The Scientists' View

pretzel SG

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.

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?

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

Chin Eng SG

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.

davidche SG

yea!

breytonhartge SG

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.

Icemoon SG

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. Confused

The onus is on pretzel to conduct a proper discussion.

pretzel SG

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?

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.

M©+square SG

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.

Icemoon SG

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. Confused

Ito_^ SG

Laughing this has got to be the second most informative reply in this topic.

mine is first.

breytonhartge SG

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?

Icemoon SG

Is it so hard? When did evolutionary biology become as cheam as quantum mechanics? Rolling Eyes

This is a learning as much as a discussion session.

Certain things are easily debunked. Read talks.origins.

Icemoon SG

the last time I read books .. they still call it theory of relativity. Rolling Eyes

I dunno what evolutionary charts.

Icemoon SG

Brey's question is very funny.

Is he asking why evolutionists still call it theory of evolution? Laughing

pretzel SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:
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).

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.

pretzel SG

Looks like you didn't bother to read the links at all. Here:
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

Icemoon SG

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

M©+square SG

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.

M©+square SG

Is it so hard? You asked.

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

pretzel SG

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.

Chin Eng SG

You know what, I thought about this question when I was writing my reply last night.
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.

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 system Laughing ... 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.