But did you read the scientific paper by Darwin or the novel by the same name, by Nino Ricci?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
So much for honesty ...
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Theory of Natural Selection, I am sure you meant to say.
You are equivocating on what the ToE is and what Darwin proposed. Darwin believed and wrote in his books that all life forms came from common descent, which is the ToE.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Did you read what the Bible said?
Yes. Your point?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Well which one you gonna believe, the Bible or Darwin?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Wrong, the ToE explains DNA's involvement in Evolution, along with Natural Selection. While supporting Darwin's conclusions, the ToE was a later development.
As for evidence, the data collected by Darwin did in fact heavily support his conclusions.
One important thing that we expect from any scientific theory is that it makes valid predictions. We look at the theory and say that if this theory is true we should expect to find xyz.
For example, if Darwins theory of evolution is true we would expect to find a common mechanism of inheritance for all life on earth. This is what the theory predicts and this is what we found. If the theory that we share a more recent common ancestor with other primates we would expect to find that our genetic code has more in common with them than it does with other life. This is what we find.
The fact that many of these discoveries came after Darwin is not in any way a weakness of his theory, quite the contrary. These are exactly the kind of predictions that we require from a scientific theory.
Creationism on the other hand makes no such predictions. Creationism does not predict that all life would have a common mechanism for inheritance, nor does it predict it would not. Creationism is not a scientific theory, evolution is.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
The only thing that might be surprising here is that you actually read The Origin of Species. I have to doubt that's even true, though. Although, I wouldn't put it past you to have read it and just chose to ignore anything you didn't like in it.
Why is it one or the other? If the choice is a literal interpretation of the bible or Darwin, I'll choose Darwin. His ideas weren't fully formed and needed some fine-tuning, but at least they were much more accurate than the aforementioned literal interpretation of the Bible.
However, there's no reason not to just go with both sources.
ragordon168
Active Member
a collection of stories with absolutely no basis in scientific fact or an theory based on observations made in a scientific method? and if you twist that beyond its obvious meaning your more of an idiot than you've already made yourself look.
darwin proposed his theory on his observations on the beagle. later scientific expiriments and observations supported his theory. if the later expiriments had disproved darwin then the theory of natural selection would have been thrown out as rubbish.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
It was rather boring, no evidence of common ancestry of all species, just a lot of conjecture and hopeful imaginations. It seemd to me there was more mentioned about the lack of evidence than any actual evidence. For example there was a lot of this "we don't see any evidence for.... However that doesn't mean it isn't true....We hope to find....We would surely find...." With the lack of faith in the Bible I can see how the world would grasp onto it and run with it.
Now when I read the Bible I see direct evidence, such as Israels move from Egypt to the promised land, they are still there. I see animals reproducing after their own kind like it says. I see Jesus' disciples proclaiming that he is risen even unto their death.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
The evidence for what?
te_lanus
Alien Hybrid
Hi. Seems the Vatican doesn't support your ideas:
Source:
CTV News | Vatican gives blessing to belief in aliens
Source:
CTV News | Vatican gives blessing to belief in aliens
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I feel for them. They are destroying their own Bible by saying it isn't true. They are removing the foundations of Christianity while proclaiming it true. How odd.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Since you brought it up, what evidence do you have that the nation of Israel was once under the subjugation of Egypt. Also can you present evidence of the exodus from Egypt to the "promised land".
The simpler a life form is, the more quickly it can evolve. As evident in bacteria and viruses. Once again showing your ignorance of the ToE
What evidence to you have that empirically shows that a Rabbi named Jesus rose from the dead?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
That makes me wonder if people that believe in common ancestry of all life forms have even read the orgin of the species. How could someone even believe in it after they read that book, I don't understand how. There actually is no evidence of common ancestry of all life forms in the Orgin of the species, just a theory and an idea.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I have proven my faith and the Bible to be true through living it and scientifically.
ragordon168
Active Member
thats not an answer. you expect us to scientifically prove our side of the argument then wen we ask you to prove your side you fall back on faith. you cant expect it to only work one way.
i have faith that evolution, the big bang and other creationist crushing theories are true. so by your logic they are all fact.