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.
Dr Kuhn installs lap-bands in fat people. He's not exactly a scientist of the theory of evolution.
/sigh
If title is all that matters, we need to put a gun to our heads and end it now. It is the position of utmost stupidity to disregard comment in lieu of appealing to position.
Preposterous .... unless you can also explain why evolution stopped? Or did you not know that it stopped? If indeed Darwinian Theory regarding "speciation" was actually true, then we would surely see evidence emerging in real time ... right now ... this very moment. Since this process of speciation is ongoing and ever at work, one would naturally expect to see the end cycle of that transitional process unfold today. But we don't. So, either the theory is all wet, or it stopped at some point, which would explain why we don't see these new species popping up all over the world. And we don't see it. What we see, when a new species is discovered, is that it has been around for a long time, but was only now discovered to exist.
LOLOL. Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance ???
Preposterous .... unless you can also explain why evolution stopped?
It hasn't stopped.
Quote:
If indeed Darwinian Theory regarding "speciation" was actually true, then we would surely see evidence emerging in real time ... right now ... this very moment.
Preposterous .... unless you can also explain why evolution stopped? Or did you not know that it stopped? If indeed Darwinian Theory regarding "speciation" was actually true, then we would surely see evidence emerging in real time ... right now ... this very moment. Since this process of speciation is ongoing and ever at work, one would naturally expect to see the end cycle of that transitional process unfold today. But we don't. So, either the theory is all wet, or it stopped at some point, which would explain why we don't see these new species popping up all over the world. And we don't see it. What we see, when a new species is discovered, is that it has been around for a long time, but was only now discovered to exist.
LOL. Poster child of the unwashed and uneducated masses.
Evolution is a "theory" in name only; there is such voluminous evidence of evolution, both past and continuing, that denying it proves one's scientific ignorance and (in this case) religious lunacy, and is emblematic of the sad state of the U.S. educational system compared to other countries.
From DNA to radiocarbon dating to the fossil record to natural selection, the proof of evolution stands as certain and strong as proof of Einstein's theory of relativity. To not teach evolution as part of a secondary education should be criminal ... along the same line as advocating that your child not be vaccinated against childhood disease. Both "non-belief" systems are rooted in ignorance and fear.
Evolution neither promotes atheism nor ridicules religion; religion does enough on its own to earn the heaps of ridicule it deserves. If you fail to accept that this is a secular country governed by a constitutional document, then you're free to do your children a disservice and teach them "creationism". But don't claim that evolution is "unproven" because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
More nonsense ... first of all, to use the term "evolution" in such a definitive manner, shows that you know very little about the subject, or you have been trained to use the circular reasoning necessary to promote it. The fact is, there are a multitude of variations in evolution theory, and a lot of double talk and semantic gamesmanship always at the forefront of evolution proponents. This is deliberate, in that it is difficult to shoot down a moving target who's basic premises change moment to moment.
The term "evolution" in the Darwinian sense of the term, means a change from less complexity to more complexity ... i.e. a single, self replicating cell mutating over time and becoming a higher order life form. In this definition exists the fundamental problem with Darwinian evolution, because mutation is by nature, subtractive, not additive. And it takes little mathematical prowess to understand that you cannot expect a long period of successive subtractions to result in "more".
More nonsense ... first of all, to use the term "evolution" in such a definitive manner, shows that you know very little about the subject, or you have been trained to use the circular reasoning necessary to promote it. The fact is, there are a multitude of variations in evolution theory, and a lot of double talk and semantic gamesmanship always at the forefront of evolution proponents. This is deliberate, in that it is difficult to shoot down a moving targetwho's basic premises change moment to moment.
Translation: "fdjhsjfhkfnjks" (i.e., gibberish). You've never studied biology or chemistry, obviously. The world's scientists are squarely against you. (by the way, the term is "whose"; "who's" means "who is").
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The term "evolution" in the Darwinian sense of the term, means a change from less complexity to more complexity ... i.e. a single, self replicating cell mutating over time and becoming a higher order life form. In this definition exists the fundamental problem with Darwinian evolution, because mutation is by nature, subtractive, not additive. And it takes little mathematical prowess to understand that you cannot expect a long period of successive subtractions to result in "more".
Answer: wrong. Bacteria mutate and evolve without changing their complexity.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 03:54 PM..
Reason: rude
Hahahhahaha .... That is the worst possible example you could have chosen. I suggest that a smart monkey would never use the modern human as proof of evolution, but would go out of his banana loving way to avoid that example at all costs!
Perhaps you should take a better look around, and get back with me on how much more evolved we are .... as I do not consider the ability and well demonstrated proclivity to kill massive numbers of human beings more efficiently than ever before as evidence of our evolution. I think it argues against.
Hahahhahaha .... That is the worst possible example you could have chosen. I suggest that a smart monkey would never use the modern human as proof of evolution, but would go out of his banana loving way to avoid that example at all costs!
Perhaps you should take a better look around, and get back with me on how much more evolved we are .... as I do not consider the ability and well demonstrated proclivity to kill massive numbers of human beings more efficiently than ever before as evidence of our evolution. I think it argues against.
There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, along with creation as a theory. Neither should be taught as proven fact, because both are unproveable.
The scientific definition of scientific theory works well for me.
As such, ID will never, ever, be a theory.
Perhaps they should explain Stonhenge and the Pyramids, before embarking on our creation.
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.
