Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually the theory of evolution (scientific theory or otherwise) has been around for much longerBlackmarch said:Didn't Darwin came up with evolution theory, in part by noticing selective breeding techniques in his day?
If there was, then the current theory of evolution would change. The invalid creationist arguments like moon dust, second law of thermodynamics violates evolution, paluxy tracks, and the myraid of others are not evidence against evolution as they are easily refuted.Novaknight1 said:Lol. There is PLENTY of evidence against Evolution.
It has mountains of evidence and the support of the scientific community.It has no scientific support.
There have been a few that were originally thought to be transitionals but were shown not to be but there are tons of transitionals fossils whether you or some wacky anti-science creationist sites agree or not.The transitional fossils are pure baloney.
What are you talking about?If they were really transitional, how did they get food for millions of years?
You are arguing irreduciable complexity, again?! How many times do arguments you use have to be refuted to you're face before you stop using them?Not only that, but wings, legs, arms, lungs, eyes, etc. only work when completed.
Not only do I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't think you do either.Have you ever tried picking up a pencil with half a wing, half an arm?
You know that's an outright lie. You have been given examples over and over besides the fact we see it occuring.To date, NO evidence supports Evolution.
Can you read? Go back and look and tell me where they say there are no transitionals.Even talk origins admits this.
www.talkorigins.org.
Go to the FAQ section and look at why there are no transitional fossils.
No that's the process that has been around, evolution was the name for itand the theory has not been around since life started on this planet. the statement was about how Darwin found it out, and named it.corvus_corax said:Actually the theory of evolution (scientific theory or otherwise) has been around for much longer
Darwin came up with a mechanism explaining it- Natural Selection.
Blackmarch said:No that's the process that has been around, evolution was the name for itand the theory has not been around since life started on this planet. the statement was about how Darwin found it out, and named it.
Much like saying when man discovered or invented fire...
NeoTrio said:Of course, a Creationist wouldn't know anything about self-correction and intellectual honesty. They're all about saying "goddidits" enough times so people won't ask any questions.
thirsty said:Why should we change when we know the truth?
Thirsty said:Why should we change when we know the truth?
Novaknight1 said:We have a debate: is Evolution science or religion? No interference allowed. Let the debate begin. My position is that it's a religion. My opponent says Evolution is a part of science. We shall see who's right and who's wrong.
amy14 said:If evolution is a science then why do you have to believe it happened. It's not like you see monkeys evolving everyday.
Amy said:If evolution is a science then why do you have to believe it happened. It's not like you see monkeys evolving everyday.
Socrastein said:I'm not too sure about monkeys specifically, but I know that farmers see evolution all the time as they have to keep changing their pesticides to address the fact that the bugs keep evolving immunities to it.
Ryal Kane said:You're quite correct novaknight. The evolution you describe is not scientific.
Belief in half and half creatures is not scientific.
Belief that creatures can give birth to completely different species is not scientific.
Unfortunately you've made a rather large mistake.
You're not actually arguing agaisnt evolution.
You're arguing against creatiolution. This is the strawman creationist version of evolution. You're arguing against something that NO ONE actually thinks happens.
Try and follow the example from this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1181549-flying-purple-pumpkins.html
Evolution is a scientific theory. You frequently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the theory. Until you learn what the thoery actually states, there's no real way of debating it.
Ryal Kane
Novaknight1 said:How do I argue against Creatiolution? I don't argue with ANY bit of Creation, just Evolution. I agree with variation, but not Evolution.
Ryal Kane said:You've missed the point. I apologize for using the word creatiolution and causing confusion.
It's a sarcastic term. It is not a merger of creationism and evolution.
The point is that you are NOT arguing against evolution.
You are arguing against what you THINK evolution is.
It's like me arguing that christianity is absurd because there are no flying purple pumpkins.
Ryal Kane
Ryal Kane said:It's like me arguing that christianity is absurd because there are no flying purple pumpkins.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?