Unfortunately I can't say I'm as glad.


Yes, the presence of evolution does not necessarily mean there is no god, but it may well imply there are no certain specific gods.
That's neither here nor there, however.


Wrong. Biologists themselves bring up problems with their theories, because science tends to do that. What creationists often bring up aren't actually problems, but misconceptions (eg, "why aren't monkeys evolving into humans?") That's because they lack the know-how to spot any actual problems (again, an allusion to the fact that no serious scientist in the field is a creationist).

What you failed to note in that video is that all of them have a PhD in fields relevant to evolution.


I'm not sure whom this is addressed toward.
Anyhow, evolution over millions of years is proven true -- there is no controversy among scientists concerning the reality of evolution as a process.There are no non-believers among people who actually study sciences pertaining to origin and development of life. There are some notable biologists and geneticists who call themselves Christians, like Francis Collins for example. However, they are not like you because they can't reject evolution in face of evidence they work with every day.

See how straightforward my claim is? No creationists among modern biologists. Surely all it would take to prove me wrong is a quick google search, which will bring up all these literalistic christian scientists. Maybe you'll find 1 or 3, but they will have to be obscure characters indeed.






Ok, so what?
If accepted, this will merely call for refinement of one specific account in the theory, and will have nothing to say of other accounts (eg evolution of a squirrel, gorilla, human).
Neither will it call into question the process of evolution itself. That is firmly established.
The theory has been refined many times since Darwin (see Modern evolutionary synthesis) but the basic premise stands impervious: organisms evolve from other organisms by means of natural selection.

Well
if your a beleiver of the christian faith you beg to differ of evolving.
also I dont think somebody could evolve to me thats non sense because that would mean the human race is still evolving and Over the past 500-600 years there hasnt been
that much have a change so i don't understand this.

Millions of years and 500-600 years are quite different, but i'm sure you weren't aware. Also, have you ever gazed around you? We are evolving technologically now, because we have mastered the art of our basic survival.

Fun fact

when darwins studies were published "on the origins of species" The church did not object to the idea of adapting to an ecological nichщ, what they rejected was the idea of species competing with eachother, they didnt like the concept that God designed creatures to fight and compete with eachother
-----

humans are still evolving, knights swords were built to the height of the knight, from that we are able to tell the average height of healthy males back in the middle ages, and they are significantly shorter than nowadays, William Wallace was fables to be a tall man, yet his sword is only five foot, A tall man today would require a 6 foot sword at least

humans also live longer, you can argue that's not evolution of the species but evolution of health sciences keeping us alive, but it is actually evolution of the species, as knowledge is counted as evolution

and so on

Thank you, evolution is not incorrect there are several examples of it that people have been able to record. Natural Selection is what I, as a scientist, don't believe in. There's no concrete evidence. That's what shouldn't be taught in a text book, a good theory can be proven and have an accurate model produced.

LOL! And I'm a president of China.

Natural selection is an essential evolutionary process. I am not sure how you can accept evolution and not accept natural selection.
Your misconception leads me to believe you don't know what evidence there is or isn't, and that you are far from a scientist (at least one that has anything to do with the study of life).

Hybrid101 clearly hasn't been to Australia.
Australia is a great example of natural selection. The majority of the mammals in Australia are marsupial, it can be considered a more primitive trait, mainly because they evolved less from the early mammals, when Australia got separated from the continent it was connected to, so they followed a different path from most mammals.
Australia also has the echidna and the platypus, two of the most primitive living mammals known to mankind. They have poison and have no protruding nipples, only holes which expel milk that isn't as liquid as the milk found in the majority of the modern mammals.

1. Oxford's definition of a scientist is a person studing or that has expert knowledge in a branch of science.
2. I am honored to meet the president of China. Ni hoa!!!
3. Natural selection in and of itself is correct but when you add that random characteristics alter the genes of that lifeform's offspring, this can't be proven.
4. I consider the echidna and the platypus proof that God has a sense of humor.

EtherealDemise:'History is mostly based off of the writings of people who lived during the times (primary sources), which are generally accepted as fact, sometimes with evidence to support the story (like corroboration from other writers of the time). Should history classes not be allowed to teach what cannot be absolutely proven, just because it is only a theory backed by evidence?'

Very interesting viewpoint. Now going from this I suppose you have no problem with religion being forced on children in schools since religion:
1 'is mostly based off of the writings of people who lived during the times (primary sources), which are generally accepted as fact'
2.'sometimes with evidence to support the story (like corroboration from other writers of the time)'
I can use other basic examples if you like but I am guessing you get the point since it is hard to miss.

Now let's look at what I said earlier: 'Teach them about the organisms we have today. Teach them about what we see today.' Let's now look at chemistry: How many elements are kids taught in the periodic table that are not found today? The answer is zero. In fact go look in some of the periodic tables in schools. How many elements do you find based on conjecture as a result of fragments found or theories? Again, zero.

As for the article on gravitational theory - I have to admit it is an interesting piece of literature. Some of the aspects that is talked about (like the whole airplane thing) is just laughable. The 'flaws' pointed out in gravitational theory can however all be explained without having to use a lot of imagination and mathematics can be used to show how these 'flaws' or problems with gravitational theory can be resolved. Is this the case with darwinism? No. In darwinism a lot of conjecture/ imagination is used to link together some of the species and phyla. Fragments of skeletons or skulls are found and from that WHOLE skeletons are built using IMAGINATION. If darwinism is taught this should also be taught along with it. The kids subjected to it should know what was actually found and what conjecture was used in order to link species together (it's not whole skeletons every time, sometimes it's just pieces of a skeleton or pieces of a skull which then magically becomes an entire skeleton and now suddenly we know what the new species looked like). Both sides of the story should be taught.

'The way I see it, science is founded upon the principle of establishing theories and then proving or disproving them. In Galileo's time they taught Ptolemy's view of the universe in schools as the truth. If they had not taught Galileo these views, he would not have been able to disprove them. I would hope physicists, biologists, and chemists would be smart enough to question what they had been taught, as that is the very nature of the field they entered into.'

You know I agree with your first sentence though I would add that the theories devised are based on findings and my hope is also that physicists, biologists and chemists would be smart enough to question what they are taught. Questions bring about answers. If someone wants to pursue a career in a scientific field and is introduced to darwinism etc as a result in college that's fine because that was their choice. There they can learn it. There they can look at it more objectively as opposed to a kid who was forced to learn it as fact in a school.

Odlov:'Wrong. Biologists themselves bring up problems with their theories, because science tends to do that. What creationists often bring up aren't actually problems, but misconceptions (eg, "why aren't monkeys evolving into humans?")
What you failed to note in that video is that all of them have a PhD in fields relevant to evolution.'

First off how am I wrong? I did not say ONLY creationists bring up problems with evolutionary theories, I said ' creationists bring up problems with the evolution theories'. To argue that would be idiotic. I did not fail to note the credentials. There simply just wasn't anything new within that video and yes I have come across creationists that have misconceptions. I have also come across evolutionists that have misconceptions. If one comes across individuals who have misconceptions help them out.

'I'm not sure whom this is addressed toward. '

That was addressed to you, but was for the benefit of everyone reading this, because I still find that there are people who think if darwinism is proven incorrect that it suddenly means that there must be a God. This is not the case.

'Anyhow, evolution over millions of years is proven true -- there is no controversy among scientists concerning the reality of evolution as a process.There are no non-believers among people who actually study sciences pertaining to origin and development of life. There are some notable biologists and geneticists who call themselves Christians, like Francis Collins for example. However, they are not like you because they can't reject evolution in face of evidence they work with every day.'

Proven true? This is just a blatant lie. To say it's proven true it means there must be no doubt. Show me proof. Show me where exactly it's been proven, without the shadow of a doubt, that an evolutionary model which spans millions of years has been proven true without any conjecture being used.

'See how straightforward my claim is? No creationists among biologists. Surely all it would take to prove me wrong is a quick google search, which will bring up all these literalistic christian scientists.'

Yes, that's all it took. So you are either uninformed or just lied again. http://doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/2...for-views.html

This link also mentions two other people within the scientific community - one with a creationist point of view, another who simply doesn't believe in the evolution theory (this does not mean he is a creationist). You can skip to the 8th paragraph as the first few talk about the same person in the first link and give more info on the guy and the case. http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...efs_suit_says/

I question the objectivity of the scientific community in light of these articles. I truly believe that a scientist who states he doesn't believe in darwinism or rather evolution over millions of years is causing himself a lot of problems and will be subject to ridicule. For this reason I am sure there are those who just go with it for the sake of their careers.

Cute vid. Don't know what the point is as I said earlier I don't think religion should be forced in school on kids either.

'Ok, so what?
If accepted, this will merely call for refinement of one specific account in the theory, and will have nothing to say of other accounts (eg evolution of a squirrel, gorilla, human).
Neither will it call into question the process of evolution itself. That is firmly established.
The theory has been refined many times since Darwin (see Modern evolutionary synthesis) but the basic premise stands impervious: organisms evolve from other organisms by means of natural selection.'

So what you ask? It means that the WHOLE theory on the origins of birds may need to be reworked and possibly dinosaurs as well. It means that the theory a lot of people are defending and want to force on kids is has problems they are not even aware of and it has problems because the conjecture (imagination) used was wrong. It means that the other areas in which conjecture was used should be questioned. It means people should actually go and look at what is found, not look at the pretty illustrations that have been imagined based on fragments.

This finding is not brand new, yet I do not see much work done after that. I would actually genuinely like to know what happened to it. This is just one example of many of the problems and gaps within the darwinism. If this was simply discarded because it didn't fit the accepted model, then other findings could have been discarded as well, simply because it didn't fit the model, or to put it more bluntly because it doesn't fit with what the majority of the scientific community BELIEVES. Wouldn't it be sad if history repeats itself: Evidence being thrown aside simply because it doesn't fit a belief system that the majority of a certain group maintains.

If someone can help me and show me what happened to that research I would really appreciate it. Even if, at the end of the day, it supports darwinism and the current model. All I am looking for is greater understanding.

I really do hope that anyone who reads this would actually just go on the net and look at darwinism objectively. Go look at the facts. Look at the findings that support it. Look at the gaps where conjecture/imagination was used. Look at the problems this model still has. Look at what has actually been found. The actual bone fragments. The actual bones. The actually pieces of skulls. Don't look at the 'reconstructed' skeletons based on what a species is believed to have looked like. Decide for yourself if there is enough evidence to say 'it had to be this way'. If you believe there is enough evidence and you are willing to put your faith in this model and the imagination used, fair enough. If you don't it doesn't mean you have to believe in a god. It simply means you are not sure that anything has been proven conclusively. People are free to believe what they like. I am still looking into this whole thing. It's a vast subject that incorporates different scientific fields and ideas. At this point there just is not enough evidence for me to say this is how it had to be. Personally I still feel you would have to have a fair amount of faith to believe all the different aspects within this model to say this is how it had to be and as such I wouldn't force it as fact on anyone, especially kids.

Is that even a valid argument supported by palpable, verifiable evidence??