Belly is right

The followers of God will continue to hold their view and those who claim evolution is based on science will continue to revise their views and textbooks. The faith of the evolutionist is amazing. To be found out wrong so many times but to hold to their dogmas takes amazing faith.

The flaw in this "debate" is the ridiculous assumption that by disproving one argument, you thereby prove your own.

In other words, if it's not black it must therefore be white.

Well maybe it's grey.

Maybe both arguments are false or at least one is partly correct.

However, anybody who claims to know not only how - but also why - the universe was created and cannot offer any proof, is not really qualified to put forward a logical scientific argument, especially when their definitive written reference states that the earth is flat and that stars are only small and very close.

Wobbles,

This thread is not about the origins of the universe.

It's about whether the Darwinian evolutionary framework is fundamentally correct. If certain key aspects of this framework, eg the age of the earth – could be falsified than the whole framework would have to be abandoned. So far I see no sign of that happening.

However I do agree with you in one respect. Were Darwinian evolution to be falsified it does not mean the genesis would be proved correct. For all I know the Hindu creation myths or the Muslim ones would turn out to be right.

Runner wrote:

"those who claim evolution is based on science will continue to revise their views and textbooks"

Well runner, when I'm confronted with data that contradicts my opinions I change my mind and revise any textbooks I may have written.

What do you do?

wobbles

I take a fairly simple approach. What I see written in Scripture is exactly what I see in regards to the earth. The continuing daily errors exposed in the evolution theory and the dishonesty associated with the frauds uncovered certainly does not draw me to this theory. A true scientist would not expect the public to be so gullible.

Runner thinks the Bible is THE holy book.

Muslims claim with equal fervour that the bible was corrupted and the koran is THE holy book – along with all the hadiths.

Jews claim the Bible is OK except for the new testament.

Catholics add a few books other Christians don't have.

The Hindus have their books.

And so it goes.

How's a poor atheist supposed to know which is the real holy book?

BTW runner you are aware than men CHOSE which books to include in the canon and which to exclude? In that sense at least the bible is as much a human construct as Shakespeare.

Or do you assert that the people who attended the COUNCIL OF NICAEA were also divinely inspired?

We in the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY do not pretend to have all the answers. We frequently have to revise our theories. New discoveries come out of left field all the time.

Actually the fact that we're always discovering something new is what makes science so exciting and wonderful. And FUN!.

See for example:

Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

Has the Surfer Dude got it right?

I don't know but it'll be fascinating to see what happened. Roll on the LHC!

Steven_said:

>>If certain key aspects of this framework, eg the age of the earth – could be falsified than the whole framework would have to be abandoned<<

Steve...I don't see how a young earth would have any impact on the reality of natural selection? It would surely have impact on the idea of ALL species arising as a result of NS, from spontaneous emergence of life, but as Darwin himself admitted, there are some pretty big holes in that idea. These days, with more hindsight, a veritable truckload of fossils.. and lots of scientific name-calling.. we do indeed know a lot more.

The GREAT COVER UP is more seen when a scientist comes out with the slightest bit of sympathy for anything resembling ID or Creation Ex Nihilo... they are an immediate laughing stock, even BEFORE their arguments are peer reviewed.

You being Jewish,- I find myself shaking my head in wonderment, that you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic.. when you should be aware of the biological connection of the Kohenim, Levi's etc..all the way back to Moses and Aaron.

When it comes to the descriptions of the major salvation events in the Torah, I'd be interested in what criteria you use to dismiss them.... do you look at the evidence...testimony of the text and the methods of passing down, copying.. the internal integrity and cohesian between many of the books...even though separated by centuries, and cultural consistencies, anthroplogical nuances, and for me.. having now lived in a tribal society for 8 yrs.. I can assure you, that the sentiments and behaviors noted in the Old Testament, are so true to life it isn't funny.

Most people get bored with the geneologies.. I GET FASCINATED by them. Becuase I can trace back through my wife to the Brunei Sultan, 8 generations ago, and hear stories about people hundreds of years back, and be made aware of the network of kinship.
It all just blows my mind.

So, I don't see a major conflict between Science and Creation (Genesis)... believing one does not mean rejecting the other in total.