kingdom357: The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed. To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.
I agree that there is a huge amount left to be discovered in the world --- in the stars, in life on Earth and in ourselves. And no honest scientist claims otherwise.
However, the reason scientists claim that evolution is the natural process that shaped life on Earth and that the universe maybe started with the Big Bang is because that is what the evidence suggests. Evolution, in particular, is the only model that explains everything we find. Until a better explanation or different evidence comes along, researchers would be dishonest to say otherwise.
I think you do scientists as a group a disservice by implying that they only accept evolution because "they don't like any other explanation;" they accept evolution because scientifically, it is the best explanation by far. (Remember that a god could behind the natural processes of evolution; science doesn't have anything to say about that.)
The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin. He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k. Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution. Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing? This is just the natural way of things.
AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point. The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere. They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far. The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed. To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.
"The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin. He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k."
Nope, not ok. Charles Darwin was a theology student that had training as a naturalist. He didn't went around making brand new plant species. Darwin observed and recorded previously unknown species, he didn't make a single one. As a human being, Darwin was incapable of creating a new species.
"Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution."
Sorry, that's not how it worked. The Origin of the Species was initially met with much resistance from the scientific community. As further investigations were carried out, the mounting evidence for the theory established it's creedence.
"Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing? This is just the natural way of things."
Obviously by your statement, you have no idea whatsoever what evolution entails.
An example is here on the Channel Islands in California. Mammoths living on the islands grew smaller by evolution. Populations of organisms change over time due to environmental pressures.
Do you get a yearly flu shot? The Theory of Evolution makes that possible.
"AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point."
There is a tremendous gap between what you think and what cosmologists know.
"The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere. They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far. The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed."
Cosmologists use many other tools besides telescopes to explore the known universe. Higher mathmetics, radio telemetry, radiation measurements, etc.. And just so you know, the Hubble sees back in time.
"To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness."
To argue against something that you have no clue about is rather sad.
if you don't know deeply in any religion than no discussed them,,,
If the "deeply religion" would simply keep it to themselves, then there wouldn't be any need to.
However, history has shown that the "deeply religion" ALWAYS want to force their religion onto others who do not share their reigion, either by the sword (as in the past) or (as is the case with "creationists" in the present) by misinformation, propaganda, falsehoods, quote-mines, fakes, frauds, hoaxes, fabrications, apologetics, unsupported assertions, wild speculations, marketing schemes, political strong arm tactics and flat out lies.
"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin. He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k. Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution. Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing? This is just the natural way of things.
AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point. The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere. They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far. The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed. To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.
None of that has any relation to the real Theory of Evolution or to the real Big Bang theory. You ought to find out what science actually says before you try to argue against it.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin. He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k. Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution. Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing? This is just the natural way of things.
AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point. The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere. They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far. The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed. To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.
The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin. He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k. Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution. Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing? This is just the natural way of things.
AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point. The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere. They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far. The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed. To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.
Had scientists been creationists, they would have limited themselves and been unable to see where the evidence truly leads.[/quote]
Actually, scientists WERE creationists. All scientists prior to 1790 were YECs. From 1800 -1859 scientists were OECs using progressive creation events. Lyell in Vol II of his Principles of Geology stated: "Each species was endowed at the time of its creation, with the attributes of organization by which it is now distinguished. ...been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed place on the globe."
Iama forgets all this. Scientists falsified creationism, just as scientists have falsified a huge number of scientific theories. As you noted, scientists were able to see where the evidence leads, and that evidence lead them to refute creationism and accept evolution.
Iama thinks that "where the evidence truly leads" is atheism. It's not. Science is agnostic. As you noted, one of the things that keeps science agnostic are the limitations imposed by methodological materialism. MN prevent us from testing this hypothesis:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.
As long as we cannot determine whether or not "what is natural ... presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so", then we are limited to what we can say, as scientists, about God's control of nature:
" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_da...
As a person, Richard Dawkins can say that he believes natural happens on its own. As a person, I say I believe God is necessary for everything "natural" to happen. But those are our personal beliefs. Evolution is not atheism.
In the latter half of the 19th century, Biblical scholars began approaching the Bible as all other ancient texts were approached and analyzed. One of the first conclusions from this was the Documentary Hypothesis, which stated that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible, but that they were instead a compilation from at least 3 (and probably 4) earlier sources and were put together around 600-500 BC. A subset of Christians was horrified by this and felt very threatened. They felt that Higher Criticism threatened the "authority" of the Bible on the basic issues of God's existence, God's intervention in human history, the historicity of Jesus' divine actions, and the Resurrection (and thus the entire idea of salvation). They countered with a series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (which you can find online). 2/3 of the pamphlets are directed against Higher Criticism, 1/3 against evolution. From this was born Fundamentalism, which is a new religion. Fundamentalism worships a literal, inerrant, "infallible" Bible, not God. You can see that with Iama and other creationists: they defend "The Bible" and not God. Fundamentalism is false idol worship: www.newreformation.org/ www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm
"One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff. Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today."
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
