Originally posted by agrysonYes. And the thread started as "what is natural selection". Strangely enough, I can't find the word "creationism" in it. It hadn't even turned into science v religion yet.
No, creationism cannot be debated seriously in the eyes of science as it depends on untestable hypotheses (like a creator, for instance). By depending on hypotheses which are utterly and by definition untestable, creationism has cut itself out of the scientific endeavour and so BELONGS IN THE SPIRITUALITY FORUM!
And if it had - why is a science/religion thread relevant to religion and not science?
This thread shouldn't have been moved.
Originally posted by mtthwYou just quoted a post with the word "creationism" in it and then wrote you can't find the word...
Yes. And the thread started as "what is natural selection". Strangely enough, I can't find the word "creationism" in it. It hadn't even turned into science v religion yet.
And if it had - why is a science/religion thread relevant to religion and not science?
This thread shouldn't have been moved.
Originally posted by agrysonI fail to see where my initial post mentioned anything related to creationism. Since evolution is touted as a scientific theory, it ought to stand and answer questions related to its scientific underpinnings. One of the foundations upon which evolution rests is this thing called natural selection. I use the term 'thing' because it lacks a more precise technological label, as seen in such terms as 'force' or 'element,' for example.
This is a science forum, creationism, not being based on science (it breaches a few very simple philosophical maxims regarding the philosophy of science) has no place here. It is a spiritualitstic position, and thus belongs in the spirituality forum.
Should scientists find evidence of flaws in evolution, they can be found here, teh scientific community is V ...[text shortened]... tionists can rest easy and leave tehir paranoid delusions at home.
MOVE THIS TO SPIRITUALITY!
Who ever thought to move the debate to Spiritual has clearly knee-jerked their thinking. According to you, the fenced-in scientific community that has seemingly perfected its self-policing skills to a degree beyond questioning feels the same way. Such thinking sounds decidedly un-scientific, given the large gaps so clearly evident within the pet topic.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Large gaps"? What does that mean?
I fail to see where my initial post mentioned anything related to creationism. Since evolution is touted as a scientific theory, it ought to stand and answer questions related to its scientific underpinnings. One of the foundations upon which evolution rests is this thing called natural selection. I use the term 'thing' because it lacks a more precise t ...[text shortened]... nds decidedly un-scientific, given the large gaps so clearly evident within the pet topic.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThey loaded phrasing of the initial post was sufficient to imply the objective of the post wasn't to answer his question but to incite the scientists into defending evolution from an imaginary attack. Thus putting them on the defensive and justifying his attack in the first place and generating the debate which should be kept out of the science forum......
I fail to see where my initial post mentioned anything related to creationism. Since evolution is touted as a scientific theory, it ought to stand and answer questions related to its scientific underpinnings. One of the foundations upon which evolution rests is this thing called natural selection. I use the term 'thing' because it lacks a more precise t ...[text shortened]... nds decidedly un-scientific, given the large gaps so clearly evident within the pet topic.
And what are these so called gaps in evolution.... Ill accurately defend every single one you pull out of your ass....
Originally posted by jaywillI lack knowledge of any specific research but one has to assume that the latter is correct....
A serious question:
Which is occuring at a quicker pace (if either) -
1.) The rate at which new species are evolving into existence.
2.) The rate at which old species are becomming extinct.
It takes an awful long time for a new species to branch off...
2 edits
Originally posted by MexicoNot necessarily. Speciation has been observed in the lab in fruit flies in a matter of months or a year or two (35 generations, each of which takes a week or two).
I lack knowledge of any specific research but one has to assume that the latter is correct....
It takes an awful long time for a new species to branch off...
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt means it is a force that does not exist without organisms, whereas gravity is constant wherever there is matter... Since organisms are composed of matter, gravity is a universal and all-inclusive concept... you do not find natural selection in black holes, or in minerals, or in matter at a fundamental level. Natural selection is found in only certain places, and is not a law as much as it is a process created out of many laws, or constants.
"An emergent behaviour." That's a loaded concept. Mind defining that one?
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by MexicoI hope you're joking...
BUT there are fossilized trees with no growth rings..... proving that the atmosphere was once perfect.... Thus that the garden of eden existed.... QED the bible is true......
Also There are fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains proving the flood, and thus proving the bible is true once again......
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue enough, was simply backing up my point. Although I think he was probably referring to animal species. Even though the same rules apply, you get where I'm coming from....
Not necessarily. Speciation has been observed in the lab in fruit flies in a matter of months or a year or two (35 generations, each of which takes a week or two).