No, this reply went to the fact you called a studied and proven fact "hog wash", your the ignorant one who can't even find a intelligent response to something that didn't even disprove your fact. You just like to argue I think.
So what type of species are these birds now,? i believe they are still finches? Have they evolved into another? It proves crap
Wow, you get mad when confronted, is that ok in your religion? They are a finch that is constantly evolving, if you think a finch will look the same in 200 years you truly are insane.
You are making a huge number of assumptions with your first statement some of which may yet be proved wrong destroying your whole premise:- First the speed of light may not be constant - some argue over time it has degraded you assume light always travels in a straight line - when in fact is doesn't alway - it can be affected by gravity - e.g. black holes the distance between stars is not measured by the speed of light - it is measured by something called -"Red shift" - which itself is also a scientific concept under dispute there are things that travel faster than the speed of light light is still poorly understand both behaving like a wave and a particle - to use it as the basis of your whole view of the universe is limiting yourself some what. There may be a bunch of factors as yet not understood - i.e. the affect of time - time warps, time shift, bending time which may affect how light travels, etc.
Yes but are we seeing new genetic material being created/evolved - or are we seeing merely movement within the capacities already existent within the genome. Adaption within the genetic material already present is NOT evolution, and no evolutionist worth his/her salt would argue it is. Evolution is the constant change of DNA to mold into new environment - it is a radical redesign of DNA to produce new types of species and life, it assumes eventually over time some mutations will be beneficial and that these beneficial mutations can actually accumulated or radically change to do so. Creationists would say DNA molds into new environment but only within the current genome meaning no new species, etc - i.e. a dog stays a dog - and doesn't become whale. Mutations tend to be self destroying and it is statistically impossible for a series of beneficial mutations of occur either in a series or (even great improbability) at once in a paradigm shift in the DNA thus meaning it is impossible to produce new kinds of animals.
May i add my opinion? Evolution or not, we can say with certitude that humans are not a creation of 'God', just like our planet is not flat. Of course, if you wanna believe Bush tells the truth and God created you, fine, but please don't enter scientific debates. Don't mix religion with science. The Church, Church goers or any other type of sects have no business with science. Evolution is a scientific topic not a religious/theological one. Stop hijacking the debates of our secular modern societies to recruit more sect members. Thank you for your understanding.
You don't create new animals, lmao, they evolve into something else. Go thump the bible where idiots with pocket change might listen. Evolution exists, the imaginary guy in the sky doesn't.
Don't waste your time, these are people who think Noah's Ark is true, they think one person gathered 2 of "every living thing" into a boat while the whole earth flooded. Right there you see how impossible that is, there are billions of insects alone in the world. Lies, Lies and More Lies.
FALSE. Some of sciences most important discoveries have been accomplished by Christians. This thread is titled "do you believe in evolution", hence OPINIONS. There are scientific facts that point to evolution being false, plus there is common sense. Even the inventor of evolution (who was not a scientist, by the way) said that with the complexity of the eye, it is extremely hard to believe in evolution.
Did I once mention God in any of my arguments? - Thanks for sharing your religious beliefs - I thought we were talking about science here. I find it particularly ironic that you can't do a scientific debate without bringing in your atheistic views into the argument - i.e. your religious views. You haven't argued against the decay of the speed of light you haven't argued about red shift theory you haven't spoken about the time continuum Thanks for entering into a scientific argument. If you don't see the hypocracy in you bringing in God to a scientific argument I can't help you. I thought the thread was do you believe in evolution. Even amongst evolutionists there are huge arguments - they would first ask what type of evolution? Some believe in a slow gradual process over time, others argue for quantum shifts over short periods of time - due to disasters and mass extinctions or other factors - increased radiation, and heaps of other arguments of fossil organization, etc. I understand the SCIENCE of evolution very well. I just don't agree with it. So instead of arguing the science you call me a religious nut - well done you have demonstrated your level of intellect - your devolution into ignorance is astonishing - perhaps we should ask do you believe in de-volution? Some Scientific reasons I don't believe in evolution:- Mutations - tend to be non beneficial and result in the death of the organism Genomes - most people fail to acknowledge the already vast variety within select genomes - i.e. dogs - no 'new' genetic material but by selective breeding a huge varieties of expression within the same genetic material. Vast holes in the fossil record Serious questions over dating methods Latest developments in genetic research show changes only when intellectual input is applied - not when random processes are encouraged - e.g. Chernobyl, despite high radiation encouraging increase mutation I don't know of any evolved creatures from this? I could go on but what is the point you will just argue I'm not scientific because I haven't come to the same conclusion as you. If this is the direction of science I'm happy to predict its death now - because true science only 'evolves' when people free their minds enough to think in new and unusual ways. P.S. many other people argue that 'evolution' has been molded by intelligent designers - i.e. UFO's - I'm not one of those people - but I don't hear people mocking them as loudly as they do believe who have theistic beliefs - more hypocrisies - which is more important YOUR science - or that ensuring its implications fits your philosophical beliefs? I think the later. So much for 'science'.
Evolution isn't a theory based on assumption, it's based on observable evidence which the articles show. But i guess you either didn't read them or didn't understand them and so resorted to spewing the misinformed garbage that you have spewed for your last 100 posts. Read up on the points raised in the articles (and note both made the digg front page) and then try to form an argument against them, I bet you can't. this is how debate forums work. If you can't produce an argument against something you have to stop talking.
I think stOx brought up the subject of adaptation how certain animals survive and others don't. I just noticed an unusual event. No evolutionist attempted to comment on this fact. There are many animals that are extinct such as the mammoth, the Australian (Tasmanian) tiger etc. Better still, if evolution is about the survival of the strongest/fittest how come you still have sheep around? Come on.... Sheep are very dumb animals and hunted every year. A sheep only gives birth to one offspring every year. The female wolf gives birth to 4-5 offsprings each year. So the attacker is much stronger and bigger in numbers. And YET we still have sheep around which proves not only the strongest survives. Remember, these are "my words" so they are original.
I didn't know atheism was a religous belief. BTW, what do you mean by "new and unusual ways". Your critic was interesting, but do you have your own scientific theory? Doesn't matter if you don't, just asking.