Technology1 min ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Evolution has to be fact as otherwise there would not be microorganisms developing increasing resistance to antibiotics.
Then, having accepted species change over time, I don't see why some find it such a struggle to accept the obvious consequence. That being that a single species can get split into two isolated groups, and each group follow a different change path; eventually ending up so different to each other that they qualify as two separate species.
Just common sense isn't it ?
Then, having accepted species change over time, I don't see why some find it such a struggle to accept the obvious consequence. That being that a single species can get split into two isolated groups, and each group follow a different change path; eventually ending up so different to each other that they qualify as two separate species.
Just common sense isn't it ?
No, a fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.
A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.
A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.
Elderman/Goodlife It is strange isn't it that you demand evidence from someone who disagrees with you yet have never produced a shred of evidence to support your assertions? I have to say here that by no stretching of the meaning of the word evidence to the limits of credulity would the bible or any other ancient book constitute evidence for anything other than the possibility that man has been able to write for some time.
At a certain level very little exists beyond question. I know I do. I may assume you believe the same thing about youself. But I have no real proof you exist. Is your existence a fact ? I have a theory that you exist.
However in an attempt to stay sane I tend to believe that which seems proven beyond reasonable doubt, such as evolution.
However in an attempt to stay sane I tend to believe that which seems proven beyond reasonable doubt, such as evolution.
-- answer removed --
No,If you wish to make yourself look like a complete fool
If the more you get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
But both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific?
So why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”
So acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may some rankle scientists acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
You really don't have a clue do you?
If the more you get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
But both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific?
So why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”
So acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may some rankle scientists acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride?
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
You really don't have a clue do you?
@Elderman
Your last post is so chock full of unscientific assertions in support of your theological worldview that it is difficult to know where to start.Its the Gish gallop with a vengeance.
The contention of your post, in summary, is that the theistic view of the universe, that of a creator god, is more scientific than the scientifically accepted view of a universe arising from a big bang, and life on earth developing by descent through natural selection.
You attack the science through the most vapid of assertions. It doesnt matter that there was no one there at the time of this fundamental events. That doesnt invalidate the theory. By exactly the same logic, your own version of creation fails the test - Logic really is not your strong point is it?
As to their being no evidence of either the creation of life or the creation of our planet in the laboratory - Once again, with one sentence of denial, you attempt to sweep under the carpet the hundreds, thousands, of published, peer reviewed papers containing detailed experimental results that contribute to the overarching body of evidence we have for evolution and for the manner with which the universe was formed.
There have been countless experiments in labs around the globe that show evolution in action. There are many observations and measurements related to just our own species showing long-term physiological trends that are evidence of ongoing evolution.
Despite your desperate attempt to paint evolution as "only a theory", it is a scientific theory, backed up with as much evidence as the theory of gravity. For you to continue to deny the evidence just shows how absurd your religion is. Your religion forces you to deny reality,reject the evidence, cherry -pick for quotations,and twist historical worldviews in order to fit the narrative of your religious worldview.
More than anything else, this betrays your anti-scientific agenda, one you share with all fundamentalists and zealots - A refusal to see the world as it is, a rejection of science and the scientific method - Science is anathema to religion, because it is all about finding the best explanation, the best narrative, the best hypothesis for observable, independantly monitored events using carefully controlled experiment and objective, rational analysis of results. Religion is about ignoring or refuting any observations that do not agree with preconcieved world view.
Your are our very own AB version of a child who, when faced with unpalatable facts, attempts to deny reality by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at the top of their voice.\It doesn't work for the child, it just draws attention to them and makes them look childish and foolish - Rather like your own rejection of reality here.
Frankly, you have become an absurdity Elderman. A caricature prophet with a cut and paste ministry. Rhetoric without substance.
Your last post is so chock full of unscientific assertions in support of your theological worldview that it is difficult to know where to start.Its the Gish gallop with a vengeance.
The contention of your post, in summary, is that the theistic view of the universe, that of a creator god, is more scientific than the scientifically accepted view of a universe arising from a big bang, and life on earth developing by descent through natural selection.
You attack the science through the most vapid of assertions. It doesnt matter that there was no one there at the time of this fundamental events. That doesnt invalidate the theory. By exactly the same logic, your own version of creation fails the test - Logic really is not your strong point is it?
As to their being no evidence of either the creation of life or the creation of our planet in the laboratory - Once again, with one sentence of denial, you attempt to sweep under the carpet the hundreds, thousands, of published, peer reviewed papers containing detailed experimental results that contribute to the overarching body of evidence we have for evolution and for the manner with which the universe was formed.
There have been countless experiments in labs around the globe that show evolution in action. There are many observations and measurements related to just our own species showing long-term physiological trends that are evidence of ongoing evolution.
Despite your desperate attempt to paint evolution as "only a theory", it is a scientific theory, backed up with as much evidence as the theory of gravity. For you to continue to deny the evidence just shows how absurd your religion is. Your religion forces you to deny reality,reject the evidence, cherry -pick for quotations,and twist historical worldviews in order to fit the narrative of your religious worldview.
More than anything else, this betrays your anti-scientific agenda, one you share with all fundamentalists and zealots - A refusal to see the world as it is, a rejection of science and the scientific method - Science is anathema to religion, because it is all about finding the best explanation, the best narrative, the best hypothesis for observable, independantly monitored events using carefully controlled experiment and objective, rational analysis of results. Religion is about ignoring or refuting any observations that do not agree with preconcieved world view.
Your are our very own AB version of a child who, when faced with unpalatable facts, attempts to deny reality by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at the top of their voice.\It doesn't work for the child, it just draws attention to them and makes them look childish and foolish - Rather like your own rejection of reality here.
Frankly, you have become an absurdity Elderman. A caricature prophet with a cut and paste ministry. Rhetoric without substance.
When it comes to faith, all babies are born equal. All are without faith. Equal too are all newborn infants in their state of complete faithlessness, in that all have the same mental capacity, if normal, for developing faith later in life. The seed of faith must first be planted, then watered, nourished and cultivated, if it is to grow and flourish. This explains why some acquire faith at an early age, others later in life, while still others die of old age as faithless as the day they were born.
No, When others tell you how they feel about their parents, they are also telling you something about themselves. Yes, what you say and do toward your parents reveals what is in your own mind and heart. It tells a lot about the kind of person you are right now. It also gives a clear indication of the kind of person you are likely to become in the future. This is because behavior patterns that you develop gradually become a part of you.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Travel17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
