What makes you think Dawkins think this supernatural "free will" exists? Sounds to me like you are faulting Dawkins for not answering a question that doesn't represent his position in the first place. Like asking a christian about Allah.
Dawkins is one of these arrogant "know it all" individuals, who think they know better than the rest.
Why? Just because he has rational and factual arguments? Just because you are unable to counter those arguments? Pathetic.
You do not like the naive idea of a personal God that gives and takes?
You are either retarded or a liar. It's not that Dawkins doesn't "like the idea". It's that there is no evidence that there is a god. Whether you like something or not doesn't say anything what so ever about its validity.
But what is the origin of Life itself? Currently there is no viable answer.
False. Scientists know quite a bit about that. But that's besides the point. Just because there is something we cannot explain doesn't mean that God did it. The argument you just used proves just how badly things can go. You are basically saying "I don't know, so there's no point in trying to figure it out. I'll just assume that God did it"...
The only reason you find Dawkins arrogant is that he is knowledgeable, and you are not.
You are lying. You hate Dawkins, and are therefore making up things about him.
How is being a fan of a TV show anything like being religious? The TV show has no supernatural entities. It has no rules. It has no morals. It is intended to be pure entertainment. The fan of the TV show does not base the way he lives his life on the TV show.
How does making speeches about science make one a fanatic? How does using rational, factual arguments make one a fanatic? Have you even heard Dawkins speak? No, of course not.
Only a pathetic, lying religious fundamentalist would misrepresent other people's position and make up shit like what you did.
Did you notice that the text you are quoting was not written by dawkins and are lying, or are you completely retarded and unable to see the difference between someone else describing a person, and a person describing himself?
My God (figuratively speaking)! You really are a brainwashed religious fundamentalist, aren't you? Straw men, lies, etc. All the signs of a desperate religious fundamentalist who is unable to argue the subject matter, and therefore decides to lie and deceive to "win". That, or you are lying about knowing what Dawkins is actually saying.
As for talk origins, I was around when it was started, I participated on that site/newsgroup, it was started by an atheist, not a scientist, for the purpose of debunking creation not doing science
The only reason you would say that, of course, is because you don't like what the scientists there are saying, so you simply reject it.
Why would cats and lions originate from the same bubble when once life was created, it was always the same species?
Ok, so cats and lions originated from different bubbles? Why do we place them in the same category, then?
Did birds have their own bubble separat from dinosaurs, by the way?
What about neanderthals and humans? Separate bubbles or same ancestor?
What about horses and donkeys? Or tigers and lions? Are they from different bubbles? If yes, why can they create offspring together? If no, why is the offspring not fertile?
It is simple, During abiogenesis, the chemical compounds that eventually created life varied slightly which gave us differing species. A good portion of DNA, is a design of function not uniqueness.
And then, of course, the same things just happened to evolve a huge amount of times, by accident?
What I don't get is why you act like a creationist first, and now you accept that life evolved from a single cell (or multiple single cells). It looks like you are constantly changing your story just to troll.
Yes, I read it and no, it hasn't. You are taking it out of abstract and not noticing the changed definitions.
False. No changed definitions are needed. We have observed that populations have diverged to a point where interbreeding was impossible. And no, I never said that the "rules" of a species (cannot interbreed with others) are arbitrary. I said that how we define specific forms of life is, because there are often gray areas, gradual transitions (transitional fossils), etc.
I gave you enough that you can look the information up yourself.
There was nothing there to support your claim, sorry. Be more specific. Don't bother with links, just explain it plainly and clearly.
Arbitrary: pulled out of thin air with no specific meaning. Debated: people object to them. You claim that it is set in stone. My point stands.
No, I never claimed that how an animal is defined is set in stone. The definition of new findings can be hotly debated, but that doesn't mean that it is pulled out of thing air. It is hotly debated specifically because there can be arguments both ways.
No, because the definitions have been changed. A ring species is basically a set off animals that can interbreed but don't.
False. A ring species is a number of populations that can interbreed with closely related populations, but there also exist more distant populations that cannot interbreed.
But, Opera is losing the more important race for market share.
Oh, I get it! Change the subject and move the goal post. An easy way to win any argument. How pathetic.
Wwhen did market share become a race anyway? And what on earth does that have to do with Acid3?
And how do you know the real market share? You don't. You only get claimed market share from companies like Net Applications, which only report for sites that actually use their services. Not a representative sample. Combined with the fact that there are tons of error sources, your claim that there is a "market share race" is doubly dishonest because it is not a race, because Opera Software is making more money than ever, and because there is no way to measure the real market share.
Now, let's get back to discussing Acid3 instead of pathetically changing the topic whenever lame Firefox fanboy is busted spreading FUD about Opera.
It seems that the only thing you are capable of is to constantly attack me for devastating your pathetic excuses for arguments. But that's OK because at least you'll get educated. You can keep pretending that the material on TalkOrigins isn't written by actual scientists, and that's OK too. You will hopefully read it anyway and get educated.
But now you'll have to get back to the bubble theory that you are so fond of, and explain exactly how you think it works. Are you saying that all families of life on earth each originate from different cells that all came into existence separately through the mechanisms described in the bubble theory? If so, how exactly does the tree of life look? Did cats and dogs originate from the same bubble? Did cats and tigers? Cats and horses? What about blue whales and hippos?
If all these things evolved separately, how do you explain that we share most of our DNA with mice? Did we originate from the same bubble as mice? What about chimps? Are we and chimps the same species? Or did they have their own bubble?
By the way, actual speciation has been observed. Where interbreeding was no longer possible. Did you even read the stuff I told you about?
Also, your explanation about the frogfish was pathetic at best. Be more specific.
I also never said that the definition of species is useless. I said that the definitions are arbitrary, and often debated.
Then you have ring species and all that to complicate things even more.
Indeed, since you basically contradicted yourself there:)
I was respoding to the claim that "Opera is losing the race", which is completely false since it passed Acid2 before Firefox and has a better Acid3 score. Firefox is losing compared to Opera, so claiming that Opera is losing is nothing but anti-Opera FUD.
It's interesting, then, that you are at odds with the entire scientific community.
A theory is an attempt to explain facts but there are theories (actually hypothesis) that have so little supporting evidence but have been in place so long that they get called a theory.
Evolution is not one of them, since it has huge amounts of supporting evidence.
Take something like common descent which is a theory inside the theory of evolution, that is not a fact, we haven't observed it.
We have huge amounts of evidence, including speciation, observations of new proteins/enzymes forming in the last few decades alone (Nylonase), domestic breeding which causes huge differences in form and functionality (various plants, dogs, etc.), and so on.
Now, all of what your yapping about, except the so called evidence of speciation, can be explained to some degree by necessities of life and certain conditions in it.
Except they all conveniently support... evolution!
The speciation isn't speciation unless you bend some rules.
No rules need to be bent. Read the information I have provided you with.
Suppose that we change the speed of light to a different value just to validate one of Einstein's theories. You wouldn't think the theory is any more true now would you?
Except the speed of light is not a matter of definition, unlike "species". Scientists have heated debates over what to call new discoveries. It is not always clear which species they belong to because of the gradual changes over millions of years. These definitions are arbitrary and depend on our knowledge at the time.
Science doesn't automagically reject statements because of it's origin. It doesn't automagically place weight on something above others because of where it comes from.
Except I specifically pointed out that creationism is bogus because it makes bogus statements. You are trying to use a straw man argument.
A good portion of the science you hold so valuable was created by the churches- even in biology.
So what? Again, this is a straw man. I never said that religious people can't do science. One of my favourite scientists is biologist Ken Miller, and he is a christian.
Now I ask you again, do you even remotely know what creation and science are at odd with here?
Yes. Creationism tries to make the terrain fit the map, and to circumvent the scientific process.
No, it doesn't. Anything could come along at any time and be more correct then the current theory and it doesn't matter where it comes from.
That's not the point. The point is that the scientific community fully supports evolution. The people who actually do scientific work accept evolution.
All evidence for common descent in the fossil record in interpreted. It could just as well be an early version of an existing creature.
Except when the creature is found exactly where one would expect it to be if evolution is true. And it was. And it fit the "puzzle" exactly the way scientists expected. I think actual scientists are slightly more qualified to determine what kind of creature Tiktaalik was than you.
What about the frog fish? it shared 90% of the same characteristics that the claims of Tiiktalik being a transitional fossil.
Really? What, specifically?
It looked like a fucking cell with specific genetic information that over time grew into what you would call a cat today.
In other words: You contradict yourself and accept evolution. You accept that a single cell can evolve into a multi-celled organism. You accept that it can change massively over time. Just the other day you refused, and
Evolution is a theory. A theory is supported by facts (and explains them).
Insisting that macro evolution happens when the best we have is interpretations from the fossil record and maybe transitional fossils which could also simply be transitional fossils of an existing creature isn't science.
So you believe that the fossil record is all there is? What about evidence from comparative anatomy? Evidence from geographical distribution? Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry? Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance? Evidence from studies of complex iteration? Evidence from speciation? (You could have looked this up for yourself to get the point.)
I have this sneaking suspicion that you have no clue whatsoever what the differences between creation and evolution is.
The difference is that evolution is actual science, while creationism is religion. Creationism is useless, and explains nothing. All creationism is, is an attempt to make the terrain match a pre-defined map.
First, being accepted by a group of people doesn't make anything more correct then something else.
In this case it does, because this group of people happens to be just about all scientists. You know, the people doing the actual science.
What in evolution that is in conflict with creation do scientist say is true compared to creationist claiming isn't.
For example, your claim that Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil. For example, the claim that the fossil record is not evidence of common descent at all.
More or less. Except it didn't look like a cat.
What did it look like? A small, primitive cat-like creature appeared magically? Please point me to actual scientists who believe this to be the case.
You would still have the observable evolution as in adaptation and growth but you wouldn't continue to have a common descent once once the cell was organized.
So are you talking about a completely formed creature popping out of nowhere, or are you talking about each line of creatures having origins in cells forming at different times (in other words, you still have "macroevolution" despite your claim that it couldn't be because of the bubble theory)?
We have gone through this Tiktaalik in another post here you conveniently forget everything I have said. Remember I told you to look into the frogfish?
What about the frogfish? And what about the fact that Tiiktalik was discovered because its location was predicted based on "macroevolution"?
As for what scientist say, well how do you explain what scientist say? I mean I looking directly as science too. Granted a little outdated But nothing has been proven wrong.
How do I explain what scientists say? I don't have to explain what scientists say, because I am simply referring to what they are saying. What is outdated?
A transitional fossil is only an earlier version of another animal currently in existence.
What do you base this claim on? It seems like an extremely unscientific claim which ignores the evidence. For example, "the horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) that appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence" (TalkOrigins). How can you make the absolute claim that all transitional fossils are in fact not transitional?
Look at the equine lineage and you can see a this in progress. A horse is a horse is a horse of course, you could say.
That image would be accompanied by the text: "The earliest animal to bear recognizably horse-like anatomy was the Hyracotherium."
when you get to the meat of the differences between creation and evolution, they are so small and in the unprovable parts of each that it is more or less a pissing match between what indicators tend to lend credence to each
This is of course false because evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, and is, unlike creationism, actual science.
The point of it is that life has always been the same life
So a cat just magically popped out of a bubble?
Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.
The so called transition fossils we see are more or less early versions of existing animals respectively and not extinct cousins of a different or parent species.
What do you base that claim on? How would you explain Tiktaalik? How would you explain what scientists say?
Something that has artificially been manipulated on purpose for years but in the end they are still dogs.
Are a wolf and a poodle both dogs? It is a matter of definition. These definitions are abritrary, and often discussed at great length in the scientific community. Also, dogs have been bred in a way that does not prevent interbreeding, but if a poodle and a wolf were unable to interbreed, you would have two vastly different organisms that are also different species.
No one ever said there was a barrier which prevents small changes from adding up to a large set of changes. What was said was that a monkey will always be a monkey, a human will always be a human a dog will always be a dog.
In other words: You are saying that small changes over time to not result in major changes. Again, please point to the barrier which prevents this from happening.
I have asked you for this evidence about five times now. You haven't been able to provide anything that wasn't circumstantial at best.
False. You are simply ignoring all evidence that does not match your superstition.
How does it feel when you can't prove your religion?
It is not a religion, and I don't have to prove it. I have pointed you to scientific evidence. Whether I am religious or not does not affect the reliability of this scientific evidence.
And I posted a link calling your DNA hogwash.
What link was that? The link that also stated that DNA is useless and cannot be used in court cases because it doesn't prove anything?
This has been a point of conjecture for many years in science and you are on the loosing side of things.
What has been a point of conjecture, and who is on the "winning" side? AiG?:D
What facts? You haven't brought any about that solve the macro verses micro thing.
I have pointed to speciation and no limit to how an organism can change, as well as links to sites like talkorigins.org that explain all of this. It is you who choose to ignore the evidence.
A theory is an attempt to explain facts or observation but is never a fact or law.
A theory explains and takes all known facts into account. I also explained that, indeed, it does not become fact or law.
In biological evolution, a lot of jumps are made.
False.
Nothing, I repeat nothing- and you cannot show anything, that was created specifically because of the portions of evolution that is in conflict.
What are you talking about? Created? Huh?
There is no conflict here. Not among scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is indeed correct. There is no conflict in the scientific communnity.
And without empirical evidence, you cannot say that you are not wrong about anything.
Without empirical evidence? Are you so thick that even now, you cannot remember the observed speciation instances and Nylonase?
The judge in the case you keep quoting doesn't make any determination about Science.
He does indeed. He ruled that ID is religion, and evolution is science. Just like scientists have been pointing out all along.
There is a macro verses micro evolution. It is defined by people who claim part of evolution is real and part of it is some fairy tale cooked up in your head.
Those who belong to the latter are anti-scientists who seek to replace science with religion.
And the onus isn't on me showing something preventing it, it is on you to prove that evolution can create enough changes over time to stop a species from being itself and taking on another altogether.
Which has already been demonstrated. See the fruit fly experiment where a population of fruit flies is split in two, and after a while they stop being able to interbreed. Speciation has taken place. You also have Nylonase, where a completely new enzyme/protein has been formed in the last few decades, and if there is no limit to how proteins can change there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. You can also observe for example domestic breeding of dogs, where huge differences in both appearance and functionality (sense of smell, hearing, etc.) have arisen by artificial selection.
I notice that you still can't point to the specific barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in large changes over time. That's because you are willfully ignorant, and ignore all facts that don't match your religion.
So far, all the evidence pointing to that ability is circumstantial at best and most a product of thought.
Wrong. It is only you who are either ignorant or even willfully ignorant on the matter, YEC.
It is sad that you had to hijack another thread in order to press your opinions onto other people.
That's because Slashdot blocks replies after a while, and I'm not going to let you get away with lying and willfully ignoring facts.
Pick a story and stick with it.
I did. DNA evidence shows that we and Neanderthals share a common ancestor rather than being on the same branch.
You are adding to what those respected researchers claim and twisting the stuff around in the same ways you claim creationists are doing.
No, I am pointing out the fact that actual scientists show YECs to be wrong.
you didn't do any of the research either
I don't need to since real scientists are doing it already.
There are some creationist who do the research and publish in the same peer reviewed journals.
Show me one single example of that. Show me one single piece of new, original research by creationists published in an actual scientific journal. AiG's circle-jerk "publication" doesn't count.
I'm not promoting anything
You are. You are promoting pseudoscience.
You have seem to of taken science and turned it into a pseudo-religion.
No, I have pointed out that you are promoting pseudoscience and willfully ignoring facts that do not match your religion. Just because I give you shit over being an ignorant moron doesn't make the actual science behind the fact that evolution, micro or macro, any less scientific.
evolution in the context of the dispute between religion and science (macro evolution) isn't fact, it is an educated guess.
Wrong. An "educated guess" is called "hypothesis" in science. Evolution (macro or micro) is not a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. Educate yourself: "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ulti
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
Yes, they are standing up so seriously for what they believe that they think that anyone who thinks differently should be slaughtered. Great way to stand up, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think Dawkins think this supernatural "free will" exists? Sounds to me like you are faulting Dawkins for not answering a question that doesn't represent his position in the first place. Like asking a christian about Allah.
The only reason you find Dawkins arrogant is that he is knowledgeable, and you are not.
How is being a fan of a TV show anything like being religious? The TV show has no supernatural entities. It has no rules. It has no morals. It is intended to be pure entertainment. The fan of the TV show does not base the way he lives his life on the TV show.
How does making speeches about science make one a fanatic? How does using rational, factual arguments make one a fanatic? Have you even heard Dawkins speak? No, of course not.
Only a pathetic, lying religious fundamentalist would misrepresent other people's position and make up shit like what you did.
Did you notice that the text you are quoting was not written by dawkins and are lying, or are you completely retarded and unable to see the difference between someone else describing a person, and a person describing himself?
You religious fundies are truly pathetic liars.
Who are these "fundamentalist atheists", and what do they do? What are their "fundamental" beliefs?
No, where's the irony? You don't recognize when something is said tongue in cheek?
Please stop lying. You are misrepresenting Dawkins's position and ignoring his actual arguments. Pathetic indee3d.
Truly pathetic.
Did birds have their own bubble separat from dinosaurs, by the way?
What about neanderthals and humans? Separate bubbles or same ancestor?
What about horses and donkeys? Or tigers and lions? Are they from different bubbles? If yes, why can they create offspring together? If no, why is the offspring not fertile?
And then, of course, the same things just happened to evolve a huge amount of times, by accident?What I don't get is why you act like a creationist first, and now you accept that life evolved from a single cell (or multiple single cells). It looks like you are constantly changing your story just to troll.
False. No changed definitions are needed. We have observed that populations have diverged to a point where interbreeding was impossible. And no, I never said that the "rules" of a species (cannot interbreed with others) are arbitrary. I said that how we define specific forms of life is, because there are often gray areas, gradual transitions (transitional fossils), etc. There was nothing there to support your claim, sorry. Be more specific. Don't bother with links, just explain it plainly and clearly. No, I never claimed that how an animal is defined is set in stone. The definition of new findings can be hotly debated, but that doesn't mean that it is pulled out of thing air. It is hotly debated specifically because there can be arguments both ways. False. A ring species is a number of populations that can interbreed with closely related populations, but there also exist more distant populations that cannot interbreed.Wwhen did market share become a race anyway? And what on earth does that have to do with Acid3?
And how do you know the real market share? You don't. You only get claimed market share from companies like Net Applications, which only report for sites that actually use their services. Not a representative sample. Combined with the fact that there are tons of error sources, your claim that there is a "market share race" is doubly dishonest because it is not a race, because Opera Software is making more money than ever, and because there is no way to measure the real market share.
Now, let's get back to discussing Acid3 instead of pathetically changing the topic whenever lame Firefox fanboy is busted spreading FUD about Opera.
But now you'll have to get back to the bubble theory that you are so fond of, and explain exactly how you think it works. Are you saying that all families of life on earth each originate from different cells that all came into existence separately through the mechanisms described in the bubble theory? If so, how exactly does the tree of life look? Did cats and dogs originate from the same bubble? Did cats and tigers? Cats and horses? What about blue whales and hippos?
If all these things evolved separately, how do you explain that we share most of our DNA with mice? Did we originate from the same bubble as mice? What about chimps? Are we and chimps the same species? Or did they have their own bubble?
By the way, actual speciation has been observed. Where interbreeding was no longer possible. Did you even read the stuff I told you about?
Also, your explanation about the frogfish was pathetic at best. Be more specific.
I also never said that the definition of species is useless. I said that the definitions are arbitrary, and often debated.
Indeed, since you basically contradicted yourself thereI was respoding to the claim that "Opera is losing the race", which is completely false since it passed Acid2 before Firefox and has a better Acid3 score. Firefox is losing compared to Opera, so claiming that Opera is losing is nothing but anti-Opera FUD.
It's interesting, then, that you are at odds with the entire scientific community.
Evolution is not one of them, since it has huge amounts of supporting evidence.
We have huge amounts of evidence, including speciation, observations of new proteins/enzymes forming in the last few decades alone (Nylonase), domestic breeding which causes huge differences in form and functionality (various plants, dogs, etc.), and so on.
Except they all conveniently support... evolution!
No rules need to be bent. Read the information I have provided you with.
Except the speed of light is not a matter of definition, unlike "species". Scientists have heated debates over what to call new discoveries. It is not always clear which species they belong to because of the gradual changes over millions of years. These definitions are arbitrary and depend on our knowledge at the time.
Except I specifically pointed out that creationism is bogus because it makes bogus statements. You are trying to use a straw man argument.
So what? Again, this is a straw man. I never said that religious people can't do science. One of my favourite scientists is biologist Ken Miller, and he is a christian.
Yes. Creationism tries to make the terrain fit the map, and to circumvent the scientific process.
That's not the point. The point is that the scientific community fully supports evolution. The people who actually do scientific work accept evolution.
Except when the creature is found exactly where one would expect it to be if evolution is true. And it was. And it fit the "puzzle" exactly the way scientists expected. I think actual scientists are slightly more qualified to determine what kind of creature Tiktaalik was than you.
Really? What, specifically?
In other words: You contradict yourself and accept evolution. You accept that a single cell can evolve into a multi-celled organism. You accept that it can change massively over time. Just the other day you refused, and
What is the alternative?
Evolution is a theory. A theory is supported by facts (and explains them).
So you believe that the fossil record is all there is? What about evidence from comparative anatomy? Evidence from geographical distribution? Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry? Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance? Evidence from studies of complex iteration? Evidence from speciation? (You could have looked this up for yourself to get the point.)
The difference is that evolution is actual science, while creationism is religion. Creationism is useless, and explains nothing. All creationism is, is an attempt to make the terrain match a pre-defined map.
In this case it does, because this group of people happens to be just about all scientists. You know, the people doing the actual science.
For example, your claim that Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil. For example, the claim that the fossil record is not evidence of common descent at all.
What did it look like? A small, primitive cat-like creature appeared magically? Please point me to actual scientists who believe this to be the case.
So are you talking about a completely formed creature popping out of nowhere, or are you talking about each line of creatures having origins in cells forming at different times (in other words, you still have "macroevolution" despite your claim that it couldn't be because of the bubble theory)?
What about the frogfish? And what about the fact that Tiiktalik was discovered because its location was predicted based on "macroevolution"?
How do I explain what scientists say? I don't have to explain what scientists say, because I am simply referring to what they are saying. What is outdated?
What do you base this claim on? It seems like an extremely unscientific claim which ignores the evidence. For example, "the horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) that appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence" (TalkOrigins). How can you make the absolute claim that all transitional fossils are in fact not transitional?
That image would be accompanied by the text: "The earliest animal to bear recognizably horse-like anatomy was the Hyracotherium."
It should also be pointed out that des
Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.
What do you base that claim on? How would you explain Tiktaalik? How would you explain what scientists say?Of course not. I simply don't visit Slashdot every day (or every week).
False. Organization like AiG have a stated purpose of replacing science with religion.
False.
Are a wolf and a poodle both dogs? It is a matter of definition. These definitions are abritrary, and often discussed at great length in the scientific community. Also, dogs have been bred in a way that does not prevent interbreeding, but if a poodle and a wolf were unable to interbreed, you would have two vastly different organisms that are also different species.
In other words: You are saying that small changes over time to not result in major changes. Again, please point to the barrier which prevents this from happening.
False. You are simply ignoring all evidence that does not match your superstition.
It is not a religion, and I don't have to prove it. I have pointed you to scientific evidence. Whether I am religious or not does not affect the reliability of this scientific evidence.
What link was that? The link that also stated that DNA is useless and cannot be used in court cases because it doesn't prove anything?
What has been a point of conjecture, and who is on the "winning" side? AiG? :D
I have pointed to speciation and no limit to how an organism can change, as well as links to sites like talkorigins.org that explain all of this. It is you who choose to ignore the evidence.
A theory explains and takes all known facts into account. I also explained that, indeed, it does not become fact or law.
False.
What are you talking about? Created? Huh?
There is no conflict here. Not among scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is indeed correct. There is no conflict in the scientific communnity.
Without empirical evidence? Are you so thick that even now, you cannot remember the observed speciation instances and Nylonase?
He does indeed. He ruled that ID is religion, and evolution is science. Just like scientists have been pointing out all along.
Are you claiming that you are not religious? That you are an atheist?
Are you claiming that you are not a creationist?
So do you believe in killing someone for their beliefs or not?
Those who belong to the latter are anti-scientists who seek to replace science with religion.
Which has already been demonstrated. See the fruit fly experiment where a population of fruit flies is split in two, and after a while they stop being able to interbreed. Speciation has taken place. You also have Nylonase, where a completely new enzyme/protein has been formed in the last few decades, and if there is no limit to how proteins can change there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. You can also observe for example domestic breeding of dogs, where huge differences in both appearance and functionality (sense of smell, hearing, etc.) have arisen by artificial selection.
I notice that you still can't point to the specific barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in large changes over time. That's because you are willfully ignorant, and ignore all facts that don't match your religion.
Wrong. It is only you who are either ignorant or even willfully ignorant on the matter, YEC.
That's because Slashdot blocks replies after a while, and I'm not going to let you get away with lying and willfully ignoring facts.
I did. DNA evidence shows that we and Neanderthals share a common ancestor rather than being on the same branch.
No, I am pointing out the fact that actual scientists show YECs to be wrong.
I don't need to since real scientists are doing it already.
Show me one single example of that. Show me one single piece of new, original research by creationists published in an actual scientific journal. AiG's circle-jerk "publication" doesn't count.
You are. You are promoting pseudoscience.
No, I have pointed out that you are promoting pseudoscience and willfully ignoring facts that do not match your religion. Just because I give you shit over being an ignorant moron doesn't make the actual science behind the fact that evolution, micro or macro, any less scientific.
Wrong. An "educated guess" is called "hypothesis" in science. Evolution (macro or micro) is not a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. Educate yourself: "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ulti
That much is obvious. I mean, since you think killing someone for their beliefs is OK and all...
Right, if the polytheists start, then keep slaughering them until they have converted!