Evolution has been observed... right?

[Valjean]

Wouldn't waste my time on it.

It's boringly tedious, you're not missing anything.
There are much more interesting and informative books and articles out there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!

There are 155 references in that article. You'd better get cracking on those!

 

[SkepticThinker]

So do you.....

I have a bunch of it. It's called science
You're about 50 years behind.

Doesn’t science need talking points that aren’t 50 million years old?

They've got evidence.

You've got talking points and preconceived religious beliefs you can never stray from, as you've admitted many times.

Couldn’t have said it better myself....science has no real evidence for its first premise....therefore, everything that is built on that brilliant piece of wishful thinking is based on “faith” not real evidence....a very inconvenient truth.

I always thinks its absolutely bizarre when religious people try to drag science down to their level by calling it faith, without realizing what they're actually doing when they do that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

always thinks its absolutely bizarre when religious people try to drag science down to their level by calling it faith, without realizing what they're actually doing when they do that.

It is obviously a false religion to many... faith and religion can be too very different things.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

"germs" is an imprecise generic term. It's not a biological class. Viruses are not cells, and certainly aren't "single cell animals". Bacteria are... bacteria. They're not actually animals, animals are eukaryotes, bacteria are prokaryotes. Sorry, but lets try to be correct about scientific terminology. Amoeba are an excellent example of single celled animals, though.

I was looking at the three classifications of animal, vegetable, mineral. Bacteria are not vegetable or mineral so that leaves animal. They are part of the animal kingdom. Maybe I was not exactly enough but I simply meant the first examples of living things according to the fossil record. All other animals evolved from them so I think it is close enough to call them animals.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

they are not "animals".

Thanks. They are also not rocks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

The title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

He's obviously talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life.
We know life exists, because it's here and we can measure and observe it. We don't have to know how life started in order to study the life that exists on this planet.
The same way we can study gravity without knowing where it comes from.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wouldn't waste my time on it.

You probably shouldn't talk about it then.
Unless you enjoy talking about things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope.

You just demonstrated that you actually do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it's directly related. You can't have species without a starting point. That's like saying it's not important to understand where the parts of a motor came from only how it was assembled.

You do realize those are two different things, right?
You can assemble the parts if you have them in front of you quite easily without knowing one single thing about where those parts originated from.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is obviously a false religion to many... faith and religion can be too very different things.

It's not a religion at all.

It's a scientific theory.

Why do you guys keep trying to drag scientific theories down to the level of your religious beliefs?

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's not a religion at all.

It's a scientific theory.

Why do you guys keep trying to drag scientific theories down to the level of your religious beliefs?

You should be flattered that we recognize your religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You should be flattered that we recognize your religion.

I find your response to be lame and not conducive to discussion.
Is that what you were going for?

 

[gnostic]

Thanks. They are also not rocks.

I was looking at the three classifications of animal, vegetable, mineral. Bacteria are not vegetable or mineral so that leaves animal. They are part of the animal kingdom.

First, rocks and minerals are not classifications in biology or of living organisms, so I don’t know why you would bring them up in the first place..

Second, living organisms are divided into groups known as “kingdom” of which there are 5 main kingdoms, with possibilities of 1 or 2 extra kingdoms. I am no expert in biology, so I am not certain if those extras are officially standard, yet.

The five are:

1. Bacteria
2. Archea
3. Fungi
4. Plantae (plants)
5. Animalia (animals)

One of those extras, is the Protozoa, unicellular eukaryotic microorganisms that are usually seen as parasites. I believed that’s what @Kangaroo Feathers referred to as “single celled animals”, read below, his reply to me:

Um... Unicellular organism - Wikipedia There are a LOT of single celled animals.

But I am not sure protozoans should fall under the Kingdom Animalia, or that Protozoa should belong in separate “kingdom”.

Those 5 kingdoms (6, if you include Protozoa) are grouped into 2 distinct “domains”:

1. Prokaryota (prokaryotic cells)
2. Eukaryota (eukaryotic cells)

Bacteria and Archea are Prokaryotes.

Animalia, Plantae and Fungi are Eukaryotes, as well as Protozoa.

Third.

As I am not a biologist, I don’t think I am qualified to explain to you the differences between these 2 cells of the Domain Prokaryota and Domain Eukaryota to you.

As Kangaroo Feathers tried to explain to you...

"germs" is an imprecise generic term. It's not a biological class. Viruses are not cells, and certainly aren't "single cell animals". Bacteria are... bacteria. They're not actually animals, animals are eukaryotes, bacteria are prokaryotes. Sorry, but lets try to be correct about scientific terminology. Amoeba are an excellent example of single celled animals, though.

Bacteria are prokaryotes, therefore bacteria are not animals since animals don’t have prokaryotic cells. Both bacteria and animals belonged to different domains and kingdoms.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find your response to be lame and not conducive to discussion.
Is that what you were going for?

That's his pattern. He puts zero effort or thought into his replies, yet a bunch of folks still line up to engage him. Goes to show just how irrelevant creationism has become....hardly any creationists will bother defending it anymore, and the few who do barely even try.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wouldn't waste my time on it.

Then you consider the mob mentality you base your emotional position on to be sufficient to address the issue?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a religion at all.

It's a scientific theory.

Why do you guys keep trying to drag scientific theories down to the level of your religious beliefs?

Why do old westerns show the bad guys riding madly away lobbing shot erratically in ever direction over their shoulders?

It is all they have in their desperation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's his pattern.

Beyond doubt.

He puts zero effort or thought into his replies,

I am impressed by your generosity.

yet a bunch of folks still line up to engage him.

I've been wondering about the value of that part. At least the posts are short, simple and mostly monosyllabic. Not the miles long propaganda with ever changing fonts, colors, excessive use of funny face yellow guys and implied threats of doom.

Goes to show just how irrelevant creationism has become....hardly any creationists will bother defending it anymore, and the few who do barely even try.

They failed so hard they've been forced to dress it all up in lab coats. A concession to science that is a confession of the recognition of the power of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope.

Which is it dude?

Creationists do or don't accept speciation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can you have origins of species if you don't know how life started? You don't.

That is lame and illogical.

Why do you need to know?