This forum needs renaming, it is designed to be biased rather than impartial

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I think the difference and the main rift is the belief in macro evolution. Most christians that I have talked to accept micro evolution as truth.. There really is no way to deny it, unless you're playing political games..
That said, have you been paying attention to the science INDUSTRY lately? They;re really starting to run out of things they can prove..
Especially in the physics dept..
They're also feeding children the global warming hoax as if it's truth.. So telling kids that macro-evolution trumps christianity is insincere at best, and extremely offensive.
Obviously there are political reasons to deny the concept of a divine creator.// It's getting heated

edit: another problem is the issue of carbon dating.. used as a red herring to end discussion. I don't know anybody who truly believes the earth is only 6000 years old. I think they mean humans were first "bred" or hybridized 6000 yrs ago. There are no missing links, going by the data. If it's not there, it doesn't exist right?

See what I did there?
Peace
edit on 2-9-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-9-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by artistpoet
Darwin's theory of evolution is but a theory that has been given official approval to be taught as fact.
This does not mean it is true however

Nor does it mean it is true that Creationism is fact
Nor Intelligent design.

It is debatable and there are flaws on all sides of the debate
edit on 2-9-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)


Actually the term "scientific theory" is used when its the best known method to describe the events in our enviroment, and can be used to predict certain outcomes accurately over and over again.

Evolution happens all around us, and on all different scales. We can see this with hundreds of thousands of pieces from the fossil record, and even from bacteria who within just a few generations in a pietri dish can change drastically. Dna research and theories are improving all the time and can be used to show the mechanics of these changes.

The fact that evolution happens is not up for debate, only some of the mechanics of how these changes are directed. That will never truly be understood until every observable case is studied and documented. That would take a long time so they just call it a theory until new evidence comes to light which requires a better explanation to describe it.

Evolution however cannot discount a creator, but then that is not what the theory of evolution was meant to do, and there is actually no argument which can disprove something which cannot be observed. It is not meant to describe the origin of life, only the changes and patterns we observe in all living things.

The theory of evolution completely disproves "creationism" if you are talking about the brand which claims that we were created and have always existed in the same form in which we appear today. Some claim 6000 years ago which is even more disprovable.






edit on 2-9-2012 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)



Apologies - I missed your post.

I am not well studied in scientific research regarding Evolution - My concern with Darwin's Theory is the suggestion that Humans are somehow descended from Apes for example.

There again I do not buy into Intelligent Design or Creationism

I do believe however their is an underlying truth in all these ideas but for me non are conclusive.

However this thread is about if the title of the forum is biased - It is an very old argument with a history stemming from Christians objecting to the teaching of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in school over the Bible.

My thoughts are though there is obvious anomisty from one side of the discussion to the other - Both hold certain truths.

I have my own ideas which I have not expressed they encompass Evolution Creation and Intelligent Design but this is about if the title of the Forum is biased.

No I think the title is not biased it allows all sides to debate.

The OP has taken offense as he firmly believes what he does.
Yet surely one can not be expected to accept another's ideas just because they think they are right - No matter which side of the debate you are on

Thanks again for your reply.



new topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join


ATS Live Radio Presents - The Bear Truth ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: ATS Live Radio Presents - The Bear Truth - (SE4 EP1)