. scenarios). Thus these philosophies are not science/knowledge (a familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities) or these people are not engaging in scientific endeavors, they are not utilizing a 'proper' (proven effective) scientific method, despite their posturing that they are following what they call "the scientific method".

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * [By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.] Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee (senior editor of Nature magazine), pp. 116-117

And that's exactly what paleontologists getting their articles published in Nature magazine constantly do. Isn't it a bit questionable behaviour that Henry Gee puts his stamp of approval on these sort of publications on a regular basis in a magazine that is perceived by many to be presenting "science"?

a reply to: whereislogic

Evolution can be tested and has been. However such experiments and their results do benefit from a certain prior education that equips your eyes for seeing and understanding what the data says.

I would be fascinated to see any experiment engineered to test and measure the properties of a supernatural or divine factor that is proven responsible for life on earth.

Dissembling and discrediting the theory of evolution is not a default victory for creationism. Read that again.

They'll bore you to death with that.

So what would've been the point if evolution would've been real? I can't think of any. Perhaps only God knows.

a reply to: whereislogic

Instead of spending what must be hours and days constructing these copious and lengthy posts trying to disprove evolution, natural selection and ultimately science, why don’t you put this effort into proving creation so that we can all benefit from the wisdom that you have achieved?

I pulled up a comfy chair, I have filled my pipe. My open mind is yours...

a reply to: TerraLiga

Science is more than the theory of evolution.

How would you like creation to be proven a creation?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

...why don’t you put this effort into proving creation so that we can all benefit from the wisdom that you have achieved?

I pulled up a comfy chair, I have filled my pipe. My open mind is yours...

By talking past the evidence for creation (or purposeful design) presented in my comment (in particular the 2 videos) you are not really demonstrating that "open mind" of yours.

I'm getting a different vibe from you.

That is an incorrect assumption on your part. I have looked at many videos and read many books - including the Old Testament, Quoran, Tanakh and Torah.

If your whole argument is based on disbelief (that this random beginning of life couldn’t happen on its own) then we are arguing the same point as each other, only from different sides of the barricade. Your problem is that you have just one musket, whereas we have thousands.

So please, what else do you have?

a reply to: TerraLiga

If God exists, would he be the source of existence?

If so, why don't you believe God exists?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

If a god or your god exists then it would be the creator, according to legend, but where is the proof that this god or set of gods exist? Show me and I will believe. After all, if there is a heaven I don’t want to miss out, do I?

a reply to: TerraLiga

I don't understand why people would ever deny the existence of a creator.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

And I, along with billions of others, don’t understand why people would accept that there is.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I mean, everything has an origin but you have to be a man of reason to figure that out.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Nobody is arguing that there wasn’t an origin to life, of course there was. You don’t need reason to see or argue that fact.

You and your fellow creationists believe it was by the hand of a deity. I and my fellow naturalists believe it was by a chemo-bio process that has yet to be proven.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I don't think God is a chemo-bio process.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Gods are neurological processes.