I still do not understand why most people put themselves in what they assume to be two mutually exclusive camps. The thoughts and arguements are either totally creationist / God or totally science / evolution. Has anyone entertained the idea that religion and science may actually compliment one another in specific ways?
Your bias is so clear. What BIG PROBLEMS? The article simply states that Darwin was not aware of things, and couldnt be, as genetic drift,etc. Modern science has been filling in the holes of evolution theory and it has become more solid over time, as expected. Did you notice that the consensus is that its FACT and only the MECHANISM is being debated?? Your assertion that I wont discuss these so called problems, is FALSE. Where and when have I done this?? Where have any of atheists claimed the evolution was a perfect theory that required zero mods? Purely a strawman Shoe. Now notice that again you failed to post ANY ID evidence and instead switched the subject back to an attack on the atheists and evolution. This is apparently the ONLY tactic the theists have because they know they have NOTHING but blind belief (faith) to support their weak ID hypothesis. TO SUMMARIZE the two theories: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution - tons of evidence - scientific fact and theory ID - ZERO evidence, still in fairy tale domain peace axeman
There are many examples of evidence (but not proof of course). 1. The first unicellular life springs into existence with irreducitble complexity. 2. The first unicellular life springs into existence in impossible environmental conditions. 3. The first unicellular life springs into existence with impossible statistical odds. 4. The Cambrian Explosion life springs 70 animal phyla into existence in less than 10 million years. 5. etc., etc. I say this is evidence - again not proof - because it is exactly what you would expect if there was a Creator. involved in the early stages of life. Whether you want to admit or not, my model is simply better than your model for explaining the Origin of Life and early fossil record. I don't go for the jugular on this, but it's clearly a creationists' fantasy...
Shoe.... how do I put this lightly?? You havent a clue what constitutes evidence. Your examples #1 through #4 are all non-sequitors. They in no way point to an intelligent creator as as explaination any more than "my big poop yesterday created the universe" does. peace axeman
That's very convenient for you, isn't it? We only have two scientific avenues to evaluate intelligent design versus macroevolution: 1. Genetics 2. The fossil record 3. Lab experimentation #1 is in its infancy, but I bring up several problems with genetics and evolution and you don't respond. #2 and #3 you throw out as inadmissible for some reason. Again, I'm sorry I don't have a videotape of planet earth 3.8 billion years ago...
No... just some evidence held to the same standard our scientists are held to. Notice what the biological evolutionists have. They could produce DNA prints to show the genetic mutations which occur in microorganisms. They can dig up fossils and observe the changes through time. They have mapped the human genome. They can show you 3D maps of the genetic universe and show you what percentage of dna we share with mushrooms. They could show you all kinds of evidence for YEARS STRAIGHT until you yelled NO MAS! NO MAS, which "fits" into their current MODEL of evolutionary theory. Now what is YOUR model for ID and what observable data have you collected which FITS this model better than any other??? peace axeman
I guess that's why we invaded Iraq.. sadam couldn't prove the negative...or scumya and cabal couldn't prove the positive? gears turning yet?...
What are you talking about? This post doesnt even make sense. #1 - have no clue what you are referring to #2 and #3 - you are claiming this is evidence for ID? Exactly what fossil record is evidence for ID? And how so?? Exactly what lab experiment is evidence for ID? And how so? peace axeman