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.
No, I mean by selective breeding like I said in my post.
Astonishing
Please take in the entire context of the subject matter being discussed here and not just the usual selective reading looking for any perceived scientific, technological, grammatic, or terminology flaws to attack. There is a far bigger picture here and YES we all know and are aware of YES selective breeding has been done for years by agricultural companies.
In my opinion, evolution as nothing to do with anything. My reason is it is only a theory. To my knowledge they haven't proven that this theory relevant. What strikes me odd is that people believe that this theory is relevant.
In my opinion, evolution as nothing to do with anything. My reason is it is only a theory. To my knowledge they haven't proven that this theory relevant. What strikes me odd is that people believe that this theory is relevant.
Please look up the definition of theory when used in a scientific sense.
For a couple of other examples of theories, consider the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease.
For myself, I find gravity, germs, and evolution to be very relevant to my life. What about you? Do you disregard hygiene, or nail down all of your furniture so that it does not float off of the planet?
In my opinion, evolution as nothing to do with anything. My reason is it is only a theory. To my knowledge they haven't proven that this theory relevant. What strikes me odd is that people believe that this theory is relevant.
Where on earth have you been the last 20 or so years...Evolution is a fact of life. You obviously do not understand the term theory as it relates to science.
In my opinion, evolution as nothing to do with anything. My reason is it is only a theory. To my knowledge they haven't proven that this theory relevant. What strikes me odd is that people believe that this theory is relevant.
Wait, what backwater holler are you from that you don't know what the word "theory" means in relation to science? And that you don't know that evolution has been PROVEN? And that you don't think this proven theory is relevant?
I didn't know it was possible to be so uninformed and uneducated these days. How sad!
I notice that no-one offered an answer. Not even the Christian side! I'll give it another 12 hours and then I'll just have to interprete the consequences of this newest work!
C34: in the simplest terms, you may just have to work Evolution into your faith because at this present time:
1. The concept of evolution of species was pretty logical to begin with. It only needed the nuts and bolts methodology explained (as in: How, exactly, does it work? What would be required?)
2. The nuts & bolts have now been PROVED. Way beyond speculation. DNA sequencing has now provided The Tool of Tools to show, incontrovertibly, the progression from one species, through a continuous process of recorded mutational changes, to another. Proved. No more work required.
Not true.
There is a relation shown between species...but no "proof" that one evolved into another.
There is also no fossil evidence to support it.
Quote:
3. The consequences of that process will now take some time to work through, but the transitional fossil record now makes perfect sense, and to boot, we're now able to pull some DNA from some of them. It will, of course, show the EXACT progression of changes from Species A to Species B. Again, there's that nasty little word: incontrovertible. Please, look it up.
Wrong againg. But you can believe your fairy tale. You say it's "incontrovertible". post an example. Just one.
Quote:
(But, I just can't resist: it means something that cannot be disproved; there's no other rational explanation; it's surely NOT a hoax, it fits all the requirements of the model hyposthesis, etc. etc.)
4. Even the Catholic Church, faced with yet another factoid (a previous one was their original insistence that the Earth was flat...), has now accepted the Fact, the Law and the Proofs of Evolution.
The catholic church has bailed on a lot of Biblical truth over the years.
Quote:
It's quite OK for you to insist Evolution's an embarrassment, a hoax, a fake, perpetrated on the world by tens of thousands of conspiring scientists and doctors and engineers and architects and psychiatrists and teachers (Check: I'd better change that from "tens of thousands" to "millions"). Wonder why they conspire so though?
And there are plenty of folks that think it's a fairy tale, too.
Quote:
It is. Really. Quite OK. You go ahead and believe it. We will never change your mind. That you'll have to do yourself. Frankly, whether you believe in facts or not makes no real difference to any of us; we just thought it would be good to debate the idea and show you and others the obvious evidence, but it's quite clear you'll have no part of it. Understandable.
And likewise, we'll probably never change your mind that's made up.
And likewise, we'll probably never change your mind that's made up.
Wrong. That's the difference between people who follow an outdated religion, and people who look to fact, evidence, and logic. Those of us who depend on those facts, et cetera are always open to changing our minds if those facts ever change, are refuted, or added to. We don't stagnantly remain in an ancient, outdated mindset denying plain truth and ignoring hard evidence.
For the umpteenth trillionth fifillionth gigillionth time: Bible-thumpers, please stop using the word "theory" colloquially and stick the the scientific concept of what a "theory" is. Here is the definition from the United States Academy of Science:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
By ignoring this definition and supplanting it with the uneducated, everyday hillbilly understanding of what a "theory" is, fundies are being intellectually dishonest (quelle surprise). Let me give you a practical example:
You are sitting in a ballroom without windows in some hotel, with people coming in and out. At some point, you notice that people start coming in wearing wet raincoats and carrying wet umbrellas. "Hmm," you think, "It must be raining." That's a hypothesis. Now you go outside, and it does indeed look like it's raining: there are puddles on the ground, drops falling rapidly from the sky and thick rain clouds. You stick your hand out and you feel the droplets falling on your palm. You look in the distance, and you see dark streaks on concrete buildings, indicating that they are wet. You see flashes of lightning and hear thunder. Still, to be really sure, you decide to check what other people have observed, so you consult the weather forecasts, and lo and behold, they all report that it's currently raining. At this point, you conclude that it is, indeed, raining. This is a theory.
Of course, there are "holes" in your theory. You don't know when it started raining, how the water output (or whatever the proper term is) changed over time, and you can't predict when the rain will stop. And you haven't excluded all other possibilities, plausible and otherwise: like that you are just hallucinating, along with countless other people, or that Cyclops is a real creature and he's spraying the whole city from a giant garden hose.
Now imagine you go back inside, report to someone that it's raining, and the person refuses to believe you even if you show him the evidence. Rain? Nope, that's just a theory, meaning it's not proven, meaning it's not raining. All that water outside? Just snot coming out of Arkleseizure's nostrils (says so in me here Book). Clouds? Nonsense, that's just huge cotton balls Arkleseizure is wiping his nose with (that's what me Book sez). All the meteorological data confirming that it's raining? Idiot, the people collecting it are just rabid Arkleseizure-haters, who are unthinking, fanatical believers in this whole rain-theory crap. And so are you. On the other hand, the so-called "water" proves that Arkleseizure is real, because that's obviously his snot (reference the Book). And the cloud-looking thingies prove me Book is the absolute truth, because what are they if not the cotton balls Arkleseizure is wiping his nose with? Gee, a five year-old would understand that!
Wrong. That's the difference between people who follow an outdated religion, and people who look to fact, evidence, and logic. Those of us who depend on those facts, et cetera are always open to changing our minds if those facts ever change, are refuted, or added to. We don't stagnantly remain in an ancient, outdated mindset denying plain truth and ignoring hard evidence.
You no more look to "fact" than anyone else.
"Science" has told you something, and you refuse to believe otherwise.
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.
