91 replies to this topic

[Stephen]

The theory of evolution applies to practically all living things, as I'm sure you are by now aware. That being said, if you are arguing that evolution is not a myth (it's actually not a myth, but a theory, by the way), you can not assume that the persons you are debating with agree that, quote, "wolves evolved into dogs", because that is assuming they believe that evolution is a fact in the first place, completely disregarding your original statements.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that you have about as much chance proving evolution is real as a Christian is in proving God is real. I'm not denying that there is evidence out there suggesting evolution is fact, I'm saying it is doing just that, and only that - suggesting. There is no hard evidence.

It's a dead, and over-debated topic.

[iargue]

The theory of evolution applies to practically all living things, as I'm sure you are by now aware. That being said, if you are arguing that evolution is not a myth (it's actually not a myth, but a theory, by the way), you can not assume that the persons you are debating with agree that, quote, "wolves evolved into dogs", because that is assuming they believe that evolution is a fact in the first place, completely disregarding your original statements.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that you have about as much chance proving evolution is real as a Christian is in proving God is real. I'm not denying that there is evidence out there suggesting evolution is fact, I'm saying it it doing just that, and only that - suggesting. There is no hard evidence.

It's a dead, and over-debated topic.

I guess the fact that Wolves did not evolve into dogs is irrelevant?

[Stephen]

I guess the fact that Wolves did not evolve into dogs is irrelevant?

If you read the first page you'll see the OP said that wolves evolved into dogs. Hence why I said 'quote'.

So yes, completely irrelevant.

[iargue]

If you read the first page you'll see the OP said that wolves evolved into dogs. Hence why I said 'quote'.

And she was already called an idiot for believing that

[Stephen]

And she was already called an idiot for believing that

yeah, I only read the first few posts.

[artificial]

The anti-evolution arguments in this thread are ridiculous. You would be hard pressed to find an actual scientist who disputes whether evolution is real or not. That particular debate ended years ago. The main scientific debate nowadays focuses on the mechanisms that allow evolution to occur.

Like any other theory, evolution continues to be refined as new discoveries are made. Sure, it isn't a perfect science right now, but don't take those imperfections as proof of its invalidity. Individuals who really are against evolution are poorly educated or don't understand it.

[iargue]

The anti-evolution arguments in this thread are ridiculous. You would be hard pressed to find an actual scientist who disputes whether evolution is real or not. That particular debate ended years ago. The main scientific debate nowadays focuses on the mechanisms that allow evolution to occur.

Like any other theory, evolution continues to be refined as new discoveries are made. Sure, it isn't a perfect science right now, but don't take those imperfections as proof of its invalidity. Individuals who really are against evolution are poorly educated or don't understand it.

I can find thousands of scientist who still do not believe. Given that there is still no solid data

[Sweeney]

Given that there is still no solid data

That's simply a lie.

[artificial]

Due to the vastness of space, humans, at least for now, are restricted to planets in our own solar system. That means we are limited in the amount of primary data we can collect. Does that mean scientists should just drop astrology? Or rather, does that destroy the credibility of that scientific field? The fact that we can't collect primary data?

The same applies for evolution. Sure, we can't physically see macrobiotic forms of life evolve in our lifetime, but that in do way detracts from the credibility of the field. The entire point of evolution is that over time, populations change, not the individuals. The flaw in your argument is that you're only considering one source of evidence. There are many different sources to support evolution, go research them.

Every debate thread I have seen you post in, you attempt to argue the minority side, and you end up posting absolute rubbish with no solid foundation. So go on then, explain to me why evolution is invalid science.

[iargue]

That's simply a lie.

Show me proof?

Due to the vastness of space, humans, at least for now, are restricted to planets in our own solar system. That means we are limited in the amount of primary data we can collect. Does that mean scientists should just drop astrology? Or rather, does that destroy the credibility of that scientific field? The fact that we can't collect primary data?

The same applies for evolution. Sure, we can't physically see macrobiotic forms of life evolve in our lifetime, but that in do way detracts from the credibility of the field. The entire point of evolution is that over time, populations change, not the individuals. The flaw in your argument is that you're only considering one source of evidence. There are many different sources to support evolution, go research them.

Every debate thread I have seen you post in, you attempt to argue the minority side, and you end up posting absolute rubbish with no solid foundation. So go on then, explain to me why evolution is invalid science.

Its a theory, and that is all that it is. We do not have any proof of an evolution that results in a species change, and we have no proof of an entire population changing. Given that their isnt enough evidence to support it, it will always remain a theory, until the data shows up.

[Sweeney]

Show me proof?

Say it slowly, after me. Ready?
Eh-vih-den-ss

Evidence. Not proof.
Nothing in science is "proven".

And while we're on it, let's deal with your "only a theory" crap. Theory is the highest status an idea can hold in science. Theories do not graduate to facts; theories explain facts. Until there is a fact that it cannot account for.

In evolution's case, the Theory of Evolution explains all the facts about the diversity of life, and fails to account for none of them. It is supported by 150 years of paelontological, molecular, morphological and genetic data.

Evolutions, by the way, is also a fact, as well as a theory. The fact is that evolution happens; that is, that populations change over time. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains that fact, as well as many others, including the diversity of life, and the appearance of common descent.

[googlehead]

You can't just say that it's a proven fact, and then give us no evidence. Show your work. That's like if I said "I can't believe people still think bodybuilding kittens are myths after it's been proven time and time again through science."

Wow like the world isn't flat and the sun doesn't spin around earth? Both ideas believed as strong as ID at one time.

Are you saying that EVERYTHING that is commonly believed to be true will at one point be proven false?
By this same logic I could argue that many years from now we will look back on how many believed in the theory (not fact) of evolution and laugh heartily at their archaic views.

[Sweeney]

You can't just say that it's a proven fact, and then give us no evidence.

That's like asking for evidence that the sky appears blue. It's self evident that populations change over time.

Show your work.

I can provide you with papers, but I doubt you'd bother to read them.

That's like if I said "I can't believe people still think bodybuilding kittens are myths after it's been proven time and time again through science."

No, not really.

[Melchoire]

Hey Joe, I thought this thread was "lol"...besides you won't change anyone's mind....

[AliceFi]

there is proof, in gen science
why is it that doubtful? i cant believe some people dont acknowledge it...

[ibeaver]

Just thought I would point this out but the fact that chimps have 98% of the same genetics as humans is a completely pointless fact, bananas have about 50% of the same genetics as humans. that 2% makes up a gigantic difference. With your logic because around 50% of our genes are similar to bananas then that means we evolved from bananas. Just saying.

[artificial]

Just thought I would point this out but the fact that chimps have 98% of the same genetics as humans is a completely pointless fact, bananas have about 50% of the same genetics as humans. that 2% makes up a gigantic difference. With your logic because around 50% of our genes are similar to bananas then that means we evolved from bananas. Just saying.

Common misconception. Humans did not evolve from a banana. People often confuse evolution with the belief that humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution by natural selection states we both evolved from a common ancestor that branched off (diverged in to different species). So yes, by evolution one could say a banana and humans share common ancestry, though that would be billions of years ago.