Natural selection or Virus infection

[Lucretius]

Of course, one should read what "evolution" is over and over like 1000 times to believe that it's the "truth". Else they could be just as "bad" as I am.

Nah. We want you to argue about the facts. Not about the stuff you just made up, didn't understand, and which got refuted in about two posts per claim of yours.

 

[Hawkins]

Ironically, the evolution theory has been discussed for decades but still controversial just because, guess what, the lack of facts that is. Of course, it stands firmly true with the assumption that those have doubts are blind about the so-called "facts".

 

[Lucretius]

Ironically, the evolution theory has been discussed for decades but still controversial just because, guess what, the lack of facts that is. Of course, it stands firmly true with the assumption that those have doubts are blind about the so-called "facts".

No. It became controversial when there was a resurgence of Creationism within the United States. No other country so adheres to this lunacy than the United States. Europe has, at most, 5% of Creationists in their midst, while my school alone probably has half of it's students adhering to the lie. The United States is the behind the times.

 

[Hawkins]

I think it's debatable even amongst sicentists, especially when evolution is viewed together with earth formation and origin of life. US is a place full of brilliant scientists and in all and every scientific field. And that makes US the most advanced nation in the planet.

 

[Praxiteles]

I think it's debatable even amongst sicentists,

 

[Hydra009]

Wow. Does anybody still run the "Fundies say the darndest things? website"

No. The person who ran it apparently got a life.

Don't worry, the torch will be passed on.

 

[random_guy]

I think it's debatable even amongst sicentists, especially when evolution is viewed together with earth formation and origin of life.

No creditable scientists debate whether evolution occurred. What they debate is the methods to how evolution occurred. Show me one peer reviewed article that argues evolution doesn't occur.

US is a place full of brilliant scientists and in all and every scientific field. And that makes US the most advanced nation in the planet.

This statement makes no sense. If 95%* of US scientists argree that evolution occurred, why do you even bring this up? You start by arguing that scientists believe there's a controversy about evolution, then jump ship to state that the US is full of brilliant scientists. Are they still brilliant if they support evolution?

Double standard #44. Scientists are right except when they support evolution.

*Can someone back this source up? I can't seem to find the source anymore.

 

[Hawkins]

Haha...they are debating about how it occurred. It sounds like natural selection is not yet confirmed to be how it occurred. Of course, only those embracing natural selection are creditable scientists, then what the hell they are debating about. Yep, i shouldn't have brought it up when 95% of those legitimate creditable scientists are apparently debating a confirmed but debatable result.

 

[Praxiteles]

Haha...they are debating about how it occurred. It sounds like natural selection is not yet confirmed to be how it occurred. Of course, only those embracing natural selection are creditable scientists, then what the hell they are debating about. Yep, i shouldn't have brought it up when 95% of those legitimate creditable scientists are apparently debating a confirmed but debatable result.

What is debatable is not that evolution occurred. What is debatable is exactly what evolutionary paths were taken in the past. We know evolution occurred in the past because we can see it occurring today and because of the molecular and fossil evidence available.

What we don't have all the evidence of is which creatures precisely evolved from which creatures. For example, there is debate on the ancestry of birds. Majority opinion is that they evolved from dinosaurs, but dissenting opinion states that they decended from another kind of reptile. That birds evolved from reptilian ancestors is not in question.

 

[Lucretius]

Haha...they are debating about how it occurred. It sounds like natural selection is not yet confirmed to be how it occurred. Of course, only those embracing natural selection are creditable scientists, then what the hell they are debating about. Yep, i shouldn't have brought it up when 95% of those legitimate creditable scientists are apparently debating a confirmed but debatable result.

To deny natural selection is as prudent as denying gravity. It is an indisputable law of nature, acting on every living thing. No scientists debate whether evolution occured. Creationists are not scientists. Anyone who answers questions of diversification of species, or any scientific questions in general with God are not scientists. That's not to say scientists cannot be religious, it just means no answers in science will point to God, because science is basically agnostic on the issue.

At this point I really cannot tell if you are being serious or not. Perhaps you realized the futility of the strawman arguments you were so eager to toss into the fray a few pages before and just gave up? Why don't you be humble, admit you made mistakes, and then we can get a real discussion going?

 

[Big Rob]

Haha...they are debating about how it occurred. It sounds like natural selection is not yet confirmed to be how it occurred. Of course, only those embracing natural selection are creditable scientists, then what the hell they are debating about. Yep, i shouldn't have brought it up when 95% of those legitimate creditable scientists are apparently debating a confirmed but debatable result.

Dude, just stop. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's pretty obvious to everyone. Spare yourself some time and dignity and just leave or something.

 

[Hawkins]

What we don't have all the evidence of is which creatures precisely evolved from which creatures.

You dont even know how, as long as I am open minded enough to accept that humans and chimps share a same ancestor. You have no evidence on whether there is a leap forward, or a gradual change.

 

[Hawkins]

Dude, just stop. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's pretty obvious to everyone. Spare yourself some time and dignity and just leave or something.

How come a discusion will resort to something about dignity. Even from this single point I'll see what truth you are holding, that is, the fittest survive in a forum.

 

[Praxiteles]

You dont even know how, as long as I am open minded enough to accept that humans and chimps share a same ancestor. You have no evidence on whether there is a leap forward, or a gradual change.

This is true, but the fact remains that the mechanism is a known. External factors regarding the pace of the mechanism are at this point unknown. Probably not unknowable, just unknown.

Please be aware, though, that what you call a "leap forward" is still a gradual change.

 

[Hawkins]

To deny natural selection is as prudent as denying gravity. It is an indisputable law of nature, acting on every living thing. No scientists debate whether evolution occured. Creationists are not scientists. Anyone who answers questions of diversification of species, or any scientific questions in general with God are not scientists. That's not to say scientists cannot be religious, it just means no answers in science will point to God, because science is basically agnostic on the issue.

There's almost nothing is as simple as either black or white. What's point to define who is who and who is not instead of allowing them to speak out what their opinions are.

At this point I really cannot tell if you are being serious or not. Perhaps you realized the futility of the strawman arguments you were so eager to toss into the fray a few pages before and just gave up? Why don't you be humble, admit you made mistakes, and then we can get a real discussion going?

On the other hand, why not just admit that there are atleast holes in the evolution theory to fill up. Why not just let loose other opinions and alternatives with an open mind, instead of always sound like you are the truth and the whole truth. All of us are subject to making mistakes, no?

 

[Spherical Time]

You dont even know how, as long as I am open minded enough to accept that humans and chimps share a same ancestor. You have no evidence on whether there is a leap forward, or a gradual change.

Do you know the mechanism that God used to created humanity? How did he create something living from dust (or soil, or nothing) and can you replicate his achievement?

Evolution has evidence. The world is older than 6,000 years. That evolution isn't perfect is alright, because it tries to explain something, and science will keep refining it to be more and more truthful.

 

[Hawkins]

How are you so sure that the mechanism you are talking is not actually God's mechanism. Why not just disprove his exitence using your "evidence".

Everything is all-right because it tries to explain something.

 

[Jet Black]

How are you so sure that the mechanism you are talking is not actually God's mechanism.

evoltuion is God'S mechanism you mean? you could well be right there.

Why not just disprove his exitence using your "evidence".

God is supernatural, therefore immune from such things.

 

[Hawkins]

evoltuion is God'S mechanism you mean? you could well be right there.

Might be not too soon before it becomes "more truthful", perhaps.

 

[Big Rob]

How come a discusion will resort to something about dignity. Even from this single point I'll see what truth you are holding, that is, the fittest survive in a forum.

I don't hold any truth, so I don't know what you're talking about.