Evolutionism vs Creationism (aka Intelligent Design)

[methink]

Re: Why Bother

I wonder why you even bother to answer that.

The deluded people always have ways to lie and cheat on the data. The late Saddam Hussein once declared to the world that he had got 100% of the votes for him and Bush Jr just laughed it off.

Atheism cannot be treated with seriousness.

It alright bro. I love a good debate when I see one. I just need to poke holes at the theory of evolution to show that it is not completely sound. There are too many loop holes to be fool proofed.

It is more believable where creationism is concerned. Again while it is not provable, this does not make it unbelievable. It is a matter of faith. An intelligent being created this world. I believe this is more sensible.

 

[Toronto]

bro methink,
See my replies in post #139 and #140, just in case you missed them.

 

[methink]

Bro,
1. Can you confirm the poll was conducted on Americans that are both qualified scientists and biologists?

2. Gallup is a management consulting company, who is the clientele?

bro,
1. Obviously there are Americans who as a people, are some scientists/biologists amongst the 43% of Americans that believe in a Creator God. Are you trying to say there are not some who were scientists in those 43% that do believe?

That scientists can only be found in the 14% evolution believers? Please be circumspect.

Remember I didn't conduct this Gallup poll. I just quote what was in the very Wikipedia link you show me.

 

[methink]

bro methink,
See my replies in post #139 and #140, just in case you missed them.

Yes thank you. I just read it. Numbers do not make it therefore believable. Sound arguments do.

 

[Toronto]

Bro,
I think you failed to grasp my point. I am pointing out that you are using a general survey to contradict a specific target group survey.

The former survey was on a sample of people who are all scientists who can have different faiths and belief systems. The survey you used for counter-argument is a general survey based on general sample of people who can be clerks, lorry drivers, teachers with different belief systems.

The figures would mean differently cos the samples are different.

 

[methink]

Yes thank you. I just read it. Numbers do not make it therefore believable. Sound arguments do.

Let me explain the numbers thing. Just bcos many ppl do not believe that there is a God, as it cannot be proven scientifically, does not mean there is no God.

Many ppl believe in evil spirits, ghosts, hauntings, etc. But they do not believe in a Creator God. Do you not see this as illogical? If there is a super being as in a Devil, there must be a super being as God!

 

[methink]

Bro,
I think you failed to grasp my point. I am pointing out that you are using a general survey to contradict a specific target group survey.

The former survey was on a sample of people who are all scientists who can have different faiths and belief systems. The survey you used for counter-argument is a general survey based on general sample of people who can be clerks, lorry drivers, teachers with different belief systems.

The figures would mean differently cos the samples are different.

Bro it does not matter. Sound arguments do. Again I say, lets debate logically and not be swayed by the finer details or semantics.

 

[Toronto]

We agree to be different in views and respect the right to convince each other with decent reasoning, logic, evidence and proof.

 

[Toronto]

Let me explain the numbers thing. Just bcos many ppl do not believe that there is a God, as it cannot be proven scientifically, does not mean there is no God.

Many ppl believe in evil spirits, ghosts, hauntings, etc. But they do not believe in a Creator God. Do you not see this as illogical? If there is a super being as in a Devil, there must be a super being as God!

There could be a super natural being(I am not sure) but not the abrahamic supernatural being(I am sure cos I have done my research). That is my position which is substantiated by the numerous posts and threads I have made in the religious folder.

I think your deep underlying concern is not on "evolution is false or not", but about "biblical God vs no God". That can best debate in another thread.

 

[methink]

We agree to be different in views and respect the right to convince each other with decent reasoning, logic, evidence and proof.

Yes I agree. Faith cannot be proven scientifically. God cannot be put in a test tube - shake shake shake - ah there is God! If we can prove God, than we are God! We are better than God.

Science is not truer than God. But God is bigger than science. God is above science. Science can be wrong. But God cannot be wrong.

 

[methink]

There could be a super natural being(I am not sure) but not the abrahamic supernatural being(I am sure cos I have done my research). That is my position which is substantiated by the numerous posts and threads I have made in the religious folder.

I think your deep underlying concern is not on "evolution is false or not", but about "biblical God vs no God". That can best debate in another thread.

Bro, I think you are confused. Evolution is false. It is not proven. All we have is a theory of evolution. It is till now only a theory. Just like science formulations. They all started out as a theory. Then tested and re-tested - over and over again - finally it is accepted.

Now science can go wrong. So the formula or theory is thrown out by "newer" science. Just like evolution, science is evolving all the time. Science is not absolute. There are no absolutes. Only God is absolute.

Hope this is clear?

 

[methink]

There could be a super natural being(I am not sure) but not the abrahamic supernatural being(I am sure cos I have done my research). That is my position which is substantiated by the numerous posts and threads I have made in the religious folder.

Bro, you have to be sure or else you are confused.
(I am sure cos I have done my research)???

Ok this super natural being of which you believe there is one. Could you tell me more?

 

[Toronto]

Bro, I think you are confused. Evolution is false. It is not proven. All we have is a theory of evolution. It is till now only a theory. Just like science formulations. They all started out as a theory. Then tested and re-tested - over and over again - finally it is accepted.

Hope this is clear?

In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.

Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

 

[Toronto]

It is till now only a theory.

You know the theory of Gravity? It is not proven?

What is a scientific theory
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

A theory is not a guess, as the term is commonly used today. It involves a multitude of evidence, testing, repeated testing, and eventually has to be submitted for peer review. A proposition must pass the scrutiny of other leading experts in the field before it will be recognized as legitimate science. If a biological theory conflicts with other biological theories or conflicts with elements of geology, physics, cosmology, or other disciplines - the theory in question will face massive study and a high probability of revision or perhaps even rejection. If evolution is as unsound as creationists claim, is the entire scientific community also in on the deception?

 

[Toronto]

So evolution has support and evidence for it, then why do they still call it theory and not fact?

There is no 'hierarchy of truths' in science. An idea does not graduate from theory to law or to fact, for example. A theory in science is a unifying explanation of facts. It may be considered just as valid as fact or law. In addition to evolution, there are many other scientific theories such as germ theory, cell theory, gravity, and so on. These all explain multiple facets of our universe and its properties, and while we can't be 100% absolutely sure that these explanations really unify these facets, we are about 99.9% sure, as reasonably sure as we can be, based on tons of evidence, observation, experimentation, etc. If evolution deserves to be doubted or downplayed simply because it is a theory and not a fact, then we may as well throw out practically all the explanations of science.

 

[Toronto]

Evolution is false. It is not proven.

Bro, I would suggest you to read the earlier post on genome sequencing in case you have selectively missed it.
Trained and qualified ID advocates are unable to refute. There is also some (successfu?l) counter hypothesis by another forumner. I believe they entirely guessing work with cooked up analogies to match out with Genesis account, but you are free to believe and accept it as the truth.

And, the theory of evolution can also be applied theological to explain why the reformation movement has evolved into millions of protestant sects today .

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

 

[Toronto]

Bro, you have to be sure or else you are confused.
(I am sure cos I have done my research)???

Ok this super natural being of which you believe there is one. Could you tell me more?

Bro, I would prefer you to create another thread like 'Why I believe God exists' to discuss it. I will cherry pick what are relevant to this thread to reply.

Lastly, what I said was 'I am not sure', which means 'could be' or 'could not' be, unexplainable yet.

We can argue here till the cows come home, but the reality outside of this forum will not be impacted or changed. For example, the catholic church and the mainline protestant churches have already officially re-adjusted their position on evolution and creationism.

 

[Conqueror]

Thanks For The Support

It alright bro. I love a good debate when I see one. I just need to poke holes at the theory of evolution to show that it is not completely sound. There are too many loop holes to be fool proofed.

It is more believable where creationism is concerned. Again while it is not provable, this does not make it unbelievable. It is a matter of faith. An intelligent being created this world. I believe this is more sensible.

I hope the atheists will become more mature and more reasonable in their comments as well as their judgement to seek the truth about this mysterious world.

According to Craig the heavyweight for theism, he said that the reasonable atheists were now considered as agnostics and what you are now seeing are the gas coming out of the dead corpse (ie. militant atheists). And is Dawkins probably one of them ? Hard to say. He just need a place to hide from more challenges like debates.

 

[Conqueror]

We can argue here till the cows come home, but the reality outside of this forum will not be impacted or changed. For example, the catholic church and the mainline protestant churches have already officially re-adjusted their position on evolution and creationism.

There are lots of unknown. So, as long as the human minds are not prepared for such a heavy meal, he or she will have to suffer the pain of indigestion.

Whatever it is, the debate will go on as long as we have not finalized on anything yet.

Catholic church priests cannot make it one lah. I was a Catholic before and I know their pattern. Wait till I share my experience with you on RC, your jaws will drop. These people are wolves in sheep skins.

 

[Conqueror]

Bro, you have to be sure or else you are confused.
(I am sure cos I have done my research)???

Ok this super natural being of which you believe there is one. Could you tell me more?

That makes him a DEIST. A deist is a person who believe in a god in this world AND NOT a personal God that wants him to follow instructions. Probably like Einstein and Flew. That mean Atheism is gone case liao.