Posted on 11/05/2004 8:39:21 AM PST by Tamar1973
...because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it. You sort of "forgot" to mention that part.
If you ask them to explain it, most can't with any depth of understanding at all.
Keep clinging to that fantasy if it brings you some comfort.
From their point of view, it actually is religion.
No, it isn't, but thanks for playing.
I do, however, find it amusing that one of the most dismissive things that creationists can say about evolutionary science is to accuse it of being "religion"...
You take even that a step furthere here with your implicit claim that religion is something that "most can't explain with any depth of understanding at all".
Sure it can. Just because you're ignorant of the enormous amount of evidence for evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Natural selection and evolution are NOT the same thing.
We haven't claimed that they are. Please take your straw man fallacy elsewhere.
As usual, you make the error of mistaking your bitter preconceptions and bigotries for "facts" and "reality".
bump
Please continue with your regularly-scheduled religion-bashing.
Evolutions are like liberals, whatever facts don't fit into their tidy worldview, they make up as they go along.
They can't even prove how old the world is with any certainty because all the current dating methods are skewed and based on assumptions which give incredulous results. They can't even date the explosion of Mt. St. Helens correctly with any of the current dating methods out there and somehow we are supposed to believe these same methods when they state with "certainty" that the earth is billions of years old. They can't prove much else either, but don't tell them that. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp)
Evolution on an ooze to human scale can not be observed in a lifetime and thefore is taken on faith, not science.
Natural selection and evolution are NOT the same thing.
We haven't claimed that they are. Please take your straw man fallacy elsewhere.
Not until your pro-evolutionist friends do the same in the textbooks. Most school textbooks consistently confuse the subject. They use ‘bait and switch’ definitions by suggesting that evolution simply means change over time, while we all know that the traditional definition of evolution involves particles to people, fish to philosophers, goo to you and all by random chance (Darwinism).
This "bait and switch" is encouraged by teachers of evolution to confuse people into believing that 100% of the evolutionary theory is correct and observable when then idea that natural selection had anything to do with "goo to you" evolution has been disproven by a long shot.
I like what this annonymous man said in a letter to his local school board on this issue, "Ultimately, the creation vs evolution debate is not about science vs religion, but about religion (Secular Humanism) vs. religion (Biblical Christianity). The science is all the same. The difference is the axioms and faith-based assumptions about the past and how one then interprets the evidence we all possess and can examine here in the present."
I can say "Amen" to that.
Well said.
There is convincing proof of some degree of evolution within a species. However, the leap of faith -- and that's really what it is -- that scientists make to extrapolate this to interspecies evolution is absolutely starved for evidence.
There was a really good program on the subject years ago called, "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?". I can't recall which channel broadcast it, but I think it might have been PBS. It pointed out that the fossil record doesn't support the gradual changes from one species to another predicted by the theory of evolution. It also pointed out one rather embarassing fact: The humanoid skeletons shown in many science textbooks, which ostensibly illustrate the evolution of man from apes, are ordered by size and not by age!
The fact that the Big Bang and evolution theories directly contradict the second law of thermodynamics seems to be lost on far too many scientists. All things, left to themselves, decay. The clock unwinds; it never winds itself up again. The fact that order and symmetry and increased organization exist demands the work of an intelligent input. It simply does not occur spontaneously.
Even with evidence of limited evolution, my faith in the Creator and His work is not affected in the least. There are many marevelous capabilities and tools at His disposal. If evolution is one of those tools, so be it.
That's the evidentiary standard you're looking for? Following your logic, any theory dealing with the formation of stars and other cosmic bodies is not science.
Why must something be observed in the (highly arbitrary) period of a human lifetime for it to count as science?
while we all know that the traditional definition of evolution involves particles to people, fish to philosophers, goo to you and all by random chance (Darwinism).
The TOE only deals with life once it has already begun. The TOE has never sought to explain where life came from.
Putting aside the Big Bang, the TOE does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The Earth is not a closed system.
That's because that's your statement is incorrect and scientists perfer not to waste time with idiocy.
All things, left to themselves, decay. The clock unwinds; it never winds itself up again. The fact that order and symmetry and increased organization exist demands the work of an intelligent input. It simply does not occur spontaneously.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
So, snowflakes don't form in your part of the world? Crystals don't grow where you come from? Fed babies don't grow up to be adults?
Tell me another one, sucker.
Adaptation, or microevolution. No one I know would deny this as a fact. It's been observed firsthand, and through Darwin's own mechanism of natural selection (which credit, btw, actually belongs to his grandfather Erasmus).
ARRRRGGGHHHH! I'm melting!
I knew something was missing from my life, but I couldn't quite place what it was. Now I know: Creationists quoting the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the umpteenth time.
Why is it that some fundamentalist nutjobs/whackos/flakes (or whatever the non-PC term of the day is), who don't even understand what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, think they can somehow detect that it gets 'violated' by simple chemical reactions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.