Evolution? How?

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

It will ? Well, that's quite a statement of faith. I don't suppose you have any proof to support your certainty?

You seem to pick parts of lines as you choose and put words into someones mouth when they are not there.

Evolution is a theory, not a science Creationism is a belief, not a science. If evolution could be proved inconclusively then we could do away with God. It seems that science is based on evolution rather than evolution being based on science. Is this a phony science since evolution has not been proven to be true? Evolutionists choose to believe in the theory of evolution because they do not want to believe in God and if creation is true there must be a God. Man would not be the supreme being he thinks he is.

The theory of evolution suggests that non living matter turned into organisms that eventually grew legs and then walked on land and turned into monkeys that further turned into today's man. The theory further goes that this all started with a big bang. They cannot answer what went bang and how that ball of plasma material got there to begin with.

If science claims that evolution took place over millions of years to produce what we see today and that the condtions had to be just right, why do scientists search the stars for other life? The odds against it happening once are beyond human comprehension. More than once?

Where have I said that there is no proof of evolution?

Is this a phony science since evolution has not been proven to be true?

If evolution could be proved inconclusively then we could do away with God.

There's no evidence that one animal turns into another

There's no evidence that one animal turns into another; no one observed it happen in the past and you are unable to demonstrate empirically that it can happen now.

real life wrote:

djbt wrote:

real life wrote:

What is the empirical evidence for life spontaneously generating from non-living chemicals? Who observed this?

What do you mean by 'living' in these context? Do you mean 'self-replicating? If so, then me. I observed it, in salt crystals, in GCSE chemistry.

Last time I checked (on my eggs this morning), salt crystals are not living.

Once again, in case you missed it, define 'living'.

neologist wrote:

djbt wrote:

If two tyoes of creatures are not able to reproduce, then they are of a different speciesm, right? Are you saying that small adaptations in reproductive organs could not result in this?

Just what are you saying? Are they creatures? Then they were created, no?

You know very well that's not what I mean. I'll use 'organisms' in future.

neologist wrote:

Actually, I would defer to farmer for a definition of species. I am not convinced that inability to reproduce is an essential part of the equation. And I would aver the gulf between adaptation and speciation to be galactic.

BTW; would you be so kind as to begin using the spell check feature in your posts? It would not only make them easier to understand, it would enhance your credibility.

Well, that's told me!

Might I suggest that before using terms like 'species' in a scientific discussion, you familiarize yourself with at least the basic scientific definitions (as taught to all 14 years olds, at least in the UK). That would enhance your credibility.

Anyway, now you know what 'species' means, do you still have a problem seeing how numerous, tiny, changes could result in two descendants of the same species no longer being able to reproduce, and therefore having become separate species?

Any other problems with the colour analogue?

neologist

Quote:

I am not convinced that inability to reproduce is an essential part of the equation. And I would aver the gulf between adaptation and speciation to be galactic.

Then youve missed the basic definitions in biology . Reproductive isolation, more than morphological differences establish species . Thats what biology says.
Adaptation is a mechanism . Speciation is a result.

neologist wrote:

djbt wrote:

If two tyoes of creatures are not able to reproduce, then they are of a different speciesm, right? Are you saying that small adaptations in reproductive organs could not result in this?

Just what are you saying? Are they creatures? Then they were created, no?

You know very well that's not what I mean. I'll use 'organisms' in future.

neologist wrote:

Actually, I would defer to farmer for a definition of species. I am not convinced that inability to reproduce is an essential part of the equation. And I would aver the gulf between adaptation and speciation to be galactic.

Might I suggest that before using terms like 'species' in a scientific discussion, you familiarize yourself with at least the basic scientific definitions (as taught to all 14 years olds, at least in the UK). That would enhance your credibility.

Anyway, now you know what 'species' means, do you still have a problem seeing how numerous, tiny, changes could result in two descendants of the same species no longer being able to reproduce, and therefore having become separate species?

Real life 's responses embrace the Creationist mantra that "there is no bad publicity".
Their arguments and attempts at sounding scientifically sophisticated have been shot down within their own groups. So many defectuions from the ID and Creationists groups have occured that they no longer can even sponsor their most reasonable resaerch projects that were quite common into the 80's. Their own have asked hard questions about the "preponderance of evidence " that is stacked up against their worldview. Theyve splintered off more groups that have twisted the laws of physics and biology like so many pretzels, just because they feel that one or two points of sewrious counterevidence requires them to "create" yet another dogma.

Now, the only defenses they can muster are the "appeal to ignorance" by asking and reasking silly questions that have been answered in great detail by science. (The CReationists and IDers just act like nothings been said and they continue to push the same dumb questions to anyone wholl listen. Like the old sailor "stoppeth one of three...")
Another trick used is the out of context quotes and , as Talk origins archives calls it "quote mining". Weve been over the same roads over and over. However, Im not bored because this, and other sites , will all be available to inquiring minds who dont need some evangelical crutch to support their nderstandings of science.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

64% In Poll OK Teaching Creationism

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; but of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people, and the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

Quote:

There's no evidence that one animal turns into another

You fool. You are like talking to a 9 year old that can't seem to phrase his question correctly. What the does "one animal turning into another mean"? That I might suddenly turn into a horse? That I wake up tomorrow and my dog is now a tiger? If that's what you're saying (and actually by the phrasing of your question it IS what your saying) then you are right there is hardly any evidence of that.

Perhaps by animal you meant "species" or "population" or "genus" or god forbid that ambiguous (and wrong) word that you keep trying to use: "type". We can't even begin to answer a question of yours until you phrase it in a way that isn't so incoherant and vague.

And you're declarative sentence, which implies that you believe what you are saying is true (assuming that by "animal" you meant "species"), is actually false. There is evidence of a species morphing into another by process of evolution. Before you're closed arrogant mind jumps to the idea that I am not going to provide the evidence rest assured that this link (of which you probably will not have clicked on unless you read this sentence) provides many cases of attributed evidence. I do not expect you to believe the link or read all of it. I doubt you have the patience to do so. More than likely if do manage to read and absord all of it you will pick one line from it and slam it and sit back grinning that you have somehow disproved all the evidence provided. Most likely though I don't expect you to answer this post. But maybe you will read that last sentence and think otherwise.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Mostly I come to this thread not to try and convince people like you, real, but to encourage myself to go find and research genetics and evolution and also keep up on news and politics of it that others post in this thread. Throughout the course of thread my adherance (belief truly is the wrong word. Evolution is not a belief nor is it something that is meant to require a great deal of faith) has actually increased tenfold because I have realized (unbeknownst to most of Creationists) that most of your "Aha I got you!" questions can actually and have been answered. Other aspects such as abiogenesis and big bang aren't even part of evolution but also have promising futures though their ground is not as firm as evolution since we have not found enough pieces to each of their puzzles, repectively