Confused about evolution

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They didn't see. I don't really know much about blind flatworms, but they exist in caves and such. They don't seem to have problems finding food. They use their other senses to find it. You are exceptionally ignorant if you think all animals need eyes to survive.

[b]HOW DID THEY...NOT FALL INTO PITS

They were aquatic worms. They swam in the water. Pits aren't a big danger in the water.[/b]

Were in the fossil record does it show that humans evolved from Flat Worms?

It hasnt been found. (Big loopholes)

Bye

Originally posted by telerion
Well his official title was Assistant Professor of Biology. Cool guy too. I think he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints though I have never heard of him confirming that explicitly to anyone.

If this is in fact what he asserts, then I disagree with him. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am correct.

Regardless, I have ju ...[text shortened]... ence to counter your ignorant insinuation that teachers of evolution "100% deteste (sic) God."

Yes, you have, I apoligise.

Originally posted by rwingett
The percentage of people who call themselves "atheist" is still very small. Certainly less than 10% worldwide. By your line of reasoning, we would expect 90%, or more, of the people to be creationists. But this is clearly not the case. The reason, obviously, is that a majority of religious people thoughout the world accept evolution. Only the backward, fu ...[text shortened]... n your bible can obscure that fact. So wake up and smell the coffee; creationism is for idiots.

I have a question for you. How many theists accept the theory of evolution simply because the majority of poeple believe it?

Another question: If the majority of people believe something, does that automatically make it true?

Originally posted by rwingett
The percentage of people who call themselves "atheist" is still very small. Certainly less than 10% worldwide. By your line of reasoning, we would expect 90%, or more, of the people to be creationists. But this is clearly not the case. The reason, obviously, is that a majority of religious people thoughout the world accept evolution. Only the backward, fu ...[text shortened]... n your bible can obscure that fact. So wake up and smell the coffee; creationism is for idiots.

The reason why most intelligent theists should have a problem with creationism is that the physical evidence points overwhelmingly toward the truth of evolution.

What physical evidence? Are you maybe refering to the Nebraskan man?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What are you talking about? Where did this come from?

Just testing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was thinking about some time early in the mythical evolutionary
time line, when there wasn't any flies, but good point. Odd isn't it
that we have sexes, asexual creatures, larva, eggs, we have live
births, cells splitting, winged creatures, and so on with all of them
supposedly coming from a single evolutionary line, that at one
time had everything supposedly coming from the same source
something akin to a single cell creature?
Kelly

Yes. It is not surprising that the mysteries of life would stimulate both religious faith and strong commitments to a lifetime of scientific research. Many folks humbly embrace both.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why look at both sides? You can just look at one side and see if it
correct or not, looking at evolution and finding it false does not mean
that creation is true, if you find evolution false, it is false. That does
not by default make creation true. Again, evolution is a process and
creation is an event, they are not even the same thing.
Kelly

A judge looks at both sides of the courtcase, and then makes a decison.

That is what I have done. Of course there are others.

Name some other theories of life's beginning.

Originally posted by Phledos
If you want to be correct, you must look at both sides, THOROUGHLY, and then side with the most logical.

I have. That is why I am confident that evolution is a theory that will be around for some time to come. Moreover, because I embraced Creationism for about five years, and argued with friends and professors all that time, I feel sense an urgency and of responsibility to push back the layers of deception and appeal to ignorance that Creationists promulgate.

Originally posted by Phledos
Cancers kill people, they do not give people a new ability.

Fortunately those researching cancer do not confuse it with genetic mutation, or all hope of cure, or even treatment, would be lost.

Originally posted by Phledos
Perhaps does that then mean that your 'so called law' of evolution is possibly incorrect too, then.

Evolution is a theory, not a law. Please stop confusing terms.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I have. That is why I am confident that evolution is a theory that will be around for some time to come. Moreover, because I embraced Creationism for about five years, and argued with friends and professors all that time, I feel sense an urgency and of responsibility to push back the layers of deception and appeal to ignorance that Creationists promulgate.

Great. Im glad you have studied them both.
Im sure you are right that evolution will be around for a long time.

You can believe a theory which is totaly improbable.
Or you can believe in a theory which is more probable.
Which One?

I have also done the same as you. Ive been in similar situations trying to reason with friends and professors, who push those around them to believe what they believe.

I never gave in to them.

To believe the idea of creation you must reason with yourself on its main testament. This will give you the strength to believe that what you are doing is right.

I dont know if people know, but the bible has a reason for everything we speak of. People have been blinded. It was written thousands of years ago, that people would shun God and turn to false ideas.

Bye.

Originally posted by Phledos
A judge looks at both sides of the courtcase, and then makes a decison.

Law and science employ different methodologies.

Our system of law presumes two sides--prosecution and defense. Science does not make such a presumption. There may be many "sides"--many competing hypotheses--or they may be only one or two. Creationism does not compete as a second "side" against evolution for it fails to account for the masses of scientific data (observations, facts) that have accumulated over the past few centuries. Evolution successfully accounts for this data, and thus has earned the name theory. However, within the theory of evolution there remains considerable debate regarding many of the specifics. For example, Stephen Jay Gould's notion of punctuated equilibria has not found universal acceptance and continues to be debated vigorously.

Creationists, on the other hand, fail to contribute to scientific debate, although they "contribute" much to the debate concerning the place of science in American culture (and perhaps Australian culture, too). Those who embrace creationism cut themselves off from some terrific fields of scientific inquiry and debate. I pity their children.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Law and science employ different methodologies.

Our system of law presumes two sides--prosecution and defense. Science does not make such a presumption. There may be many "sides"--many competing hypotheses--or they may be only one or two. Creationism does not compete as a second "side" against evolution for it fails to account for the masses of scient ...[text shortened]... hemselves off from some terrific fields of scientific inquiry and debate. I pity their children.

What about the logical evidence that a design must have a designer.

Do you not think its logical to believe that one person created 1 item.

If not, what you are saying is more outrageous. You are saying that no one created 1 item.

LOGIC.

Originally posted by Phledos
You are saying that no one created 1 item.

LOGIC.

I've said nothing of the sort. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith in a Creator. I also agree that such faith seems logical.

What I do stress, on the other hand, is that religiously motivated attacks on evolution are rooted in deception, distortion, poor reasoning, and in misunderstanding both of science and of scriptures.

The consequences of this attack, in the United States at least, are that the majority of Americans have a terribly deficient understanding of science, at least of the life sciences. Americans are not as debilitated in the mechanical sciences because we place a terribly high value on engineers who are able to build bombs and bomb delivery systems.

Originally posted by telerion
Then you will have no difficulty presenting your calculations to us, being careful to highlight the sample space so that we can be sure that you have correctly constructed your probability measure. I await evidence of your acumen via presentation, even as I expect a misplaced argument containing a uniform p.m.f.

Also if you choose to copy the calculatio ...[text shortened]... hank you.

Edit: Oh, yes I have read it, though it has been about eight years since I did so.

There is little point. It will not change your mind. I will provide you with the links.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp
http://www.jasonhilburn.com/probability.htm
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

(note that these men are all scientists.)

Of course you will now say, this is all from creationists sites. But I have searched throught the evolutionists sites too. They are not telling us of the probabilty. Are they hiding something???

Check it for yourself.

I have tried.

I will still be playing chess on this site, but I do not wish to continue these debates. Im tired of reasoning with people. I do it too much.

I wish you all a very pleasent, but seemingly hopeless life. (Wherever you are heading?)