Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
While I tend to side with evolution I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation.You assertion is incorrect. There are tons of evidence. If you get the chance, catch the NOVA program on the Dover trial in which the Dover School Board was taken to court to justify their negative stance on evolution (and their positive stance on intelligent design). The biology (a science that operates on "genuine scientific evidence") presented was overwhelming. Evolution has passed every test thrown at it, right down to making predictions that were later verified.I don't know where your position that there is no "genuine" evidence comes from. Maybe a misunderstanding of how science works, or maybe just the result of fallacious Christian propaganda. But either way you are incorrect. Someone posted a link (I think on this board) to short talks from the biologists that testified at that trial. I think there were PDF presentations also (or maybe that was a different link). If I find them I'll reply again with the info (unless someone beats me to it).I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory.I don't have any books for you. You can look up two idiots named Behe and Dembsky who have written books favoring ID. Both of them have been thoroughly discredited, but if you're determined to read such tripe then those are the names I know. There's also a pseudo-science website "answersingenesis.org". They pretend to be doing serious science, but as a physicist I can tear apart some of their works myself, and I can direct you to other specialists (e.g. geologists) that have torn apart pretty much everything else on that website. IOW, it's bogus.I think it dangerous for a layperson to get into that because sites like AiG make it sound so official and technical, and if you don't have the training and background you could easily be fooled. Some of this science is very esoteric. Note that as a trained scientist I still referred to others because the topics were outside my area. In that respect scientists are like doctors. We may have similar bases, but we all specialize. And it is impossible for any one person (scientist or otherwise) to know all the minutia of a different area of inquiry. If you can keep that in mind, it doesn't hurt to view AiG. Balance your inquiry with a visit to "talkorigins.org". There are numerous papers there written by specialists who critiqued (and dismembered) the various works on AiG.I've been through this exercise over the past almost-1-year now. I was challenged by a fundie coworker whom I respected to look at "new data". I don't have the same respect for him now that I've completed my journey into "creation science". He's simply deluding himself.1poorguy
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |