Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.
Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.
I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce. Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have. I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.
Who/what is the mythical common ancestor?
At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin?
Where does Darwin's tree of life begin??
Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you. I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject. You're free to disbelieve it if you like. What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.
I will, however, answer one of those questions. The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists. The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life. Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.
bias source with no actual evidenceyou assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
Look what you are up against.
Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.
I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce. Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have. I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you. I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject. You're free to disbelieve it if you like. What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.
I will, however, answer one of those questions. The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists. The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life. Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.
So what is this ambiguous life you speak of. Is the DNA molecule life?
bias source with no actual evidenceyou assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
Look what you are up against.
Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce. Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have. I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct. However, we are not. Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not. Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct. However, we are not. Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not. Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
Living fossils refute evolution sinbce your side claims evolution is contiuing and has never stopped.
Living-Fossils.com
Living-Fossils.com
only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.bias source with no actual evidenceWhat I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
Look what you are up against.
Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
Pot calling the kettle....
If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct. However, we are not. Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not. Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
Living fossils refute evolution sinbce your side claims evolution is contiuing and has never stopped.
Living-Fossils.com
Living-Fossils.com
This isn't a 'your side, my side' argument, although it can sometimes appear that way. People have varied beliefs, even among those that believe in evolution or among those that do not. When you consistently use phrases like 'your side' it makes me think you are being lazy and trying to just group everyone who disagrees with you together so you don't need to argue with them, instead arguing what you assume they believe.
It's the same when believers in evolution lump everyone who doesn't believe together and assumes they all are young-Earth creationists.
Anyway, I don't see how the so-called living fossils refute evolution in any way. As far as I know, there is nothing in evolution that claims a species MUST change, or that changes REQUIRE older species to die out. Look at sharks, or crocodiles. They are believed to have remained mostly the same for millions of years.
I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce. Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have. I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct. However, we are not. Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not. Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.bias source with no actual evidence
what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
Pot calling the kettle....
nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
God and Evolution
July 27th, 2009religionclergy
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services91en español
by Peter M. J. Hess, Director, Religious Community Outreach, NCSE
Can I believe in God and Evolution? This question is often provoked by a more specific one: "Do you believe in creation or in evolution?" When the issue is framed in this fashion, we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. Unfortunately, much of the public has accepted this framing; according to a recent international survey by the British Council and Ipsos MORI, 27% of American adults believe that it is impossible to "believe in a god and still hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection." Another 19% expressed uncertainty on the issue.[1]
Nonetheless, according to a 1997 survey by Edward J Larson and Larry Witham, roughly 40% of American scientists are theistic evolutionists themselves![3] A 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center confirmed this finding, with half of the responding scientists identifying as religious and only 2% rejecting evolution.[2]
In fact, the "creation or evolution" dichotomy is needless and false, based upon a category mistake. For example, if I held up an grapefruit and asked, "Is this fruit yellow or is it spherical?", the sentence would make no sense, because "yellow" and "spherical" are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.
The question "Do you believe in creation or evolution?" has the same problem. Like color and shape, "creation" and "evolution" do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. "Creation" is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. As a philosophical term, "creation" is an empirically untestable belief that makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was a determinate "act" or an event in time. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. (A contrary and equally untestable philosophical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.)
By contrast, "evolution" is in the scientific category. It is a statement about physical reality, not a metaphysical claim. Evolution, in its most general sense, is the inference that the universe has changed over time - that stars and galaxies and planets and living things on Earth are different now than they were in the past. In biology, evolution is the principle that all life is related through descent with modification from common ancestors. Science is the process of explaining phenomena by testing explanations against the natural world. The important element is testing, rather than accepting an explanation based on authority or personal preference. Science also restricts itself to explaining things through natural, rather than supernatural, mechanisms. Biologists cannot explain how the modern horse descended from a Hyracotherium-like ancestor by saying "God did it." They can, however, examine evidence from living as well as fossil horses and devise testable hypotheses about the relationship between them. To date, the hypotheses best supported by evidence are invariably those which agree with evolutionary theory.
Of course, religious claims that are empirically testable can come into conflict with scientific theories. For instance, young-earth creationists argue that the universe was created several thousand years ago, that all the lineages of living creatures on Earth were created in their present form (at least up to the poorly-defined level of "kind") shortly thereafter, and that these claims are supported by empirical evidence, such as the fossil record and observed stellar physics. These fact claims are clearly contradicted by mainstream paleontology, cosmology, geology and biogeography. However, the theological aspect of young-earth creationism—the assertions about the nature of God, and the reasons why that God created the universe and permitted it to develop in a particular way—cannot be addressed by science. By their nature, such claims can only be—and have been—addressed by philosophers and theologians.
The science of evolution does not make claims about God's existence or non-existence, any more than do other scientific theories such as gravitation, atomic structure, or plate tectonics. Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Can someone accept evolution as the most compelling explanation for biological diversity, and also accept the idea that God works through evolution? Many religious people do.
God and Evolution | NCSE
Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy. Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
lol! more rationalizing!only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.Pot calling the kettle....
nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy. Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
lol! more rationalizing!only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.
nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
the toe is science..
Evolutionary Biology: Evolutionary Biology: Is there evidence against evolution?lol! more rationalizing!How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
the toe is science..
Do you expect anyone here to take you seriously ?
