If the scientific is flawed then why do you use technology?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Do you have an example of these negative global changes?

Economics as a human invention or the abstract idea that we can spend money we do not even have.

I can give quite a few positive ones, like the eradication of smallpox, and the control of many diseases that were formerly fatal or disabling. The increase in the world food supply...The list goes on and on...

The problem is that the things you have listed as positive can also be seen as negative.

The negative side to this is that we are defeating most of nature's methods of controlling our population.

This is exactly what I meant.
The problem of human technology is that it generally only benefits humanity and not his environment (or life in general).

Actually humans have been manipulating evolution's effect on us for a long time.

True, but the thing is that we are now noticing that in the long run our technology is working against us; by turning our weaknesses into strengths we're going against the natural order.
Nature's way has always been about diversity, while technology is all about specialisation.

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

It's not a hoax. If it were it'd be about the most elaborate hoax in the world considering how widely evolution is accepted among biologists. (I think it's like 98% acceptance. You can find 2% non-acceptance among scientists for almost anything)

You can observe natural selection among animals that reach sexual maturity at a suitably rapid rate. Like in fruit flies or some microscopic organism. Possibly some things are unclear, but at the very least it's a pretty well supported idea. Also evolution in some form is pretty hard to deny. Take how Europeans tend not be lactose intolerant or people in the sunniest parts of the world tend to have darker skin thereby reducing chances of skin cancer.

My brothers University biology teacher once said "The Tze-Tze fly just wants to stay a Tze-Tze fly" The experiment that he was talking about is the one that they gamma radiate the eggs and get all of the mutations posible. It is so predictable that they sell charts with all of the variations; veined wings, yellow eyes, red eyes, etc... So medel was right, Darwin was not. Natural selection, or any selection is no big deal. The problem comes in why people attempt to say that it and mutations are doing things they are not.

I don't care how many scientist believe in evolution. A lie is a lie regardless of the the number of people who believe in that particular lie!

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by Gplex

Told you creationist never explain themselves.. 10 claims, and not one explanation, explaining any of them..

Yes, my unsupported claims was a comment on Arequipas unsupported claim that evolution was "proven". I was using a literary device to prove a point. Have you got it yet?