or are all of you still stuck in the 50"s. Science does not stand behind Darwin's theory. They have discovered through the research of DNA and other science's that it no longer holds any credibility. That there is no way it all just happened, not without intelligent design, or in other words God. Do any of you read or do you just look up crack pot stuff on the internet. You need to read books and articles written by legitimate scientists and read it with and open mind. How does anyone find the truth if he is not willing to actually see it?
2007-08-24 05:09:01 · 30 answers · asked by Connie D 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It would be very interesting, and most helpful, if you could support your claims by citing which scientists are saying what in which publications.
Do you think it would be reasonable to just take your word for it?
2007-08-24 05:35:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How does anyone find truth if you don't actually place the resources you used to get this information? Anyone can make a claim like this........ And, if you actually read up on the scientific part of Darwins research, you would know that it doesn't even touch on a Creator..... so it's really starting to look like another one of those propaganda stunts to try to get people to just follow what you say. Provide the proper resources and I'm sure people will look into it. Otherwise this will be viewed as just another claim and ignored.
BTW, if Science didn't stand behind Darwins research, they wouldn't be teaching it in schools (which they do), nor would any of it be included in documentaries concerning his field of research... YET, it is.
I do read... and what I read in your post is not much different than anyone else making a claim without posting where they got the information. Don't think people are just going to believe you, just because you said so.
2007-08-24 12:40:31 · answer #2 · answered by River 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was born July 4 1955, halfway through the year, halfway through the century. If I was stuck in the 50's I'd still be in diapers pooping my pants. I've left the age of innocence far behind and come to the conclusion that man is rotten to the core (not all, there is a few good men), but you won't find them behind a pulpit. It is impossible to know what all is going on in science because there are millions of things going on, but I try to keep abreast of it the best that I can. I trust science to tell us commoners the truth. If they discover they are wrong about certain thinking, I'm sure they will announce it, along with the new discovery that told them they were wrong about the old theory. Scientists are interested in the truth, not the lie. On the other hand, it's not hard to keep abreast of religion with its sluggish pace. Same old credo that they have been spewing since the dark ages and earlier.
2007-08-24 12:31:00 · answer #3 · answered by Lukusmcain// 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you have any idea how insulting you are? Of course scientists have new ideas. Don't you understand that science is supposed to change? That's why it works.
I do read peer reviewed articles and technical books. Very few "legitimate" scientists ever publish anything for the lay public. Real evolutionary biologists are so far beyond the asinine Creationists, there is nothing even left to discuss. Only fundamentalists imagine evolution is a threat to their faith. Real biologists couldn't care less.
Are you aware that real on-line scientific archives must protected from public access because of vandalism by Christian bigots? Unless you are affiliated with the biology department of a legitimate University or College, you can't even access what real scientists actually publish. Please don't lecture me about legitimate science, when it's painfully obvious you don't have a clue. I'm trying very hard to remain respectful in the face of your blatant insults. Get it?
2007-08-24 12:35:38 · answer #4 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow Im sorry but you are really misinformed or should I say brainwashed??
Darwins theory is just that a theory but I am sorry to say that ALL the research and data does pretty much prove Evolution!!
At least Scientists are looking at the world around them and asking questions, thinking for themselves, and trying to figure things out! Instead of just reading a two thousand year old book and going oh ok yep thats how it happened.
2007-08-24 12:22:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science is great for what it is and what it does. Science looks for the hows and whys behind natural phenomenon.
Science freaks are not necessarily atheists, nor does it follow that because someone is an atheist that he is knowledgeable about science.
There is no conflict whatsoever at all between God and science. None. Absolutely no conflict at all...
There is, however, a major conflict between SOME egotistical theologians who think that they know all there is to know about how God created the Universe, and SOME big-headed science types who think that they know all there is to know about the physical world. They are both ridiculous. Science has only begun to scratch the surface...and theology has not even gotten that far...
God has no problem whatsoever with science...
After all...
God invented science in the first place.
2007-08-24 17:25:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Do any of you read or do you just look up crack pot stuff on the Internet"
The way you obviously did? If you are such a scholar on the issue, why have you not included the name of one scientist that you would consider legitimate? Or how about providing the name or one book or article written by one of those scientists? Have you even read Darwin?
2007-08-24 12:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Right, sure.... Michael J. Behe is not a legitimate source. He could have been if he had continued to be a scientist and prove his theories, but instead he made assertions with out backing them with data and evidence.
Try your own advice and stay away pseudo scientists that are continually misquoting (sound like lying) others and arguing from ignorance.
2007-08-24 12:18:33 · answer #8 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*ahem*
ACTUALLY they do very much stand by Natural Selection. It is basic beginners Genetics. It very much holds credibility and I will gladly state chapters and pages in Campbells Biology.
Bio Chem VERY much stands by evolotion. Once again, this is covered in the basics. DNA, bacteria, genetics and virus's stand on just about NOTHING but Evolution. Just the facts.
Evolution DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD! Why is this so damn black and white with you people? No where in the theory does it state this. What is does is prove that Genesis is not LITERAL. It doesn't even disprove Genesis, just that it's not literal?
Evolution is NOT accidental. You are exaggerating the theory to suit your own purpose.
Bear no false witness cupcake. Pick up a book and learn
2007-08-24 12:18:12 · answer #9 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As an evolutionary biologist, I can say I must have missed those articles in the science journals. Why don't you send me some links to a few abstracts so I can catch up.
I am being serious I would love to read some credible sources if you have them.
2007-08-24 12:22:09 · answer #10 · answered by Quimby 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most scientist accept Darwin. Just 'a theory' can mean two things. Darwinism is understood to work without an intelligence' pushing ' evolution. it's about gradual charge or adaptation.
But they don't know EXACTLY how it happened. that's the only doubt.
2007-08-24 12:14:28 · answer #11 · answered by robert2020 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋