The Scientists' View
-
I believe you do not want anybody to come to a satisfactory conclusion, since most of the evidence point to evolution being a fact. The past discussion threads, firstly are no longer open. Secondly, none of them gives proper links.Originally posted by sillyme:This topic has been discussed to death. I don't think anyone can come up with a satisfactory conclusion. Please refer to the following links for past discussions.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=121760
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=202493
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=204733
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=103641
Just wondering why this thread was started since there were already past discussions on this. What event made you initiate this thread, pretzel?
Why did I start the thread? Because I chanced upon the wikipedia articles that shed so much light on the truth of the matter.
Milked dry? Nobody has even started. Please tell me, based on the references I have posted below, what is the scientific community's stand on evolution?Originally posted by Chin Eng:Thread is closed because it had been milked dry and it is also potentially a flame bait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10(National Science Teachers' Association)
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf (Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries)
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstandings_about_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy -
This topic has been discussed many times over, and inevitably, it will end up being a flaming war.Originally posted by pretzel:Milked dry? Nobody has even started. Please tell me, based on the references I have posted below, what is the scientific community's stand on evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10(National Science Teachers' Association)
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf (Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries)
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstandings_about_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
Scientific community? There is really no unified community as one you may think exist. There are scientists who are atheists and there are scientists who are Christians.... it all depends on who you ask.
At the end of the day, in this forum, we can only PRETEND that we know a lot, but the reality is really far from the truth. We only quote from sources, many of which you have already pasted here. It will be suffice to say the wikipedia, fun as it may to read, is really not an authority on anything.
If I want to I can also refer to you sources or links where Christian scientists will state claims (which I think you'd reject).
So all in all, there is really nothing to talk about because:
1. We are not experts here.
2. We write because of the inclination that we take. Not many people are truly objective, but I try my best.
3. We will not be able to draw any conclusion regardless how strong we think our stands are.
4. If we don't agree to disagree, then the final conclusion will still be a flaming war.
I hope I have clarified my stand. -
yea!
-
For once I agree with CE, the views that both sides take are because we are subjective in our views, thus we are skewed one way or another. Hence no meaningful outcome can eventuate. TS, best leave this one alone...
Mods close topic. -
Hmm .. I disagree with the mods.
If scientific topics are avoided, why are we even discussing about religious topics which are inherently less objective?
And none of us are theologians.
The onus is on pretzel to conduct a proper discussion. -
Wow, so I guess we can't talk about anything now, can we? Since we are not experts in, say, theology. Based on your reasoning, this whole forum should be closed down because there is basically no topic where we are experts in. Unless, of course, you have a degree or doctorate in theology or something relatable. Everything that you have said can be applied to almost any topic. So, why aren't you closing the other topics down?Originally posted by Chin Eng:This topic has been discussed many times over, and inevitably, it will end up being a flaming war.
Scientific community? There is really no unified community as one you may think exist. There are scientists who are atheists and there are scientists who are Christians.... it all depends on who you ask.
At the end of the day, in this forum, we can only PRETEND that we know a lot, but the reality is really far from the truth. We only quote from sources, many of which you have already pasted here. It will be suffice to say the wikipedia, fun as it may to read, is really not an authority on anything.
If I want to I can also refer to you sources or links where Christian scientists will state claims (which I think you'd reject).
So all in all, there is really nothing to talk about because:
1. We are not experts here.
2. We write because of the inclination that we take. Not many people are truly objective, but I try my best.
3. We will not be able to draw any conclusion regardless how strong we think our stands are.
4. If we don't agree to disagree, then the final conclusion will still be a flaming war.
I hope I have clarified my stand.
There is really no one unified scientific community? Did I say that there is one unified scientific community? How about there are many different scientific communities all for the advancement of science throughout the globe?
I'm sure wikipedia itself is not an authority on anything. Who doesn't know that? How about the references in wikipedia? Didn't I mention that in the earlier thread? Why do you focus only on the wikipedia links? Why not the rest? More than half of the links I posted are not links to wikipedia. Don't be so biased.
If evolution is accepted by most scientists and most scientific communities and is actually taught in textbooks, then I don't see why some people cannot accept it as a fact. -
You don't have to be theologian to discuss christian issue.Originally posted by Icemoon:Hmm .. I disagree with the mods.
If scientific topics are avoided, why are we even discussing about religious topics which are inherently less objective?
And none of us are theologians.
The onus is on pretzel to conduct a proper discussion.
You'll have to be competent in scientific research when dealing with such issues. -
Actually that is not so bad. They can deny science, the scientific method, and live in a well all their life.Originally posted by pretzel:If evolution is accepted by most scientists and most scientific communities and is actually taught in textbooks, then I don't see why some people cannot accept it as a fact.
The worst thing is when they accuse the evolutionists of having an agenda (to deny God) in supporting evolution. -
Originally posted by davidche:yea!
this has got to be the second most informative reply in this topic.
mine is first. -
then why is it still darwins theory of evolution? why have the removed the evolutionary charts out of the classroom?Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually that is not so bad. They can deny science, the scientific method, and live in a well all their life.
The worst thing is when they accuse the evolutionists of having an agenda (to deny God) in supporting evolution.
Shouln't it be darwins evolutionary fact? -
Is it so hard? When did evolutionary biology become as cheam as quantum mechanics?Originally posted by M©+square:You don't have to be theologian to discuss christian issue.
You'll have to be competent in scientific research when dealing with such issues.
This is a learning as much as a discussion session.
Certain things are easily debunked. Read talks.origins. -
the last time I read books .. they still call it theory of relativity.Originally posted by breytonhartge:then why is it still darwins theory of evolution? why have the removed the evolutionary charts out of the classroom?
Shouln't it be darwins evolutionary fact?
I dunno what evolutionary charts. -
Brey's question is very funny.
Is he asking why evolutionists still call it theory of evolution? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
Of course you can. And if those christian scientists reject evolution based on shoddy evidence, of course it will be rejected. But I challenge you to find a link where an entire scientific community of various religion rejects evolution as a fact. Please do remember that many scientists also have their own religions. It is not simply atheist scientists versus christian scientists.
If I want to I can also refer to you sources or links where Christian scientists will state claims (which I think you'd reject). -
Looks like you didn't bother to read the links at all. Here:Originally posted by breytonhartge:then why is it still darwins theory of evolution? why have the removed the evolutionary charts out of the classroom?
Shouln't it be darwins evolutionary fact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy#Theory_vs._fact
The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity. Look up the references too -
pretzel is right.
I urge those interested to read the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (U.S. Supreme Court) on the teaching of evolution.
The creationist side nearly won because the lawyer for the evolution side lousy. So buay tahan .. the scientific community close rank to fight against the tyranny of creationism - by submitting an amicus curiae brief.
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS,
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html -
I believe CE already have stated his points in his first post.Originally posted by pretzel:Of course you can. And if those christian scientists reject evolution based on shoddy evidence, of course it will be rejected. But I challenge you to find a link where an entire scientific community of various religion rejects evolution as a fact. Please do remember that many scientists also have their own religions. It is not simply atheist scientists versus christian scientists.
We do not want to claim that we know alot, or anything about evolution or creationism. And because of that, we don't want this thread to become a place where we use website links and references to debate our stand. It is fruitless and eventually come to no conclusion.
We are just taking opinions/debates from other links to throw at one another.
I have to honestly say, i don't know much about these topics, that is why i myself didn't get involve in such debates. -
Is it so hard? You asked.Originally posted by Icemoon:Is it so hard? When did evolutionary biology become as cheam as quantum mechanics?
This is a learning as much as a discussion session.
Certain things are easily debunked. Read talks.origins.
Is it not hard? I admit that i'm totally weak in this subject and really not interested in it.
Do you say that you're well versed in the subject of creationism and evolution that you can sound your own opinions and state forth your stand about these subject?
If you say you're competent. I'll back off, and say let the LEARNING begin.
When we take links and throw out in this thread. I hardly see learning.
That's just my thought.
Cheers -
This is complete rubbish. If you don't reference from other sources, then how would you know what is real and reliable and what is untrustworthy information? If you have ever written an essay or report at university level, you will know that you will require plenty of independent references to support your points. Why? Because nobody can possibly have all the knowledge in the world and nobody can have done all the research in the world. The worst kind of debate is one where you only give your biased and awful opinions with no backing at all.Originally posted by M©+square:I believe CE already have stated his points in his first post.
We do not want to claim that we know alot, or anything about evolution or creationism. And because of that, we don't want this thread to become a place where we use website links and references to debate our stand. It is fruitless and eventually come to no conclusion.
We are just taking opinions/debates from other links to throw at one another.
I have to honestly say, i don't know much about these topics, that is why i myself didn't get involve in such debates. -
You know what, I thought about this question when I was writing my reply last night.Originally posted by pretzel:Wow, so I guess we can't talk about anything now, can we? Since we are not experts in, say, theology. Based on your reasoning, this whole forum should be closed down because there is basically no topic where we are experts in. Unless, of course, you have a degree or doctorate in theology or something relatable. Everything that you have said can be applied to almost any topic. So, why aren't you closing the other topics down?
I think at the end of the day, Eternal Hope does not exist to attempt to debate the undebatables. In the past, such attempts are always futile and will again inevitably end up screaming at each other. So no point.
I think EH exist as a platform for people who are seeking Christian answer - by seeking, I am saying seeking amicably. I know who are the non-Christians who are at least friendly towards us. These folk will agree to disagree. In the case as this thread, since you have already drew the conclusion that evolution is CORRECT and the Christian view of creationism is wrong, then therefore there is nothing to discuss. May I quote from your opening line: "I believe you do not want anybody to come to a satisfactory conclusion, since most of the evidence point to evolution being a fact."
The SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION, for you, in this case, is that evolution is a fact. Therefore, since the conclusion is already presented, there is really nothing to say anymore.
So, gracefully, I feel that I want to agree to disagree and move on.
If someone, say, wish to know about churches or Christian life, or Christian perspective, sure we can discuss and give our opinions. While opinions share are based on our experiences and our understand, nonetheless, they are relatively valid to one seeking these opinions. We have, in the past, many of such people, and such people know that when opinions differ, we shake hands and move on.
No need to get so upset. Yes, there are lots of links in wiki, unfortunately the realisation is that the links are of course based on the inclination of that particular wiki writer. To be totally objective, you should also posts the links to creationism. Unfortunately, I fear that your goal is just to present the side that you believe in. In order to spare readers the need to search: here is the wiki link to creationism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism which also contains tons of links to other pro-creationism websites.Originally posted by pretzel:There is really no one unified scientific community? Did I say that there is one unified scientific community? How about there are many different scientific communities all for the advancement of science throughout the globe?
I'm sure wikipedia itself is not an authority on anything. Who doesn't know that? How about the references in wikipedia? Didn't I mention that in the earlier thread? Why do you focus only on the wikipedia links? Why not the rest? More than half of the links I posted are not links to wikipedia. Don't be so biased.
Even if something is accepted by most scientists it doesn't mean it is correct, take the former-planet Pluto for example. All kids will now have to relearn that there are really only 8 planets in the solar systemOriginally posted by pretzel:If evolution is accepted by most scientists and most scientific communities and is actually taught in textbooks, then I don't see why some people cannot accept it as a fact. ... and how many years has it been in the textbooks that Pluto is a planet?
If you really need to know, I am NOT one of those who accept the NEW EARTH CREATION THEORY. So please don't get all up in arms and start accusing people of not accepting what you think is right.
At the end of the day, all of us merely form opinions based on what we read and understand. Even scientist are not truly sure. They are only proposing concepts and theories, and scenarios are extrapolated.
I am not against the discussion of the origins of earth, I am against the tone that you are right and everyone else is wrong. When that happens, it ceases to being a discussion, it will become a mud-slinging contest, which nobody wins. -
Originally posted by pretzel:The worst kind of debate is one where you only give your biased and awful opinions with no backing at all. exactly.... where are your unbiased opinion on creationism?
-
deleted: dbl
-
Icey, I do not want to avoid discussing scientific topics. I think all discussion is good, I even think that the exchange better Pope Nick and Vince is good.
But it stops being good the moment a TS starts a thread with the tone: Why I am right and you are wrong. Judgement is already pronouncement. Once that is done, there will NEVER be a discussion.
Note in the locked thread: post number 3:Originally posted by pretzel:
This is when I decide to lock it up.
I wonder why there are still people who opt to believe in creationism when evolution is actually considered a scientific fact? Are they delusional or something?
You are right: the onus is on pretzel to conduct a proper discussion: a proper discussion does not start with: I am right and you are wrong. -
well .. when Kaister was here .. there was some learning .. depending on how you see it.Originally posted by M©+square:When we take links and throw out in this thread. I hardly see learning.
That's just my thought.
Cheers
like i've said .. the onus is on the TS to maintain a good discussion.
if he comes here with the intention to flame .. then bye bye .. lock topic. -
This I agree.Originally posted by Chin Eng:You are right: the onus is on pretzel to conduct a proper discussion: a proper discussion does not start with: I am right and you are wrong.
Even kaister did not take that attitude.