I am very disappointed in you.
It's obvious that none of you are True Creationists, since you don't think that your position can withstand a scientific debate.
Why else would you avoid discussing evolution with the experts on evolution????
2006-10-26 17:20:36 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ok.... Having read your wonderfully enlightening post, you miss one simple fact: You have no demonstrable proof of any intelligent designer. As you accuse science of making inferences, you make one much larger. Where is the proof of this intelligent designer. Do we have some signature or model stamp somewhere? It doesn't exist.
Therefore, Science, or evolutionists are starting from what we do know, and not from a Biblical background. If, by some very strange twist of fate, we found some sort of genetic calling card that said "designed by GOD", perhaps we'd look again. That hasn't happened, and isn't very likely.
Intelligent design is an attempt by Bible followers to try to meld science with the Bible; someting the Bible was never intended to do. People feel this strange need to have their Bible literally correct in all aspects, while the Creation myth is simply an attemtp to explain to man that somehow, we all came into being, and that their God had a part in it.
All that your entire post proved is that there are evolutionists and creationists, and that they disagree. The fact that there are holes in the fossil record, that we don't understand everything as of yet, doesn't mean that God did it.
2006-10-26 17:30:06 · answer #1 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Whats wrong with believing that God directed all the events that lead to our existence? I do not believe energy came together for no reason for the Big Bang... perhaps God brought it together, or even is the energy. I do not believe that even after a hundred trillion years, a piece or rock could eventually turn into me- rather God tweaked the early elements and added what was necessary to create us. And still biology has failed to create life. That is because they cannot make mRNA or explain why it came. God knows. They have created things that interact with their environment but they do not fulfill the "characteristics of life." I think there are five characteristics, and they only fulfill like 3.
Oh and do some homework: Not all experts on evolution are athiest. In fact, most people in the science field are monotheist.
2006-10-26 17:25:47 · answer #2 · answered by dacoofoo247 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Richard Dawkins is refusing to communicate creationists via fact he knows what the entire thought of those debates is: A circus designed to income legitimacy with the regularly occurring public. He in basic terms won't provide them that legitimacy and that i believe him. If creationists decide for to "debate" biologists (and not Darwinists, btw, physicists are no longer Newtonians for the comparable reason - the technological know-how has long gone somewhat previous the unique XIXnth century formula), they could gain this in peer reviewed journals. there is likewise yet another cheating argument that is going some thing like this, that the peer-reviewed journals and the colleges in basic terms won't submit creationist arguments. and that's authentic. however the rationalization they gained't submit them isn't via fact the creationists are being discriminated against, yet via fact the artwork being provided would not meet the factors of scientific scrutiny and are subsequently rejected. in actuality, if somebody got here up with a respected paper casting doubt on the belief of evolution itself, they'd not sweep it below the carpet, they may be scuffling with one yet another to be the 1st to submit it. in actuality creationism would not face as much as the scrutiny of the peer-evaluate technique, and that professional scientists have greater efficient issues to do with their time than take part in a circus whose in basic terms objective is to solid doubt interior the minds of the regularly occurring public as a manner to grant legitimacy to an thought that has already been discredited.
2016-10-03 00:22:25 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were earlier in the day, perhaps. It's 12:30am here, and I've got an early morning, so no, you're on your own. Otherwise, I'd be glad to go and talk with the evo dudes - I've got a lot of questions I'd love to ask them. And, quite frankly, I don't have "stones." Nice use of phallocentric language, though. Good luck spaghetti dude.
2006-10-26 17:26:54 · answer #4 · answered by mesasa1978 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The stones?, You probably mean the fossils.
Creationists ignor the natural, scientific, and real stories that fossils tell. They would rather hang on to their own "Fossil": The Bible, (Made or "Inspired" by men).
2006-10-26 17:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by Daystar 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I just saw another question just like this, but posted by a creationist. You should look into it.
2006-10-26 17:24:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe,there are no creationists online at the moment.It has nothing to do with any of your 'debates'.Since whwen did you become Big Brother ?
2006-10-26 17:24:09 · answer #7 · answered by Serena 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'd ask them to explain the Duck-Billed Platypus.
2006-10-26 17:23:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There's no need for a debate. It's still called the THEORY of evolution. The minute it's a proven scientific fact, the word THEORY won't be there. Let me know when that happens. I won't hold my breath.
2006-10-26 17:23:38 · answer #9 · answered by Epitome_inc 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Read the Bible.....it's all the science you need.
A greater expert than God? Wow.... !
2006-10-26 17:26:00 · answer #10 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋