Originally posted by hikix
.... Well, if you wanna call creationism science then that would be the first one.
I think that the belief that an organism/god/higher power etc created/significantly 'improved' humanity as opposed to evolution is creationism, at
least in this argument.
Originally posted by hikix
Apparently, according to the top scientists, Humans could have not evolved from a primate to their current state as fast as they did.
Could you please post a link to this? It's just the old 'the burden of proof is on the purveyor' argument comes into action here.
Originally posted by hikix
So, basically the theory is that is no "missing link" at all. It is that an outside force intervened and genetically modified us into what we are
now.
Just because it is possible some 'top' scientists believe this does not make it the only other option.
Do other 'top' scientists believe in the Deity version of Creationism? What about the 'top' scientists who do believe evolution occurred?
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Lets see Creationists Believe that Mankind came from 2 people that GOD created, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is faith not Science.
...that's just one of the Creationist views, though you are correct that this is 'faith'.
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Evolutionists BELIEVE we all came from nothing that turned into a rock and rain made bananas and then humans, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is
faith not Science.
No, we don't.
We (evolutionists) 'believe' that the Earth POSSIBLY (though it is most probable than Goddidit) came from the collection of particles etc and that
life evolved from single celled organisms up to our current existance as humans based on logic and the application of science.
We don't just swallow that because we were told:We do so because it's logical and
is currently the most 'accurate'
Could you please stop posting that 'rocks/rain/humans came from NOTHING!!!1!!' garbage, or at least read a page about it on Wikipedia?
I know it's not quite 'cutting edge' but should be adequate for a person with such scientific illteracy.
Also, with the application of
Chaoticar's Law of Religious Science your argument is now moot and pointless
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
So to be accurate and fair in your statement it shouls state if etiher one is to be called Science.
Note:The original poster
never mentioned evolution, he only mentioned 'theistic' and 'extraterrestrial' creationism.
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Science is best described as something that is Observable and ReCreatable.
In most cases yes.
However currently scientists have neither the resources nor the equipment to replicate the creation of a world, or significant evolution.
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Why don't you let me observe your recreation of a fish giving birth to a acorn tree or better yet, let me observe any "Helpful" mutation
EVER...
Once again you post illogical conjecture:
Evolution generally defined as the
process at which organisms evolve to adapt better to their current environment.
Yes, we've only been able to view evolution on a small scale, as scientists do not have the time available to watch a significant level of
evolution.
And what about the moths that, in a highly polluted environment, adapted their colour to 'blend' into the new colour?
Also Mods could you please move this to the 'Creationism' area? It is both a discussion on creationist views and is not a 'general conspiracy'.
[edit on 13-7-2007 by Chaoticar]
[edit on 13-7-2007 by Chaoticar]