Poll

Rate this PC on a scale from 1 to 10

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Author Topic: Duck's New PC Thread  (Read 14864 times)

None of you creationists actually bother reading up on the evidence for evolution. If you did, you would understand how it is not illogical. Evolution is both theory and fact, in that evolution occurs but there is a small chance it is exactly as described as Darwin stated. Evolution by natural selection is the best way to explain the evidence (which you creationists deny exist). That is what a theory does.

How do you survive with no brain?  How did you just quote Inv3rted and go off on a completely different tangent.?  If you have ever read anything on evolution, which I can already see you haven't, you would know it doesn't quite work that way.  Read up on it on Wikipedia and then promptly slap yourself.

All he's doing is simplifying the logic behind evolution, which he is getting perfectly right.  Evolution's presuppositional logic is inherently flawed, making whatever pseudoscience is involved irrelevant.

You still don't understand what DNA is. It's not a coincidence that DNA is the same in different creatures. DNA directly controls certain features / adaptations, and when it doesn't, it is junk DNA. Using DNA, you can track the history of an animal species to a common ancestor with another animal. The field of genetics, by definition, is evidence for evolutionary biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read this article. If you don't accept it but understand it, you have a closed mind as stated in the video posted by Dan.

Ahahaha!

Using DNA, you can also find that while humans have 98% DNA similarity with apes (yet, biologically, are totally different, but you conveniently ignore that), they also have 95% DNA similarity with bananas!  Why doesn't evolution postulate that we all evolved from a common banana, which, using evolution's flawed logic, makes perfect sense.  Or 92% with a watermelon!  Obviously, DNA doesn't mean the things you want it to mean, so just give it up.

As to the open mind thing, it makes me laugh.  "BELIEVE MY VIEW ONLY OR YOU HAVE A CLOSED MIND"  I, having actually studied both sides of the issue, have an infinitely more open mind than you or Zaran will ever have unless you actually study the issue and not just watch Cosmos or read The Blind Watchmaker again.


None of you creationists actually bother reading up on the evidence for evolution. If you did, you would understand how it is not illogical. Evolution is both theory and fact, in that evolution occurs but there is a small chance it is exactly as described as Darwin stated. Evolution by natural selection is the best way to explain the evidence (which you creationists deny exist). That is what a theory does.

I read up on all the supposed "evidence" I can find, and they all either aren't evidences in the first place, or are falsified.  Evolution IS NOT FACT.  It has NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE, CANNOT BE OBSERVED, CANNOT BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!

If there is so much evidence to read up on that I'm seemingly missing out, please provide some.

Um... I'm Christian, and believe in macro-evolution...so, yeah.

HAHAHA!  I just caught this:

Quote
The field of genetics, by definition, is evidence for evolutionary biology.

Wahaha!  The field of genetics was created POST-DARWIN, by a devout Christian named Gregor Mendel, who (post-darwin, I stress) rejected Darwinian thought and found vast amounts of evidence for Creation in his relatively new science.  THE MAN WAS A PRIEST!

You are so full of crap it is unbelievable.


Um... I'm Christian, and believe in macro-evolution...so, yeah.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't mean the views actually coexist in reality, so, sorry about that.

Evolution is both theory and fact.

One or the other, it can't be both.

Unless of course you mean it's a theory based on facts, which makes it no more credible than Creationism.

I will make a point to fully read the Wikipedia article you posted on evolution, Inv3rted.

I'm just trying to kill Rex's stereotype.
One or the other, it can't be both.

Unless of course you mean it's a theory based on facts, which makes it no more credible than Creationism.

I will make a point to fully read the Wikipedia article you posted on evolution, Inv3rted.
Theories can be facts. Most scientific laws started as a theory, and now accepted as fact.

Theories can be facts. Most scientific laws started as a theory, and now accepted as fact.

That's true.

However, evolution is neither a theory, nor has it been accepted as fact, except by those in the "scientific community" who see "no other alternative" because "modern science" excludes the possibility of there being any other alternative.

Evolution is a hypothesis, simple as that.  Not even a confirmed one.

Not referring to evolution, just saying stuff relevant to Zenthrox's post.

What does a person's religious beliefs have to do with the observation of natural phenomena? The interpretation of what it is observed I can understand, but that has no bearing on what was actually observed.

This is aimed at the people who use arguments like, "X scientist believed in God so all their findings support God/Creationism/Super Jesus."

What does a person's religious beliefs have to do with the observation of natural phenomena? The interpretation of what it is observed I can understand, but that has no bearing on what was actually observed.

This is aimed at the people who use arguments like, "X scientist believed in God so all their findings support God/Creationism/Super Jesus."

I'm talking about the interpretation of what is observed.  Obviously, the field of genetics cannot be "by definition" evidence for evolution, as the man who created it interpreted what he found to be in support of Creation.

Using DNA, you can also find that while humans have 98% DNA similarity with apes (yet, biologically, are totally different, but you conveniently ignore that), they also have 95% DNA similarity with bananas!  Why doesn't evolution postulate that we all evolved from a common banana, which, using evolution's flawed logic, makes perfect sense.  Or 92% with a watermelon!  Obviously, DNA doesn't mean the things you want it to mean, so just give it up.
 You clearly know absolutely nothing about DNA, you have to research and understand how it is copied before you will understand why we didn't evolve from a banana.  

« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 10:57:49 PM by Exetech »

Theories can be facts. Most scientific laws started as a theory, and now accepted as fact.

I agree, theories can be facts. At the same time, however, theories can also be wrong.

What does a person's religious beliefs have to do with the observation of natural phenomena? The interpretation of what it is observed I can understand, but that has no bearing on what was actually observed.

I also agree with this. There are quite a few Atheist scientists who have discovered many things we now consider facts.


 You clearly know absolutely nothing about DNA, you have to research and understand how it is copied before you will understand why we didn't evolve from a banana.  

I wasn't getting into a discussion about DNA.  I was simply refuting the assumption that DNA similarities automatically equal common ancestry.