The evidence for Evolution.

[AV1611VET]

(such as ID aka creationism vs biology).

Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.

 

[In situ]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.

No they are not. It does not matter how much fundamentalists tries to pretend it isn't. The connection is well established. ID is just a name replacement for creationism in where all reference to God has been removed. There is bascially nothing new in what ID has to say compare to creationism. You see, I have sufficient knowledge about the "evolution of creationism" so don't try pull any such nonsense with me. In particular as it has even been showed in court of law to be the case (Kitzmiller v.s. Dover). But, very well, continue deny everything you find inconvenient, while I keep my record on how creationist continues to resort to denials, fabrications or lies in order to pull their own religious agenda into the public school system.

 

[In situ]

yes ,fully , i just don't believe you- there you have it .

We are not interested in what you believe, but why you believing it. Saying "I don't believe it", just does not cut it - if that is all you have to add to a discussion which is supposed to discuss the scientific evidence, then you can just as well avoid adding your comments since you don't contribute with anything else than your unsupported opinions, and we don't need to here them over and over again.

In short; if you don't want to contribute; why are you even here?

 

[In situ]

You give the explanation. Maybe we can at least get into some impressive nonsense.

Are you seriously consider reproduction to be nonsense? If so, what do you suggest then, the Stork theory? Or perhaps you are just ignorant of the theory of evolution and what it is actually about...

 

[In situ]

Give a complete/detailed explanation. You haven't done a thing thus far.

1. reproduction
2. competition for resources
3. selection
4. go back to step 1.

There you go, now you have evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they are not.

Yes, they are.

Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone.

Young-Earth creationists have critized the Intelligent Design movement for encouraging a loose reading of the Bible. The design theorists respond that ID represents at least the "partial truth" and that it is, at the very least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.

SOURCE

 

[Chriliman]

The evidence for Evolution presented by Darwin nicely and concisely compiled by a historian (at 1:20).

Even if Darwinian evolution is true we still need an explanation for the initial cause of the irreducibly complex biological life which would have then allowed Darwinian evolution to begin taking place. The fact that science cannot yet explain that is telling.

Lets say biological life is like a jack in the box(irreducibly complex). Evolution is not responsible for the function of the jack in the box, but it could be thought of as the process of the jack in the box popping open and changing from one form to another.

The real question here is who or what is responsible for the function of the jack in the box, regardless of whether or not Darwinian evolution is true or not?

It seems Darwinian evolutionists would rather ignore this all important question because it actually has nothing to do with their theory.

 

[Speedwell]

It seems Darwinian evolutionists would rather ignore this all important question because it actually has nothing to do with their theory.

Ignore it? Many thousands of biologists are working very hard on it. Where have you been?

 

[Kenny'sID]

When retroviruses invade an organism, they locate themselves into the genome randomly. We know this because we can study them in real time, as in the case of HIV infection.

The human genome has approximately 3 billion possible location sites.

Over 200,000 ancient ERV insertions are present in the human genome.

These same retroviruses are in EXACTLY the same locations in the genomes of chimpanzees.

The probability of all of these being in identical locations in BOTH species as random chance is of the order of approximately 10 to the power of 13.......vanishingly small.

The most potent explanation for this evidence is that these insertions took place at a time before a 'split' occurred which resulted in separate lineages for humans and chimpanzees. It also fits perfectly with all of the other lines of evidence that I mentioned above.

Your alternative....?

Alternative to what? What do you make of the findings, what do they prove to you? Give me something to give alternative to.

 

[Chriliman]

Ignore it? Many thousands of biologists are working very hard on it. Where have you been?

That's why I said it seems as if they're ignoring it. If they're not then that's great

 

[Kenny'sID]

There you go, now you have evolution.

No you have more nonsense that has been understood to equate tyo evolution by people wou choose to belive it....that's all.

Are you seriously consider reproduction to be nonsense?

Not sure where you got that idea. When you stoop to the level of making things up, you don't help your case a bit, it only makes you appear desperate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The evidence for Evolution presented by Darwin nicely and concisely compiled by a historian (at 1:20).

Yes, evolution is a fact. But, what we don't know as an ultimate truth is that Natural Selection by necessity provides the only or even the best description of a mechanism for organic changes as seen in various lineages through vast arrays of time.

 

[Alithis]

We are not interested in what you believe, but why you believing it. Saying "I don't believe it", just does not cut it - if that is all you have to add to a discussion which is supposed to discuss the scientific evidence, then you can just as well avoid adding your comments since you don't contribute with anything else than your unsupported opinions, and we don't need to here them over and over again.

In short; if you don't want to contribute; why are you even here?

To contribute the infomation that what your saying is not true.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, evolution is a fact.

That is a lie.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is a lie.

You're right--I should have said evolution is a "scientific fact"!

 

[Speedwell]

That is a lie.

No. There are species alive now on the Earth that haven't always been here, and species once here that are now extinct. Life has changed and diversified considerably since it began. That is a fact.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact, and is, itself, a theory not a fact, but it is a well established and well evidenced theory none the less.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're right--I should have said evolution is a "scientific fact"!

You will say what you will but, IMO, no.... you shouldn't.

It is a lie in every way, shape and form.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a lie in every way, shape and form.

Oh, but remember ...

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form,

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. There are species alive now on the Earth that haven't always been here, and species once here that are now extinct. Life has changed and diversified considerably since it began. That is a fact.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact, and is, itself, a theory not a fact, but it is a well established and well evidenced theory none the less.

It would be senseless for me to ask you to prove that or for me to attempt to prove otherwise, as long winded discussion on the issue never gets anyone anywhere, so I'll just stick to the Christian Biblical basics.

God did it, and science proves nothing...stating it does is merely people using it as their scapegoat to believe otherwise.

And that's not to say science is a problem, but that people are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, but remember ...

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form,

That would be the truth, but in no way, shape of form is evolution the truth.