In response to a previous question 6 people gave six variations of evolution: Several theories involved fish and several did not. One person discussed migration of lions? If evolution is true, why don't all evolutionist believe the same theory?
sort by best latest
of course not, and in mlost of the world there's no problem - it's america's right wing fundamentalists that are messing with our schools by pushing this creationist nonsense
The beginning is past. So it is better to change what one believes every time someone comes up with something knew? I would think intelligent people would validate their sources before believing them.
how do you validate a myth told by shepherds 2000 or more years ago? a rational view accepts uncertainty and relies on an increasingly solid fund of evidence
it has nothing to do with validation but rather every thing to do with intelligence. we're smart enough to learn as we go and make the changes that are needed for something to make sense.the bible and god has never been validated .
Thank you Rustic and Eternal. This, to me seems to be a difficult question, so I have no way of choosing the best answer. I remember studying neanderthal, cromagnan and some other man in the evolution process; however, they are not mentioned anymor
As opposed to the "inadequate theory" of the 19th Century BC? Actually, Homo Neanderthalenis and other species of humans are still discussed at length in textbooks and by anthropologists. They haven't disappeared.
from OP:neanderthal, cromagnan and some other man in the evolution process; however, they are not mentioned anymor
yet another disregard for the facts - numerous articles about neamderthals in the NYTimes in the last yr alone
I'm only interested in humans. I am a creationist. As far as I know, all creationists believe the same thing. Evolutionists have multiple versions.
not true - most creationists deny evolution for ANY species. evolution provides a coherent explanation, backed by scientific evidence. creationism's only evidence is the bible or koran
Thank you calculus. Creationists are criticized for our uniform belief. I don't understand why evolutionists are so critical when they don't have a unified version. If it is common sense and should be believed, why can't evolutionist agree?
common sense tells us the sun revolves around the earth - are you really asking us to believe that? evolution does have a uniform explanation - natural selection thru time based on random mutatuion. what EVIDENCE do you have for your claim?
I wasn't able to respon to cascoly because of limitations on question. I created a Hub https://hubpages.com/education/Ifevolutionisfactwh...
Tonymac, I think I accidently deleted one of your comments.
sorry, your hub just regurgitated all the creationist nonsense i predicted in my earlier hub - you quote ONLY creationist sources of junk science- you have NO EVIDENCE USING real scientific evidence
you have yet to present ANY evidence for creation
that's #4 of the top 10 creationist distortions ! unlike creationists, scientists are careful in their languuage and do not make claims they can't back up
btw you're not a skeptic - you dont want to listen or read the answers to your initial questi
Diane, you mentioned that you don't have time to study evolution (or more likely don't want to). Finding the answers to questions requires reading and study. If you are unwilling to do that, I guess you will never understand evolution.
I asked the question because I'm on discussion groups about proving the existence of God. Much of the discussion goes into science and evolution. I wondered if evolutionists were able to explain their belief as they ask Christians to do.
creationists often try to obscure the argument by distorting the defitniion of beliefwhat you miss is that evolution is not a belief but a FACT -- it requires no leap of faith - just logic & rational analysis backed by science. what do you have?
This certainly supports intelligent design.
looks you stole much of this comment from the Discover magazine website [or one of the several creationist websites with this exact wording]
@cascoly- Discover magazine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Disney corporation. and as such, is most focused on making money rather than espousing a particular p.o.v.
objection was most of his comment was a direct quote from elsewhere without attribution
larger question is the quote itself, which most likely is taken out of context - it sounds like a version of the anthropic principle, not support for ID at all
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide