It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 17
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I want to specifically address the argument that we shouldn't believe in evolution becuase it's 'only a theory.'

You can believe in whatever you like Andre.


Creationists exploit the meaning of theory as though it were only blind speculation like their own position is.

Define blinde speculation.


But a scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. In most instances, a theory is a field of study. For example Cell Theory, would you say that cells aren’t an established scientific fact because they’re called “theory” too?
terrible analogy; questioning cell theory does not disclaim the existence of cells.


Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact,

wrong


for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact.

wrong


That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable.

wrong


You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.

How is that the same? Even in context your statement makes no sense.


Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all

Find where the bible says the sun revolves around the earth Andre.


Why saying evolution is "Just a theory" proves you are ignorant

Evolution is only a theory.



Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

wrong



Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.

I think therefore I am. = your article quote is wrong.



Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Well that’s not what the definition of “fact” is. A scientific fact would actually bear less weight than an actually fact.



The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. .

I think therefore I am, wrong again



Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge".

If we have any knowledge at all *




Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases.

or decreases*




Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.

Andre you should read this last excerpt over, in my opinion, it’s the only one that was valid besides the definitions you put in your post.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

malcr

For those readers who don't know about "the evidence" it will do you all a lot of good to use the internet, search, read, learn


And this what you get when you do the research -


B.A.C.
Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

Evolution has been observed at all levels - new biosynthetic pathways, speciation, veriation of a feature in a population due to enviromental pressure. Humans have even unknowingly driven evolution through selective breeding - wolves to dogs, toesinte to corn.

And chemicals we introduce into the enviroment to kill other organisms - DDT resistant insects, Antibiotic resistance bacteria, Drug resistant HIV

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none..

Just to name a few:

Human evolution - Ardipithecus, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien

Tetrapod evolution - Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega,

Whale evolution - Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetedae, Protocetidae, Basilosauridae, Dorudontidae

if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

We do - Human evolution - Ardipithecus, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?


Culex Molestus evolved from Culex Pipiens, Primula Kewensis evolved via polyploidy, Stickers sarcoma (transmissible Canine tumer evolved from a wolf tumor)
Macroevolution has also been observed in the lab. Creationists like you ask to be shown a fish evolve into a monkey, the fossil record shows that took over 400,000,000 years.

www.talkorigins.org...


Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


everything2.com...


For the sake of argument, let's say that evolution has never been observed. Of course, neither have black holes, or quarks. yet we still know that they are there. This is because instead of direct evidence, we use indirect evidence to know.

One way of indirectly inferring something has happened is by predicting consequences and then seeing if they apply. For example, if there is a black hole in one section of space, then stars would be orbitting around a void. And we see stars orbitting around a void, so therefore there is a black hole.

If and only if all species rose from a common ancestor, then we would see big genetic similarities between us and other creatures of our genus, and also genetic similarities between us organisms in our kingdom. This is true; we share around 98% of our DNA with certain primates, and about 85% of our DNA with mice.

The other way to circumvent the affirmation of the consequent problem is multiple lines of indirect proof. To illustrate this, pretend we find a dead man on the floor. If taken individually, his broken neck could be attributed to tripping, his cuts could be attributed to his line of work, and his rumpled clothes could mean he put his clothes on in a hurry. All taken together, however, we can assume he was killed during a fight.

Evolution also has evidence like this, too. In addition to genetic similarity, other proofs include vestigal organs, transitional fossils, and the age of the earth in correllation with the timespan evolution would take. All of these have a large pool of evidence backing them up. If taken individually, each could be chalked up to a competing theory of origins, but when taken together it points towards an evolutionary theory.

en.wikipedia.org...


A common claim of creationists is that evolution has never been observed.Challenges to such objections often come down to debates over how evolution is defined. Under the conventional biological definition of evolution, it is a simple matter to observe evolution occurring. Evolutionary processes, in the form of populations changing their genetic composition from generation to generation, have been observed in many different scientific contexts, including the evolution of fruit flies and bacteria in laboratory settings, and of tilapia in the field. In response to such examples, many creationists specify that they are objecting only to macroevolution, not microevolution, most creationist organizations do not dispute the occurrence of short-term, relatively minor evolutionary changes, such as that observed even in dog breeding. Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the traces of macroevolutionary ones.

However, as biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed. Speciations, for example, have been directly observed many times, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary.Additionally, modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering the former to simply be the latter on a larger scale.Additionally, past macroevolution can be inferred from historical traces. Transitional fossils, for example, provide plausible links between several different groups of organisms, such as Archaeopteryx linking birds and dinosaurs, or the recently-discovered Tiktaalik linking fish and limbed amphibians.Creationists dispute such examples in a variety of ways, from asserting that such fossils are hoaxes or that they belong exclusively to one group or the other, to asserting that there should be far more evidence of obvious transitional species.

The number of clear transitional fossils has increased enormously since Darwin's day, Creationists counter that even observed speciations and transitional fossils are insufficient evidence for the vast changes summarized by such phrases as "fish to philosophers" or "particles to people." As more and more compelling direct evidence for inter-species and species-to-species evolution has been gathered, creationists have redefined their understanding of what amounts to a "created kind", and have continued to insist that more dramatic demonstrations of evolution be experimentally produced. One version of this objection is "Were you there?", popularized by Ken Ham. It argues that because no one except God could directly observe events in the distant past, scientific claims are just speculation or "story-telling".

In fields such as astrophysics or meteorology, where direct observation or laboratory experiments are difficult or impossible, the scientific method instead relies on observation and logical inference. In such fields, the test of falsifiability is satisfied when a theory is used to predict the results of new observations. When such observations contradict a theory's predictions, it may be revised or discarded if an alternative better explains the observed facts.


www.inmycommunity.com.au... 537/


Evolution is observable and testable. The confusion here is that people think science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. In fact, a large amount of scientific information is gathered from the real world. Astronomers can obviously not physically touch the objects they study (for example stars and galaxies), yet a great deal of knowledge can be gained through multiple lines of study. This is true also of evolution. It is also true that there are many mechanisms of evolution that can be, and are studied through direct experimentation as with other sciences.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


if you backtrack the geneology of jesus to adam, youll see the bible DOES state that the earth is only a few thousand years old..god bless



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
This is a good theory that evolution is "theory" therefore fact. It is a good example of how the Illuminati sucker and brainwash people into rationalizing nonsense. Here are some standard definitions of "Theory".
---------------------
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

---------------------
Note that Einsteins Theory of Relativity is given as an example: No better example could have been given. Einsteins "Theory" is in no way following any "Scientific Principle" nor does it demonstrate itself successfully. It is pure imagination or pretending not dissimilar from your post. Many competent physicists have said so. Just read the book "Gravitational Forces of the Sun". Your relying on the idea that using the word "Theory" means it is established fact says a lot. And it's surprising (or not) that people run and jump on your "Theory" of "Theory" as proof. Let's look at the word "Proof".

proof
   /pruf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proof] Show IPA
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Note than synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Hypothesis" what is not synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Proof". Even the very definitions of the words should be telling you "Science" can not say "The Theory of Evolution" is not established truth and it doesn't, only ignorant pseudo scientists. But, I see, several people have already agreed with your premise which is inconsistent with science itself. Great job at indirectly exposing the pseudo scientists.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.

Seriously, please read the thread before posting incorrect information. A number of people including the OP have posted the definition of a theory and mountains of evidence to support evolution. Your opinion that it's wrong, doesn't change factual information.

If you think all the posts showing scientific info. is wrong, please use science to contradict it.

Frankly almost every question you've asked has been answered and the few that haven't, you can easily look up on the internet.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.
........

If you think believing in evolution is part of your waking up, then you have been lulled back to sleep by the biggest conspiracy to ever infect the human speices and delude the masses.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.


Religion has been the opiate of the masses and science the light of mankind. Don't listen to what other people tell you, research the facts for yourself, and dont reject new ideas that go against your belief system.



Mainstream science, itself, is a religion


Nope.
Religion requires the belief in something without evidence to support it's existence-FAITH

Science requires verifiable and reproducible evidence.

2 completely different things



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


One of the better replies from a "religious nut" (as you say - a backhanded compliment
)

You bring up some very valid points. Seriously. And I am all for evolution and against the religious agenda.

The only thing I can offer you is if evolution is instant. A tiny DNA change could bring out the exact changes - no middle ground. Just a thought.

Also - as said before here on ATS, Religion (Christianity) and evolution can coexist. There is a war between the two ideas...but for the religious people, I would only think it would be most logical to accept both?

Regardless of your comments, evolution still has a LOT of proof behind it


Yes, it has a lot of proof, just not enough to be considered fact.


Here's the definition of proof

any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something;

source: websters dictionary

Since you don't believe in evolution, what evidence do you have that it's wrong? Please use scientific evidence to support your statements.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to the higher self (that what people call god...and which we are al part of) both evolution theory and religion are right but incomplete or/and manipulated.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.
And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.
Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.
And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.
So why couldn’t it work on the body of less conscious beings such as plants and animals but somewhat slower?
I am not saying that this would be the absolute way things went, it would be unlikely that its just one way, but I think its part of it



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
This is a good theory that evolution is "theory" therefore fact. It is a good example of how the Illuminati sucker and brainwash people into rationalizing nonsense. Here are some standard definitions of "Theory".
---------------------
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

---------------------
Note that Einsteins Theory of Relativity is given as an example: No better example could have been given. Einsteins "Theory" is in no way following any "Scientific Principle" nor does it demonstrate itself successfully. It is pure imagination or pretending not dissimilar from your post. Many competent physicists have said so. Just read the book "Gravitational Forces of the Sun". Your relying on the idea that using the word "Theory" means it is established fact says a lot. And it's surprising (or not) that people run and jump on your "Theory" of "Theory" as proof. Let's look at the word "Proof".

proof
   /pruf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proof] Show IPA
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Note than synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Hypothesis" what is not synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Proof". Even the very definitions of the words should be telling you "Science" can not say "The Theory of Evolution" is not established truth and it doesn't, only ignorant pseudo scientists. But, I see, several people have already agreed with your premise which is inconsistent with science itself. Great job at indirectly exposing the pseudo scientists.


The problem you're having is that you're not using the definition of theory in it's scientific sense.
For the definition we're talking about here and the one scientists use, you must look up "scientific theory". There's a difference between the everyday use of theory and how science uses it to explain evolution. Sorry if it's confusing but that's the way it is.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbohenk
What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

That would require something like a field mouse to know how to manipulate their bodies on a genetic level. I just don't think so.


Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

Please post the science behind this statement.


And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.

Could you also post science behind this which would not include anecdotal evidence.


Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.

Please post the video.


And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.

Can you also post the science that shows this?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


If you have studied obe's nde's regression etc, you would know that everyone is connected to the higher self, and that is responsible for the changes that would occur, because it knows all (and maybe created all).

Because otherwise people also wouldn't be able to heal because they themselves do not exactly know what to change in the body and how to.

Try going out of body and ask for your higher self or god (they both give the same effect), you would know where I am talking about.

Watch what the bleep do we know for the quantum phisics part of crating/altering matter for the simplified version.

As for the video of the materialising monks... 1: you wouldn't believe it was a real video. 2: the monks wouldn't do stuff like that for entertainment/media.

Remember the montauk project, when someone was in that chair they could also materialise things with that.

As for your science, the concept is good, but try it in on a planet where there is no money and greed.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbohenk
reply to post by jfj123
 


If you have studied obe's nde's regression etc, you would know that everyone is connected to the higher self, and that is responsible for the changes that would occur, because it knows all (and maybe created all).

Because otherwise people also wouldn't be able to heal because they themselves do not exactly know what to change in the body and how to.

Try going out of body and ask for your higher self or god (they both give the same effect), you would know where I am talking about.

Watch what the bleep do we know for the quantum phisics part of crating/altering matter for the simplified version.

As for the video of the materialising monks... 1: you wouldn't believe it was a real video. 2: the monks wouldn't do stuff like that for entertainment/media.

Remember the montauk project, when someone was in that chair they could also materialise things with that.

As for your science, the concept is good, but try it in on a planet where there is no money and greed.



We use science to create computers, cars, cures for disease, etc...
So if science wasn't accurate, those things wouldn't exist.

Now regarding any phenomena-If it happens, it is measurable. For example, if matter is created from nothing, that new mass in the universe can be measured and the energy used to create the new matter can be measured. Do you have any science showing this or is this something you've heard from somebody who claims they heard something who said they saw it once???



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Cleve Backster interview and you can also find a link to his site:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


"We use science to create computers, cars, cures for disease, etc...
So if science wasn't accurate, those things wouldn't exist."

My point exactly, if we would have had real and uncensored science we would be transporting instantly without any consumption of energy. And our computers would be way faster and also wouldn't be using energy. But guess what... some people can't make money on that so efficiency will not be the case for now.

"Now regarding any phenomena-If it happens, it is measurable. For example, if matter is created from nothing, that new mass in the universe can be measured and the energy used to create the new matter can be measured. Do you have any science showing this or is this something you've heard from somebody who claims they heard something who said they saw it once???"

90% of your information comes from sources that you haven't witnessed/measured/proven yourself. And is less logical when you try to put it into the whole picture.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Ans cures for diseases: try some thc it wil cure a whole lot, www.sethgroup.org... and if that isn't sufficient add some mms www.miraclemineral.org... . I can go on for a while on this subject.
But your beloved mainstream science doesn't touch on those cures because they are affraid they would loose money/jobs or get killed by companies that would loose billions like pharmaceuticals.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
All of the exact same evidence fits much more reasonably into the creation model than it does the evolution model. It's also more logical.

Evolution requires far too much blind faith. Evolution defies logic, reason, and the will of the Creator(cause) and his effect(creation: the Universe and life in it).

Evolution is proof of just how far man will go to discredit his creator for the purpose of self arrogating: see how intelligent we are.....we figured it all out......if we put enough time between the present and the past we can fool the masses and they will get sucked in by our false assumptions. Tell a BIG lie loud enough and often enough and the masses will come to believe it as fact---Adolf Hitler



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Dont listen to stupid creationists who doesnt have a clue about how evolution works and denies that it takes place, even though it has been proven.



The terms "fact" and "theory" can be applied to evolution, just as they are to gravity. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity.

In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.



Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

You only call it theory when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over evolution itself, as it is a fact.


SO AGAIN:
The terms "fact" and "theory" can be applied to evolution.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


you say breeding doesn't cause major changes!? Just look at the history of the banana. This is just a small example but it proves breeding causes big changes over a long period of time. The wild banana is virtually inedible, and contains only fleshy seeds. But through thousands of years of selective breeding, and some accidental mutation it is now the banana you have in your fruit bowl. Ill be back with more factual evidence for evolution. The link for the banana thing is www.corpwatch.org...
Also i highly recommend going on youtube and watching thunderfoot, cdk007, and donexodus2 evolution videos which will answer many of your questions. take care



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Back to the original topic....

While I'm quite sure I believe in Evolution and not in anything the Bible has to say about it [IMO], it is just a theory.

However, saying it's a theory doesn't in any way devalue it's importance and what it represents. It's still a very powerful argument as to the "how & why" of life of planet Earth.

The whole point of a theory and a scientific approach to it, is that it's allowed to be 'adjusted' to account for new data and discoveries. A theory is allowed to change, to be updated and augmented or corrected when scientific study reveals new data.

But the bible's account of how we all came to be is just...'there'. It's a statement. More importantly, it's a crucial part of the entire belief structure of the religion in question.

And that's the key difference between the 'theory of evolution' and creationism from the biblical sense : one allows for new information and the other does not.

Creationism (ala God & genesis, etc) is "defacto" correct and unquestionable -- no proof is needed because it's in the bible and because the bible is the word of god then it's correct, loop-dee-loop, ad nauseum.

So when creationists are given evidence of the fossil record, gene sequences that appear to be similar to ones in an animal of today to one from millions of years ago, it's immediately rejected because it's not necessarily 100% accurate. And even science will agree to that.

But science (and theories) can then take that into account and change their view on the world and come up witha better theory.

The religious one cannot -- it's fixed in time.



That's my view of it all. I'm not trying to bash any religious views, mind you so please don't be insulted if you interpreted my rant as that!

EDIT oops! Missed the n't on "please don't be" at the end!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by noonebutme]

[edit on 3-3-2009 by noonebutme]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


I have studied both considerably more than the masses have(2 years of evolution and creation research). People who believe the evolution model also vehemently attack people who believe in God as creator and they deny the existence of God.

Their motive for believing junk science is found in their hatred for God and hatred of believers in God as creator of the Universe.


[edit on 3/3/09 by John Matrix]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join