Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

Trust me. I'm not taking any of these personally. I'm having fun shredding every possible opposing arguments to ribbons.

That is good for you since a lot of people here are counting to be more smarter than REAL SCIENTIST and the SCHOLARS of the church . AT least we can all justify that we only portray here our personal opinions and nothing else slash copy and pasted articles as references .

First of all, I'm not trying to shove Darwin's Theory of Evolution down people's throats. If you've followed my conversations with robert_papalid_ece, for example, you can see that I've always emphasized the "non-overlapping magisteria" between science and religion...because they're not supposed to overlap. It's when religious apologists suddenly start making judgments about a very well-respected scientific theory that I contest such matters.

Uhm ... did I tell my statement as a reference to your arguments ? I am being neutral here because we all know mura ni ug AKP and TGP , SKEPTCIS and BELIEVERS , THEIST and ATHEIST ... they share something in common ... walay kahumanan na lalis if participated by people na puro bright .

On a different note ... true that they dont overlap but they have to work hand in hand . Both has to co exist .

Secondly, as long as you say that your faith is incompatible with the Theory of Evolution, I will always respect that distance. But when somebody advances "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationism) to supplant Darwin's Theory, then you're essentially going up against the heavyweights of evolutionary biology like Craig Venter, Massimo Pigliucci, Richard Lewontin, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and even our very own homegrown Dr. Michael Purugganan...as well as the National Academy of Sciences, with its 200 Nobel-prize winning scientists.

We have to understand that these are all MAN MADE so ang convictions kay kutob ra pod sa capacity of the human mind and thinking . The awards , achievements , names , organizations etc are all man made . There is something beyond that what it makes not man made because it is not beyond the capacity of the man made science explanations . Mao na diha mo sidestep ang " FAITH " because it is UNEXPLAINABLE due to the lesser capacity of thinking maski i volt in pa ang tanan utok sa mga gipang nganlan nimo na scientist and achievers to think , explain and come up with a conclusion and at the end of the day , weeks , months , years , decades , centuries etc .. still empty handed .

Thirdly, it is a valid statement to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Take Jerry Coyne's book: WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

That is his only and nobody else . That is his conviction as an author gathering up all the " evidences " he can to validated his claim . Of course you , agrees with it because it favors your opinion so maka ingon ta na medyo bias .

Lastly, there is a lot of misconception about the term SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Please do not confuse this with Webster's definition. At best, when Webster's define esoteric terms that belong to the phraseology of specific domains, they're only giving a layman's definition. Take the Webster's definition of "Economics". I'm sure Economists would find such definition a bit simplistic.

That is the whole point . To elaborate terms in laymans terms aron makasabot ang tanan . Maybe you are disagreeing what it portrays but I am pretty sure you agree what it defines .

FAQ gave a very good description of what a Scientific Theory is. Read his post here: https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...cience-11.html.

Let me ask you this ... did it follow the characteristics and elements of the conduction research to become a valid SCIENTIFIC THEORY ? I guess if it is then it is valid but then it remains a THEORY as long as there is no CONCLUSION . FInd me a link where the THEORY is already CONCLUDED ... that would be IRONIC right but then if it takes for that route for me to rest the case ... that would also be in behalf of the CREATIONIST . Everybody happy hehehe .

What really gets me is when people say Evolution is just a theory. Evolution is a FACT. THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE PHENOMENON. It's like gravity. Gravity is a fact. If anyone doesn't believe in gravity, then he can go jump out the window and find out. Likewise, if anyone doesn't believe in evolution, then try not completing your antibiotics course the next time you have a bacterial infection and see if those bacteria would develop drug-resistance.

That is out of the topic when talking about EVOLUTION . It makes things complicated because thats where SCIENTIST edges on not like minded or should I say not as smart as they " FAITH BELIEVERS " just to make them shut up . Trust me , it takes a lot . Anyways ... how about a simpler logic . EVOLUTION is a FACT ... true because we see things evolved around us , some even MUTATED but the point is ... we are comparing the EVOLUTION of LIFE and the STORY of the CREATION which we all know didnt really exist unless you understand the bible literally but ... BUT if you also say that we all came from the monkeys , ngano ni hunong man ta ug pagka TAO ? Shouldnt we supposed to evolve mor einto something more of a SUPER HUMAN RACE ? mao na akong gipasabot ... we are all caught up in the middle .

I don't want to sound like I'm shoving this down people's throat. If you'll say "AS A MATTER OF FAITH, I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THEORY," then we can get along fine. Again, non-overlapping magisteria. Just take this similar stance of Kurt Wise, a scientist with a B.A. from University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Harvard:

In other words, religious apologists don't need evidence or persuasion or credible sources that support Darwin's Theory. Their choice not to believe in the Theory of Evolution is not a matter of science...but a matter of incompatibility with their FAITH.

Actually ... there is no need for me to opined but still I quoted it because I could really care less about that person having BA from University of Chicago and a PHD from HARVARD . He is nothing different from the rest of the people I know who has the same status as him but from different schools .

Sir, before I forget, the Vatican finds no incompatibility between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Roman Catholic faith. I've already posted that many times.

That doesnt stop me from being a THEIST and INCLINING a LEVERAGE that I am more into accepting EVOLUTION that CREATION .

If, like bungot25, you choose to disagree with the Vatican...kay dili kuno "from the chair" (ex cathedra)...then obviously I won't argue with that.

Sometimes ... our religion dictates us what is right or wrong to the point mag ka interchange na . Thas why I am more comfortable sa EVOLUTION because I have the freedom of keeping my faith but still working on science on whats best to come .

Even Francis Collins, co-founder of the Human Genome Project with Craig Venter, is a Christian Evangelical and a believer in Darwin's Theory as well. That only proves that you can be a believer and still accept the fact-hood of Darwin's Theory.

Thanks for hearing me out.

That is the whole point why I voiced out other than giving a warning to those ma mersonal and insulto na ang comments . Its not you though ... but for everyone . Just a healthy discussion lang ta diri .

[schmuck]

nver man cguro na mahimo nga LAW ang theory bout big bang./.


hahaha.. losers,,!!1

ang sakto ang naka bold part ra jd tawn.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

source

What now huh?

[necrotic freak]

Science is not yet done with the Theory of Evolution. Yes, that's right. But like I said before, the debates have centered on HOW Evolution happened, which is divided between the neo-Darwinian camp (represented by the likes of Dawkins, Coyne, Prothero) and the Steven Gould-camp (Lewontin, Massimo, et al). That Biological Evolution occurs is a fact that mainstream science, not only accepts but asserts to be true.

Do schools in the US have to wait for science to complete the Theory? Well, essentially, which scientific theory is deemed to be complete? People once thought that Galileo and Kepler pretty much had the Theory of Gravity in the bag. Then came Newton. And then Einstein. Scientific theories keep expanding and changing as new evidence is discovered, especially with new technologies that can probe deeper on both the microscopic and galactic level. It does not align itself in the same hardlined way that religion does with its dogmas. Science is always evidence-based and it will not reject evidence just to support a desired proposition.

The answer is no. Schools don't have to wait for a theory to be completed (I don't even think that scientists expect a complete theory in the far future...maybe one day). Schools in the US teach Darwin's Theory. It's the unifying principle among the various sub-branches of biology, from agriculture to genetics. I don't think I've emphasized this enough...I've provided the posts and links above regarding the statements from the National Academy of Sciences on this issue. Please read them if you have the time.?

I guess the thread starter's question was "kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin tah gikan"

Where we came from? How life has started? It's not about HOW Evolution happened. As what i said before, i never rejected the part of science of evolution, like the biological evolution. Of course that's a fact and that's been thought in schools. But not the evolution of humans from apes. layo kaayo na sa tinuod, as what you admitted that science is not yet done with the theory, and you don't even think that scientists expect a complete theory in the far future. well.. you're praying that one day.

You're right. Science hasn't gotten to the point where it can tell you how life started. Theory of Evolution is about an explanation of how we get the living species we have in our planet today. But it does not say anything about getting life from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950s started to explore that possibility. It attempted to test J.B.S. Haldane's hypothesis of chemical evolution and results were groundbreaking: the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors...not necessarily living cells, but the building blocks for living cells could be synthesized from inorganic matter.

As you know, Craig Venter recently unveiled his successful attempt at creating synthetic living cells. Although this is far from creating life from non-life, rest-assuredly, we're moving along quite fast toward that objective.

But to say Evolution is a hoax because it can't explain how life started, as what bungot25 said,...JUST REVEALS HIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DARWIN'S THEORY. Darwin's theory is not about how life started from non-life (Refer to my above statement about science and the origin of life). That's why I always put the challenge to the Darwin-debunkers: Read and understand the Theory of Evolution FIRST, and then pick out a claim that it makes which you think is FALSE. Post that claim here and explain why it's false, and we can debate seriously. In fact, if you seriously find it false, bring that up with the National Academy of Sciences...YOU COULD WIN A NOBEL PRIZE FOR THAT!

Here's one falsifiable evidence that can be used against the Theory of Evolution: FIND A FOSSIL OF A RABBIT THAT DATES TO THE PRECAMBRIAN PERIOD.

People understate the importance of FOSSIL RECORDS. FOSSIL RECORDS serve as the Theory's report card. 100% of all the fossils fall exactly within the periods which the Theory predicted. That's how accurate it is. EVEN WITHOUT A SINGLE FOSSIL RECORD, the Theory is still solid. Our ability to sequence genomes has actually served to fortify the Theory even more. It proves the common descent of all living things on earth.

Some people in this forum dismissed genetic similarities as proof of common descent. Well, not long ago, we had the Sulpicio tragedy. How did the company decide on which claims were to be honored? Through DNA similarities. Even the courts recognize DNA results as proof of common descent.

What more can I say?

Yes evolution is not a hoax but it's not conclusively true to humans either. I don't have problem with DNA also since that is scientifically true.

Well, indeed you nailed it! admitting science is not yet done with the theory and Science hasn't gotten to the point where it can tell you how life started. enough said.

[disomniac]

both na Lang para aLa nai argument ------

[fadedblock]

i believe naay mga butang that science could not explain
i believe in God more than Science.. yikes..

[cjmagowan]

i think both beliefs are telling the truth.. just pud them side-by-side and u'll notice that the time frames of creation between beliefs matches in some ways.. i think Gods time is in days which is equal to the million years of humans. my opinion though...

[romano2717]

a million scientific proof is not enough for the faithful.
a million sacred books is not enough for the skeptics.

[bungot25]

hitch22;7489394]You want my defense of evolution? Start reading page 10 (my second post on that page deals with the Theory of Evolution as explicitly terse as possible) of this thread and follow my posts thereafter. In fact, if you've followed the conversations from page 1, people like FAQ, chad_tukes, orcgod, kenites and many others have provided a lot of information and links about the definition of scientific theory and on why evolution is true.

i think evolution is not a fact yet....there is still no scientific explanation that proves evolution is true....

It's easy to just say Evolution is a Hoax. Well, what do you understand about Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Name me one claim that it makes which has been proven to be false.

WHY WOULD YOU ASK ME...YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DEFENDING ....i believe in self-replicating molecules...

when you say about fossils,, does it prove that evolution is true because it was alive a million years ago?

do you have evidences of trees that still live a million years ago until now?
do you know how many years will DNA lasts

IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PART OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE?

YES BEFORE....i studied it since we were in grade one until college...but now that science has evolved, i reject evolution because it is only a theory..same to those people who claim here.

Which organization can very well speak on behalf of the scientific comlmunity? I'll tell you where you should turn to for these matters:THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

i doubted all of them...lols

What is the National Academy of Sciences? FROM this link: About the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -

200 NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING SCIENTISTS! I don't know how much more ELITE an organization can get than that. So, what does the NAS have to say about the Theory of Evolution? Again, let's read what they have to say. From the NAS' position paper entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism (click here to start reading chapter 1):

Note that the above quote is taken from the CONCLUSION section of the paper. Click here to read the full CONCLUSION.

Well, what about HUMAN EVOLUTION? What does the NAS say about that? I'm glad you asked. And here's their answer...taken from this link of the National Academies Press (the link will bring you to the chapter on Human Evolution from the NAS' paper entitled Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences):

EVEN A MILLION NOBEL PRIZE...ITS STILL A WASTE! THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE!

Hmmm....let's see. What do they say about the so-called alternative, Intelligent Design a.k.a. Creationism? Well, the NAS have a lot to say about that too. Let's read together what they have to say. Once again, from the [I]Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences

OF COURSSE ,THERE IS ALWAYS A BIAS EVERYWHERE YOU WANNA GO,, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

WELL, bungot, ARGUE THAT!

coward? scared? Scared of what, exactly?

you are just afraid maybe because you cant find any scientific proofs on evolution.
hey dude...its just a theory!! it doesnt sell out to those who know the truth....Science cannot come
into a conclusion because it is hoax....

and to add up about dawkins,,
he actually believes in self-replicating molecules...hehehe! funny blind apostate!

heres the link

YouTube - Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview

[necrotic freak]

In effect, evolution is a fragment of Intelligent Design..

[hitch22]

i think evolution is not a fact yet....there is still no scientific explanation that proves evolution is true....

And we should take your word for it?

when you say about fossils,, does it prove that evolution is true because it was alive a million years ago?

I'm sorry. I don't repeat myself. You haven't kept up with the conversations I've had with the other posters with regard to proof of evolution. Search for my posts in this thread. It starts at page 10, but you can refer to page 43 for this.

do you have evidences of trees that still live a million years ago until now?

do you know how many years will DNA lasts

YES BEFORE....i studied it since we were in grade one until college...but now that science has evolved, i reject evolution because it is only a theory..same to those people who claim here.

You're really displaying your ignorance about the Theory of Evolution for all to see. Hey look, the guy claims he knows Darwin's theories!

i doubted all of them...lols

EVEN A MILLION NOBEL PRIZE...ITS STILL A WASTE! THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE!

OF COURSSE ,THERE IS ALWAYS A BIAS EVERYWHERE YOU WANNA GO,, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

Your statement was made in reference to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and what they stated about the Evolution-versus-Creationism issue. Basically, what you're saying is that the NAS got it all wrong about Evolution.

So, is Creationism the right answer for you then? OF COURSE, THIS IS WHERE YOU STAND.

you are just afraid maybe because you cant find any scientific proofs on evolution.
hey dude...its just a theory!! it doesnt sell out to those who know the truth....Science cannot come
into a conclusion because it is hoax....

Can't find any scientific proofs on evolution? I've already presented arguments and proofs of evolution, repeatedly. The problem is you don't know what constitutes proof of evolution. To you, you want to see horses growing wings or lizards becoming birds in real time. You got the whole concept dead wrong. Again, refer to page 43 where I touched on those points (my response to necrotic freak).

Scared? I've already said that if there's evidence to falsify Darwin's Theory of Evolution, I'm willing to reject it. But that doesn't mean I'm jumping on board the Creationist ship. It just means scientists will have to resolve the dilemma concerning the origins of species. But to date, the Theory of Evolution is quite secure...in fact much more so since Darwin turned the world's prevailing paradigm on the origin of life (William Paley's Natural Theology) upside down.

and to add up about dawkins,,
he actually believes in self-replicating molecules...hehehe! funny blind apostate!

heres the link

YouTube - Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview

I don't think I brought up Dawkins with you.

Anyway, what do I think about Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins is a very respected evolutionary biologist, a protege of the Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, a distinguished Oxford professor, a prolific science author, a fellow of the Royal Society of London (UK's version of the NAS), president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science...Zoological Society Silver Medal (1989), Faraday Award (1990), Kistler Prize (2001)...and on and on.

And you, bungot25, what gives you the right to mock this distinguished gentleman? All you are is another religious crackpot, another one of those rabid, red-faced, bible-thumping ***** preaching "the end is near" and the rapture nonsense.

I THINK I'VE GIVEN YOU TOO MUCH OF A FAVOR BY ENGAGING IN A CONVERSATION WITH YOU. To use a slang phrase: You don't know diddly squat about science! Just admit it. There's no shame there.

As far as I'm concerned, I think you don't want to have anything to do with SCIENCE. You've already made up your mind on the thread topic: YOU RELY ON THE BIBLE FOR THE TRUTH OF OUR ORIGINS.

Unfortunately, this is not an EITHER-OR proposition. Meaning, if you say SCIENCE got it all WRONG, therefore the BIBLE is correct, I win...I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. That's a non sequitur (conclusion doesn't follow from the premise). The incomplete-ness and imperfect-ness of science does not add to the credibility of the BIBLICAL account of creation. You have to defend that position as well. So, what are you scared of? Aren't you going to start defending your stance? Start by answering the question I posed to you earlier...YOU KNOW WHAT QUESTION THAT IS....SO DON'T PLAY DUMB THERE...although we're beginning to suspect that.