Evolutionary debate

[mpok1519]

The evolution debate is stupid; amongst the truely credible sector of the scientific community, there is NO debate as to whether or not it is a real concept bc it is. The exact workings of the mechanics are what's debated.

I'm surprised this website endorses delusion by allowing false ideas and teachings to be proliferated at will. It's bullspit and it's bad for you. Delusion is a bad thing.

 

[Asycthian]

The evolution debate is stupid; amongst the truely credible sector of the scientific community, there is NO debate as to whether or not it is a real concept bc it is. The exact wokings of the mechanics is what is debated.

I'm surprised this website endorses delusion by allowing false ideas and teachings to be proliferated at will. It's bullspit and it's bad for you. Delusion is a bad thing.

There is no evidence for evolution.

 

[LightHorseman]

Do you accept the fact fossils are created very quickly?

A friend i have, has a fossilised key. The key is only a few years old.

Fossils don't take millions or billions of years to form, they are created very quickly, rapidly.

It fits well with the Biblical deluge but not the evolution belief.

SOME fossils may be created very quickly, that doesn't mean ALL fossils are created very quickly.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what photo 51 is if not DNA?

 

[LightHorseman]

There is no evidence for evolution.

Except for the several million data points of it. Other than that though? No, none.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Cabal:

"I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists."

Would this fall under the category of Theistic Evolution, or an articulate version of "goddidit"? But I think it both possible and plausible that He made the mechanisms in the manner in which they exist. I make no claim to understand the mind of God, but if we agree He exist AND set the process of life in motion, then he could have done it via a long slow process of gradual genetic alterations. Your point is then taken, that for man to understand the evolutionary process, it is not necessary for him to include the existence or non-existence of God into the investigative, or scientific, process.

But that would assume a process without any other agenda, and that is not always the case.

 

[Asycthian]

Except for the several million data points of it. Other than that though? No, none.

You say in your display icon you are a Catholic. Are you just a liberal mainstream Catholic? Or a Traditional Catholic?

Traditional Catholics believed the earth was created in 5199BC and support YEC. I have friends who follow this, and they belong to Daylight Origins Society.

Daylight Origins Society: Creation Science for Catholics

 

[LightHorseman]

You say in your display icon you are a Catholic. Are you just a liberal mainstream Catholic? Or a Traditional Catholic?

Traditional Catholics believed the earth was created in 5199BC and support YEC. I have friends who follow this, and they belong to Daylight Origins Society.

Daylight Origins Society: Creation Science for Catholics

Different Catholics believe all sorts of wierd stuff. Personally, I believe what the science shows us.

and what the Vatican agrees with, by the way.

 

[Cabal]

You say in your display icon you are a Catholic. Are you just a liberal mainstream Catholic? Or a Traditional Catholic?

Traditional Catholics believed the earth was created in 5199BC and support YEC. I have friends who follow this, and they belong to Daylight Origins Society.

Daylight Origins Society: Creation Science for Catholics

Lol, so the Pope's a liberal mainstream Catholic then. Brilliant.

 

[LightHorseman]

Catholicism is "liberal" now. I can't keep up with the perjorative implying misused descriptors any more.

 

[Cabal]

Posted by Cabal:

"I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists."

Would this fall under the category of Theistic Evolution, or an articulate version of "goddidit"?

It's not so much to do with either, it's just a question that came to mind And theistic evolution is essentially Goddidit. It's just a different KIND of Goddidit

If one is to accept that God exists and created, but also accept that natural mechanisms are fully describable without explicitly invoking God, then it seems like a logical step to suggest that this is the way God wishes it to be.

But I think it both possible and plausible that He made the mechanisms in the manner in which they exist. I make no claim to understand the mind of God, but if we agree He exist AND set the process of life in motion, then he could have done it via a long slow process of gradual genetic alterations.

No arguments there.

Your point is then taken, that for man to understand the evolutionary process, it is not necessary for him to include the existence or non-existence of God into the investigative, or scientific, process.

But that would assume a process without any other agenda, and that is not always the case.

Right. At the same time, creationists attempting to insert a non-scientific entity into the scientific process have been ostracised. As you said previously, it is as unscientific to try and definitively and empirically shut God out of everything. I think given that one group has faced the consequences of not sticking to the rules of science makes it less likely that it will happen again.

 

[Gawron]

Cabal, you have restored my faith in rational debate on these forums.

 

[USincognito]

I wonder how many Earmarks each year are opposed in such a manor?

You do realize that petition was in response to a Constitutional issue, per the Epperson and Edwards decisions.

 

[biggles53]

There is no evidence for evolution.

Son, that's an out-and-out lie. Either you're committing it yourself, or you're simply repeating the lies of others. Which is it?

And doesn't your faith have something to say about bearing false witness....?

Because the evidence for evolutionary theory is literally measured in the tons! Whether it be the fossil record, molecular biology, geographical distribution of species, convergent phylogenies, phenotypical data, or the many records of experimental research of evolution in action, the FACT remains that this is the single most supported theory in ALL of science.

Get your head out of the sand.....you're way too young to have already closed your mind.

 

[Gawron]

That doesn't invalidate my question. Are there watchdog groups out there viciously attacking even the majority of earmarks attached to administration legislation, or only during the Bush years when that earmark could possibly benefit a Christian groups ideology?

 

[Cabal]

Cabal, you have restored my faith in rational debate on these forums.

Well, I'm sorry to test that faith but I'm a fairly opinionated so-and-so the rest of the time but I'm glad we were able to discuss a few things calmly enough

 

[Beccs]

The theory of evolution was only devised for political reasons (it's modern believers only believe in it for political reasons, not because of the scientific evidence).

What part of the forum could we debate this issue?

So, the overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution doesn't matter so long as you can hold onto your unsubstantiated claim?

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

Because the evidence for evolutionary theory is literally measured in the tons! Whether it be the fossil record, molecular biology, geographical distribution of species, convergent phylogenies, phenotypical data, or the many records of experimental research of evolution in action, the FACT remains that this is the single most supported theory in ALL of science.

Get your head out of the sand.....you're way too young to have already closed your mind.

I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.

Foiled again. Drat.

BTW, how would a creationist debunk, say, ERV's?

 

[Nostromo]

I suspect one of the resident trolls has created a new account to keep it fresh :s

 

[plindboe]

Cell Death is a fascinating subject, but I digress. The question at hand for this particular post can be expressed in this manner. Does junk DNA and junk RNA serve no purpose, or does it actually have purpose? In the realm of science, micro-biologist, geneticist, and other researchers are rationally working to find out, and there is mounting evidence that what was once commonly referred to as junk DNA and/or junk RNA is being found to have more function than once thought. But in the realm of the Evolution/Creation/ID debate, it seems to be an either/or question, with again no room for one over the other.

I don't think that's true. First of all I doubt that, apart from a few ignorami evolutionist, there exist evolutionists insisting that all non-coding DNA must be junk, i.e. that none of it can ever be shown to have any function. That would of course be absurd. Evolutionists generally follow the science and hence accepts that some DNA previously known as "junk DNA" has turned out to have functions.

Still, there's also evidence that some of it truly is junk. There's been studies where millions of bases have been deleted from the mouse genome, and the resulting mice seems to thrive in every way compared to wild type mice.

Mice thrive without 'junk DNA' | The Human Genome
eScholarship: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

Peter