In the abiogenesis thread people are coming so close to the truth but missing it.

Evolution AND Creation are both facts. Under those facts there are theories such as Darwin's theory that is so popular today.

This is why "evolutionists" and "creationists" can both be right and can not see the other side at all. 2 different topics.

Creation is a fact. Look around. Life was created. We know this because life is here. We are here. HOW it was created has many theories. One theory is abiogenesis which has many sub theories. Another is the Superior Being theory which has many sub theories such as the Biblical theory.

Evolution is a fact. Creatures do change. Why they change and how the changes occur is all theory. Evolution covers the development of species from creation to destruction. Darwin's theory is a popular one and the one that "scientists" try to force down everyones' throat. But it is just a theory with very little true scientific support except by the people who have made it part of their religion.

Darwinians have also basically made abiogenesis the primary theory of creation, even though there is almost no evidence to support it. But to them, any type of "superior being" theory is unthinkable because it would mean we (humans) are not the top dawg. "superior being" theories can be based on science just as much as abiogenesis can be. But that is another topic.

Edited by admin3: It would seem that some people will try and preach what does not belong. Creation and Evolution do not go together. And there are several reasons for it.
1) It totally denies God's power of creation.
2) It applies time that is not recorded in even one verse of scripture.
3) It make Evolution cross over to being a religion, because a Creator becomes part of the picture.

Threads like these are only made to start arguements, not debates. And this one started out just like the one before we got hacked with the old forum. And now we are being e-mailed to death which makes it look even more like these people.


Added: Talking about why you think they work together is fine. But preaching it as actual fact is not. And I will close a thread for that because of the reasons above. Between science and religion, there needs to be a seperation of sorts, and I believe this is where the line should be drawn. Any member is welcome to start a thread to discuss the issue, because I believe people should be able to express their opinion on it. So that everyone knows where the line is, when a thread is started and the line just happens to be crossed, I will show where and why so everyone understands (a edit of post, plus an example).

I'm trying to be fair about the situation by allowing it to be discussed to a point. But if members start abusing it, I'll start closing threads instead of warning. The warnings I give to set the bounderies are not going to be a one strike against a member on this issue. Because the line is kinda hard to define. So don't worry about a warning giving about this being held against you, unless I say "last warning".

That is about as fair as I can be on this.

Admin3

Ok, I've heard this thrown around enough times that someone needs to step in and support this assertion.

Why is it classified as "ramming down someone's throat" when a theory is accepted by 99.9% of biologists and is soundly supported by ALL of the data?

How is the theory of evolution a religious theory? Please be specific. Where is faith needed? There is evidence for common ancestory, direct observation of the mechanisms of evolution, and the agreement between fossil evidence and DNA evidence. Yes, evolution is a theory, but it is a theory that is consistent with a large amount of data and inconsistent with none of it.



Theists ask evolutionists for evidence and yet accept a "Superior Being" without any evidence. The mere questioning of the existence of god is unthinkable to a theist because they know that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of God. And Darwinians are not the ones pushing abiogenesis forth as the explanation for creation. That is the scientific method and nothing else. And even then this does not mean that God could not have had an influence in how abiogenesis occured.

Not true at all. No data supports Darwin's theory. Open your eyes and it is obvious that it doesn't work like he thought. And when you have to go to court to force schools to teach a theory exclusively, it is forcing it down our throat. No other way to phrase it. Also the number of "biologists" supporting Darwin's theories is declining as the flaws become overwhelming.

Darwinism is a religion because it believes in miracles, takes tons of faith, and people are rabidly fanatically attached to it.


Now see, you haven't changed your thinking yet. Evolution is a fact, Darwinism is a theory, seriously flawed theory. We do see changes in species such as the average height of humans has increased over the last 100 years. Evolution at work. So why are you arguing now that evolution is a theory? You can argue HOW evolution works, those are all theories and Darwinism is no good.

Science and "superior beings". Is it possible? Of course it is. And even if we don't understand how something works does that mean it doesn't work? If so, gravity doesn't work. Wasn't it Asimov who said "If science is sufficiently advanced, it appears to be magic"? (Or close to it). Can we use science to prove the existance of a superior being? Of course we can. Does that mean the superior being will cooperate? Not necessarily.

This shows the severe lack of the scientific method involved in the Evolution debate on the part of Darwinists. Darwinists have thrown out the possibility of a superior being without exploring the theory; which shows they are not interested in any other theories.

29+ Evidences of Macroevolution

I can find plenty more if you would like.



It doesn't work precisely like Darwin thought it would, which is why Biology uses the Modern Synthesis.



I believe this is what the Intelligent Design people are doing. Science class should reflect what is used in the field of science. 99.9% of Biologists agree that evolution is supported and the best available theory.



The number is increasing given the number of scientists entering the field of biology and their 99.9% acceptance of the theory of evolution.



Like I said, please be specific. You have reasserted, now back it up. What is taken on faith?



First question: How is the theory of evolution (not Darwinism) flawed? Please be specific.

Second question: How can science do better than "theory" when dealing with past events?



So science can't prove the existence of God since you can always bail out and claim that God is not cooperating, an unfalsifiable theory.



Firstly, I am not a Darwinist no more than I am a Gravitationalist, a Germ Theorist, or a Atomician. But if you want to use the term correctly, you could call me a neo-Darwinist since it is based on the more accurate Modern Synthesis. Darwin got a few things wrong because he did not understand the pattern of inheritance nor the chemistry behind inheritance. Neo-Darwinists have not thrown out the possibility of a superior being. A superior being is ignored because there is no empirical evidence of one. Of you could, please provide the empirical evidence for the existence of God in you next post.

Huh? Please explain what you consider to be the differences and what each represents. From experience most people consider them the same thing, with evolution being broken into micro and macro (for YEC).

[quote=DonH]"superior being" theories can be based on science just as much as abiogenesis can be.
Explain this while you're at it, too, if you would.

~~ Paul

So, are we now saying that a theory of science is now a religion?

I ask the question because the subject of science being a religion is always fought so hard. But making evolution a part of creation over steps the boundary of one becoming the other. If you say God created through evolution, then evolution now admits to a Creator. But, own it's own terms. But even admiting to it, takes faith in believing it. So now do the ones here who hold science so dear allow this to happen?

Science is a religion.
Science is a religion.
Science is a religion.

Is that what you want to hear? Or is it already, but some are just bucking the idea?

Isn't that what creationists have been claiming all along? The theory of evolution is fully scientific, and yet it is called a religion. Why not apply the same moniker to the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory? Why should science care which theories go against somebody's Holy Book? Shouldn't science strive towards empirically supported theories regardless of theological implications?



Quite the opposite. It is always asserted without evidence. Perhaps you can be the first. Please outline, using specific examples, the religious nature of the theory of evolution. Please outline, using specific examples, of where the theory of evolution uses faith and faith alone.



Atheists claim that evolution occurred without the input of a supernatural being. Theistic evolutionists claim that evolution took the input of a supernatural being. Both camps agree with the mechanisms and facts of evolution, they just disagree as to where those mechanisms came from.



I want this assertion supported with evidence. If no evidence is offered then the claim should be dropped.

Is there an assumptions of science that I cannot develop from logic and facts?

Of course there is.

The boundary condition of materialism is a valid rule of the game, and works well to exclude fantasy explanations, but there is no logic behind concluding that it only excludes false fantasies.

It is on faith that science holds this tenet.

For this to be wholly correct we have to have a good definition of "material" and "non-material."

I'd say that "material" is stuff that can be measured, probed, and observed (directly or indirectly.) It is something that also obeys the laws of physics, etc.

So the minute we start observing something and measuring it, we are pretty sure that it is "material." This is why science doesn't deal with anything that is not material, because it can't be observed or measured (even indirectly) so it does not become part of science. To me, this seems pretty logical.

I am closing this thread because from it's start, it has only produced an non-productive bad attitude. That only got worse when I asked a question.