• 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!

Why is evolution even still a debate?

F1fan

Veteran Member
And in 1860 all surgeons thought it was a waste of precious time to wash their hands or instruments before an operation. All their patients died of the resulting infections.
All of them? Are you certain? Let's see some sources that all patients died.

They were obviously all stupid and knew nothing at all about science.
That is not an accurate or fair way to characterize them. They had no practical knowledge to base their standards. Of course it was a scientist who used the new microscope to observe microorganisms, and there were tests to see if these caused infections, which they did. Ever since clean hands and instruments were a standard for medical procedures.

Fortunately we now know everything and every patient survives. Homo omnisciencis.
Another fantastic claim that needs a source.

This sounds like a grievance post. Are you not getting the attention and acclaim you want?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're saying the exact same thing in a different way; If "Evolution" weren't correct we'd know it so it is therefore right.

Homo omnisciencis.

We've each believed we were right and seen the world only in terms of our beliefs since the "tower of babel". Of course no two people can agree on much of anything at all and have trouble communicating even the simplest concepts like that "Evolution" is a circular argument that is founded not on experiment but on appearances. This doesn't mean it is wrong but it certainly opens up the door to being wrong.
But these are not equal but competing world-views, as you seem to imply.
One is based on observed facts, reason, critical analysis and testing; the other on folklore, mythology and tradition.
Which would you expect to be more robust?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
To prevent be science and wrong you destroy all machines.

Then you force hi man's to see another human and in the event human claim I am wrong I'm your equal.

The theist just a human thinking is so self consumed by machine causes that he manifested by human sex as Stephen Hawking.

To deliver a human god the earth lesson ....look you tried to convert biology into just existing as machine data storage.

I use a machine to move.
I use a machine to talk yet I am still the thinker human biology.

Was a really evil human message. Yet he survived to tell it.

Creation first does exist. Rationally your ego has consumed everything about your man status to the position where you claim a human telling a story is accurate about why any form exists created today.

As if you personally are its creator.

Yet you think in science terms to most of the mass not existing by topic smallest particles claiming human owning small biology is comparable to the substance of a science topic.

See the destroyer in person giving humanity its last rites.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then there's no reason to believe it is correct. And actually there's no mechanism, natural selection doesn't have a mechanism. It's just what ever happens happens. It's a form of circular reason to say the environment selects, because first something has to select the environment.
Natural selection is a mechanism. You obviously haven't a clue about how natural selection, or evolution, works.

How is it circular reasoning? I don't understand. Please explain.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That doesn't work because there is no selection going in nature. Much like gravity, natural selection just happens on its own with no conscious agency acting behind it.
There is selection going on, hence the name. It's just that the selection is natural and unintentional, as opposed to human selective breeding or the finger of God.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
The creos love their inane "no transitional forms" but, they are there for cats n dogs and
the others.
No, there's a few bone supposed to be a cat) dog ancestor, but it's a lot of supposing...more likely it was neithers ancestor. In fact it looked somewhat like a muscalid if I recall correctly
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No ... that's just adaptation.
And speciation is just accumulated adaptation. Did you think the adaptations stopped, for some reason, on the edge of speciation?
One kind of animal changing into a totally different kind is the theory. Like snake to a mammal with a lot of intermediate species.
Wha....? :eek:
You can't be serious. Are you actually thinking that the ToE posits one species giving birth to another species?

You must be in some kind of religious fantasy land. Noöne claims this. Where do you get these bizarre ideas?

Please stop opining about something you know nothing about.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
You can't be serious. Are you actually thinking that the ToE posits one species giving birth to another species?
One has to transition into another somehow. Look at a tree of life illustrated and tell me that one species doesn't transition into another according to the ToE.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Thanks for proving my point. There's no reason we should have emotion or a spirit in a world created by random chance. The fact that we NEED emotion is telling us we are not just animals.
Are you assuming only humans have emotions? Other animals have emotions too. In fact our limbic system has largely stayed the same as our ancestors as our frontal lobes evolved larger. Humans have a very primitive emotion center, we actually don't need our fight or flight mechanism since we can reason and discern threats, and even change our environments to protect ourselves from threats. Yet our emotion centers cause us problems. We are easily swayed with emotional appeals if we aren't prepared to to recognize them, and how they can harm us, we are no different than other animals. We just react to the stimuli, much like Pavlov's Dog.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human lives compares any separate body that can die. In his subject the scientist theist never includes it's death. Which is determined scientific lying.

You've seen living species die out.

So your thesis is moot.

As a whole one hu man the scientist by mentality in fact proves they compared to any other one human you use of maths against us.

As we lived we as the human are bodily as two humans as bodies minds and natural balances.

Science one human ignores the relative equality of any other one human virtually concluded only one human existed as the other one by maths was reduced to just some human small cells only.

Our teaching is all about the human scientist destroyer human mind status.

As if you force a human to live first naturally there is no science just natural life.

Many times science destroyed civilisation being the American movies theme....I will build again.

The natural human life regain as yet has taught you nothing about honouring natural presence. As the human.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Lizards and snakes are considered different kinds. How would it make sense for all mammals to be the same kind?
Read your Bible and you will have the answer.
Deer and elk are closely related, so I'm guessing yes...I'm not going to look up every one
Look up baraminology..
What is your scholarly source that lists all these kinds? I take it you graduated from a school that teaches all this? Do they have a website? Does it have science labs and experts in science? Tell us more.

Or are you making all this up?
 
Top