Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
You're welcome.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Babcock" data-source="post: 66313" data-attributes="member: 46"><p>Re: You're welcome.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hi Mike,</p><p></p><p>I think you need to re-read Caleb's post.</p><p></p><p>Where is the scientific evidence that has provided consistent and reliable proof of evolution in the context of change from one species to another? It is all typically theoretical and mathematical calculations projected over very looooooooooooooong timeframes. "Theory" very much applies under such circumstances, as it does with concepts such as the "Big Bang" theory etc. FYI there is plenty of scientific research which does support creationist concepts, so you cannot make the claim that all of the evidence is stacked on one side, that is simply not the case.</p><p> </p><p>There is lots of great evidence to support adaptation, mutation, hybrids, etc. That is not really contested. I don't need to defend Caleb, but referring to his comments as "WOEFULLY ignorant" is pretty strong given what he said. You do not necessarily have to have "faith" to consider that there are some aspects of the scientific world that probably won't get answered in a finite manner within our lifetime, or perhaps ever. Theory, best guess, educated guess, etc - you may not like the terms, but effectively that applies in some points of context.</p><p></p><p>Jump from evolution to the Big Bang theory (Lambda CDM model, etc) for a second. Very similar situation, where part of the concept is credible, but it is not entirely comprehensive. It is not really contested that the universe is expanding, and based on the expansion rate we can estimate the timing for the origin of the universe. But what originally caused that "bang" to happen? Where did all of the incomprehensibly high energy density, temperatures, and pressures required for this originate from? You can't get something from nothing, so where did the massive "something" come from? There's been speculation, but no scientist has the answer to this..... and probably never will. The "faith" crowd are happy with their answer, and I don't see how that is any less credible than the scientific speculation about a topic we acknowledge we do not know very much about.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jeff Babcock, post: 66313, member: 46"] Re: You're welcome. Hi Mike, I think you need to re-read Caleb's post. Where is the scientific evidence that has provided consistent and reliable proof of evolution in the context of change from one species to another? It is all typically theoretical and mathematical calculations projected over very looooooooooooooong timeframes. "Theory" very much applies under such circumstances, as it does with concepts such as the "Big Bang" theory etc. FYI there is plenty of scientific research which does support creationist concepts, so you cannot make the claim that all of the evidence is stacked on one side, that is simply not the case. There is lots of great evidence to support adaptation, mutation, hybrids, etc. That is not really contested. I don't need to defend Caleb, but referring to his comments as "WOEFULLY ignorant" is pretty strong given what he said. You do not necessarily have to have "faith" to consider that there are some aspects of the scientific world that probably won't get answered in a finite manner within our lifetime, or perhaps ever. Theory, best guess, educated guess, etc - you may not like the terms, but effectively that applies in some points of context. Jump from evolution to the Big Bang theory (Lambda CDM model, etc) for a second. Very similar situation, where part of the concept is credible, but it is not entirely comprehensive. It is not really contested that the universe is expanding, and based on the expansion rate we can estimate the timing for the origin of the universe. But what originally caused that "bang" to happen? Where did all of the incomprehensibly high energy density, temperatures, and pressures required for this originate from? You can't get something from nothing, so where did the massive "something" come from? There's been speculation, but no scientist has the answer to this..... and probably never will. The "faith" crowd are happy with their answer, and I don't see how that is any less credible than the scientific speculation about a topic we acknowledge we do not know very much about. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
You're welcome.
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!