Quote from CecilSunkure
It's entirely possible to have a good observation and a bad conclusion. Just because people observe layers in the Earth doesn't mean the Earth is millions of years old. There are hundreds of ways to determine the Earth's age. Out of those hundreds of methods, if one of them pointed to the Earth being not millions of years old, with certainty, then the rest of the methods can nearly be ignored. For example say you find a sunken ship in the bottom of the ocean. Within this ship is a treasure chest full of coins. If you want to estimate when the ship sunk you use the most recent coin as the basis for estimation. Just because many observations are made doesn't mean that they support evolution. I think it's more along the lines of most observations made by evolutionists are claimed to point towards evolution, and the thing is, evolution is tax supported, thus it is heard louder than the opposing groups.
Quote from CecilSunkure
I'm trying to promote open-mindedness in these forums, but I just don't get where people get off with ideas like this. Honestly Lanthanide how do you know that creationists are so under-qualified? How do you know that the observations made by evolutionists actually support only evolution? Where is all this evidence that everyone claims evolution has? Everyone constantly talks about all this evidence, but all the evidence I've been shown is either evidence for micro-evolution, inaccurate, or a hoax. It seems to me that many people around here who believe in evolution believe in it with the same faith that people who believe in many of today's religions have.
As I said earlier, there is no smoking gun that will prove evolution, that isn't how science works and it's pathetic to even suggest it. There are thousands of discoveries, many more happening every year, which fall neatly in line with the theory. As these continue to happen, evolution in its current form becomes more and more obvious and tweaks, nevermind outright rejection, becomes ever less likely. If the evidence you've been shown isn't sufficient for you, perhaps you should research the topic. There is a wealth of publicly accessible material described and summarized by people far more knowledgeable than me- I can't make you read it.
Quote from CecilSunkure
Also, just because there are more people or more content towards one idea doesn't mean that it's true. I can bring up the common retort of back in the day everyone was told by the Church that the Earth was flat. You could consider this analogous to today when so many people I talk to believe in evolution.
Quote from CecilSunkure
Isn't this admitting that you really don't know much about evolution, but since so many people who are considered qualified to speak on the topic say one thing you follow? Back in the day many people who were considered qualified and apart of the Catholic Church made everyone believe the Earth was flat. However, just because a large majority of those considered to be qualified say something, doesn't mean it isn't true. You honestly should study each topic yourself and in-depth, as it's clear you have very minimal understanding of both the theory of evolution and creationism; you only have an understanding for the general reputation of both.
Quote
Evolution is the idea that the most evolved deserve to live, and the weak deserve to die. Evolution is a theory of death. By death society is bettered. What sort of lines of thinking would evolve from thinking, that the best way for society to advance is to evolve? Many people start thinking of how to speed up evolution, and things like genocide and eugenics start popping up. If I were to believe that there is no god, nor a reason for my existence, then I really would feel okay with shooting Aborigines because I'd feel like I was bettering all of humanity.
Also, please stop citing religious sites for evidence please. Just a quick skim of the "100 religious scientists" gives a bunch of names that I know offhand are not religious at all. Einstein, for example:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
There are no doubt others that are similarly debunkable, but it's not worth the time- sites of this nature twist facts and ignore contrary evidence, they don't actually try to determine the truth. There have been many scientists who are religious and many who are not. I don't see any reason to correlate the achievements of these men to their religion or lack thereof any more than we attribute it to their governments.
None.