Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Disable ads temporarily
Remaining character count: 4000
[ + ]
Image or Video File:
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Click to start recording.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to comment?
Back to the content 'Creationism'
You don't have to teach both sides if one side is full of ****. It says "
love thy neighbor
" not "dumb down education because you don't understand science".
It also says "God created man".
Evolution isn't and never will be proven, same as creation.
Evolution has nothing to do with WHO or WHY, evolution is simply the method. If God set it in motion or not, evolutionary science has nothing to say on the matter. As for proven?
Uh, in the strictest sense, gravity, electricity, and atomic power are unproven too. There's actually
evidence for those three than there is for evolution, it's one of the most rock-solid theorems to date in terms of body of evidence.
Hell, scientists have even
it happen in real time with quick living species like bacteria in a petri dish or fruit flies.
While difficult to view across long time scales with longer lived species, it is possible to watch it happen.
True, the scientific method can only
prove things, but if the theory of evolution were a prosecuting attorney at a trial, the body of evidence in its favour would be enough to convince
jury. It's the metaphorical equivalent of a smoking gun, fingerprints on the murder weapon, the victim's blood on the accused's shirt, photo of them leaving the scene, 3-5 credible eyewitnesses, voicemail's of the accused threatening the victim with bodily harm, and no alibi.
That the accused hasn't signed a confession or come and said "I did it" doesn't matter, all the evidence points to this conclusion.
You're confusing natural selection with evolution.
Any evidence of evolution can also be seen as evidence for other things, such as the flood. There are no eyewitnesses for Evolution, because, quite simply, it "takes millions of years to happen".
The Bible says man was created in -ONE- day.
- in the strictest sense, gravity, electricity, and atomic power are unproven too-
We can't witness Evolution, but we can witness the power of gravity and electricity. Comparing them is ridiculous.
Prove gravity: pick up a pencil. Let go. Hey look, gravity!
Prove Evolution: Get a single-celled organism. Make it evolve into something more complex.
Get back to me on that.
Natural selection IS evolution. That's the WHOLE POINT. Evolution is the variation of allele frequencies. If you have have your mother's eyes and your dad's chin, guess what? That's evolution
If you accept that you inherit traits from your parents then what you are accepting is an example of evolution. It's not even just biology, geology, chemistry, physics,
is pointing to this one conclusion.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, eats and sleeps like a duck, and gives birth to little baby ducklings, then it's a #$%!-ing DUCK. Just because it's not a card carrying member of the "Donald and Daffy Association of American Ducks" or it didn't stand up at the end of Spartacus with "I am a duck!" doesn't change that.
We CAN witness evolution, did you not read what I wrote?
Accuse me of lying, fine, but I covered that before you even asked it! We've seen it happen.
You know why there's no cure for the common cold? This is because it mutates too fast,
, or the "rhino virus"
to any drug we develop. We kill some cells but by the time they're all dead, they lived long enough to reproduce and some of the offspring are
resistant to the medicine that killed their predecessors. Some weren't, but they didn't make it, leaving only the resistant individuals
. Traits are passed down, their offspring will inherit these traits of resistance.
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm accusing you of ignorance.
Basically, evolution is the theory that a life form can naturally take completely new external information into its genes that tells it how to bring about a complicated new characteristic that it never had before. Natural selection is the natural ability of a life form to use the variations it already has in its genetic code to bring about changes within the same kind of life form. Dog breeding is the perfect example of this natural selection where dogs can be bred for a specific climate or specific purpose, like hunting.
Not the same thing.
I suspect your use of the phrase "kind", refers to the passage that reads: "
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
" (Genesis 1:12, New International Version) and the same phrasing is used for the "
great creatures of the sea and every winged bird
" (Gen 1:21 NIV), and the "
creatures that move along the ground
" (Gen 1:24 NIV) and the "
" (Gen 1:25 NIV)?
This never-defined phrase of "Biblical Kinds", which
searched for in the past (and never found) has no scientific meaning and isn't used. Animals are grouped using a modified version of the Linnean system of taxonomy.
"add information" as you put it. Seriously, I've listened to every freaking argument for and against evolution for years and years, weighing the evidence. For a few months I'd even resigned and thought Creationism was right, but the more I learned about both subjects (religion/theology as well as evolutionary biology) the more I saw that one: evolution is not incompatible with a belief in the Christian understanding of God, and two: that evolution is not only the more likely, but among the
supported scientific theorems that science has come up with.
No, not everyone accepted it at first when Darwin first came up with it, but as the years went on, evidence mounted (and continues to mount) until it was no longer
to doubt. Theories are predictive models, formulas for finding equations, then you look at nature and if your predictions are right, then the idea that "hey this thing works" becomes more accepted. Evolution has been understood and used for over a century now, people don't use something that
work. The predictive model that is the Theory of Evolution has produced results that are identical to those seen in the reality
"Kind" refers to what can breed with each other.
Anything can breed with almost anything... although I suspect you mean "and produce offspring". In that case we already have the term
. Well, actually, no, that can't be correct because donkeys and horses can breed... though the offspring is sterile. I guess I'll have to admit a certain knowledge gap here as to the definition...
You brought up dog breeding, you realize that the fact that all those breeds came from one species (canis lupis) IS evolution? Different populations exhibiting different characteristics.
Look, science doesn't just pull stuff out of its collective rear-end, their work is only as useful as the results it produces. If it doesn't work, it's not used.
Back when it was new and untested, not everyone accepted it, when Darwin first came up with it, but as the years went on, evidence mounted (and
to mount) until it was beyond
Theories are predictive models, you look at nature and if your predictions are right, then the idea that "hey this thing works" becomes more accepted. Evolution has been understood and used for over
now, scientists, and people in general, don't use something that
work. Nobody with half a brain uses a broken hammer to pound nails. The predictive model that is the Theory of Evolution has produced results that are then are also seen in reality
If you don't believe me, Google it,
evidence for evolution
, there's tons of it, more than I could ever copy/paste for you here!
It's natural selection, not Evolution.
You're obviously of far too low intellect as to understand properly the difference, so I'll stop replying to you.
Good day, sir.
At this point it doesn't even matter, I don't think either of us was willing to change our positions anyway, so perhaps it was pointless to even have this debate.
Oh well, perhaps someone else learned something from this debate.
Back to the content 'Creationism'