Out of curiousity... Sitaram or others who have not voted: There is a poll attached to this thread and you haven't voted... Why/why not? If you are not sure, there is a "Don't know what to think" option as well...
Printable View
Out of curiousity... Sitaram or others who have not voted: There is a poll attached to this thread and you haven't voted... Why/why not? If you are not sure, there is a "Don't know what to think" option as well...
I did not realize that you anticipated response from everyone. Since you mention me by name, and ask me point blank, I shall certainly give you the courtesy of an answer.
I am personally convinced that evolution is a scientific fact. I am convinced by documentaries which I see on the subject, and what I have heard scientists say.
I am not a scientist myself, nor a mathematician nor a physicist, so I cannot prove such things myself. So, it is pointless for anyone to debate with me personally whether evolution is a scientific fact. I know that certain fundamentalist preachers claim that God greated fossils to TEST the faithfulness of his flock.
I do try not to become embroiled in certain kinds of disputes with certain kinds of people, because I doubt that the dialogue will be profitable.
For example, if I debate with a fundamentalist, of any religion you please, (and I have done so on numerous occasions), we will go around in endless circles, and in the end they will still embrace exactlly the same fundamentalist beliefs.
I suppose there are a few people left in the world who are convinced that the earth is flat. If it is conceivable that such people would use the internet, and if you were to post a poll on "Earth: flat or round?" well, such people would offer endless circles of explanations of why the earth is flat, and how photos from the moon are a subtle conspiracy on the part of the government.
I was not anticipating a response from everyone personally but yours was the last post in the thread and I noticed that there were some people, who, despite posting numerous messages, have not voted in favour of one of the options available. As often, curiosity got the better of me.
Thank you for giving me the courtesy of an answer.
Sometimes, when I am bored, and there is not much forum activity, I read threads I might not normally look at, and if I see something interesting regarding, e.g., time, quantum, Kant, Paul Davies, ... that sort of thing, then I throw in a comment... the business about time coming into being with the big bang was what prompted me to post, but not the creation/evolution issue
I am intrigued by the question "How was Kant wrong, in light of more modern science and thinking", but then... we do not have a philosophy forum per se, and such a topic is certainly not literature, or poetry, or religion texts, though I guess it could go into the chat forum
I havn't posted a response because I only recently abjured Christianity and Creationism, I'm sure AP can remember some of our debates from ages past ;). But I havn't done any research on evolution for myself. So it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution ;)) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.
Where belief begins, there ends the true pursuit of knowledge.
The radiometric measuring of the years can be very inaccurate. It is based on an absolute, and not a KNOWN age...thus, scientist will only accept the date which fits their thinking.... after all, all scientists are biased. Could it not be 6000 years, rather than billions of years???
Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time.
They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.
Very well explained, Dyrwen. I rarely post in the 'Religious Text' forums, but felt a little confused about the nature of radiometrics. I did a little research, and then found your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Thanks. ;)
I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.
You are correct in that age. NASA has a spiffy little explanation on that site of everything about the bang, including a picture of the universe itself back then. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Goodday,
Please have patience with me because this is my first time, ok. I have not gone the book over, however, over the years of search my self conviction is that human being in this planet is first and foremost an evolved one and then creation took over, then evolution again. We are alien in our own right and a traveling space-specie. Why do you think we travel around our solar system and using the planet earth our spaceship! Thanks for your patience.
Heh, not much of a spaceship, considering we travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun only and have been for quite some time. Though you're correct in that sense, the Earth is a "spaceship" wherein the entire planet's species are inhabiting. Not sure what you mean by the whole evolved-created-evolved thing, but perhaps you'll expand on that. Suppose you might be a raelian or other alien-created-us subscriber, though I'd need your clarification on that much.
This is getting worse! *sigh* From monkeys to spaceships.... :brow:
God created this world with age. Could he not have put fossils and all the other stuff under land as well? When he created Adam an Eve, he created them full grown. Same for the sun, moons, stars and animals and trees and plants. It's only the 2nd generation that started young. Perhaps that could be the reason why "science contadicts" the Bible. Science claims that the earth is billions of years old. God made the world with age. So far, the same level. But even though God made the world with age, the world planet and universe itself is only thousands of years old. Shouldn't the earth evolve even more if it did evolve in the first place? Yet we see that the earth hasn't changed a bit, since the beginning of the world (beisde of course, the occurances of natural disasters). What if the world "evolved" itself into wrong? it could go crashing into all the other planets? But no, God created the universe, and has kept it in perfect time since.
Here's an article I found:
Quote:
Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).
The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.
There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Adelheid,
Somebody hundreds of years ago, wrote a primitive account of how the Universe and everything in it began. You seem to be asking us to accept this account rather than the much-updated account given us by science, an account I might add that has plenty of experimental evidence to support it.
So should we really believe some old anonymously written document of what was then current thinking? or should we accept scientific current thinking?
You can use imagination to support any account of the origin of the Universe, and build into that account plenty of unsupportable ideas. Bertrand Russell pointed out your very argument back in the first half of the 20th C. He also added the curious fact that religious people only seem to use this inventive reasoning when they talk about the Universe's origins. How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.