Thoughts on Religion vs Evolution...

It's like Black and White here on this Forum...

I have dealt with evolutionary folks for years on this site, and now dealing with the religious. It's like NIGHT AND DAY!!!

Why can you ask a person who believe in God to asnwer question and you ask a Darwinist and it's totally different. The Religious one answers and the Darwinist calls you an idiot...

They put up scripture and teach as the other (Darwinist) say you should know - here is a cartoon saying such and believe that without science backing it, and it is science that they want you to believe?

Why is that?

Why do you Christians on this board have such a foundation in your Faith and how come you Darwinist are just without Science in your Faith?

 

Stop telling lies then. You've claimed that you teach biology and then claim that you don't.

The divide is because science has this thing called evidence and religion doesn't. It's really simple.

 

Because all it takes is google, some time and willingness to learn.

Why should we teach you? You dont listen anyways.

I presented Human Chromosome 2 as irrefutable proof of Evolution. What do you do? You come back with some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) asking why Orangutans, Chimpanzees or Gorillas do not have the fusion of their chromosomes 2A and 2B.

Its clear you have no idea how Evolution works. Worse yet, you would rather stay willfully ignorant of Evolution.

 

But he claims that he teaches it!

 

This is the internet, you can claim whatever you want.

I remember on the old AOL chat rooms, every guy was packing atleast 10 inches and every girl had DD's. Ya right..LOL!

 

Don't think you are off ignore...

 

that aint gonna happen

Are you new here?

he works for the government. Perhaps couldnt get a job (or hold one) teaching.

watch the times he posts. he is at work on my tax dollars ranting on a forum about garbage he has no clue about.

did you read that OP?

dude, that was way over his head.

 

That is not what I stated! I said this - if we "fused" two chomo's to show evolution from a common ancestor, then what are the rest of the apes equivalent to Chromo 2?

We have Chromo 2 to show we evolved, so show us the change from our common ancestor for the rest of the Ape Clade??!

And you didn't, because there isn't one...

I'll even make it easier for you - show the gene differences of evolutionary traits between the rest of the Ape Clade between what is within the Ape Clade. Since you believe in Chromo two - you've got one (which really isn't, but I'll give you that for discussion) now show us the rest please...

 

OK..... try this;

if god made man from dust, then show us how he did it?

remember you cant use science

like scientist do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html


"""Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter"""



i just thought of something;

i can show how man, made 'god(s)'........................... he created the word!

 

Can we get that in actual English please?

 

“we” didn't fuse anything together. A mutation occurred that fused the two Chromosomes together.

What this does show ( and here is where you refuse to listen to anything) is proof of Evolution and proof that we are linked to the Great Ape family all in one.

Evolution would predict that 2 chromosome were fused together. This prediction would explain why humans have 46 chromosomes while the rest of the Great Ape Family has 48.

But just because we have a prediction, that isn’t proof. Now we need the evidence. Enter Human Chromosome 2. Human Chromosome 2 has the near identical information and the same exact gene sequences has the Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Gorillas Chromosomes 2A and 2B. There is the 'missing' chromosome. It is not missing, it was fused together. You have both proof of Evolution and proof that humans are part of the Great Ape Family.

Come back when you understand this.

 

What evidence has been presented to support the theory of evolution? I have seen NONE.... called evidence.... Just mountains of OPINIONS which are based on more and more opinions.

 

No, it's your ignorant opinion that it's not evidence. Stop reading Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, etc and pick up an actual book written by real scientists. Until then you are just being willfully ignorant of the science involved.

 

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps a lot of people don't care about 'evolution' because it is still just a theory? Evolution has not been proven to be a fact.... if it had, then the theory part of the title would be dropped.

 

Here's what I mean about being willfully ignorant.

Theories are not awaiting to be proven so that they can be called facts. Theories do not grow up to be facts, they do not grow up to be laws, etc. Theories are the HIGHEST an explanation can go in science.


A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.


That's what theory means in science, not what you guys strawman it to be.

 

Kinda like the theory of gravity? (Hint: this is a rhetorical question)

 

Nope! Not like that at all. The existence of Gravity has been proven. We still do not know all of the dynamics involved in Gravity, but we know that Gravity is a force to reckon with. Wouldn't you think? Unlike evolution, it has no force to be reckoned with other than the force of opinions of people like you who attempt to shove it down someones throat.

Point being: If you don't like the idea of 'evolution' still being officially recognized as a 'theory', then take your complaints to the complaints department of your nearest Science Journal publisher and FORCE them to change all their publications. If you don't like what the title "theory" implies, then FORCE all the scientists and scientific groups to change the definition of 'Theory'. Otherwise.... live with it.

 

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.


Stop being willfully ignorant.

 

Stop being ignorant and start supplying source links to references. Otherwise, your reference is an unofficial publication of Panzerkampfwagen.

I really do want to know the source of that definition, as I do believe it will prove itself useful.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1hxGj5bMg"]Eugenie Scott: Scientific Theories - YouTube[/ame]

Now please continue to ignore it as you always do. Do you like being willfully ignorant?

 

I will continue to be 'willfully ignorant' of youtube videos posted by people that I don't know. Some of the youtube videos contain viruses.

Now is it possible for you to convey a thought without the use of material put forth by other people? In other words... can you describe what is in that video? Or are you just being willfully ignorant of that subject matter?

 

Oh for crying out loud. Viruses now? Nice excuse Mr Willfully Ignorant.


Ok, I'll sum it up.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.

 

Care to make up your mind here?

 

There is no contradiction. One refers to youtube (potentially virus infected material) and the other refers to 'printed material'.

Care to continue being ignorant and attempting to misrepresent a situation?

 

Nice excuse there. You know that there is no virus. You're worried because I posted a vid of a well known scientist to own the crap out of you. You are being, shock horror, dishonest and cowardly.