Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the OP began with a fallacy. The presidential debates were not about evolution. They were about public education. The question being: Should the science curriculum give equal weight to two theories, one of which has a great deal of, but inconclusive, scientific evidence, and the other of which has absolutely none, and then use that as a legitimate example of the scientific method the students are supposed to be learning in their science classes?
Unless the argument on the conservative side is that the very existence of the universe proves, through a comparable scientific method, that the entire universe was "intelligently designed" for no other reason than to be a habitat for the humanity to which all theologians unanimously belong.
So the OP began with a fallacy. The presidential debates were not about evolution. They were about public education. The question being: Should the science curriculum give equal weight to two theories, one of which has a great deal of, but inconclusive, scientific evidence, and the other of which has absolutely none, and then use that as a legitimate example of the scientific method the students are supposed to be learning in their science classes?
I wouldn't say that the theory of evolution has absolutely NO scientific evidence supporting it. There is, in theory, at least some.
It's just that they're missing a few little details - like millions upon millions of fossilized transitional life forms.
How can you believe Evolution is false if you have admittedly not researched it?
How can you even honestly argue something that you are knowingly ignorant on?
It's terrific that you are willing to challenge mainstream thought. Let that fuel your quest for knowledge. But do not come to illogical conclusions about things as false just because they are mainstream. Ignorance is not power my friend.
i never said that i believed evolution to be false, i just said that i don't necessarily believe it to be true because i haven't sat down with the origin of species and looked into the evidence presented. i can guarantee you though that sandycat 'the all knowing' has never read darwin, been to the galapagos or the cradle of mankind etc. i can guarantee you that it bases its opinions solely on its 5th grade textbook and regurgitated 2nd hand wisdom like almost everyone else
You misread my post. "The other" is the theory of intelligent design, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence.
No, actually I just answered your post correctly.
The fact that you're a blind atheist does not let you off the hook regarding those hundreds of millions of fossilized transitional life forms that are absolutely necessary to make the religion/theory of evolution even remotely plausible.
So... How 'bout being a good boy and challenging the religion you've been spoon fed all these years? How about some open-minded searching for evidence, rather than what's obviously been taking place for decades?
the only reason i bothered to bring this up is because it seems to take up some time in presidential debates and people tend to get quite hot under the collar. personally i couldn't think of anything more irrelevant but here is my take on the topic:
i don't believe in evolution like i don't believe in 99% of the subjective nonsense which was taught to me at school! let me just clarify why:
i don't believe in evolution because it is not a topic which i consider worthy enough of my time to research all the evidence for and against. unless i have personally had the time to sit down and mull over the facts, i don't really believe in anything! i just cannot take for granted what other people spout as fact. this is not to say that i disagree with darwin's theory just that i reserve the right to not have an opinion. as an atheist though i don't believe in creationism but that's a topic for another thread.
the thing i find puzzling though is how the left wing intellegentsia is uber critical of conservative politicians views on the issue. they spout out darwin's words as undeniable. they never seem to want to bring up any of his later work namely, 'the descent of man' commonly recognized to have been an instrumental idea in the Holocaust.
For someone with no clue on the topic you seem to have some awfully strong opinions on what others (that have studied the topic) seem to think and how they should be allowed to communicate thier thoughts.
I imagine you probably go ballistic when talking about something you have studied and meeting some obtuse person who blows you off your input because they haven't studied it yet.
The fact that you're a blind atheist does not let you off the hook regarding those hundreds of millions of fossilized transitional life forms that are absolutely necessary to make the religion/theory of evolution even remotely plausible.
So... How 'bout being a good boy and challenging the religion you've been spoon fed all these years? How about some open-minded searching for evidence, rather than what's obviously been taking place for decades?
For clarification purposes: Do you agree or disagree that "natural selection" and "genetic mutations" happen within a species?
*sigh* When are the loons going to get it through their heads that we HAVE millions and millions of transitional fossils?
They are ALL TRANSITIONAL.
When are the Kool-Aid Drinkers going to get it through their heads that there are NOT millions and millions of fossilized transitional life forms?
You say there are, but you can't produce any. What you're doing is no different than claiming that there are millions and millions of extra-terrestrial aliens on earth, but you can't produce any.
*sigh* When are the loons going to get it through their heads that we HAVE millions and millions of transitional fossils?
They are ALL TRANSITIONAL.
Yes, but they cannot get their heads around the idea of 'infinite regression', or they are purposely using such a tactic in a malevolent way.
Here is the tactic in action:
Let's say we have Fossil A and Fossil E. One asks, where is the transitional fossil between the two?
We find Fossil C. One asks, where is the transitional fossil between A to C and C to E?
We find Fossil B and Fossil D. One asks, where is the transitional fossil between A to B, B to C, C to D, D to E?
Ad infinitum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
