There is a passage in the Bible used by http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm Archbishop Ussher of Ireland in the 17th century. From this he calculated that the Earth, Universe and Creation (and therefore all life) is about 6000 years young. This figure has been adopted by the more fundamental Christians, specially in the US.
The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.
There is a passage in the Bible used by http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm Archbishop Ussher of Ireland in the 17th century. From this he calculated that the Earth, Universe and Creation (and therefore all life) is about 6000 years young. This figure has been adopted by the more fundamental Christians, specially in the US.
The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.
This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
evolutionist have never claimed humans are the highest (or most developed creature), that is a claim stemming from biblical passages anyway...
humans are as evolved as any other creature -- there has been the same amount of time for them to evolve in their (changing) niche as any other species.
as for the paleobiology you are discussing -- sure the origin of our species is contentious, but there are many many more other species that have more definitive fossil records...
i will now take leave of this discussion because it probably will be closed in 5 4 3 2 1...
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Galileo tried that....the approach of science and reason didn't work out too great for him...he was executed by the Church.
Quote:
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
I agree that evolution has large areas of imprecise knowledge, and yawning gaps....the lab was the Earth, and humans weren't around back then to observe and measure. It's not precise, but its the best model we got so far.... science is always a continuous process.
Whats the alternative to the "evolution" sciences? Creationism? That isn't a science...its a matter of faith. What EVIDENCE is there to suggest that the Universe and the Earth are 6000 years old, and humans were created as described in Genesis? Let's see it!
Re. the origin of humans...how about "intervention"...that is, the deliberate messing about of human development by 3rd parties with technology (Aliens!!! woooooooeeeeeiiiiiooooo). There's may be more evidence for an extraterrestrially wacky explanation than a biblically wacky one.
when i was first taught about the origin of the earth and man and all, i was in a catholic school, so they taught me about genesis. later, in like 7th grade, science teacher mentioned the big bang theory, she emphasized that it was a theory; i remember that was taboo, because, as i said, it was a catholic school and anything that could be construed against catholic dogma was taboo. she also told us a bit about evolutionary theory, and again emphasized that it was theoretical; though it was obvious in her telling that she favored more towards evolution than creation. i think that way is pretty good way of handling it; to tell the students about several theories, but to emphasize that none of them is definite.
when i got to hs bio class, evolution was regarded more strongly. teacher didnt, or atleast to my recollection didn't, mention creation or the possibility of other theories. although i later came to believe more in evolution, i think it would be better if kids are taught it and the fact that its a theory be accentuated.
Damn, lately I find myself writing responses that I can't print, new career moves, fewer lazy student days, I write something good and I need to keep it in case of a slump.
Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.
So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.
Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.
You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.
And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.
This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.
The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.
Really?
Quote:
My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an.
Could you please direct me to the part of that linked document where they love the idea that humans evolved from some ape-like creature, related to both present-day humans and present-day apes, because I'm not quite certain that ?evolution of the stars? or ?of the Heavens? is about those things.
Of course, given that there is a variety of several currents in Islam (as there is in Chrstianity, and other religions), the extent to which they accomodate various scientific theories is indeed, varied. I've discussed with some sheikhs and imams having no problem with the specific theory of evolution (as discussed today in scientific circles) and some will even point out the theory's echoing of ancient scholars like Abu al-?Hassan ?Ali al-Mas?udi; others who be open to it but not without adding various conditions: like the addition of ?intelligent triggering? to initiate the process itself (e.g.: a rejection of the idea of it having occured on its own), like variations of the ?intelligent design? theme also heard of elsewhere, or like the assertion of man evolving separately from other species, e. g.: no evolving of Homo Sapiens from earlier Homo Erectus or any other lowly primate; and of course there are others who will tell you that the Quran is all the science you need and that all what passes for science in the unbeleivers' world is just heathen rubbish, and Allah (be praised) creating Adam (PBUH), the first prophet, is how man occured on Earth and khalas.
Quite a variety of views, similar to that found within other religions one can think of.
One assumes that teaching of evolutionary sciences is more than objected to among those people of the less than accomodating varieties.
Now, if you have it from reputable authorities, describing in no ambiguous terms the Islamic love for the idea of a biological evolutionary process including the evolution of man from other animal species occuring on its own without any necessary apparent ?intelligent? intervention, it'd be most interesting; when saying ?reputable authorities? I'm thinking widely recognised sources like say the Al-Azhar University, or even some Theological Assembly in Qom (Shi'ites should get their fair share, 'tis what I always say); a second opinion of some Wahhabi source from Saudi or a Deobandi source form India or Pakistan would also be acceptable, for while not mainstream pre-se, such currents have seen their influence grow in the last decades.
There has been some talk on these threads of the many Christians who don't see evolutionary theory as a contradiction to their faith. For the record, count me as one. The Bible can be read to accomodate evolution. God works in wondrous ways.
Damn, lately I find myself writing responses that I can't print, new career moves, fewer lazy student days, I write something good and I need to keep it in case of a slump.
Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.
So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.
Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.
You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.
And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.
This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.
I know the "established thinking" with regard to evolution. I know the theory better than most. I just won't jump the logic gaps that others will.
The number of coincidences that make up our current universe for example are to numerous to be plausibly ignored. As a result cosmologists are pondering the multiverse theory. I'll quote a nice article from that creationist rag, Scientific American.
There is speculation that not only there other universes that don't have the huge number of attributes that just happen to be so friendly to life like ours happen to be.
There is further speculation that not only are there other universes with different attributes but that they run parallel to ours and even split apart based off of decisions and attributes what appear to be coincidences aren't necessarily, etc.
It isn't something easily put into a forum post and the real point is that I won't believe a wrong theory in the absense of a better theory that is more accurate.
Comments
The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.
6000 years!?!?!?
Originally posted by sammi jo
There is a passage in the Bible used by http://www.bibleword.org/ussher1.htm Archbishop Ussher of Ireland in the 17th century. From this he calculated that the Earth, Universe and Creation (and therefore all life) is about 6000 years young. This figure has been adopted by the more fundamental Christians, specially in the US.
The reason that the science of evolution is controversial is not because of it's flaws and holes, in common with most sciences, but it challenges an old idea with a firm foundation in religion, and turns it upside down. It doesn't matter how good or bad the science is. Evolution (etc) is butting heads with an area of faith....and some people don't like it.
This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
This has to be like the world's largest strawperson. (being gender neutral for Sammi Jo)
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
Nick
HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR CREATIONISTS
Originally posted by sammi jo
HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR CREATIONISTS
Good, I'm sure
Now would you care to talk science?
Nick
humans are as evolved as any other creature -- there has been the same amount of time for them to evolve in their (changing) niche as any other species.
as for the paleobiology you are discussing -- sure the origin of our species is contentious, but there are many many more other species that have more definitive fossil records...
i will now take leave of this discussion because it probably will be closed in 5 4 3 2 1...
Evolution either stands on it's own or it doesn't. Evolution to me seems like a limited theory thought out of limited knowledge. People may have thought the sun went around the earth because they were religious, or it also may have been that with their limited understanding they didn't feel the earth move and saw the sun moving in a circular manner.
Either way instead of worrying about WHY they were wrong, wouldn't it have just been better to show why the other way was right? (Earth around sun)
Galileo tried that....the approach of science and reason didn't work out too great for him...he was executed by the Church.
Evolution is not typical of other science. Most other science is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence that is open to wide peer review. Even then you still get biases and mistakes periodically on areas where there is the most at stake. (Say cold fusion and things of that nature)
Have you ever thoguht about the built in biases to evolution aside from religion? First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development. Secondly it deals with our origins, aside from religion this would still be an area where bias would be most likely to show up. The most fame, money, and prestige is related to human origins and thus that is where humans are most likely to show their true nature.
Because of what is at stake there is little access to the fossils and as a result little peer review. If you check into the history of many of these fossils they are very small pieces with huge generalizations created from them. There is large arguments about who's skeleton is oldest, belongs to what branch, is a dead end, is a link, etc.
I know Sammi Jo that if I gave you another process where the ability to review and gather information was so restricted and likewise the holes in reasoning so large, you would view it with suspicion.
And religion wouldn't be the force causing you to do that.
I agree that evolution has large areas of imprecise knowledge, and yawning gaps....the lab was the Earth, and humans weren't around back then to observe and measure. It's not precise, but its the best model we got so far.... science is always a continuous process.
Whats the alternative to the "evolution" sciences? Creationism? That isn't a science...its a matter of faith. What EVIDENCE is there to suggest that the Universe and the Earth are 6000 years old, and humans were created as described in Genesis? Let's see it!
Re. the origin of humans...how about "intervention"...that is, the deliberate messing about of human development by 3rd parties with technology (Aliens!!! woooooooeeeeeiiiiiooooo). There's may be more evidence for an extraterrestrially wacky explanation than a biblically wacky one.
Many times they will tell you stuff like "Over millions of years, nature figured out what did work and what didnt and chose to keep what did",
If it works, it lives and gets to reproduce. If it doesn't, it dies.
However others, like myself believe that they are large enough that it will eventually cause us to seek a new explination and throw evolution out.
Newtonian physics is wrong, but it still gets used.
It is entirely possible that He created the world and everything in it with the potential to change, adapt, yes, even evolve.
It's not as if the results would surprise God, or that (assuming God exists) God didn't Set Us Up The Universe in the first place.
First it says that humans are the highest form of evolutionary development.
Humans are complex lifeforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are the destination of evolution.
There's may be more evidence for an extraterrestrially wacky explanation than a biblically wacky one.
But where did these aliens come from then?
Originally posted by Stoo
or that (assuming God exists) God didn't Set Us Up The Universe in the first place.
You Have No Time. Make your Peace.
All your Faiths are Belong to Us
when i got to hs bio class, evolution was regarded more strongly. teacher didnt, or atleast to my recollection didn't, mention creation or the possibility of other theories. although i later came to believe more in evolution, i think it would be better if kids are taught it and the fact that its a theory be accentuated.
Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.
So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.
Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.
You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.
And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.
This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Galileo tried that.....he was executed by the Church.
Stop the presses!!!! Recall the history books!!!!!
Originally posted by The General
many people [presumably including The General] think most scientists are fruitloops
Don't touch that computer again General, you wouldn't want to use anything that is based on applied scientific theory.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The only people on this planet who object to the teaching of evolutionary science are Christians. No other religion has a problem integrating the last century's scientific discoveries with their faith like Chrisitians.
Really?
My assertion was that the only people who don't want evolution taught in schools are Christians, mostly in America. If you tried that nonsense in the UK the outcry would be unbeliveable. Anyway, Islamic schools love evolution because all of science is in the Holy Qur'an.
Could you please direct me to the part of that linked document where they love the idea that humans evolved from some ape-like creature, related to both present-day humans and present-day apes, because I'm not quite certain that ?evolution of the stars? or ?of the Heavens? is about those things.
Of course, given that there is a variety of several currents in Islam (as there is in Chrstianity, and other religions), the extent to which they accomodate various scientific theories is indeed, varied. I've discussed with some sheikhs and imams having no problem with the specific theory of evolution (as discussed today in scientific circles) and some will even point out the theory's echoing of ancient scholars like Abu al-?Hassan ?Ali al-Mas?udi; others who be open to it but not without adding various conditions: like the addition of ?intelligent triggering? to initiate the process itself (e.g.: a rejection of the idea of it having occured on its own), like variations of the ?intelligent design? theme also heard of elsewhere, or like the assertion of man evolving separately from other species, e. g.: no evolving of Homo Sapiens from earlier Homo Erectus or any other lowly primate; and of course there are others who will tell you that the Quran is all the science you need and that all what passes for science in the unbeleivers' world is just heathen rubbish, and Allah (be praised) creating Adam (PBUH), the first prophet, is how man occured on Earth and khalas.
Quite a variety of views, similar to that found within other religions one can think of.
One assumes that teaching of evolutionary sciences is more than objected to among those people of the less than accomodating varieties.
Now, if you have it from reputable authorities, describing in no ambiguous terms the Islamic love for the idea of a biological evolutionary process including the evolution of man from other animal species occuring on its own without any necessary apparent ?intelligent? intervention, it'd be most interesting; when saying ?reputable authorities? I'm thinking widely recognised sources like say the Al-Azhar University, or even some Theological Assembly in Qom (Shi'ites should get their fair share, 'tis what I always say); a second opinion of some Wahhabi source from Saudi or a Deobandi source form India or Pakistan would also be acceptable, for while not mainstream pre-se, such currents have seen their influence grow in the last decades.
"We'll this evolved here-and-there, and then the lizard changed to a bird, and whale to this and that....."
....this is known as a THEORY, and theories have to be given over to critical thinking, if we are thinking at all here.
Originally posted by Matsu
Damn, lately I find myself writing responses that I can't print, new career moves, fewer lazy student days, I write something good and I need to keep it in case of a slump.
Ah well. People in this forum really need to STOP throwing around "straw person," and creationsist have to realize that they don't know the first thing about attacking the science of evolution. Evolution is theory and scientists NEVER claim otherwise. The need of some to emphasize its problems is an obvious attempt to discredit the entire area of thinking in favor of an anacrhonism. If creationists thought just a little about it, they would realize, in the linguistic clues of the bible itself, that their outlook is just bad theology, and now they're turning it into bad criticism.
So if people intend to critique evolution to improve it, fine, if it's a vehicle to further politics, then it has no place in schools.
Trumpetman, I'm surprised at you, a guy with generally passable ideas about other areas of life ought to know better.
You have to learn the established thinking before you can mount credible and insightful critique. Forcing it at the point you suggest is just bad education, and ugly politics.
And creationism is NOT a theory in the scientific sense, it cannot responsibly be presented as an alternative, unless you intend that it be an alternative to the analytical rigor. It is a fantasy, but not incompatible at all with evolution. Actually, when the creationists learn to read their bible, they will find that the writers were not doing anything other than talking evolution in different terms.
This is just an attempt to make religion comfortable by making it naive.
I know the "established thinking" with regard to evolution. I know the theory better than most. I just won't jump the logic gaps that others will.
The number of coincidences that make up our current universe for example are to numerous to be plausibly ignored. As a result cosmologists are pondering the multiverse theory. I'll quote a nice article from that creationist rag, Scientific American.
Multiverse
There is speculation that not only there other universes that don't have the huge number of attributes that just happen to be so friendly to life like ours happen to be.
There is further speculation that not only are there other universes with different attributes but that they run parallel to ours and even split apart based off of decisions and attributes what appear to be coincidences aren't necessarily, etc.
It isn't something easily put into a forum post and the real point is that I won't believe a wrong theory in the absense of a better theory that is more accurate.
Nick
Originally posted by ena
Stop the presses!!!! Recall the history books!!!!!
Ok Ok....the Vatican did apologize about that one...in 1996, some 300 years afterwards....but better late than never I suppose....
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ok Ok....the Vatican did apologize about that one...in 1996, some 300 years afterwards....but better late than never I suppose....
.....it's just that he died under house arrest---he wasn't executed
We are billion-year-old carbon
And we got to get ourselves
Back to the Garden"