dna study proves Darwin and evolution wrong

JAFO92
Posts
5658
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX US
7/20/2018 11:51am Edited Date/Time 7/20/2018 11:58am
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to...
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to that date stamp.

This study pointed out that lack of genetic diversity that would've supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. That's one of the beauties of science when done correctly. Theories remain theories until proven otherwise and opinion and faith don't factor into the equation.
It is indeed interesting how some put so much 'faith' in their favorite theory, and try to belittle others who have 'faith' in another. Until something happens in their life that cant be explained and alluva sudden they find themselves humbled and on the other side of the fence. It is through that humility one becomes truly ready to learn.



2
early
Posts
9873
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
7/20/2018 11:52am
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to...
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to that date stamp.

This study pointed out that lack of genetic diversity that would've supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. That's one of the beauties of science when done correctly. Theories remain theories until proven otherwise and opinion and faith don't factor into the equation.
Maybe you need to brush up on your history

https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/live-with-humans/
1
hard2kill
Posts
374
Joined
9/8/2010
Location
Flag Pond, TN US
7/20/2018 12:09pm
The irony of using a quote from a pro-darwinian (to the point he is buried next to him) atheist to support creationism is peak religious ignorance.
You do know that Darwin and Hawking are also buried next to several "religious creationist" as well. A site which also delivered a great deal of the King James Bible translation, and many scientific achievements.
Irony abounds.
Canadad
Posts
192
Joined
12/5/2012
Location
CA
7/20/2018 12:26pm
Canadad wrote:
So the study concludes the following "the overwhelming majority of species in existance today emerged at about the same time" and finds no evidence of the...
So the study concludes the following "the overwhelming majority of species in existance today emerged at about the same time" and finds no evidence of the "in-between" species. Yet there is no speculation that the Bible's literal account of creation might be true? Funny how all conclusions MUST excude creation as being a possible scenario and they call it "Science". It is also interesting that the more "science" advances, its ability to finally crush the biblical account diminishes.

Believe what you will but it takes much more "faith" to believe we are the result of time and chance than the result of a creator.
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to...
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to that date stamp.

This study pointed out that lack of genetic diversity that would've supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. That's one of the beauties of science when done correctly. Theories remain theories until proven otherwise and opinion and faith don't factor into the equation.
Remember "Science" when done correctly includes observation by its very definition, any "theory" related to our origin has to be built on opinion and faith as a result.
1

The Shop

akillerwombat
Posts
3211
Joined
10/16/2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
7/20/2018 12:31pm
hard2kill wrote:
You do know that Darwin and Hawking are also buried next to several "religious creationist" as well. A site which also delivered a great deal of...
You do know that Darwin and Hawking are also buried next to several "religious creationist" as well. A site which also delivered a great deal of the King James Bible translation, and many scientific achievements.
Irony abounds.
There are a lot of ignorant people buried everywhere.



(jokes)
1
7/20/2018 12:53pm
Canadad wrote:
Remember "Science" when done correctly includes observation by its very definition, any "theory" related to our origin has to be built on opinion and faith as...
Remember "Science" when done correctly includes observation by its very definition, any "theory" related to our origin has to be built on opinion and faith as a result.
Theories are speculations based on observations or proofs, not opinion or faith. If one believes a theory to be incontrovertible, they do not understand scientific theory.

A hypothesis may be based on opinion, but without some evidence to back up that opinion, that hypothesis isn't going to get too far and certainly won't result in a viable theory.
1
hard2kill
Posts
374
Joined
9/8/2010
Location
Flag Pond, TN US
7/20/2018 1:08pm
Theories are speculations based on observations or proofs, not opinion or faith. If one believes a theory to be incontrovertible, they do not understand scientific theory...
Theories are speculations based on observations or proofs, not opinion or faith. If one believes a theory to be incontrovertible, they do not understand scientific theory.

A hypothesis may be based on opinion, but without some evidence to back up that opinion, that hypothesis isn't going to get too far and certainly won't result in a viable theory.
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is their definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression of the evidence. Now there can be true faith and false faith. Just as a "proof" can also be shown to be false.

True faith however is the acceptance of a true proof. Faith and Proof are nearly identical except faith adds one more aspect to truth (acceptance).
3
7/20/2018 1:49pm
hard2kill wrote:
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is [b]their[/b] definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression...
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is their definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression of the evidence. Now there can be true faith and false faith. Just as a "proof" can also be shown to be false.

True faith however is the acceptance of a true proof. Faith and Proof are nearly identical except faith adds one more aspect to truth (acceptance).
Ya lost me there.

I suppose it is difficult not to have faith in an absolute truth (like if I wake up in the morning, I won't be floating in the air because I have faith that gravity will not fail), but I believe one can have true faith with no truth or proof and nothing other than their opinion to support that faith.
early
Posts
9873
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
7/20/2018 2:08pm
hard2kill wrote:
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is [b]their[/b] definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression...
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is their definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression of the evidence. Now there can be true faith and false faith. Just as a "proof" can also be shown to be false.

True faith however is the acceptance of a true proof. Faith and Proof are nearly identical except faith adds one more aspect to truth (acceptance).
Science works under the assumption it is wrong. Faith works under the assumption it is right.
2
borg
Posts
6749
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
7/20/2018 3:37pm
For those who are actually interested in something other than confirmation bias, there are many really good debates of these issues available on youtube. This one features two very able combatants. Frank Tureck and Christopher Hitchens.

I'll use a link instead of embed in an attempt to honor the proprietors wishes. It's a good one.

Debate
plowboy
Posts
14316
Joined
1/3/2010
Location
Norwich, KS US
7/20/2018 4:59pm
I am not a scientist but stay pretty regularly at Holiday Inn Express. I always understood a "Theory" by definition was a postulation that has not yet been proven or disproven. When proven, it becomes scientific fact (think gravity). When disproved, it's bunk (think the moon is made of cheese). Using this definition, Religion is a Theory. This is where FAITH comes in. This is also where the trouble starts. Both sides want to be right and assert dominance over the other. This is why a system of unbiased (blind) civil laws is essential. We are messing with success nowadays. Peace (and balance).
early
Posts
9873
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
7/20/2018 5:23pm Edited Date/Time 7/20/2018 5:29pm
Science goes hypothesis-theory-law. Theories have lots of experimentation to support them. Very few theories become scientific law. Agreed on the messing with success idea.
1
hard2kill
Posts
374
Joined
9/8/2010
Location
Flag Pond, TN US
7/20/2018 7:06pm
hard2kill wrote:
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is [b]their[/b] definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression...
Where I feel a lot of people go wrong is their definition of faith. Faith is not at all like an opinion, Faith is the expression of the evidence. Now there can be true faith and false faith. Just as a "proof" can also be shown to be false.

True faith however is the acceptance of a true proof. Faith and Proof are nearly identical except faith adds one more aspect to truth (acceptance).
Ya lost me there. I suppose it is difficult not to have faith in an absolute truth (like if I wake up in the morning, I...
Ya lost me there.

I suppose it is difficult not to have faith in an absolute truth (like if I wake up in the morning, I won't be floating in the air because I have faith that gravity will not fail), but I believe one can have true faith with no truth or proof and nothing other than their opinion to support that faith.
The question is how do you prove an absolute truth? While i do agree that there are absolutes, i don't think that we can actually prove anything. Thus it takes faith for anybody to "know" (believe) anything.
1
Sunhouse
Posts
3658
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
7/21/2018 12:12am
plowboy wrote:
I am not a scientist but stay pretty regularly at Holiday Inn Express. I always understood a "Theory" by definition was a postulation that has not...
I am not a scientist but stay pretty regularly at Holiday Inn Express. I always understood a "Theory" by definition was a postulation that has not yet been proven or disproven. When proven, it becomes scientific fact (think gravity). When disproved, it's bunk (think the moon is made of cheese). Using this definition, Religion is a Theory. This is where FAITH comes in. This is also where the trouble starts. Both sides want to be right and assert dominance over the other. This is why a system of unbiased (blind) civil laws is essential. We are messing with success nowadays. Peace (and balance).
A scientific theory is different from the word theory used in everyday language.
A scientific theory is a fact, supported by evidence and scientific laws from different scientific areas, all supporting the same end conclusion.

While it may seem comfusing, a scientific theory is a step above a scientific fact, as it has more evidence and fields of study backing it up
1
Sunhouse
Posts
3658
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
7/21/2018 12:33am
IWreckALot wrote:
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance. There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority...
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority complex believing creationists are dumb and scientists are much more intelligent, doesn't make it so.

Similar to the way you believe creation evidence is pseudo science, creationists believe scientists will try to explain anything with science that fits their agenda. It's bias and has the equal footing that creationism does.

In the end, every theory of our origins has significant question marks and no definitive answer. There is no finite science showing the creation of the earth or humans. The scientific article in the OP also lists macro evolution evidence but even in a scientific setting, a bias "scientist" won't acknowledge a fact rooted in science. Science is in no way wasted though. It's healthy to question our theories and seek out the truth. But it's never satisfactorily answered all of the questions thrown at it.
- your first argument is a strawman

- scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I have no idea why you would want to call that an agenda in the first place.

- In science, and now law, creationism is not science. It is religion, it’s bunk, and illegal to teach in science class rooms. That’s how bunk it is. No working or testable science is produced. It’s all bunk science to push their religious beliefs of creationism. It hasn’t passed the test and is not worth spending more time on. It really isn’t debatable. Science landed us on the moon, built CERN, and gave us satellites. Creationism hasn’t produced anything, because it doesn’t work. Want a better example? Look at countries where creationism is taught and tell me how developed their countries are, how much scientific discovery they produce. Nothing.

-I think you are mixing evolution and the big bang in your last point. They are not the same.
However, the origins of man is very much documented and undisputed.

The more science evolves, the more it has proven these theories based on progress in other fields of study, not the other way around. Even though we certainly have tried to disprove or find faults, we find the opposite. That’s what makes it so darn awesome!
hard2kill
Posts
374
Joined
9/8/2010
Location
Flag Pond, TN US
7/21/2018 3:26pm Edited Date/Time 7/21/2018 3:44pm
IWreckALot wrote:
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance. There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority...
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority complex believing creationists are dumb and scientists are much more intelligent, doesn't make it so.

Similar to the way you believe creation evidence is pseudo science, creationists believe scientists will try to explain anything with science that fits their agenda. It's bias and has the equal footing that creationism does.

In the end, every theory of our origins has significant question marks and no definitive answer. There is no finite science showing the creation of the earth or humans. The scientific article in the OP also lists macro evolution evidence but even in a scientific setting, a bias "scientist" won't acknowledge a fact rooted in science. Science is in no way wasted though. It's healthy to question our theories and seek out the truth. But it's never satisfactorily answered all of the questions thrown at it.
Sunhouse wrote:
- your first argument is a strawman - scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I...
- your first argument is a strawman

- scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I have no idea why you would want to call that an agenda in the first place.

- In science, and now law, creationism is not science. It is religion, it’s bunk, and illegal to teach in science class rooms. That’s how bunk it is. No working or testable science is produced. It’s all bunk science to push their religious beliefs of creationism. It hasn’t passed the test and is not worth spending more time on. It really isn’t debatable. Science landed us on the moon, built CERN, and gave us satellites. Creationism hasn’t produced anything, because it doesn’t work. Want a better example? Look at countries where creationism is taught and tell me how developed their countries are, how much scientific discovery they produce. Nothing.

-I think you are mixing evolution and the big bang in your last point. They are not the same.
However, the origins of man is very much documented and undisputed.

The more science evolves, the more it has proven these theories based on progress in other fields of study, not the other way around. Even though we certainly have tried to disprove or find faults, we find the opposite. That’s what makes it so darn awesome!
Sunhouse do you realize that nearly every field of science and most all scientist not only support, but also embrace creation (a beginning) in one form or another. You yourself seem to even agree that man had a beginning. While their are hypothesis against it, their is very little scientific support for it.

Have you ever wondered why science supposes that man is the higher evolved species?

I agree with you that science is an awesome thing. Have you ever wondered why we are able to perform science? Why does science continue to work. The answer to that question is even more awesome.

Also one more question for you. What would be the greatest possible act (or being if you will) that you can conceive of? What is your highest thought be it provable or not?


7/21/2018 9:04pm
Sunhouse wrote:
A scientific theory is different from the word theory used in everyday language. A scientific theory is a fact, supported by evidence and scientific laws from...
A scientific theory is different from the word theory used in everyday language.
A scientific theory is a fact, supported by evidence and scientific laws from different scientific areas, all supporting the same end conclusion.

While it may seem comfusing, a scientific theory is a step above a scientific fact, as it has more evidence and fields of study backing it up
Theories are not facts. They are explanations based on facts attempting to describe why a fact is true.

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts.

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

Some think that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon in the natural world that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.

A good example of the difference between a theory and a law is the case of Gregor Mendel. In his research, Mendel discovered that two separate genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law."

Quote from: What is a Scientific Theory?

Theories can be disproved, so they are not facts. They are well substantiated ideas that still leave room for doubts.

7/21/2018 10:48pm
IWreckALot wrote:
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance. There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority...
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority complex believing creationists are dumb and scientists are much more intelligent, doesn't make it so.

Similar to the way you believe creation evidence is pseudo science, creationists believe scientists will try to explain anything with science that fits their agenda. It's bias and has the equal footing that creationism does.

In the end, every theory of our origins has significant question marks and no definitive answer. There is no finite science showing the creation of the earth or humans. The scientific article in the OP also lists macro evolution evidence but even in a scientific setting, a bias "scientist" won't acknowledge a fact rooted in science. Science is in no way wasted though. It's healthy to question our theories and seek out the truth. But it's never satisfactorily answered all of the questions thrown at it.
Sunhouse wrote:
- your first argument is a strawman - scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I...
- your first argument is a strawman

- scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I have no idea why you would want to call that an agenda in the first place.

- In science, and now law, creationism is not science. It is religion, it’s bunk, and illegal to teach in science class rooms. That’s how bunk it is. No working or testable science is produced. It’s all bunk science to push their religious beliefs of creationism. It hasn’t passed the test and is not worth spending more time on. It really isn’t debatable. Science landed us on the moon, built CERN, and gave us satellites. Creationism hasn’t produced anything, because it doesn’t work. Want a better example? Look at countries where creationism is taught and tell me how developed their countries are, how much scientific discovery they produce. Nothing.

-I think you are mixing evolution and the big bang in your last point. They are not the same.
However, the origins of man is very much documented and undisputed.

The more science evolves, the more it has proven these theories based on progress in other fields of study, not the other way around. Even though we certainly have tried to disprove or find faults, we find the opposite. That’s what makes it so darn awesome!
Junior physics student, definitely no scientist but you hear and learn of many different experiments, theories, and etc. throughout the semesters. Yes, unfortunately some scientists absolutely have bias and an agenda. Many experiments are dropped from certain theories due to this, its no surprise there would be temptation with fame, recognition, and government funding on the line. Science, as like many things, can be abused.


7/22/2018 8:29pm Edited Date/Time 7/22/2018 8:39pm
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to...
I think you are confusing "species in existence today" with all life, and are ignoring the fact we have proof of species that existed prior to that date stamp.

This study pointed out that lack of genetic diversity that would've supported the Darwinian theory of evolution. That's one of the beauties of science when done correctly. Theories remain theories until proven otherwise and opinion and faith don't factor into the equation.
JAFO92 wrote:
It is indeed interesting how some put so much 'faith' in their favorite [i]theory[/i], and try to belittle others who have 'faith' in another. Until something...
It is indeed interesting how some put so much 'faith' in their favorite theory, and try to belittle others who have 'faith' in another. Until something happens in their life that cant be explained and alluva sudden they find themselves humbled and on the other side of the fence. It is through that humility one becomes truly ready to learn.



Yup.

Life is a paradigm. In which we only study the living portion. Can’t study the after life. So we can’t find the answers until we cross over.

Theory is if the power goes out in a movie theatre....everything is dark black and empty. We can theorize this will be the same when we die; however, we can’t come back to life to prove or disprove this theory.

And of course I also believe in the Big Bang. I mean...That’s how i was I made. but what created the events up to that Big Bang ? A creator....so in my eyes they work with eachother. The creator needs evolution just as evolution needs the creator...but evolution never happens without the creator.
akillerwombat
Posts
3211
Joined
10/16/2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
7/23/2018 8:24am Edited Date/Time 7/23/2018 8:26am
Yup. Life is a paradigm. In which we only study the living portion. Can’t study the after life. So we can’t find the answers until we...
Yup.

Life is a paradigm. In which we only study the living portion. Can’t study the after life. So we can’t find the answers until we cross over.

Theory is if the power goes out in a movie theatre....everything is dark black and empty. We can theorize this will be the same when we die; however, we can’t come back to life to prove or disprove this theory.

And of course I also believe in the Big Bang. I mean...That’s how i was I made. but what created the events up to that Big Bang ? A creator....so in my eyes they work with eachother. The creator needs evolution just as evolution needs the creator...but evolution never happens without the creator.
Nevermind.

Not worth it.
1
1
7/23/2018 8:29am
Strange response from wombat, you quit drinkin or something?
Sunhouse
Posts
3658
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
7/23/2018 8:57am
hard2kill wrote:
Sunhouse do you realize that nearly every field of science and most all scientist not only support, but also embrace creation (a beginning) in one form...
Sunhouse do you realize that nearly every field of science and most all scientist not only support, but also embrace creation (a beginning) in one form or another. You yourself seem to even agree that man had a beginning. While their are hypothesis against it, their is very little scientific support for it.

Have you ever wondered why science supposes that man is the higher evolved species?

I agree with you that science is an awesome thing. Have you ever wondered why we are able to perform science? Why does science continue to work. The answer to that question is even more awesome.

Also one more question for you. What would be the greatest possible act (or being if you will) that you can conceive of? What is your highest thought be it provable or not?


They propose a beginning to the universe the way we know it, not necessarily a beginning to the universe per se. And the word «creation» in that regard is very different to the term used in a religious context, so It would be dishonest of me to use that word here.

No I have never wondered why humans are at the top of the food chain.

No I have never wondered why we are able to do science, it’s a given.

Hights thought? Probably something regarding astro physics. They aren’t my thoughts, but reading and whatching some of the ideas behind astro physics blow my mind.
Sunhouse
Posts
3658
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
7/23/2018 8:58am
IWreckALot wrote:
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance. There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority...
In a nutshell, that's all a bunch of ignorance.

There are many super intelligent and successful people who believe in creationism. Because you have a superiority complex believing creationists are dumb and scientists are much more intelligent, doesn't make it so.

Similar to the way you believe creation evidence is pseudo science, creationists believe scientists will try to explain anything with science that fits their agenda. It's bias and has the equal footing that creationism does.

In the end, every theory of our origins has significant question marks and no definitive answer. There is no finite science showing the creation of the earth or humans. The scientific article in the OP also lists macro evolution evidence but even in a scientific setting, a bias "scientist" won't acknowledge a fact rooted in science. Science is in no way wasted though. It's healthy to question our theories and seek out the truth. But it's never satisfactorily answered all of the questions thrown at it.
Sunhouse wrote:
- your first argument is a strawman - scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I...
- your first argument is a strawman

- scientist don’t have an agenda other than to expand our knowledge of the world and the universe. I have no idea why you would want to call that an agenda in the first place.

- In science, and now law, creationism is not science. It is religion, it’s bunk, and illegal to teach in science class rooms. That’s how bunk it is. No working or testable science is produced. It’s all bunk science to push their religious beliefs of creationism. It hasn’t passed the test and is not worth spending more time on. It really isn’t debatable. Science landed us on the moon, built CERN, and gave us satellites. Creationism hasn’t produced anything, because it doesn’t work. Want a better example? Look at countries where creationism is taught and tell me how developed their countries are, how much scientific discovery they produce. Nothing.

-I think you are mixing evolution and the big bang in your last point. They are not the same.
However, the origins of man is very much documented and undisputed.

The more science evolves, the more it has proven these theories based on progress in other fields of study, not the other way around. Even though we certainly have tried to disprove or find faults, we find the opposite. That’s what makes it so darn awesome!
m121c wrote:
Junior physics student, definitely no scientist but you hear and learn of many different experiments, theories, and etc. throughout the semesters. Yes, unfortunately some scientists absolutely...
Junior physics student, definitely no scientist but you hear and learn of many different experiments, theories, and etc. throughout the semesters. Yes, unfortunately some scientists absolutely have bias and an agenda. Many experiments are dropped from certain theories due to this, its no surprise there would be temptation with fame, recognition, and government funding on the line. Science, as like many things, can be abused.


I think you are confusing academic vanity with bias IMO
akillerwombat
Posts
3211
Joined
10/16/2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
7/23/2018 9:33am
Strange response from wombat, you quit drinkin or something?
I had a formal response but when rereading my post and having the first sentence of "If you equate dying to lights going out in a movie theater" I realized there is absolutely no point in having this conversation.
1
early
Posts
9873
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
7/23/2018 9:41am
I don't think there has ever been a war fought over the question of "where life began". It's the other side of the circle that requires a person to have "faith" that they have "chosen wisely".
BMSOBx2
Posts
2087
Joined
2/18/2017
Location
Antioch, CA US
7/23/2018 10:49am
borg wrote:
For those who are actually interested in something other than confirmation bias, there are many really good debates of these issues available on youtube. This one...
For those who are actually interested in something other than confirmation bias, there are many really good debates of these issues available on youtube. This one features two very able combatants. Frank Tureck and Christopher Hitchens.

I'll use a link instead of embed in an attempt to honor the proprietors wishes. It's a good one.

Debate
I miss Christopher Hitchens.
FLmxer
Posts
7303
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
SouthWest, FL US
Fantasy
7/23/2018 11:30am
I didn't read the last two pages but I am obviously a big fan of Darwin.


1
7/23/2018 12:03pm
FLmxer wrote:
I didn't read the last two pages but I am obviously a big fan of Darwin. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2018/07/23/276386/s1200_20171212_121502.jpg[/img] [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2018/07/23/276387/s1200_20171022_143639.jpg[/img]
I didn't read the last two pages but I am obviously a big fan of Darwin.


Wow those things are vicious! I had no idea they'd go after a Croc like that.
1
FLmxer
Posts
7303
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
SouthWest, FL US
Fantasy
7/23/2018 12:23pm
FLmxer wrote:
I didn't read the last two pages but I am obviously a big fan of Darwin. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2018/07/23/276386/s1200_20171212_121502.jpg[/img] [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2018/07/23/276387/s1200_20171022_143639.jpg[/img]
I didn't read the last two pages but I am obviously a big fan of Darwin.


Wow those things are vicious! I had no idea they'd go after a Croc like that.
I know right. Ha I put my size12 croc there for size reference. They are about 300lbs each and I have 16.
Only a few people have bread these highly endangered animals and the first wild one in 100 years hatched on the Galapagos this year. I plan on being added to that group. With out captive husbandry your kids would be only reading about these in books as they would be extinct as well as many other species.

Post a reply to: dna study proves Darwin and evolution wrong

The Latest