• 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!

Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

TruePathFinder

TruePathFinder

Member
I don't mean to be rude, but you can google basic introduction to evolution, or perhaps evolution for beginners, or perhaps evolution made simple. The web is magic. Or you can buy a electronic or hard copy book, such as for example "Evolution for dummies", which is excellent. I have a copy.
It is a bit too involved to adequately cover on a thread.
 
N

Neb

Active Member
SerenelyBlue said:
I don't mean to be rude, but you can google basic introduction to evolution, or perhaps evolution for beginners, or perhaps evolution made simple. The web is magic. Or you can buy a electronic or hard copy book, such as for example "Evolution for dummies", which is excellent. I have a copy.
It is a bit too involved to adequately cover on a thread.
Click to expand...
Is there a process, known to man today, by which new genetic information is added to the genome that would evolve to a new feature? Nothing!
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Prove it. I know that you can't. And no, I am not running away from it. It is a different topic. I am willing to discuss it once you admit that evolution is a proven fact. Until you learn how to walk you can't run. I am merely not wasting my time on those that refuse to understand basic science.

Okay, how about we learn what science is, how it is done, and what evidence is.
Click to expand...
Evolution isn;'t a proven fact, that's why it is called a theory. Prove what ? That abiogenesis has never been observed, replicated, and the alleged process is entirely unknown? That is fact. So. there is no scientific evidence, other than assumption, for abiogenesis. Therefore, evolution could not have started without a primordial creature to begin it. The whole house of cards falls down. That is why you run from the subject. You want me to de facto say it existed by saying macro evolution is a proven fact. Nope, neither are proven facts. Basic science. I can outrun you on these two topics, I do believe.
 
TruePathFinder

TruePathFinder

Member
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanationof some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supportedtheories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
That is a quote
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
SerenelyBlue said:
I don't mean to be rude, but you can google basic introduction to evolution, or perhaps evolution for beginners, or perhaps evolution made simple. The web is magic. Or you can buy a electronic or hard copy book, such as for example "Evolution for dummies", which is excellent. I have a copy.
It is a bit too involved to adequately cover on a thread.
Click to expand...
I have studied the theory of evolution for years, as well as the counter point, intelligent design. Proposing, and proving aren't the same thing. Abiogenesis is a particular interest, and it's non evidentiary existence based upon "it had to be". "It had to be", because without it, there can be no atheistic scientific explanation for life. Faith, at it's highest level.

Thanks for the advice, but I really don't need it.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
SerenelyBlue said:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanationof some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supportedtheories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Click to expand...
They are interpretations of evidence that lead to a certain conclusion. That is why a theory is a theory. ANY interpretation can be interpreted differently. If the different interpretation reaches a different conclusion reliably based on the evidence, then the second theory has standing. NEITHER, is proven fact.
 
TruePathFinder

TruePathFinder

Member
shmogie said:
I have studied the theory of evolution for years, as well as the counter point, intelligent design. Proposing, and proving aren't the same thing. Abiogenesis is a particular interest, and it's non evidentiary existence based upon "it had to be". "It had to be", because without it, there can be no atheistic scientific explanation for life. Faith, at it's highest level.

Thanks for the advice, but I really don't need it.
Click to expand...
I was talking to the other guy. Subduction zone was giving him lessons.
 
N

Neb

Active Member
SerenelyBlue said:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanationof some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supportedtheories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Click to expand...
I think we are still in the theory of evolution so appealing to "scientific theory" in general is really misleading.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Neb said:
The question AGAIN is: "Macro evolution has been directly observed, are you sure?"
How can one observed macroevolution, a large-scale (“macro”) biological change?
Click to expand...
I posted an example. Macroevolution is merely evolution at the species level and above. There have been many cases of observation of the evolution of a new species.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Neb said:
Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary but the problem is, where are the intermediate links between these evolutions. Darwin could not find them. Why?
Click to expand...


The fossil record was very sparse during Darwin's time. That was 150 years ago. It has been greatly filled in since then. There are so many intermediate links now that almost all fossils can be shown to be transitional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top