This link doesnt appear to go anywhere, can you please repost.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
This link doesnt appear to go anywhere, can you please repost.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It would be a contradiction in terms, unless you mean a subspecies?
No, but I have read about it. See the references I gave you.
Actually, science is about testable explanations about the universe. Science is not just about observation, in fact, observation is one of the weakest forms of evidence for science and scientists. What the application of science tries to evaluate is, does this explanation make testable predictions, and what would we expect if this explanation were accurate.
Do you think biology is science?
Whatever! You don't have a point. They are part of the same species/family. Go away.
You just said that they weren't the same species.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it's not. That's math.
[wiki]
Actually, that's exactly what it is.
Science is not about proof. It's about evidence.
According to you, or according to scientists?
Science is a method.
Scientists don't "believe in" evolution. They accept it as a theory which has been well-supported by the evidence. It is scientific because it is derived from the scientific method.
Why do all you guys want to preach to me about what science is and the scientific method as if it's some secret club that only part humans and part aliens know about it.
If you want to preach the scientific methdod, then dam well stick to it, try applying it to your spaced out religious theories that are not scientifically proven!! Athiest General Richard Dawkins AKA "the princess of dawkness", when pressed, tells us we got here by DNA placed on the earth by a highly evolved Darwinian alien species, who, by now, have most likely rendered them, exitinct? Mork calling Orson, come in Orson.
WISE UP! I really do wish we could move past this foolishness. One leaves and another clown arrives banging the same footling drum. Are you guys in the same tagg team/cheer leader club by any chance?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
lol, you've been watching Expelled, haven't you?
"Science" has yet to agree on this theory. It's not only religious people who dont accept evolution as fact, because the scientific facts are not conclusive. Your science is a method of deceit. My science is proven fact.
never heard of it!!!!!!!!!
Bollocks. The rest is metaphysic and philosophy. You don''t get to have your dope cake and eat it too fella!
Choose your words carefully, because most religious people, or at least a great number of them do accept evolution, because it is a fact. Change over time is a fact. And the passing on of genes is all evolution is about.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
In science, terminology is important. A species is very different from a family. A family may have dozens or even hundreds of species.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
See the reference following the non-link.
No you did. Go away. The same family is the same species. Just like Chinese and Japs are the same family but a differnet species. LOL.
Last edited:
Ok, we've only known about the former planet pluto for about 80 years or so, but it takes pluto about 200 years to orbit the sun. We've never observed it make a full rotation. Does this mean that any scientist who asserts that pluto orbits the sun is not relying on science to make that statement?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It's not a secret club; anyone can do it. But it is a method, and it works, and you need to follow it, if you want to do science.
The reason we're "preaching" to you is that you don't seem to understand it. In the same way, I suspect that you don't understand evolution, which is why you are so reluctant to state your "understanding" of it. If you do so, we will then be able to see--and show you--that it's wrong.
I call bull. cite?
No, but one neat thing about using the scientific method is that it allows scientists to reach consensus. We simply share that scientific consensus.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Wow, seriously. Hmm, well that's where the whole Dawkins alien nonsense started. Figured you'd probably picked it up there.
Anyway, Dawkins was discussing Directed Panspermia when he mentioned the idea of aliens seeding life on earth. He never stated that he believed it, simply that it was one of numerous possibilities.
He was actually bending over backwards to make the point that, even if life was intelligently designed, the designer would still have to come from somewhere. It couldn't simply "pop" into existence. His point was that, even if aliens seeded life on earth, those aliens would still have to be the product of some ultimately explicable process, perhaps not unlike Darwinian evolution.
I heard recently pluto was deemed not to be a planet?
We haven't observed God creating the world out of nothing, does this mean it didnt happen?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You're mistaken. The ToE is the consensus, accepted, mainstream theory within Biology. Pick up any basic Biology textbook and it will begin with it. Over 99% of Biologists accept it, both religious and non-religious. [*waits for more goalpast moving*] You don't have any science. Science does not support your position.
You certainly have the right to reject science, but rejecting it and claiming it at the same time is simply dishonest.
No it came out of the mans mouth himself on an internationally televised news channel. Dawkins is no more credible than David Icke.