[theblackalchemist]

Well i am in middle of evolution, can i post a reply after say 10000 years?

just jokin
well if evolution was true then can it be differentiated into natural evolution and man made evolution ? that is for example cyborgs are what I classify as man made evolution or evolution caused due to the activities of man kind and natural evolutions are just.......................natural caused due to mother nature
Thinking hard-ly

TBA

[Larv]

Originally Posted by dudeitsme

Yes, I am one of the creationists...Basically, I believe that GOD created the world, but that does not mean their was not forms of evolution.

Just curious. Do you believe that God had a choice in creating the world? Or was He just experimenting with the cosmological constant and something went terribly wrong?

—Larv

[Vibrio]

Evolution seems like common sense to me. You do not have to believe in either God's creation or evolution. I believe in both. You may ask me how that can be. Well here it is: I believe that there was a big bang and all that but I believe it was somehow done by God. I go along with Darwin: that evolution happens because of natural selection. I am a very religious person and I believe that evolution and natural selection are workings of God. If he created nature, he created evolution.
I also believe that God is some physical form of energy (such as dark energy or something similar).


Whoever disagrees, that's totally cool! I respect any beliefs on the evolution topic

[Lancaster]

Like larv said, what is there to believe in? On one hand, you have scientific fact, and on the other. . . what? Creationism is not science, it is a religious opinion.

[BibleBeliever]

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Like larv said, what is there to believe in? On one hand, you have scientific fact, and on the other. . . what? Creationism is not science, it is a religious opinion.

There are a lot of scientists who will disagree with you on that one.

[Lancaster]

Here's a statistic for you. A 1992 Gallup poll found that 5% of scientists polled were creationists. In sciences relative to evolutionary/creationist theories, less than .1% were creationists. I try to find a link for you.

Maybe you could find a link for me, and back up what you are saying?

[Lancaster]

Here you go:
Scientist's views on creationism

I apologize, it was .15% of relevant scientists are creationists, and the poll was taken in 1991. The "there are lots of scientists who believe in creationism therefore it's true" argument is a completely baseless one. For further information, check out the rest of talk.origins and Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

Do you find it strange that so few scientists are creationists? How does that make you feel about the idea?

Originally Posted by Vibrio

Evolution seems like common sense to me. You do not have to believe in either God's creation or evolution. I believe in both. You may ask me how that can be. Well here it is: I believe that there was a big bang and all that but I believe it was somehow done by God. I go along with Darwin: that evolution happens because of natural selection. I am a very religious person and I believe that evolution and natural selection are workings of God. If he created nature, he created evolution.
I also believe that God is some physical form of energy (such as dark energy or something similar).


Whoever disagrees, that's totally cool! I respect any beliefs on the evolution topic

I can relate to your views, I believed the same thing before I became an Atheist. It's good to be open minded about the idea when you dwell in a community of close-mindedness. Digital high five!

[BibleBeliever]

Originally Posted by Lancaster

Here you go:
Scientist's views on creationism

I apologize, it was .15% of relevant scientists are creationists, and the poll was taken in 1991. The "there are lots of scientists who believe in creationism therefore it's true" argument is a completely baseless one. For further information, check out the rest of talk.origins and Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

Do you find it strange that so few scientists are creationists? How does that make you feel about the idea?

No, because scientists need funding and the majority of money comes from evolution biased organisations and so to admit to being a creationist would jeopodise their research grants. But I am not saying that there are millions of scientists who are afraid to admit that they are creationists.

May be there are less than one percent, majority doesn't make something right or wrong. if no scientist believed in creation it wouldn't stop is from being true. There is a very comprehensive website; Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics where there are numerous creationist scientists who publish peer reviewed papers and teach in universities across the world.

To say that creationism is not scientific just shows that you have not looked at the articles that they have published. It's ok to disagree with something, and to try to show how it is in error, but to just dismiss a counter view point just because it goes against what you believe, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh and that website has a critique of Dr Dawkin's latest book too, my question is, if creationism, Christianity (because that's the religion Dr Dawkins seems to rail against most) and God is irrelevant, why does he spend so much time dismissing it (asside from the fact that he makes loads of money and fame from it)?

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by BibleBeliever

No, because scientists need funding and the majority of money comes from evolution biased organisations and so to admit to being a creationist would jeopodise their research grants. But I am not saying that there are millions of scientists who are afraid to admit that they are creationists.

May be there are less than one percent, majority doesn't make something right or wrong. if no scientist believed in creation it wouldn't stop is from being true. There is a very comprehensive website; Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics where there are numerous creationist scientists who publish peer reviewed papers and teach in universities across the world.

To say that creationism is not scientific just shows that you have not looked at the articles that they have published. It's ok to disagree with something, and to try to show how it is in error, but to just dismiss a counter view point just because it goes against what you believe, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh and that website has a critique of Dr Dawkin's latest book too, my question is, if creationism, Christianity (because that's the religion Dr Dawkins seems to rail against most) and God is irrelevant, why does he spend so much time dismissing it (asside from the fact that he makes loads of money and fame from it)?

I am dismissing your point because it is incorrect. Why does Dawkins spend so much time attempting to disprove the existence of God and the validity of Creationism?

1. It is incorrect
2. Half of Americans believe in Evolution
3. Over 90% of Americans believe in God

If hundreds of millions of people believed in something that was incorrect and holding them back mentally, wouldn't you want to free them from it? Dawkins' goal is certainly a noble one, and one that deserves all the time the scientific community can devote to it.

Sure there may be scientists that believe in creationism, but at one time, scientists believed that the sun orbited the Earth. Think: science is progressive, looking for new and better answers to questions all the time. Religion is regressive sticking to backwards beliefs that have no ground in this day and age.

In the world of the ancient Greeks, there was no answer for the question, "why does the sun rise and set each day?" (until progressive thinkers like Ptolemy came along). So they created a God to answer the question, Heileos. The problem was the same for early Hebrews and those who wrote the Bible. "How was the Earth created?" They made a God for that. My point is, we don't need a God for that anymore. Although science doesn't have all the answers, we don't need a God to fill in the gaps.

Because isn't that all that God is doing? Filling in the gaps in scientific theory? Just because evolution doesn't have an answer to every question doesn't mean God wins by default. And even if evolution is wrong, what makes you think that the idea that an almighty ruler who sits in a city of clouds created the earth is correct?

[BibleBeliever]

Sorry for the double post but I just looked up and found this from the answersingenesis website...

A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article widely publicized on the internet at the time stated ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

The open letter includes statements such as:

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

if you go to the cosmologystatement.org website you'll see a lot of names at the bottom (not just the original 33). I know they are not saying that they are creationists but they are prepared to agree that all is not as it seems in the evolutionist camp.