evolution or creation or intelligent design
@lolalolacherrycola (899)
United States
8 responses
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
18 Feb 08
Evolution, since it is the one concept that has the most evidence supporting it, by far. Evolution has solid evidence supporting it - creationism has childish protests and unprovable beliefs such as "irreducible complexity" as "evidence". It's understandable why some creationists don't want to try and understand just what evolution is. They don't even know what qualifies as real evidence.
As for Intelligent Design - there is no evidence for or against it, but anything is impossible. I don't really believe in ID, but I haven't ruled it out as a possibility.
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
23 Feb 08
Actually, Intelligent design fits the evidence far better than evolution. Irreducible complexity is a major hurdle for evolutionists. Unequivocal evolutionary pathways have NOT been found for the irreducibly complex organisms put forth by scientists advocating intelligent design. Unfortunately, a simple maybe this or maybe that is enough to satisfy the faith of Darwinian die hards.
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
24 Feb 08
"But it has refuted Young Earth position..." I can't help but wonder if you even know the young earth's position or the science behind their position. The fact that you speak in such general terms suggest that you haven't.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
24 Feb 08
that you haven't studied both sides equally. I would suggest that you do look at both sides equally and not just the one that seems to be the most popular one to you.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
23 Feb 08
"The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-to-distant future, people will look back in amazement and
say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism merely
„ materialistic philosophy masquerading as science."
-Jonathan Well, Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate embryology 1994, from UC Berkeley.
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Feb 08
If scientist like Richard Dawkin says that evolution is true and so there is no God, we need to counter and say just because evolution is true that never ever implies that there is no God. Materialistic Philosophy we need to counter, but I don't know why we need to counter evolutionary biology and then say that the earth is 10,000 years old only.
There are lot of genuinely committed Christians like Alister McGrath (Ph.D in theology & Biochemistry,Oxford), John Polkinghorne (Ph.in Physics,Cambridge,M.Div), Denis Alexander (Ph.D, Director, Faraday Institute of Science and Religion), Vinoth Ramachandra (Ph.D, Univ of London)Kenneth Miller (PhD,Brown Univ) Francis Collins (Ph.D, Director of Human Genome Project) and host of others who do not see evolution as opposed to the teaching of the Bible.
When we counter evolution with Young Earth C we play straight into the hands of atheist like Richard Dawkins.
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
23 Feb 08
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a
widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever-increasing evidence of Darwinian ideas"
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 327
"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin"
J.Y. Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
20 Feb 08
Given the three choices there is no question as to what the answer is.
The choices you have given us are knowledge, myth or a feeble attempt at justifying myth. Evolution is the path of knowledge supported by fact. Creation is a myth, thousands of years old created by men when they had no idea what the explanation was for the beginning and evolution of life. To accept creation one has to dismiss all of the hard-won knowledge gained since the myth originated. Intelligent design, nothing more than a straw dog to try to justify creation.
Any person who makes any attempt to educate themselves must reject creationism. With a little education you will realize that the only possible choice is evolution.
@jason1287 (151)
• United States
18 Feb 08
im not decided completely, but im leaning away from evolution. most days i believe in the christian religion.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Feb 08
I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. There is no contradiction between evolution and the teaching of the Bible. Yes, if evolution says that there is no God then it contradicts with the teaching of the Bible. But evolution cannot say that there is no God. 'evolution and so no God' simply is not a good logic. Whether God exists or not cannot be derived from evolution. It's a question for philosophers and theologians. Whether evolution happened or not is for scientists.
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
18 Feb 08
I will always go with the evidence and the most rational interpretation of that evidence. Because of this the evolutionary theories that are being discussed, adjusted and changed on a weekly basis are what I will 'believe'... until a better explanation of the evidence comes about.
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
23 Feb 08
Scientific hypothesis needs to have two components: Explanatory power and predictive capability. Creation and ID are weak compared to evolution when we apply these two parameters.
But to say that evolution is true and therefore materialistic philosophy is right or there is no God kind of argument is just simply wrong. Science cannot make such kind of statements purely on scientific ground. To make such concluding remarks as some atheists scientists do it to wear the hats of Philosopher and cross the boundary of science.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
1 Mar 08
Which is fine but that's not what the theory tells us. No scientific journal will confirm such a notion. However, the notion does technically fall under intelligent design given that some ID theorists advocate for intelligence behind evolution
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
19 Feb 08
If everyone calms down and just thinks instead of argues, I think they could figure out that the Supreme Being created the first Atom that started the whole Uninverse of which we are just a very small part.
The scientific approach says that the universe started with a super heated promordial atom. At a certain temperature this atom exploded into the 2 elements (helium and hydrogen) which are necessary to construct all other elements in the universe. This then was the begining of the universe. Who put the Atom there? G'd of course. Who else?
As the Universe grew and expanded the earth slowly evolved to the point where it could sustain life, and so life slowly evolved. Once again this was made possible by the fact that G'd placing the an Atom in the vacuum we call space.
When life evolved to the point where there was a being cognitive enough to communicate with G'd, He made a covenant with him and called him Man and placed him over the animals. This then was evolution and creationism in one. They do go hand in hand.
Shalom~Salaam~Peace
@adnanezzi (243)
• India
19 Feb 08
hi there
well according to my religion
god created humans and designed them flawlessly and everything in this world must face evolution and the only thing that remains as it is is god himself