Evolution vs. Creationism

^ exactly. It was also scientists who were harmed the most by this fraud, since it meant that decades of research were useless because they had been based on false assumptions. Which is yet another example on how scientific methods are more reliable than dogmatic believes. Scientific theories are constantly waiting to be falsified.

Adams Bolero wrote: Atheism is a belief system; it is a belief in the nonexistence of God and evolution is used to validate that belief system.

Edited by Dean - December 05 2009 at 11:44

BaldJean wrote: Dean wrote: BaldJean wrote: I believe in evolution - the facts are simply overwhelming. I do, however, doubt the simple mechanism of mutation and selection alone is responsible for evolution. it is definitely not as if mutations are completely random; some mutations are more probable than others. the way DNA is curved in space, for example, makes some mutations more probable than others. and there are some hints in recent studies that experiences of a single individuum may have an effect on evolution, something Lamarck had been laughed at for centuries Lamarck was laughed at for suggesting that learnt characteristics were passed on, Lamarck was unaware of genes and DNA to explain inherited characteristics, so never differentiated between learnt characteristics and genetic ones. that's what I said, only differently put. there are, however, hints in recent studies that learned characteristica can be passed on, so Lamarck does not necessarily have been totally wrong

Can you cite references to those studies? (not a challenge, I'm genuinely interested)

Nicely said, Bolero.

Evolutionists created Eoanthropus dawsoni in defense of their theories .

^ Again, you are calling ignorance to what YOU do not want to understand... It wasn't better to write "I simple prefer scientifi resear over dogmatic believes..."?? but again... you show that you like to be a Throll...  I'm hungry... I will be back soon...

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote:   I think there are many posts in which several of us are answering the question that Dawkins made in his videos, most of the answers comes from his wonders about religion... so, I don't think that we are not refussing the information... just have a different point of view about it... that's at least what I've been trying to do here... But you always want to we refer something else that the Bible, which you disscount right from the start... so, how is that? you call that everyone refuse your "proofs" but claim that the bible cannot be used as a starting point for creationist...??? Please, tell me why should take the Bible as an authority, as evidence? Why do you ask of me that instead of insisting on evidence, I should be satisfied with quotes from the Bible.

Adams Bolero wrote: Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God because it is only concerned with the material world we can see. I accept Evolution as fact and believe it is God’s way of getting things done. Mr ProgFreak is no better than a young earth creationist if he can’t accept the fact that religious belief and atheism are both valid belief systems.

They are mutually exclusive ... so even if atheism was a belief system (which it is not, but just for the sake of argument), they couldn't both be right.

BTW: I respect anyone's opinion, but I will also mention flaws in those opinions when I see them. That's what discussions are all about.

Adams Bolero wrote: We cannot base our religious or non-religious beliefs relying only on science. Evolution is a fact and we bring our preexisting beliefs and views to that fact and that is what makes us reject evolution because we believe it disproves God or reject God because we believe it’s disproves him. Evolution taken on its own says nothing about the existence of God. I believe that science and religion complement each other and are not mutually exclusive. Science answers our questions about the natural world and how it works while religion answers the questions that science were never meant to address such as ‘why we are here’ and ‘Is there life after death’.  I recommend reading Francis Collins ‘The Language of God’ as he is a scientist who sees no conflict between science and religion and criticizes creationism and fundamental atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I know that book, but I've also seen various comments on it by not only Dawkins but also other scientists, and I'm afraid that I agree with them that his conclusion is flawed.

And about "fundamentalist atheism": There is no such thing - in all due respect, I think you confuse outspokenness with fundamentalism.

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God because it is only concerned with the material world we can see. I accept Evolution as fact and believe it is God’s way of getting things done. Mr ProgFreak is no better than a young earth creationist if he can’t accept the fact that religious belief and atheism are both valid belief systems.  

We cannot base our religious or non-religious beliefs relying only on science. Evolution is a fact and we bring our preexisting beliefs and views to that fact and that is what makes us reject evolution because we believe it disproves God or reject God because we believe it’s disproves him. Evolution taken on its own says nothing about the existence of God. I believe that science and religion complement each other and are not mutually exclusive. Science answers our questions about the natural world and how it works while religion answers the questions that science were never meant to address such as ‘why we are here’ and ‘Is there life after death’.  I recommend reading Francis Collins ‘The Language of God’ as he is a scientist who sees no conflict between science and religion and criticizes creationism and fundamental atheists like Richard Dawkins. 

^ he is passionate about his cause, and he shows little respect for religion. And I absolutely agree with that approach. AC Grayling might seem a little bit more "friendly" considering the general tone, but he attacks religious beliefs as much as Dawkins does.

Still, all that has little to do with the evidence for evolution, and whether you accept it or not. The underlying problem I guess is that evolution really, in essence, negates any belief based on the Bible, which - unfortunately - offers explanations about how the world - including ourselves - was created which hugely contradict evolution. Any good Christian must reject evolution, yet there is compelling evidence for it. IMO it is this simple fact which makes many people uncomfortable when they're asked to look at the evidence, or to watch Dawkins, who is, essentially, telling them that they are delusional (which I again completely agree with).

EDIT: Have a look at this video, if you're interested:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2007/wed-be-better-off-without-religion

It features Grayling, Hitchens and Dawkins on the side of "We'd be better off without religion", and it's a good opportunity to compare those three (and their opponents).


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2009 at 05:45