The Fraud of Evolution

[The_Child]

---

wa ko kasabot. Haekel's fraud means Evolution is a fraud? Wa ko kasabot. Unsa man pasabot anang last line, is it trying to show that Evolution is a lie?

arrogance.

And ironically, Stephen Jay Gould was mentioned, but we shouldnt forget that Gould asserted NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) or science is parallel to religion, both having different point of view but doesnt necessarily contradict each other. that is why the last line of the post is rather a conundrum to me.

Religion relishes in Mystery in a way that it wants to things to remain a mystery, Science relishes in mystery in a way that it wish to conquer it. Still, i find it rather arrogant in the part of any religious "unit" to discredit science when it has nothing to give but religious hooplas.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

very well said.

Each one has a stand. so whether we like it or not no one can force some one on his side. hence it is best to express your view without demeaning others by derogatory remarks. speak your mind and post it. and let us decide which way to take.

Peace to all :mrgreen:

[nosyac]

This is why I don't get to some people just to rule out evulotion is just a fraud. The fact is, we have been evolving since we started to learn how to write! There was evolution since and there will be evolution in the years to come.

[seven_segment]

problem is...to some science tries to disprove religious beliefs...

sort of telling your religion/belief is a fraud...to some/many issues...

there is evolution...not to disprove God...but to prove that there is God!

[899]

@The_child

The hoax proves that macro evolution is not observable. That they have to fabricate evidence to prove their point.


Religion is not trying to refute science, its trying to refute those unproven things that science wants religion to accept.

[The_Child]

macro evolution is not observable

so is there such thing as a micro evolution? there is a difference between both a macro and micro evolution? Dawkins argued that memes play great role in evolution, that natural selection happens in the the meme level - is that what you mean by micro evolution in contrast to macro evolution? really i dont know if there is such a dichotomy between the two.

That they have to fabricate evidence to prove their point.
why do you think scientists, thats plural, would take all that effort to fabricate evidence?
stephen jay gould as mentioned by the article is neo-darwinist, also dawkins. Steve Pinkerton, the philosopher Daniel Denett, the evolutionary psychiatrist thomas somebody i forgot his last name. The whole evolution school of thought and its derivative schools, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and others...


Religion is not trying to refute science, its trying to refute those unproven things that science wants religion to accept
if we are to follow the idea of Gould's NOMA or non-overlapping Magisteria, then theres nothing really to refute eh? what do you think, if we perhaps compare the probability of Religion in explaining this material reality to that of Science explaining this material reality?

If religion has its own side, why would it interfere by assuming that science has unproven this thing or that, or questions the credibility of the scientific epistemology in reaching towards a conclusion? eh?


religion makes a point in a field which is best explained by science. tell me is that credible?

[YJOB]

ah basta, usa ra'y pangutana nako:

Kun gikan ang tawo sa apes, then ngano naa pa man apes nahabilin karon?

UNsa'y buot nila ipasabot, nabyaan na sila sa byahe?

;D

[rcruman]

All I can say is that, Science has nothing to do with the cheating of Evolution.
Science is a study of facts, Evolution is not a fact.

Peace!

[899]

Yes there is a difference between micro and macro. What you just explained belongs to micro while macro mean that a simple entity changes into a complex entity(reptiles growing wings).


i was only referring to those people who were involved.


As you can see i used the word "unproven". Do you agree that there are things in science that can not be proven?

[nosyac]

Science is a study of facts, Evolution is not a fact.

===hahahahahahaha.... hooo! Man, I just have to laugh... sorry but... it's too laughable.