The Last of the Siccness Christians
- Thread starter 2-0-NINE
- Start date
Being able to prove George Washington existed is not comparable to evolution. The latter is a scientific theory that can be tested, over and over again. A Scientific Theory originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). Evolution has withstood the test of time and not one scientific test or experiment has contradicted this scientific theory.
There is a HUGE difference between a theory (such as creationism) and a scientific theory (such as evolution). The definition you provided is for Theory, not Scientific theory. Learn the difference comrade.
A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Using a theory, observations are explained and predictions can be are made.
A scientific theory has to be tested, over and over in different controlled environments in order for it to be considered a scientific theory. It must follow the scientific method. If they are consistent and no contradictions exist, then it is a Scientific Theory.
A theory, such as creationism, is simply that. There are no tests that can be conducted, no supporting evidence, no data. Just a claim.
Who said anything about a mysterious cell? Evolution, simply put, states that organisms change over time, which has been proven, thanks to the blasphemous scientific method.
A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Using a theory, observations are explained and predictions can be are made.
A scientific theory has to be tested, over and over in different controlled environments in order for it to be considered a scientific theory. It must follow the scientific method. If they are consistent and no contradictions exist, then it is a Scientific Theory.
A theory, such as creationism, is simply that. There are no tests that can be conducted, no supporting evidence, no data. Just a claim.
Who said anything about a mysterious cell? Evolution, simply put, states that organisms change over time, which has been proven, thanks to the blasphemous scientific method.
I believe this too, but when was the term or word coined. Cause evolution is linked to Darwin, who believed we came from Monkeys. I know the scientific Method, but what's a theory called when it's proven fact, I forgot the word? But anyways, what ever happened to survival of the fittest, or adaptation. Was there the theory of evolution before Darwin?
How many times do I have to tell you? I'm strictly doing c&p with you for now on.
First of all evolutionary biology is concerned with the history of all organisms, not just humans (which is a particularly well studied organism). Second, we don’t “come from apes,” we share a common ancestor with the great apes (gorillas, chimps, orangutans, etc.). Since the great apes are still around today, by definition, they cannot be our ancestors. Evolution does say that we share an ancestor with the apes. It also says that we are more closely related to apes than we are to horses or ferns or bacteria (i.e. we share a more recent common ancestor with apes, and chimpanzees in particular, than we do with other organisms).
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm#14
A scientific law?
Yep http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/#1.1
First of all evolutionary biology is concerned with the history of all organisms, not just humans (which is a particularly well studied organism). Second, we don’t “come from apes,” we share a common ancestor with the great apes (gorillas, chimps, orangutans, etc.). Since the great apes are still around today, by definition, they cannot be our ancestors. Evolution does say that we share an ancestor with the apes. It also says that we are more closely related to apes than we are to horses or ferns or bacteria (i.e. we share a more recent common ancestor with apes, and chimpanzees in particular, than we do with other organisms).
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm#14
A scientific law?
Yep http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/#1.1
this is EXACTLY what i have been trying to explain to this board.
just as you have seen the same result from multiple angles and is VERY positive of your position, so have i and anybody else with strong beliefs.
This occurs because of the relation between your subconscious and your conscious mind.
The subconscious mind will only show you ways and pictures that pretain and support your belief rather than deny it.
You see how positive you are of your belief? So is Heresy of His, and so is Shoowilla of his.
i mention those other 2 because i am positive of their decision and that they will never change.
this is my whole arguement on why an eternal torture cannot exist if the creator is a Just and Fair creator, ESPECIALLY when nobody made the agreement to be created.
that all i want to say, sorry for the repeats its just that i found the perfect time to attempt and explain my position more to the whole board, not just you hutch.
Read the first chapter of Richard Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene', that provides a useful description of how it could have happened.
There are only two places for religion to hide nowadays - the formation of life (abiogenesis), and the beginning of the universe. Why is this? Because they are the only two BIG questions which are yet to be answered by science. Religion is characterised by it's quest to remain ignorant. Knowledge is religions enemy.
There are only two places for religion to hide nowadays - the formation of life (abiogenesis), and the beginning of the universe. Why is this? Because they are the only two BIG questions which are yet to be answered by science. Religion is characterised by it's quest to remain ignorant. Knowledge is religions enemy.
Adam and Eve, two individuals which never existed possessed all genes necessary for different races. So the differences in genotypes of different races are a result of different combinations of Adam and Eves genes? Wow! Scientifically impossible, but wow nonetheless!
We all evolved from a cell. Why is that so hard to believe? Oh, you're far too special to have evolved from a single cell, aren't you? We did not 'come' from monkeys or insects. Humans and monkeys did come from the same progenitor though. And even further back there existed a creature from which insects, monkeys AND humans diverged. It's called evolution, I've tried to explain it to you but you stubbornly wish to remain ignorant.
And yes, it is just a 'theory', but it is supported by mountains of evidence and there is no evidence in refutation of this theory. Does this evidence mean little because it is 'scientific'?
I have read the bible recently in order to understand what you religious people are talking about. Yes, it was for the most part boring, but there were segments which made a good read. Now I ask of you - before you argue against evolution, please read 'The Selfish Gene', or 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Without a background to what evolution actually is, your arguments against it are merely arguments for your own ignorance and thus they mean little.
We all evolved from a cell. Why is that so hard to believe? Oh, you're far too special to have evolved from a single cell, aren't you? We did not 'come' from monkeys or insects. Humans and monkeys did come from the same progenitor though. And even further back there existed a creature from which insects, monkeys AND humans diverged. It's called evolution, I've tried to explain it to you but you stubbornly wish to remain ignorant.
And yes, it is just a 'theory', but it is supported by mountains of evidence and there is no evidence in refutation of this theory. Does this evidence mean little because it is 'scientific'?
I have read the bible recently in order to understand what you religious people are talking about. Yes, it was for the most part boring, but there were segments which made a good read. Now I ask of you - before you argue against evolution, please read 'The Selfish Gene', or 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Without a background to what evolution actually is, your arguments against it are merely arguments for your own ignorance and thus they mean little.
