I read this and while it does have many references, he is using his thoughts on the subject as well. He is also using outdated ideas, and making assumptions with less evidence than the ones he is arguing against.
Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
Intelligent design is not even a valid opinion with any type of substance to uphold it. It's nothing more than pseudo science created recently by bible thumping morons to challenge Evolution in school. But this type of self righteous thinking will soon be dead when people finally realize humans are not the center of the universe. How narcissistic to think such a thing.
It is just as much science as theory of evolution .
[quote] Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
While this is true, modern science has confirmed much, and also rewritten much of what was once thought to be true. [/quote]
For clarification: By historical science i meant: Stuff that we did not see/observe happening, like if a scientist was trying to figure out how the last dinosaur died, It would be very hard for quite a few reasons and that scientist would end up using a lot of assumptions.
There are many transitional fossils.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
Evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The Earth isn't a closed system.
And i never said it was. Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
More bs creationist sites, wow I'm so surprised....
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
And what would you call non bias, anything that says God did it by chance? Which they aren't! Because you sure don't seem to think peer reviewed scientific sources are non-bias, which are!
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
How many times do I have to say the same %^&* thing? I've already explain why. You just refuse to accept it.
It is just as much science as theory of evolution .
It absolutely isn't. Not at all. The apologetics who defend creation and attack theories like evolution are simply deconstructionist. They offer no evidence in favor of their beliefs, but simply seek to undercut the evidence that actual scientists provide. Maybe creationism is a science by some ancient Aristotelian standard, but I doubt even that.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
A few minutes on the ol' Googler will get you plenty of examples. What I've found is that people who reject evolution find that website explaining how evolution works are biased. This just isn't the case. You can't really be biased in favor of science. Maybe you're looking for some website that has nothing but data without any sort of interpretation, but what good is that going to do? Judging by your posts, you're by no means a biologist of any kind, so what right do you have to interpret scientific data? For that matter, why right does any theist have to try to refute science?
And i never said it was. Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
Where would you draw the line for where our solar system ends? You're going to end up picking some arbitrary demarcation that will inevitably end up losing energy through it. Because there is no center of the universe and because of the nature of how the universe expanded, we have to treat all points as equals. We have to treat the entire universe as a system because, well, it is.
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
If you're talking about that Christian Apologetic site, then how can you not see the problem in using that as a source for scientific inquiry? There's no explanation going on, just lame attempts at refuting well-established scientific theories.
I don't need to prove you wrong if you already are wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics (I think i accidentally said first law before) Is basically: In a closed environment everything runs down, and doesn't get better. For example, you build a building in the middle of the forest. It gets worse than before, Not better.
An ecosystem is not a closed environment. The biosphere is not a closed environment. There is a transfer of energy up the food chain that is going on continuously.
And i never said it was. Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
For the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contradict evolution, the Earth would have to be a closed system. Again with you not understanding the arguments you're parading.
