Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[david_x]

I would like to comment that scientific facts actually refer to "the most probable," for instance one could say Katrina was a huricane that hit the coast, but what they really know is that Katrina most likly hit the coast. (unless they saw it hit the coast) Because that is what the media said.

 

[laterunner]

Did your post make any sense?????????? I don't get want you mean

><> ><> Science is based in belief isn't it.

 

[racer]

glaudys,

Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you. I just didn't get to your post today. I will try to get to it tomorrow.

Lisa

 

[david_x]

I think evolutionists need more faith then crationists because they don't enen have a valid start to evolution.

 

[random_guy]

I think evolutionists need more faith then crationists because they don't enen have a valid start to evolution.

Except evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, and evolution still applies to life, even if God specially created every creature. It's like some sort of theory. The limit of the probability that a Creationist will mention the start of life as a problem of evolution goes to 1 as the number of posts increase.

 

[david_x]

Except evolution has nothing to do with the start of life

exactly, how can a theory that has nothing to do with an entire issue be relevant!

evolution still applies to life

not really, everything in life changes to acomidate conditions, yes. But, even the Galapagos Island finches simply return to their original form after the conditions subside.

 

[random_guy]

exactly, how can a theory that has nothing to do with an entire issue be relevant!

I think you're very confused. You argue that evolutionists need faith since they can't explain the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so why do they need faith about it?

not really, everything in life changes to acomidate conditions, yes. But, even the Galapagos Island finches simply return to their original form after the conditions subside.

Which is evolution. Environment determines what is advantageous. Seriously, you posts show a very bad understanding of evolution and science. Doesn't that bother you that you're arguing against something you don't even understand?

 

[david_x]

I think you're very confused. You argue that evolutionists need faith since they can't explain the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so why do they need faith about it?

see what you quoted.

Which is evolution. Environment determines what is advantageous. Seriously, you posts show a very bad understanding of evolution and science. Doesn't that bother you that you're arguing against something you don't even understand?

it is except for the fact evolution is a one-way street. Doesn't that bother you that you're arguing against something you don't even understand?

 

[invisible trousers]

Evolution does not deal with the origin(s) of life. I think there's plenty of evidence here which shows you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[woobadooba]

Evolution does not deal with the origin(s) of life. I think there's plenty of evidence here which shows you don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't necessarily true. Abiogenesis suggests that life evolved from none living matter, so evolution does deal with the origin of life. Although, it is a false hypothesis of course.

 

[random_guy]

This isn't necessarily true. Abiogenesis suggests that life evolved from none living matter, so evolution does deal with the origin of life. Although, it is a false hypothesis of course.

And star formation discuss how stars evolve from gasses, but evolution (the biological science) has nothing to do with star formation. Even though you used the word evolve in the definition of abiogenesis, it doesn't have the same meaning as evolution.

Again, give me your definition of evolution, and we'll work from there.

 

[random_guy]

see what you quoted.

And I did. Again, you still haven't explained how the origin of life is a problem for evolution anymore than the origin of germs a problem for germ theory.

it is except for the fact evolution is a one-way street. Doesn't that bother you that you're arguing against something you don't even understand?

The reason why I don't understand Creationism is because there's no unified theory of Creationism. It depends on the person. Evolution, however, has a specific meaning. I really don't think you understand evolution at all.

Why don't you give the scientific definition of evolution and work from there. My guess is your definition is dead wrong, or your understanding of it is.

 

[woobadooba]

And star formation discuss how stars evolve from gasses, but evolution (the biological science) has nothing to do with star formation. Even though you used the word evolve in the definition of abiogenesis, it doesn't have the same meaning as evolution.

Again, give me your definition of evolution, and we'll work from there.

We aren't talking about the origin of nonliving matter, but of human life.

 

[coolstylinstud]

The reason why I don't understand Creationism is because there's no unified theory of Creationism. It depends on the person.

Where di dyou get that form creationist believe genesis. Thats it there is no other definition of creatonist.

Why don't you give the scientific definition of evolution and work from there. My guess is your definition is dead wrong, or your understanding of it is

What is it with you evolutionists you always accuse us creationists of not knowing what evolution is. Some of us know exactly what it is but yet you still acuse us of not knowing.

 

[random_guy]

We aren't talking about the origin of nonliving matter, but of human life.

I'm very confused. Did you not post:

This isn't necessarily true. Abiogenesis suggests that life evolved from none living matter, so evolution does deal with the origin of life. Although, it is a false hypothesis of course.

Here it seems like you're arguing that evolution does deal with the origins of life. Now, you're arguing that you were discussing the origin of humans? Am I in some sort of twilight zone where all the posts I've been reading were faked?

 

[random_guy]

Where di dyou get that form creationist believe genesis. Thats it there is no other definition of creatonist.

Theory of Evolution is very specific on how life changes. Now, with Creationism, you have people believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, there's been two creations, etc... Some people believe every species was specially created, others believe only certain kinds were created, but will never define what kind. Creationism is not unified like evolution.

What is it with you evolutionists you always accuse us creationists of not knowing what evolution is. Some of us know exactly what it is but yet you still acuse us of not knowing.

Really? You want to make a bet? Look at the david_x, woobadooba, both think that evolution deals with the origins of life. It gets worst as you start reading the other replies. I'm talking about pure wrong replies due, not just interpretation of evidence. Many Creationists replies in this thread are completely scientific wrong due to misunderstanding of science definitions.

 

[david_x]

Evolution does not deal with the origin(s) of life. I think there's plenty of evidence here which shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah ha you fell for my trap, you don't know what you are talking about! There is an entire branch, no pun intended, of evolution that deals with the start! Chimical Evolution. The fact was introduced by Darwin. He said somthing like,"if it so happened that lightning hit a prehistoric puddle of condensed matter that perhaps a living organism could have been formed." (not a quote, but i heard the sort somewhere)

This idea is rediculous! even if the lightining produced the protins needed to form an organism from amino acids (all 26) that happened to be present it is entirely impossible for the DNA needed to reproduce to form.

Facts being intense probability, it is a fact that evolution is false.

 

[random_guy]

Ah ha you fell for my trap, you don't know what you are talking about! There is an entire branch, no pun intended, of evolution that deals with the start! Chimical Evolution. The fact was introduced by Darwin. He said somthing like,"if it so happened that lightning hit a prehistoric puddle of condensed matter that perhaps a living organism could have been formed." (not a quote, but i heard the sort somewhere)

This idea is rediculous! even if the lightining produced the protins needed to form an organism from amino acids (all 26) that happened to be present it is entirely impossible for the DNA needed to reproduce to form.

Facts being intense probability, it is a fact that evolution is false.

Hey, more evidence for you coolstylinstud. Here's another person that refuses to accept that evolution deals with the origins of life. Just like star formation has the word evolves in it, abiogenesis has the word evolves, but it's not biological evolution.

Do you still want to take a bet whether or not Creationists tend to be less likely to understand evolution?

 

[david_x]

Hey, more evidence for you coolstylinstud. Here's another person that refuses to accept that evolution deals with the origins of life. Just like star formation has the word evolves in it, abiogenesis has the word evolves, but it's not biological evolution.

Do you still want to take a bet whether or not Creationists tend to be less likely to understand evolution?

I win again, you can't come up with plausable rebutle so you attack my character!!! Try to stick to the facts.

 

[woobadooba]

I'm very confused. Did you not post:



Here it seems like you're arguing that evolution does deal with the origins of life. Now, you're arguing that you were discussing the origin of humans? Am I in some sort of twilight zone where all the posts I've been reading were faked?

The problem lies in your inability to keep a statement in its proper context.

From the atheists point of view, evolution does have something to do with abiogenesis(the theory that life evolved from non-living matter). But abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not the same of course.

And then you started talking about the evolution of stars, which has nothing to do with the so-called evolution of human life. So you are out of context, because we aren't talking about the origin or evolution of non-living matter, but of human life.