Go back
Expelled

Expelled

Debates

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

You are the one saying the best explanation is considered fact, not science.

You're correct. Science does not say it is fact. It is people who treat it as fact and demand that it gets taught in schools.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]You are the one saying the best explanation is considered fact, not science.

You're correct. Science does not say it is fact. It is people who treat it as fact and demand that it gets taught in schools.[/b]
No, it is people that treat it as science, and demand that SCIENCE, and not religious musings, be taught it schools.

I am a Christian, and like whodey, I do not believe God and science to be mutually exclusive.

The scientific process, however, absolutely needs to be followed for all theories that should be taught in science classes. Otherwise we will end up with astrology, religion, and any other dream that someone may have to be taught in those classes.

I am all for research that may show that there is, indeed, a Creator, but that research needs to be scientific it is to be put into our public schools.

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

First off, claiming to a Christian is meaningless.

No, it is people that treat it as science, and demand that SCIENCE, and not religious musings, be taught it schools.


You've drank from the same jug of Kool-Aid that most people have.

I'm sorry, but natural selection does not explain how we could have come into being. There are just too many complex systems to be the result of pure chance mutation and natural selection. As I've pointed out, the ability to see is not explained by natural selection.

You must have many seperate complex systems inorder to see. You must have way of gathering the light. You've got to change the information into a way of transmitting the information to the brain. You must have a system of transfering the information. You've got to have a way of interpretting the information and making sense of it.


What use is an optic nerve without an eye? What good is an eye and an optic nerve without a way of processing the information in the brain? What good is the ability to process visual information without both an optic nerve and an eye?

Are we to assume that the optic nerve, the ability for the brain to make sense of the information and the eye all mutated at the same time?

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm sorry, but natural selection does not explain how we could have come into being. There are just too many complex systems to be the result of pure chance mutation and natural selection. As I've pointed out, the ability to see is not explained by natural selection.

Natural selection doesn't explain how the universe came into being. It explains how simpler
organisms evolved into more complex organisms. But the pressures to survive did confer greater
chance to those who developed proto-eyesight or even simple phototropism. Each baby step
conferred an advantage over those who didn't develop it.

You must have many seperate complex systems inorder to see. You must have way of gathering the light. You've got to change the information into a way of transmitting the information to the brain. You must have a system of transfering the information. You've got to have a way of interpretting the information and making sense of it.

This is all true. Organisms didn't go from not being able to see to being able to see in one
mutation. Various different steps took place. It's all explained in the Evolution of the Eye
article on Wikipedia. Which part of it don't you understand? I'll explain it to you in more detail
in the places where it is unclear.

Nemesio

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

I understand. Most people turn their brains off when they are told about macro-evolution.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
I understand. Most people turn their brains off when they are told about macro-evolution.
In the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams writes "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." Isn't trying to prove intelligent design simply trying to prove the existence of God? And if you do prove the existence of God what becomes of faith?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

If all the atheists have to hang their hat on is natural selection and random mutation to explain how the complex systems of the human body came into existance, then they don't have much of an argument for their position.

I'm not trying to prove God's existance here. I'm just explaining why the atheistic point of view is laughable.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I saw Expelled when it was first released. It didn't shake any of my beliefs and I doubt it would change any minds. The only thing that bothered me was that people lost their jobs simply because they were Christians.
Say, aren't you a Christian?

Where exactly do YOU work? 😀

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Say, aren't you a Christian?

Where exactly do YOU work? 😀
Yes, I am a Christian, completely and unapologetically.

I am unemployed.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.