America's first climate change refugees are preparing to leave an island that will disappear under t

[doctorjj]

You are right, evidence would be nice. However, neither "side" can probably cite exact timelines as to the beginning and end of various civilizations. As for Darwin, there isn't anywhere near enough "evidence," especially in the realm of fossil evidence of transitional species. Darwin's theory is just that. Only a theory, and if one took Darwin at his word, even he might be prone to say it was invalid. In later writings to acquaintances, he noted that if fossil evidence of transitional species could not be found and that if one could find evidence that the smallest of elements of the body could be found to be very complex, then his theory would be invalid.

To date, I don't think that there is any fossil evidence, even after almost 160 years of searching. And, the cell has been shown to be very complex, much of that learned since the discovery of DNA.

As for climate change, that has always gone on. However, the problem is that the proponents of "global warming" can't really prove that man is the largest contributing factor of that warming. In fact, with the discover of evidence of people in the "global warming" were "cooking the numbers," their arguments tend to be a bit weak.

Also, I don't think you will find that religious people are so much against science. I'm very religious and I enjoy studying science, although I am nowhere near being called a scientist. Like any good scientist would be, I am skeptical of some claims from those in the scientific world. I've even asked questions here on OSA that dealt with questioning science, and there were some that made claims that I just can't seem to find valid.

I’m certainly not anti-science. I have found many “scientific” disciplines to require more faith than my religion does. CAGW is one of the worst. It’s not even a religion. It’s a cult.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't care how anyone looks at this. Nothing can happen contrary to the laws of physics. If you want answers, look toward the author of those laws.

Woody

 

[JD8]

You are right, evidence would be nice. However, neither "side" can probably cite exact timelines as to the beginning and end of various civilizations. As for Darwin, there isn't anywhere near enough "evidence," especially in the realm of fossil evidence of transitional species. Darwin's theory is just that. Only a theory, and if one took Darwin at his word, even he might be prone to say it was invalid. In later writings to acquaintances, he noted that if fossil evidence of transitional species could not be found and that if one could find evidence that the smallest of elements of the body could be found to be very complex, then his theory would be invalid.

To date, I don't think that there is any fossil evidence, even after almost 160 years of searching. And, the cell has been shown to be very complex, much of that learned since the discovery of DNA.

As for climate change, that has always gone on. However, the problem is that the proponents of "global warming" can't really prove that man is the largest contributing factor of that warming. In fact, with the discover of evidence of people in the "global warming" were "cooking the numbers," their arguments tend to be a bit weak.

Also, I don't think you will find that religious people are so much against science. I'm very religious and I enjoy studying science, although I am nowhere near being called a scientist. Like any good scientist would be, I am skeptical of some claims from those in the scientific world. I've even asked questions here on OSA that dealt with questioning science, and there were some that made claims that I just can't seem to find valid.

Yeah, I'm just going to say that pertaining to Darwin's theory, your dismissal sounds like a lack of education of the subjects at play on your part. It basically sounds like you're regurgitating a creationist argument with no evidence. Even the mechanism to which DNA mutates over time is well documented and shown effects on a macro and micro level. It happens with viruses constantly, and we've even seen genetic changes within organisms within our lifetimes. In which those that don't understand it completely, try to cherry pick certain aspects but it never works as it's a complex subject that involves several scientific disciplines.

Pertaining to climate change, there's a lot of arguments and falsifying of position on both sides. Even a misrepresentation of what the scientific community says, in which you see this too with evolution and the monkey to man graphic. It's just not worth arguing on this board as again it's turned into a political issue. I'll just over-simplify my view to that basically, it's not good to shyt where you eat so act accordingly.

Finally, pertaining to religion and science....well yes and no. You say that religious people "aren't against science." Well, when it suits them, they are fine with it, man made religions have an amazing ability to cherry pick their beliefs, and within that there is a wide spectrum within each religion of what their beliefs entail. Example: Is having slaves immoral? Do you ask modern day christians? or do you ask the christians of the southern states 150+years ago? Is the Old Testament a good reference pertaining to slavery? Or do we have more PC beliefs now? The point is everyone believes or believed they are or were right so whom is correct?

On the other side...when science hints and compromising their beliefs, then that's a completely different story. All that being said, many respected scientists throughout history have had an amount of spirituality in their lives. Stephen Jay Gould was a devout christian that contributed a significant amount of work towards evolutionary theory. Seems you might want to read some of his work.

 

[TerryMiller]

Yeah, I'm just going to say that pertaining to Darwin's theory, your dismissal sounds like a lack of education of the subjects at play on your part. It basically sounds like you're regurgitating a creationist argument with no evidence. Even the mechanism to which DNA mutates over time is well documented and shown effects on a macro and micro level. It happens with viruses constantly, and we've even seen genetic changes within organisms within our lifetimes. In which those that don't understand it completely, try to cherry pick certain aspects but it never works as it's a complex subject that involves several scientific disciplines.

Pertaining to climate change, there's a lot of arguments and falsifying of position on both sides. Even a misrepresentation of what the scientific community says, in which you see this too with evolution and the monkey to man graphic. It's just not worth arguing on this board as again it's turned into a political issue. I'll just over-simplify my view to that basically, it's not good to shyt where you eat so act accordingly.

Finally, pertaining to religion and science....well yes and no. You say that religious people "aren't against science." Well, when it suits them, they are fine with it, man made religions have an amazing ability to cherry pick their beliefs, and within that there is a wide spectrum within each religion of what their beliefs entail. Example: Is having slaves immoral? Do you ask modern day christians? or do you ask the christians of the southern states 150+years ago? Is the Old Testament a good reference pertaining to slavery? Or do we have more PC beliefs now? The point is everyone believes or believed they are or were right so whom is correct?

On the other side...when science hints and compromising their beliefs, then that's a completely different story. All that being said, many respected scientists throughout history have had an amount of spirituality in their lives. Stephen Jay Gould was a devout christian that contributed a significant amount of work towards evolutionary theory. Seems you might want to read some of his work.

As you are regurgitating a "scientific" argument because you don't want to believe in a religious perspective. But, you aren't alone. There are a number of folks in the past that stated that they would "follow the truth wherever it led," but when that truth led towards a belief in God, they back-pedaled. In my case, I likely have the creationist philosophy, but I wouldn't say it was without evidence.

As with others that have questions about creationism versus science, I have to remind them that an adaptation of a species is different from an evolution of a species from another species.

But, also as I commented to another here on the forums, in the end, one of us will be disappointed.

Good luck to you, Sir.

 

[JD8]

As you are regurgitating a "scientific" argument because you don't want to believe in a religious perspective. But, you aren't alone. There are a number of folks in the past that stated that they would "follow the truth wherever it led," but when that truth led towards a belief in God, they back-pedaled. In my case, I likely have the creationist philosophy, but I wouldn't say it was without evidence.

As with others that have questions about creationism versus science, I have to remind them that an adaptation of a species is different from an evolution of a species from another species.

But, also as I commented to another here on the forums, in the end, one of us will be disappointed.

Good luck to you, Sir.

Not quite. What I have said is easily referenced with some basic genetics. On a simple level, ever wonder how the flu virus mutates? How is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? Mice immune to poison?

In terms of you believing you're reminding others about evolutionary science it seems some further education is in order. Adaptation is a broad term that could apply to genetic change or behavioral change. Evolution is genetic change over time and doesn't necessarily involve any speciation.

Science has little to do with my lack of acceptance of man made religion. That would be my humanity and integrity. Notice you had no answer to my question about slavery? When push comes to shove, y'all have a pretty good history of doing evil. Rather at the very least, you will stand by while other christians do evil. I just couldn't stand the hypocrisy when they asked me for money every Sunday.

 

[dennishoddy]

What if God created Evolution?

 

[TerryMiller]

Not quite. What I have said is easily referenced with some basic genetics. On a simple level, ever wonder how the flu virus mutates? How is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? Mice immune to poison?

In terms of you believing you're reminding others about evolutionary science it seems some further education is in order. Adaptation is a broad term that could apply to genetic change or behavioral change. Evolution is genetic change over time and doesn't necessarily involve any speciation.

Science has little to do with my lack of acceptance of man made religion. That would be my humanity and integrity. Notice you had no answer to my question about slavery? When push comes to shove, y'all have a pretty good history of doing evil. Rather at the very least, you will stand by while other christians do evil. I just couldn't stand the hypocrisy when they asked me for money every Sunday.

Well, you've avoided a question or two of mine as well. In case you aren't aware of it, Christians have stood against slavery, just one of which is William Wilberforce.

Unless one is changing the rules of science (which I sometimes suspect), then my understanding of evolution is that it involves one species being the basis for another totally different one.

Oh, and your constant talking down to me and my education level is getting a bit tiring, so rather than have to suffer more of the same, I'll be leaving this thread.

Good day.

 

[JD8]

Well, you've avoided a question or two of mine as well. In case you aren't aware of it, Christians have stood against slavery, just one of which is William Wilberforce.

Unless one is changing the rules of science (which I sometimes suspect), then my understanding of evolution is that it involves one species being the basis for another totally different one.

Oh, and your constant talking down to me and my education level is getting a bit tiring, so rather than have to suffer more of the same, I'll be leaving this thread.

Good day.

If what you said was true there would be no slavery "rules" in the bible, nor would it have existed within countries where christianity was the predominant religion. But that's not reality now is it?

To be sure, nobody is changing the rules of evolution, again, you're just misrepresenting the concept to try to mold it into your belief, or disbelief. It's a common practice to create strawman arguments by creationists and it seems that's what we have here. The man rising up and walking from an ape graphic you is a false and common misrepresentation you see put forth by creationists.

Evolutionary theory is a very complex subject that involves much more than just what Darwin said. Nonetheless, genetic change does happen on a daily basis, and there are several variables that account for the several mechanisms that are described in evolutionary theory. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities ranging from speciation to simple changes within a species.

Finally, I'm not talking down on your education as a whole, just this subject. If you are going to admittedly correct people and throw out a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda ou there then it's plausible that I would expect an amount of background on the subject. On the flipside, I fully admit my lack of extensive education in the Bible. I can only go on the exact words written and take them literally, which in many cases that's what I was told to do by those allegedly in the know. That tends to waiver though.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What if God created Evolution?

No doubt.

HE wrote the laws of physics. Nothing can change, evolve, mutate, or stay the same contrary to those laws.

Woody

 

[JD8]

What if God created Evolution?

That's definitely possible and it's possibility is a position held by some prominent evolutionary scientists. However the mechanism of genetic change over time is well described and proven.