Perceptions based soley on religion

[TomOfSweden]

Tom

Hate to disagree with you, but evolution as proposed by Darwin is bunk. I will even say that if Darwin were alive today he would agree with me that his theories should be rejected. People cling to them, not because they are true, but because the alternative is less acceptable to them. If they have to admit the flaws in evolution they might have to admit that the theologians are right.

Darwin believed in a God that guided evolution, yey those who calaim to believe wht he wrote deny even this, ask yourself why.

Let me be clear about one thing, I totally support the concept of adaptation to environment, but I reject speciation in any form that does not involve a supernatural event. In spite of numerous scientific experiments to try to prove speciation involving fruit flies there is no evidence of a new species developing. There has been no scientific proof that has withstood the scrutiny of peer review that in any way supports speciation.


Yet, in spite of this total lack of evidence, people still prefer to accept evolution as scientific fact. If any other supposed theory had so little evidence supporting it, iot would be rejected out of hand. Evolution is not because the phiosophy behind it is preferrred to the phiosophy behind the belief in Intelligent Design.

Specious philosophical nonsense is an apt description of evolution.

This whole post misses the target by a mile.

Now you're comparing christianity to science as if they are two different faiths. The scientific method is just a method to find the truth. The method in itself doesn't have any answers. It's the the reports that get produced using it that may have. They are many and often conflicting. Chrstianity is only one of many possible scientific models to explain the world. One that desperatly needs evidence to back it up.

Darwin didn't have the complete picture and he wasn't the first person to come up with evolution. He took the untested theories proposed by his biology teacher and tested it scientifically and drew as good conclusions from it as he could. That was the reason why he's famous even though he's somewhere in the middle of the chain. Scientists after him corrected his misstakes. Darwin was not a prophet, only a scientist. His word is not law.

You're own little private theory fails in that god isn't needed for speciasation. The modern model of evolution gives room for it all on it's own. But I guess it would be refreshing if it was true. This idea that god is a being with a very cruel sense of humour is new to me.

At least it's nice to hear that you're not on the Intelligent design team. Those guys scare me.

edit: Regarding your theory about god guiding the creation of species. What's the point? Why would god do it? It makes no sense. If you believe in evolution, we'll get specisation with or without devine intervention. If you want to abondon the very logical theory of evolution and replace it with another one, it should at least hold together logically, right? Why force god into a theory that works fine without it?

The theory of evolution isn't waterproof. There's still plenty of holes in it, but we have lots of evidence and we've got a model and the evidence we do have fit into the model snuggly.

Your theory is as much unsubstantiated guesswork as a theory. The theory of evolution as we have today is pretty fucking far from pure speculation. What do you have to back your theory it up?

Even though we haven't been able to recreate specisation in a laboratory, (which I doubt is even true, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) we have as far as I know not been able to recreate devine intervention in a laboratory either so that's 0-0. Not much of an argument for your case is it?