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.
Ah I see. The tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting loudly. I've given you video, text, and my own explanation regarding the proof of evolution. You have ignored all of it, while claiming we only say "it's true because people believe it". No. It's true because of the evidence you refuse to acknowledge exists. In fact you're the only one who has provided as their sole evidence a list of people who agree with you.
I know exactly why I believe in evolution: the reproducible evidence. And I can tell you for a fact that I know GTH has a firm understanding as well, seeing as it's somewhat difficult to obtain an MD without understanding how things work. But sure, continue deluding yourself into thinking the two highly educated and knowledgeable individuals you are speaking to are somehow just parroting off nonsense.
Now that you've backed yourself into an intellectual sinkhole, your only option is to run for the door and hope no one notices the crap still actively spewing from your mouth. Run along now, little girl.
Remind me again what evidence did you show? All I remember you doing is giving her terms to google (which she ignored) and asking her to specify what she meant by 'missing link' (which she also ignored).
I'd be happy to go into this with you, if you actually want to discuss it. Start here, then we can discuss:Provide evidence that a single species of ANIMAL has ever evolved into 2 or more DIFFERENT species. That is what is claimed by evolution.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]
Ecoli have about 4 million different places for a mutation. A single E.coli can create 4 million progeny in about 8 hours. Even IF mutations only occur every 1 in a thousand replications, that means statistically every place can be mutated in less than half a day. There is further complexity to the math when you factor in HOW things are getting changes, or deletions, or additions, but the idea that it is impossible just because you can't count past 100 is silly.
When did Hick say that?
I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.
He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"
Probably because it's a retarded question.
At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.
I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.
He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"
Probably because it's a retarded question.
At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.
Yes, and for that matter, all scientists believe in creation too.
Probably because it's a retarded question.
At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.
Yes, and for that matter, all scientists believe in creation too.
So what is your theory on the diversity of life?
We get that you reject evolution. That's fine. But by all means, please explain what you believe and why?
Yes, and for that matter, all scientists believe in creation too.
So what is your theory on the diversity of life?
We get that you reject evolution. That's fine. But by all means, please explain what you believe and why?
I don't reject evolution. I reject evolutionism.
This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.
Apparently we do. Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue. Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information. It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.
So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.
I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species. There is no evidence that humans or animals have evolved from a totally different species.
the no evidence act again.
I was going to start a thread like this one, so instead let me contribute here.
First, why is evolution an article of faith? Why do you ask if I "Believe" in it? Is it like time and gravity?
Second, I want someone to explain to me how evolution works, how is it propagated, what is the mechanism driving it forward? I'm especially interested in a coherent explanation of "Random mutation"
Third, have human beings stopped evolving? What's next, genetic prosthetics, clairvoyance, wings?
This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.
Apparently we do. Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue. Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information. It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.
This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.
Apparently we do. Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue. Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information. It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.
And when I start talking about Newton, this will matter. While you're still doubletalking around Darwinism, this will just make me roll my eyes in contempt. "Oh, we respect Darwin, but don't you dare call what we believe in Darwinism. That's too damned specific, and makes it hard for us to claim that you're arguing against change over time!"
Spare me. Just more cover-ups and dodges. How is anyone supposed to believe in something whose proponents support it with empty shell games?
Like I said before. When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me. Otherwise, you're a waste of time, and thanks to the "stellar" debating skills of you, Geaux, and Hick, I now am even less-inclined to believe evolution than I was when the thread started. Congratulations.
This directly contradicts what you're saying regarding "Darwinism". While he may have theorized that scenario, that's NOT the modern view of how evolution works.
Sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore" to ME, but maybe they interpret English differently where you live.
Apparently we do. Newton's Laws have been modified by Einstein, but are still valid in many cases where relativistic speeds aren't an issue. Many of Darwin's points are similarly valid, despite the fact that some aspects of the theory have been modified to take into account new information. It's not a different interpretation that's the problem here, but that you seem to want everything to follow your interpretation.
And when I start talking about Newton, this will matter. While you're still doubletalking around Darwinism, this will just make me roll my eyes in contempt. "Oh, we respect Darwin, but don't you dare call what we believe in Darwinism. That's too damned specific, and makes it hard for us to claim that you're arguing against change over time!"
Spare me. Just more cover-ups and dodges. How is anyone supposed to believe in something whose proponents support it with empty shell games?
Like I said before. When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me. Otherwise, you're a waste of time, and thanks to the "stellar" debating skills of you, Geaux, and Hick, I now am even less-inclined to believe evolution than I was when the thread started. Congratulations.
Yes, we respect the man for making a good starting point on the topic, even though we have moved far past the topic. That does not support his ideas as perfect, it simply acknowledges he was moving in the right direction. But once again you focus on Darwinism, as defined by you, instead of current evolutionary understanding.And when I start talking about Newton, this will matter. While you're still doubletalking around Darwinism, this will just make me roll my eyes in contempt. "Oh, we respect Darwin, but don't you dare call what we believe in Darwinism. That's too damned specific, and makes it hard for us to claim that you're arguing against change over time!"
Spare me. Just more cover-ups and dodges. How is anyone supposed to believe in something whose proponents support it with empty shell games?
Actually, I did just that in a summary in this post. Oh but that's right: you claim you're not reading my posts, while concurrently claiming no one has explained it to you. Keep your eyes closed hard enough and you are effectively blind, dear.Like I said before. When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me.
Well as I see it all that talk from the buckle of the bible belt as how GAAAAWWWWDDD just loves their football team is crap! GOD doesn't know shit about football because around here he just plays his cheerleaders!
Like I said before. When one of you grows a pair of stones and can actually tell me where what you believe differs from Darwinism as defined by me - or fuck, actually explain what you believe other than "evolution is settled fact, all the smart people believe it, so it's beneath me to define it for you religious nut peons" - you call me. Otherwise, you're a waste of time, and thanks to the "stellar" debating skills of you, Geaux, and Hick, I now am even less-inclined to believe evolution than I was when the thread started. Congratulations.
