Ok lets not go off topic people. Dont worry about it Zerato.
Anyway, Evolution theories cant be proven anyways and I have heard bull that the first life on Earth came from Mars. If that is true, then where did Mars come from? Everything must have a beginning.
I have never heard the theory of life coming to earth from Mars, although I do know that amino acids have been found on meteors, so that might count for something.
Theories of evolution, it is true, can never be "roven" but only in the same sense that everything is science, biology, chemistry, and physics can't be "roven." This type of argumentation could develop into a slippery slope where we have to deny the reality of pretty much everything around us. Now, if you want to be a nihilist, then that's fine, but at least bring this argument to its implied conclusion.
I have heard some arguments that a god might have influenced the evolutionary process, but this is simply an ad-hoc hypothesis to try to counter solid evidence against the creation story. People try to explain away creation stories or explain how they could be true in the right context when really the whole thing is ludicrous. The idea of a magical omnipotent being simply isn't cogent.
listen bud, evolution has the same scientific staus as craetionism, so listen to me when i say this EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE OR DOES IT HAVE ANY RELATION TO SCIENCE OTHER THAN A THEORY
That's not really true zerato5. While both evolution and creationism can be considered scientific theories they don't have the same status as the theory of evolution has over a hundred years of review and is almost uniformly agreed upon by the scientific community through peer reviewed journalism while the theory of intelligent design is often proposed by people not following the scientific method.
Ultimately it comes down to your personal beliefs and whether they lie with science and it's evidence or with the literal interpretation of the bible. However, since it's a choice based on belief why can't you and other just state that rather then trying to undermine the entire scientific community?
both evolution and creationism can be considered scientific theories they don't have the same status as the theory of evolution has over a hundred years of review and is almost uniformly agreed upon by the scientific community through peer reviewed journalism while the theory of intelligent design is often proposed by people not following the scientific method.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT RELATE TO EVOLUTION AS NOTHING CAN BE STUDIED
I mean, this comes down to what you want to define as "science" but clearly evolution has undergone the classical scientific activities such as experimentation, hypothesis testing, and meta-theory translation. Creationism does not undergo any of these things because there is no way to really test these hypothesis. They are simply taken as the word of god. I think there is a clear and distinct difference, at least in how we should approach each of these ideas.
I'll give you several examples of evolution being tested:
Fossil examination and construction radiometric dating geological timescale dating genetic testing
These are just a few of the principles used to cross reference and double check the accuracy of our findings. We can also look around at the extreme diversity of life to help support our concept of natural selection, which I think implies evolution (although many would not agree with this statement).
Also, science, by definition, just means "knowledge." It's Latin, I think.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT RELATE TO EVOLUTION AS NOTHING CAN BE STUDIED
This is actually a common misconception, you can see evolution in practice (and theoretically control it if you wanted, which many people do accidentally). You can even see 'natural' evolution in (relatively) short time scales if you look at the right organisms. For example since the introduction of antibiotics (in I believe 1928 with Penicillin) there has been a dramatic increase in the number of bacteria present with resistance to antibiotics. This is a classicl case of traits being selected for (antibiotic resistance) causing a change in the makeup of the population wherein those individuals with genes more adapt to surviving with the new pressures.
i know many scientist that have changed thier belifes, so dont give me that crap
I also know many scientists who have changed their personal beliefs to and from religions, however all that is is their personal belief. If does not constitute what is widely considered scientific fact. However, when people knowingly say that things that aren't rigorously peer reviewed as is done in the scientific community are coming from the 'scientists' they knowingly have undermined the credibility of all scientists by claiming that potentially untrue statements are facts backed by years or peer reviewed research.
For example since the introduction of antibiotics (in I believe 1928 with Penicillin) there has been a dramatic increase in the number of bacteria present with resistance to antibiotics. This is a classicl case of traits being selected for (antibiotic resistance) causing a change in the makeup of the population wherein those individuals with genes more adapt to surviving with the new pressures.
withch does not prove new life has been created so try again
withch does not prove new life has been created so try again
We're debating about which is true, evolution of creationism. How are events demonstrating that evolution (the change of genetics over time) not relevant to the conversation?
That is nothing more than a red herring. But actually in principle your child looking different from you would be evolution - at least in part. If the child's features were such that it had a distinct advantage over others of its kind, then it would have a higher chance of mating successfully. This is natural selection, which is a key component of evolution and, as I stated earlier, implies evolution.
[/quote]That is nothing more than a red herring. But actually in principle your child looking different from you would be evolution - at least in part. [quote]
