01 Jul '13 11:34>
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-coral-ills.html
More work supporting evolution.
More work supporting evolution.
Originally posted by RJHindsand it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent researches even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
More Propaganda. The article used the word [b]MAY, numbnuts.
The Instructor[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsYour post used the word May. What does that allude to?
More Propaganda. The article used the word [b]MAY, numbnuts.
The Instructor[/b]
Originally posted by humyO ye of little faith
and it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent res ...[text shortened]... s even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
Originally posted by humySorry, but any creationist worth their salt could make the obvious observation that an intelligent designer would be likely to use some segments of DNA in more than one species. The fact that it requires a believer of the evolutionary principle to point this out for them says something about the creationists around here, but there you go.
and it is a "may" with strong DNA evidence to support it. And it is not atheistic propaganda for it says nothing about a god and you can believe in both evolution and there being a god albeit not rationally in this day of science and reason. You are totally delusional for believing it is deliberate propaganda against your God -as if those intelligent res ...[text shortened]... s even care about some stupid religions nuts belief in Creationism while doing there research.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGood post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
Sorry, but any creationist worth their salt could make the obvious observation that an intelligent designer would be likely to use some segments of DNA in more than one species. The fact that it requires a believer of the evolutionary principle to point this out for them says something about the creationists around here, but there you go.
One of the rse so natural selection produces species for them and take the rest of eternity off.
Originally posted by humyOkay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
Good post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
Originally posted by humyIt fits your religious beliefs! You can call it your worldview if it makes you feel better. I know how people like you hate being told that you actually have a 'religious belief'. You'll attack anyone who is willing to actually say it. lol
Good post. I agree with all of what you say there especially the bit about Occam's razor.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. We rational people, that have no religion or faith, know evolution is scientifically proven by the physical evidence.
Okay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsNo you've missed my point. There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, including evidence straight from DNA analysis of genetic mechanisms for speciation. This does not rule out an intelligent designer, since they would presumably put such mechanisms in place. However your claim of "there is no proof" betrays your lack of understanding of science - we amass evidence and find a theory (which may or may not have anything to do with reality) which can then be disproved. If the theory cannot be disproved then it stands. Since you cannot provide proof that the theory of the Origin of Species through Natural Selection is wrong it stands. Although I am forced to admit that so does intelligent design. It is natural for scientists to prefer the more parsimonious theory and that one belongs to Darwin.
Okay, now can we all agree there is no proof for evilution (macroevolution) and we have not eliminated the need for an orignal designer to create the first species of each kind?
The Instructor
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA society that is parsimonious in its personal charity (in terms of both time and money) will require more government welfare. —William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage, 1998
No you've missed my point. There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, including evidence straight from DNA analysis of genetic mechanisms for speciation. This does not rule out an intelligent designer, since they would presumably put such mechanisms in place. However your claim of "there is no proof" betrays your lack of understanding of science ...[text shortened]... natural for scientists to prefer the more parsimonious theory and that one belongs to Darwin.
Originally posted by RJHindsEven by your moronic standards, that has got to be one of your stupidest responses.
A society that is parsimonious in its personal charity (in terms of both time and money) will require more government welfare. —William J. Bennett, The Death of Outrage, 1998
There is absolutly no evidence of macroevolution (EVIL_LUTION).
The Instructor
Originally posted by humyThen you are really referring to Occum's Razor and I already responded to that on another tread with the following:
Even by your moronic standards, that has got to be one of your stupidest responses.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parsimony
“....
par·si·mo·ny
n.
1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
...”
Obviously the second meaning was meant in DeepThought post.