Evolution has as much evidence and acceptance in science as all of the topics that I mentioned. If you deem evolution to be a religion, then so must you deem all the rest of scientific understanding a religion.

Ahuh.
Find me at least a small amount of the required "missing links" and I will believe that fish became dinosaurs and that mice became apes which became men.
There's almost as much evidence against evolution as there is for it.
I can prove gravity, I just have to drop something, and this sort of thing can be applied to most of science.
I can't prove evolution, I can't sit there and watch things evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cal823

i can't prove evolution, i can't sit there and watch things evolve.

---

If you had children as I do you would see it in progress. :)

There's 2 kinds of evolution
Minor evolution, which is like your kid having different hair colour or being a little smarter

Major evolution
Which is fish to dinosaurs sort of thing.

Can you watch major evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cal823

can you watch major evolution?

---

I don't know, can you stay alive for 5,000 years to watch it? Yet you believe a 2,000 year old book.

I believe it out of faith
I just don't think there should be an arbitrary taught faith like evolution taught in class as if it is scientific fact

We're going 'round in circles. Me or Capuchin telling you there is overwhelming evidence (hence the 'science' part) will not change your views.

Have a great day!

:)

True, I was thinking it was about time for us to stop arguing about this anyway, I have my faith(christianity) and you have your faith (darwinism)
Have a great week! I respect your beliefs.

Cal you were great !

Lol! Thanks

Macroevolution is just lots of microevolutions. Why is that hard to accept if you accept that microevolution happens?

There is very little evidence against evolution. I don't doubt that you've been told that there is though. Please feel free to provide said evidence.

Even without the fossil record, there's still a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Paleontology is a very small part of the set of evidence we have.

Please don't tell me I believe in Darwinism. Nobody in the scientific community believes in Darwinism. Darwin's theory of evolution has been altered many many times. This is what science is all about, modifying theories to fit new evidence. It is not static like your book.

Like I said, calling evolution faith is like calling the whole of science faith. I'm sure there are scientific things that you believe that you cannot prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cal823

true, i was thinking it was about time for us to stop arguing about this anyway, i have my faith(christianity) and you have your faith (darwinism)
have a great week! i respect your beliefs.

---

From Wiki: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools."

Darwinists use the term "Creationism" ;)

You mean evolutionists. It's fine to call us that. But we don't believe in Darwinistic evolution.

Okay, evolutionists.
Can you please explain to me the diff between darwinistic evolution and evolution?
Is it just because of his racist and sexist views, or is it more?

No, darwinism is the theory that he put forward 150 years ago. Since then, more evidence of how life evolved has come to light. In order to make the theory more accurate, little corrections are made so that it explains this evidence also. This is what happens with all scientific theories. The theory of evolution we follow now is correctly termed Neo-Darwinism or Evolutionary Synthesis. It's Darwinism with numerous tweaks to fit all the evidence that we see. It is not static like creationism, because we know that we have not seen all that there is to see.

As far as I'm aware, Darwin had no strong sexist or racist views. Again, I'm sure that this is anti-evolutionist propaganda that has been invented in order to discredit evolution. Of course they do not seem to realise that even if he was racist or sexist (and I don't believe that there is evidence that he was), then it would not say anythign about the validity of his theory.

Ummmmm I've seen extracts from his work quoted that say racist/sexist things
Probably fits with the times it was written though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by modular01

It's a yin yang deal. You can't have good without evil, how would you benchmark what is good if you had nothing evil to compare it to? Same works vice versa.

Think of god as the ultimate embodiment of good, and the devil as evil incarnate.

---

Incarnate means that the devil is embodied just like a human being. Is that what you meant to say?


M:)

Its interesting actually, there is some symmetry between god and the devil
God/devil
And the physical incarnations of jesus/antichrist
But it makes you think... what about the holy spirit? Is there a satannic counterpart? Or maybe the devil just doesn't understand the concept of the holy spirit and so didn't mimic it... I don't know...
Maybe the devils just a dumb evil copycat who wants to mock god by making evil versions of his work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not a good analogy. No one believes everything the media says and if they are then they are a fool. But that is exactly what christianity wants us to believe - that the book is absolutely true and unerring.

By the way the study may have said that those who drink a lot of diet soda/pop may have an increased the risk of developing diabeties, but the message your mom told you was "you are going to die from diet coke" - see the problem there?

---

The 'inerrancy of scripture', meaning the Bible, is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Bible makes no claims to inerrancy, and many of its mistakes are still evident. If the Bible were perfect then it would be God and the worship of it would be Bibliolatry. But the Bible does not advocate, condone, support, nor approve of an inerrant text. This is obvious from the text itself.


M:)RGANITE