Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
"...What a majority of scientists may believe in the matter should not be the issue if we follow the guidelines laid down in the California Science Framework Draft: Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't...
Don't you mean a book that agrees with you?
And while on the topic, did you even read the article?
The ole unicorn and spaghetti monster "argument" eh? Grow up Gabby.
Translation: someone more knowledgeable on the subject than you doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you therefore they must be wrong.
Your beloved Dawkins actually used the word "shits"?
Which "God" of mine are you referring to Gabby? You're assuming/projecting again.
Another stupid comment/assumption.
LOL is not an argument, just like wow. I thought you bitched about it a post or 2 above.
But I don't know how evolution works, I don't even care. The Pope said that it works and his authority is good enough for me. Who am I to question God's secretary???
Also, your inability to deal with my argument was duly noted. Anyhow, this thread has been fun, please go on....
If you had done a lot of science which taught you to question as you say, then it's a pity you apparently didn't get to question what science actually is.
The part of something which can be established by the scientific method is science, that's not what you are calling "science". Not proven but presented as fact - is simply not science.
Macro evolution is established by the scientific method. It is science. The very same method as micro evolution.
You thinking one is right but not the other is very little to do with science, but sounds more in line with the "science" thing you like to refer to.
trendlover is right , again!
So there you have an explanation which you asked for , but it will never do no matter how much evidence , will it?
You're still wondering why animals selectively bred by humans, and so artificially removed from natural selection are fainting?
Do you even know why nature evolved animals including humans to faint in the first place?
Would it really come as all that much of a surprise to you if sheep herders selectively bred goats that tended to faint until they just toppled over, to put them amongst their sheep so that an attacker would go straight for the goat instead ?
Or do you prefer to imagine something called God keeps making them fall over because it works in mysterious ways?
Perhaps you think it's particularly religiously clever to keep making non-clever suggestions about goats and monkeys through a bunch of hopelessly ill-informed questions.
So there you have an explanation which you asked for , but it will never do no matter how much evidence , will it?
You're still wondering why animals selectively bred by humans, and so artificially removed from natural selection are fainting?
Do you even know why nature evolved animals including humans to faint in the first place?
Would it really come as all that much of a surprise to you if sheep herders selectively bred goats that tended to faint until they just toppled over, to put them amongst their sheep so that an attacker would go straight for the goat instead ?
Or do you prefer to imagine something called God keeps making them fall over because it works in mysterious ways?
Perhaps you think it's particularly religiously clever to keep making non-clever suggestions about goats and monkeys through a bunch of hopelessly ill-informed questions.
Good, then science when taught properly is nothing to do with belief.
Well done. You got there.
You observe gravity, yet Trader666 says there are ONLY theories about it.
You can observe the building blocks of life emerging from inorganic matter, but you say there are ONLY theories about it.
Your denial of reality seems to now have moved away from gravity as ONLY a theory, to life from non life as ONLY a theory.
Trader666 now seems to have some way to go to catch up with you, although it's obviously going to be a terrible struggle for him to first get over the old mistakes he made in much earlier posts.
You are correct in principle, however, domestication falls under artificial selection. Dawkins discusses domestication in some detail in his latest book. In fact, her refers to an amazing study regarding the domestication of foxes, which are unrelated to dogs, since dogs evolved exclusively from wolves. In the study, foxes were (artificially) selected solely on "flight distance," meaning how close a person could approach the animal before it retreated. They bred only the ones that allowed human proximity. After a couple of dozen generations, the foxes started to change. They changed colors, to like those of dogs, their ears became floppy and their tails pointed upward and wagged, all very much unlike foxes and all as a result of nothing other than artificial selection on the basis of friendliness as measured by flight distance. Fascinating, eh? There are other studies, but this one really caught my eye.
You first. the unicorn and spaghetti monster parallel the sky daddy "hypothesis." They all hold the same amount of water. The only difference is that more people "believe" in one rather than the other. The only distinction is one of differential in faith. Otherwise, they all have about as much going for them empirically. So, yeah, do grow up.