Since the existence of the supernatural cannot be proven, wheter it exists, or not, a right position should be initial neutrality in this regard.
If the existence of something cannot be proven well than the logical conclusion is that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN
.... nothing more.
10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays, but we cannot prove that. Therefore if a person comes forward and states that "10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and they eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays"
they MAY be right and we cannot prove them wrong, but it is up to them to prove their case if they want to be taken seriously.
It is also our duty to treat them with the height of skepticism until they prove their position. The more outlandish the claim the more we can be expected to treat them with skepticism.
But if the person making the claim states that they really, really believe that these monkeys exist, and they cannot imagine life without the monkeys well what do you say to that?
I accept some people believe in strange things that are unverifiable and unprovable and that is their choice. Good luck to em. I, however, need evidence. Filling the gaps in our current knowledge of the origins of the universe with supernatural explainations seems illogical and unscientific to me.
Sorry, i don't agree .
Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research.
Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution)
"Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few - could not be farther from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution."1
The struggle to find the " missing linc " is a indication of that.....
Before you source more questionable material, please note that godandscience.org was started up by Richard L. Deem who is an Apologist and an evangelical Christian, who is ministering to reach scientists and is also a creationist.... AGENDA ALERT. Although he is a scientist he is one of the very few that promotes in creationism and his name always crops up when creationists attempt to make a case for the creator. This is called "an argument from authority".
In other words you pick someone who has good qualifications in a sphere of research and take the position that if this well qualified person says its true, well then it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.
Your quote above stating "Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life..."
is once again being tagged onto the theory of evolution. Another mistake
. Origin of life and evolution are two different things. Creationists always seem to mix the two separate subjects up.
On this issue of micro V marcro evolution, no biologist has ever said that a fish ever evolved into a cat but most biologists would agree that modern day fish and modern day cats evolved from a common ancestor. That is not the same as a fish turning into a cat. So you won't find any half fish half cat fossils, and the theory of evolution does not propose that you should.
Neither Darwin, nor any evolutionist since has believed that humans are descended from monkeys. The theory of evolution proposes that all primates, humans monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees etc are all descended from the same common ancestor. It is therefore impossible for us to be descended from monkeys.
To call Evolution "science", Evolutionists must produce empirical findings to support their theories. They've been publishing such peer reviewed research and evidence since 1859.
To call Creationism "science", Creationists must produce empirical findings to support their theories. But no creationist has ever provided a single scrap of empirical peer reviewed evidence to support the theory that every single species that ever has lived and still lives was created all at once on the same day about 6,000 years ago.
The entire edifice of creationism rests on attempts to debunk evolution, which is simply one long string of Affirming the Consequent errors in logic after another. Disproving evolution does not imply creation by default.
The evidence of evolution, and even the event of evolution itself, –the proof of it- are both directly observed, and testable, and demonstrably factual. But religious beliefs are none of the above and never have been; they’re assumed on faith. Whether or not these beliefs turn out to be correct, they are asserted as true without justification in the form of evidence.
As regards the "missing link" demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included.
Adonai88 wrote:the link does not work.
The link works on my PC. You may have a problem with your firewall or PC......
Adonai88 wrote:Who discredited them, and why ? do the onces, that tried to discredit the discovery institute, not have a agenda ?
How about a court of law in the United States?
Please look at the link to the court case above. In case it doesn’t work for you, here is a piece from wikipedia:
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Adonai88 wrote:Before you call their teachings a crap, have YOU by yourself read and studied, what they have to say, or do you base yourself on mere pre-conceptions ? Can you mention ONE text you read from them
Yes. You will find that many people on here read these things to research their arguments.
I have read "Darwin on Trial", "Intelligent Design is not Creationism"
and "Survival of the Fakest"
all endorsed by the institute. And on a point of order, one does not have to read every single publication by them to know what they are about when they have been openly exposed for what they are by the Dover trail (above).
First one : From nothing, nothing derives. Since the Universe had a beginning, it had a beginner. Thats logic.
Second one, which i did not present you yet :
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
On August 30, 2005, a member of the infidels online forum (screen name “wdog”) posted the following on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1
The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.
You seem to have lifted this straight from a creationist website. Your statement "From nothing, nothing derives. Since the Universe had a beginning, it had a beginner. Thats logic."
is NOT logical. In fact its illogical and you are invoking the god of the gaps even though you say you are not. That is dishonest and total blinkered vision on your part.
Man made things are designed (a car, a building) but biological beings evolve over time. I cannot state how we initially came to be nor how the universe got here, but I certainly wouldn’t claim we were created WITHOUT PROOF
And if you do prove your case, you then must prove who created the creator etc etc etc....
Once someone proves it, I'll believe it.
Adonai88 wrote:i have answered already on this, see my post above.
You cant explain it so you state you believe it because of faith. Well faith is just another term for stating that you dont have to prove something. But if you want to convince us that your position is correct, you will need more than your faith. You will have to prove to us that your case is sound.
If you are not here to convince us, well then why are you here?
Adonai88 wrote:Sorry, i have not asserted there is a God. I have just said I BELIEVE , God exists, based on solid evidence, which i am presenting here. Therefore, i have anything to proove. I am here, just to testify my faith.
You can believe whatever you like. As long as you admit that it is a belief, you don’t have to defend it. But if you assert your belief as a statement of fact, then you do have to defend it! Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest.