How exactly does the fossil record prove theism? I doubt a bunch of archeologists compared fossils and said "Look at how the claws on these crustaceans changed shape over time. There must be a God after all!" As I said already, having holes in the evidence for one theory does not automatically disprove it and support the opposing theory. Please fill me in.
Well, it doesn't prove theism, it supports it. Basically what we have a is a very large range of varying animals in the ground that are just there, some extinct and some not. But all of these animals are found in fully functional states (despite being dead) and highly specialized.. There are no "inbetweens" or missing links, and the few links that have been "found" have been discredited as far as I know. Some people claim that there were biological scaffolds from when animals were evolving from one trait to another, as to avoid encumbrance or severe crippling during evolution from say, water to land. There just is no evidence for any links between animal evolution, and if there were we should uhm, find them everywhere? So yeah, archeology is a hindrance to any Evo theory, and even supports theism. If theism were true what would we find in the ground? A ton of animals in fully functioning and specialized states.
And I don't have an agenda.
Imma have to call bs on this, as you explain your agenda in the following sentences, particularly the one where you demean religions by calling them medieval, and implying that they are simply old and useless. Although I do agree about the part concerning education. I don't think ANY sort of origin of life should be taught AT ALL, unless there is a specific class to be taken in highschool as an elective, which teaches many perceptions of the origin of life. I don't Biology needs to have Evo or Creationism, or UnIntelligent design, or anything taught mixed in with it. Biology should be taught, not religious beliefs (Yes evo is a religious belief..)
I just like to stand back in awe at the scientific discoveries, as I'm sure many scientists did as they made them. What grinds my gears is when the discoveries are fought by religious influences that are trying to force schools to teach what is essentially medieval knowledge that's repackaged to appear more modern. The scientific "agenda", as you call it, is more like "Look what we found!" Sometimes those discoveries disprove what religion claimed on certain subjects. If there's any agenda that I or any scientist for that matter has it's defense of the new.
Now I don't think there is such a thing as a "scientific agenda" which I refer to. I think I am the one that uses science to back my arguments. And yes, science disproves certain aspects of certain religions.Yeah, finding dinosaurs is a great discovery, however it is easy to find something and come up with a wrong conclusion. Lets say I "discover" the moon. That would be miraculous if nobody else had noticed the moon before. Then suppose I go to say that I think the moon is made of cheese because of its color. I came up with a bad conclusion despite an amazing observation. Just because someone finds bones doesn't mean they know that they evolved.
I agree that we should save evolution debates for an appropriate topic,...
Too late..
...but science does play a large factor in my beliefs (or, more appropriately, lack thereof). To me, it looks like a record going back billions of years that shows repeatedly how God did not reach down and touch the earth.
We don't have a record that we know goes back millions of years. Nobody knows for sure how old the earth is with scientific data. This last quote has a priori in it that consists of believing that the earth is millions of years old before you ask how "god" could have made it.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 22 2009, 6:11 am by CecilSunkure.
None.