darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Do you agree that evolution is far more complex than the evolution of man? DO you agree that evolution encompasses many more branches of science than just biology?
-
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: what prevents you from accepting ToE?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Do you agree that evolution is far more complex than the evolution of man? DO you agree that evolution encompasses many more branches of science than just biology?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
darkendless said:
Those are the magic words. And I've always wanted a reason to use this smiley:
:band:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That you believe this fallacy answers the question imposed in the OP quite clearly.
Deep inside, it seems, you fear that acceptance of the naturalistic and scientifically verified field of biological evolution will damage your faith.
I have said before, those who willfully ignore and/or twist known scientific facts in order to justify their faith, really have little faith at all.
So evolution should be rejected on the basis of an appeal to consequences because it (in your opinion) threatens a seemingly-solid God of the Gaps argument and an appeal to ignorance?
If there is any fear of threat it is for those who think evolution could have happened without a supreme intelligent designer. That is my fear.
It is not the ignorant who come out looking the worst here, it is the arrogant and proud --- and those followers so wanting to hear something telling them there is reason not to worry about any God up there watching over your every move.
Evolution can be taught in every school in the land, not only is it not a crusade of mine to stop it, I fully expect it, plus I have zero desire to introduce creationism or God into the science class. (even though I think it's a joke, evolution that is) My problem is that science holds too much sway over its professors and lab techs. What I mean is, they cannot go public outside of their lab coats and work environment and tell the media or the world that their personal beliefs are that evolution is untenable without God, or that there are huge problems that call the theory of evolution into questions, or that the creation of life proves there has to be a God.
Why do I say they cannot do this? Because it is extremely rare to ever hear one in the media take that risk. Because I have read many accounts where teachers, etc. anonymously speak of peer pressure and career pressure if they ever came out with that positions.
What do you mean by the God of Gaps argument? The gaps, and also lack of transitional fossils, is your problem, right?
Guardian of Asgaard - song by heavy metal band Amon Amarth
Tottenham Hotspur - family football team, even though the family no longer (for the most part lives in London).
Well, my apologies for guessing wrong on a Star Wars kind of theme, and by maybe also besmirching a fine family tradition. But more disturbing is your band Amon Amarth, and your Distopia lyrics from Kreator, bands you must truly be endeared too since you list them as “signatures” of sorts.
These kinds of matters do not come without extenuating consequences or influences. I took the time out of curiosity. The Amon Amarth “Hill of Doom” death metal band has songs like “God, His Son and Holy Whore” and “Where Is Your God?” Meanwhile, Kreator’s album covers look extremely disturbing, a sampling of their songs reveals “Son of Evil,” “Armies of Hell,” “Enemy of God.” So, I am curious, what are your main reasons for being on “religious debate” boards? Is it to find God or try to destroy Him? Or what?
When it comes to the afterlife, i'm 100% sure we will never understand and thus do not put my faith in mythical, hopeful tales of a nature designed to make the masses stand in line.
I am 100% sure you are in the dark. You may never understand, there are millions before you who do understand.
It amuses me highly that you use the word chance so lightly. What does by chance mean?
Why don’t you answer that for us? Tell us how mindless molecules and unintelligent “forces” decided to grow something so they could start hearing or seeing. Tell us when “chance” decided now is a good time to grow a spleen or a pancreas? After all, intelligent design is laughed at by your beloved scientists.
We are the product of 4 billion years of environmental chance.
Oh, but you are 100% sure that 4 billion years can turn a microbe into a giraffe because why? Tell you what: You can have 4 quintillion years and your clam will still be a clam.
Do you actually think that God plonked us here <40000 years ago?
Let me repeat myself. The reason I accept creation as how life began, etc., is because evolution is a dead end. The fossil record is not your friend. What takes place since man has been around to observe shows nothing of any consequence happening in any developed animal outside of your precious bacteria under a microscope. How convenient that everything is so pleased to be in its own skin now. Not one lizard wanting fly any more? No blind squirrel wanting to grow eye balls? Not hip for apes to become men anymore?
I edit this post because I forgot to add that my creationism places no time frame as to when things occurred. Yes, God could have easily created some life forms billions of years ago, modern man 10,000 years ago, and some other human types a million years ago, ultimately wiped out. God has been around before time began, I do not think he has to follow the fundamentalist Baptists literal interpretation of the words in Scripture, nor do I think he got bored waiting for Adam and Eve to show up on the scene.
Tottenham Hotspur - family football team, even though the family no longer (for the most part lives in London).
Well, my apologies for guessing wrong on a Star Wars kind of theme, and by maybe also besmirching a fine family tradition. But more disturbing is your band Amon Amarth, and your Distopia lyrics from Kreator, bands you must truly be endeared too since you list them as “signatures” of sorts.
These kinds of matters do not come without extenuating consequences or influences. I took the time out of curiosity. The Amon Amarth “Hill of Doom” death metal band has songs like “God, His Son and Holy Whore” and “Where Is Your God?” Meanwhile, Kreator’s album covers look extremely disturbing, a sampling of their songs reveals “Son of Evil,” “Armies of Hell,” “Enemy of God.” So, I am curious, what are your main reasons for being on “religious debate” boards? Is it to find God or try to destroy Him? Or what?
When it comes to the afterlife, i'm 100% sure we will never understand and thus do not put my faith in mythical, hopeful tales of a nature designed to make the masses stand in line.
I am 100% sure you are in the dark. You may never understand, there are millions before you who do understand.
It amuses me highly that you use the word chance so lightly. What does by chance mean?
Why don’t you answer that for us? Tell us how mindless molecules and unintelligent “forces” decided to grow something so they could start hearing or seeing. Tell us when “chance” decided now is a good time to grow a spleen or a pancreas? After all, intelligent design is laughed at by your beloved scientists.
We are the product of 4 billion years of environmental chance.
Oh, but you are 100% sure that 4 billion years can turn a microbe into a giraffe because why? Tell you what: You can have 4 quintillion years and your clam will still be a clam.
Do you actually think that God plonked us here <40000 years ago?
Let me repeat myself. The reason I accept creation as how life began, etc., is because evolution is a dead end. The fossil record is not your friend. What takes place since man has been around to observe shows nothing of any consequence happening in any developed animal outside of your precious bacteria under a microscope. How convenient that everything is so pleased to be in its own skin now. Not one lizard wanting fly any more? No blind squirrel wanting to grow eye balls? Not hip for apes to become men anymore?
I edit this post because I forgot to add that my creationism places no time frame as to when things occurred. Yes, God could have easily created some life forms billions of years ago, modern man 10,000 years ago, and some other human types a million years ago, ultimately wiped out. God has been around before time began, I do not think he has to follow the fundamentalist Baptists literal interpretation of the words in Scripture, nor do I think he got bored waiting for Adam and Eve to show up on the scene.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientists don't have to hold or promote any particular belief in order to produce valid science. If they choose to acknowledge God as the Prime Mover, then fine; they are free to believe what they want. However, it doesn't lend any more or less credibility to their scientific findings in terms of evidence.
Are you saying that there aren't any theistic scientists who are also advocates of the theory of evolution? Because if that's the case, there are many theistic scientists and even religious leaders who have accepted evolution as a scientific fact.
The fact that many atheists/nonbelievers rely on evolution to support their position doesn't mean that the theory was formulated for this sole purpose. If a scientist cites complex biochemical structures as the reason for their belief in God, it wouldn't mean that biochemistry was "created" by theists to make their stance more tenable.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is apparent that your primary gripe with evolution is not lack of evidence or lack of support in the scientific community, but rather the link you are proposing exists between evolution and nonreligious scientists.
This is why I'm saying that many people who are against teaching evolution in schools are relying on the God of the Gaps argument: they are afraid that if their children learn about the theory, they are somehow not going to "need" God anymore to explain how various species came to be. Basically, for them
it is either a huge "God did it" or "God is not needed", completely oblivious to the fact that holding a belief in God and accepting science are not mutually exclusive.
As for the lack of transitional fossils, would you please provide any references that also state this? Because from what I know, the fossil record as it currently stands is more than enough to comfortably support evolution in more ways than it doesn't.
Last edited:
Because it is not what it says in the Bible. The Bible says, God created man and God created animals. Man is distinct and separate from animals, to be specific monkey. Why then the theory of evolution teach us that man came from monkey?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
First, evolutionary biology does not say that "man came from monkey"
Second, the Bible is not a science book.
So the fact that we have bacteria ingrained in our dna or that most of our dna is the exact same as all life... hmm seems real special and different.. is their any evidence out side of the bible that shows humans are special?
Scientists don't have to hold or promote any particular belief in order to produce valid science. If they choose to acknowledge God as the Prime Mover, then fine; they are free to believe what they want. However, it doesn't lend any more or less credibility to their scientific findings in terms of evidence.
Completely agree.
Are you saying that there aren't any theistic scientists who are also advocates of the theory of evolution? Because if that's the case, there are many theistic scientists and even religious leaders who have accepted evolution as a scientific fact.
Not saying that at all. I am well aware there are prelates in the Vatican who believe in evolution.
The fact that many atheists/nonbelievers rely on evolution to support their position doesn't mean that the theory was formulated for this sole purpose. If a scientist cites complex biochemical structures as the reason for their belief in God, it wouldn't mean that biochemistry was "created" by theists to make their stance more tenable.
Completely agree. Was not claiming any of that.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is apparent that your primary gripe with evolution is not lack of evidence or lack of support in the scientific community, but rather the link you are proposing exists between evolution and nonreligious scientists.
Not really in agreement with any of those presumptions. It is the lack of evidence that evolution struggles with that is concealed in their education – de facto being taught as fact and not theory --- that gripes me. Call it cowardice or dishonesty. The link you are referring contributes to a conern of mine, but more on that in a second.
This is why I'm saying that many people who are against teaching evolution in schools are relying on the God of the Gaps argument: they are afraid that if their children learn about the theory, they are somehow not going to "need" God anymore to explain how various species came to be.
No and Yes. No, I am not worried as a Christian parent that my children are going to indoctrinated into this belief that evolution without a need for an intelligent designer is the most likely way life originated. I am afraid that your children and “their” children are going to fall into that trap ---- because they have not been given a proper Christian teaching and upbringing to consider otherwise. It is the cultural effect that concerns me, in fact, it has already taken root quite nicely in this nation, thank you. A strong Christian need not fear the deception and folly of certain teachings in the classroom.
As for the lack of transitional fossils, would you please provide any references that also state this? Because from what I know, the fossil record as it currently stands is more than enough to comfortably support evolution in more ways than it doesn't.
In my opinion, it would behoove anyone questioning evolution to read this one article about transitional fossils. For me, it is enough, and I need not repeat it in my own words.
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
It is a dagger in the heart of evolution. Why? Because the expert analysis and testimony for no transitional fossils comes from some of the most honored and revered evolution scientists in recent history. Their doubts cause them personal agony, but they are “man enough” to admit what goes against their most cherished desires and wishes. Without clearly evident transitional fossils in the untold millions in the known fossil record --- you cannot have evolution. (unless God hid them all)
Add to that the following quote from Steven Stanley. And anyone who says I am doing nothing more than quote mining is fooling themselves. There is no dancing around the obvious meaning of his words. If all you can say in defense against that is “quote mining” then I rest my case.
(wiki pedia) Steven M. Stanley (born November 2, 1941) is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
[Direct quote of Dr. Stanley : "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."]
Completely agree.
Are you saying that there aren't any theistic scientists who are also advocates of the theory of evolution? Because if that's the case, there are many theistic scientists and even religious leaders who have accepted evolution as a scientific fact.
Not saying that at all. I am well aware there are prelates in the Vatican who believe in evolution.
The fact that many atheists/nonbelievers rely on evolution to support their position doesn't mean that the theory was formulated for this sole purpose. If a scientist cites complex biochemical structures as the reason for their belief in God, it wouldn't mean that biochemistry was "created" by theists to make their stance more tenable.
Completely agree. Was not claiming any of that.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is apparent that your primary gripe with evolution is not lack of evidence or lack of support in the scientific community, but rather the link you are proposing exists between evolution and nonreligious scientists.
Not really in agreement with any of those presumptions. It is the lack of evidence that evolution struggles with that is concealed in their education – de facto being taught as fact and not theory --- that gripes me. Call it cowardice or dishonesty. The link you are referring contributes to a conern of mine, but more on that in a second.
This is why I'm saying that many people who are against teaching evolution in schools are relying on the God of the Gaps argument: they are afraid that if their children learn about the theory, they are somehow not going to "need" God anymore to explain how various species came to be.
No and Yes. No, I am not worried as a Christian parent that my children are going to indoctrinated into this belief that evolution without a need for an intelligent designer is the most likely way life originated. I am afraid that your children and “their” children are going to fall into that trap ---- because they have not been given a proper Christian teaching and upbringing to consider otherwise. It is the cultural effect that concerns me, in fact, it has already taken root quite nicely in this nation, thank you. A strong Christian need not fear the deception and folly of certain teachings in the classroom.
As for the lack of transitional fossils, would you please provide any references that also state this? Because from what I know, the fossil record as it currently stands is more than enough to comfortably support evolution in more ways than it doesn't.
In my opinion, it would behoove anyone questioning evolution to read this one article about transitional fossils. For me, it is enough, and I need not repeat it in my own words.
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
It is a dagger in the heart of evolution. Why? Because the expert analysis and testimony for no transitional fossils comes from some of the most honored and revered evolution scientists in recent history. Their doubts cause them personal agony, but they are “man enough” to admit what goes against their most cherished desires and wishes. Without clearly evident transitional fossils in the untold millions in the known fossil record --- you cannot have evolution. (unless God hid them all)
Add to that the following quote from Steven Stanley. And anyone who says I am doing nothing more than quote mining is fooling themselves. There is no dancing around the obvious meaning of his words. If all you can say in defense against that is “quote mining” then I rest my case.
(wiki pedia) Steven M. Stanley (born November 2, 1941) is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
[Direct quote of Dr. Stanley : "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."]
Last edited by a moderator:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
The Chruch of England appologized on darwins last birthday that they were wrong, because it so well supported b al the sciences.
1941? LOL
We have lots of transitional fossils in all kinds of animals including humans. There are 6000 prehuman and human fossils. We know it was chromosome #2 that fused between us and the great apes. Proved by a Roman Catholic biologist.
There have also been five mass extintion events on earth and life evolved back from them. One killed 95% of all life on Earth.
They also didn't have the Human genome mapped as we do today. It confirmed human evolition, in fact were still evolving.
National Academy of Sciences.
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact..."
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."
Evolution Resources from the National Academies
"a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin"
Name any science field that doesn't support directly or indirectly evolution?
We also have pictures from space and the oldest light in the universe before any stars or galaxies existed at all. Everything evolved after the bang. Even the carbon your made from. The air you breath is because of biological evolution, from Cynobacteria which evolved photosynthesis, 3.8 billion years ago.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
*yawn*
Under the heading Quote #3.11 on this website it is explained why it is in fact a quote mine.
Well, sorry, but all your claims cannot hold water without the transitional fossil record supporting it. So please understand this in another way:
What you call fact, certain highly respected and well known scientists of evolution studies--- specifically Stephen Gould and Steven Stanley plus "world-renowned fossil expert" Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History --- they say based on decades of study and analysis there is de facto no transitional fossils they can honestly say exist in the known fossil record.
So are you smarter than they are? Are you here to tell me they do not know what they are talking about? Every fossil you or your scientist folks say is a transitional fossil --- every one they have observed for themselves, they are saying they do not see the proof for it. And the 1941 date was Dr. Stanley's birth, not the date of his quote.
Simple as this: Read the article I linked to. It says it all.
What you call fact, certain highly respected and well known scientists of evolution studies--- specifically Stephen Gould and Steven Stanley plus "world-renowned fossil expert" Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History --- they say based on decades of study and analysis there is de facto no transitional fossils they can honestly say exist in the known fossil record.
So are you smarter than they are? Are you here to tell me they do not know what they are talking about? Every fossil you or your scientist folks say is a transitional fossil --- every one they have observed for themselves, they are saying they do not see the proof for it. And the 1941 date was Dr. Stanley's birth, not the date of his quote.
Simple as this: Read the article I linked to. It says it all.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"no transitional fossils they can honestly say exist in the known fossil record."
wrong! Not only are there "transitional fossils" but there is also evidence from geology and extintions.
'Missing Links' Reveal Truth About Evolution
"One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka "missing links."
Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
"At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
'Missing Links' Reveal Truth About Evolution | Fox News
The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian museam of natural history.
Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.
Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our Whats Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behaviorfrom ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another and of our species connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodiesas well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.
This ancient heritage is yours.
Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...species-living- worldwide
a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time
One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control lifes physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change.
He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What weve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but theyre not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. Its a blindness. I think this is a phase that well eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I dont know how many decades or centuries its going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our speciesand individual raceshave recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Then I guess it's a good thing that we have the myriad of transitional specimens that we do.
[youtube]Qfoje7jVJpU[/youtube]
The 9th falsehood of Creationism: No transitional species have ever been found.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
To learn. Although I have absolutely no respect for religion, I am genuinly curious about religion and try to learn as much as possible about it.
Don't be so naive to assume that my taste in music even remotely reflects my character.
Here we go, more Godly arrogance claiming to have the answers, yet providing absolutely nothing substantial to back it up. You should say there are millions who "think they understand.' The fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea and it is just ridiculous to provide such definite answers.
Survival. Molecules developed to suit the demands of the environment they lived in.
Its a claim backed up by significant amounts of geological and biological evidence. Evidence you dismiss simply because it is beyond your understanding.
You're so narrow in your view. We've been around at most 40,000 years. The earth is 4 billion years old. What we know is such a tiny portion of the time scale that it is stupid and completely irrational to expect something noticable to happen in such a space of time.
Yes but that explain nothing. You've taken the easiest to distort, most simplistic view of things and no go around slandering more complex and factually based theories so go figure
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
For the record, the following clarification is for anyone reading this, as it will more than likely be ignored by the above poster. I have found this clarification from Wilstar.com to be the clearest.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
(Wilstar)
Any Creationist who complains that biological evolution is "just a theory" and not "fact" is only confirming their ignorance of what science in general actually is, and how the scientific method works.