It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
reply to post by B.A.C.
Live in your bubble. I don't care. Everybody should be directed to your previous post before they start discussing anything evolution related with you. I'm done. That much is certain. There is no point if you don't even know what a friggin' 10 year old kid knows.
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
You said you have worked in a uni now for 5 years in the bioscience dept ...
No I didn't and that's besides the point anyways..
[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]
Considering it's my 5th year in a University I'd hope to know what scientific methdod is. Apparently to you it's obvious that I don't. Well great. I really don't care. Let's move on..
Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
I'm done. That much is certain. There is no point if you don't even know what a friggin' 10 year old kid knows after the first 10 minutes of the first theory of evolution related science class.
The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown; no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, and in individuals of different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to its grandfather or grandmother or other much more remote ancestor; why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.(p. 11)
Originally posted by Fundie
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
You said you have worked in a uni now for 5 years in the bioscience dept ...
No I didn't and that's besides the point anyways..
[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]
Considering it's my 5th year in a University I'd hope to know what scientific methdod is. Apparently to you it's obvious that I don't. Well great. I really don't care. Let's move on..
Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..
OOPS... you see the point is, how can we believe anything you say? You are right, it's over with you.
Originally posted by melatonin
Darwinian evolution was not dependent on pangenesis. But it was/is dependent on a mechanism of heredity. Darwin later went for pangenesis as a mechanism - he wuz wrong.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Sorry, you'll never convince me to believe in The Theory of Evolution. No use trying. Unless you want to waste your time.
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
To point out the obvious. At which part do I say that I've worked for 5 years? Can't it be that it's my 5th year of, oh I don't know, studies?
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
That's the one thing I was aware of. I think he used the word "blending" or something similar but realised that it would just lead to homogenisation. If only, he had met Mr. Mendel
Originally posted by dragonridr
Since it looks like this thread has gone on way to long about the obvious heres a simple solution someone post 5 facts proving evolution and someone post 5 facts proving creationism. Then at least you have something to argue other than semantics.
Originally posted by Welfhard
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Sorry, you'll never convince me to believe in The Theory of Evolution. No use trying. Unless you want to waste your time.
Of course I won't because you have faith. You believe in a God and that he created life, you want this to be true. Anything that contrasts your belief, you will not accept regardless of the evidence. You will pick and choose more favourable answers based on your belief instead of factual answers based on empirical observations.
You are biased.
Faith after all is 'belief without evidence', it's not something that men of science deal in when it comes to studying reality.
Originally posted by John Matrix
A belief in a supernatural all powerful, eternal, infinite, creator God requires far less faith than evolution does.
Originally posted by John Matrix
A belief in a supernatural all powerful, eternal, infinite, creator God requires far less faith than evolution does.
As Stephen Gould discovered, creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism. In the past couple of decades, everyone has become keenly aware of this, regardless of their satisfaction or otherwise with the modern synthesis. "You always feel like you're trying to cover your rear," says Love. "If you criticize, it's like handing ammunition to these folks." So don't criticize in a grandstanding way, says Coyne: "People shouldn't suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists' hands," he says
If ID ever came to be accepted, it would stifle research. Molecular biologists would call a halt whenever they came across a biological structure they could not explain and hence must be the work of the “designer”. Science as an open-ended pursuit would come to an end, halted by an impenetrable barrier labeled, “the designer did it”.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
The science of evolution requires no faith, simply observation.
With that in mind, why would you (the rhetorical "you" in this case being the religious who would refuse the science of evolution) not consider that your God had created evolution as the process to naturally perfect his creation?
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by mister.old.school
The science of evolution requires no faith, simply observation.
With that in mind, why would you (the rhetorical "you" in this case being the religious who would refuse the science of evolution) not consider that your God had created evolution as the process to naturally perfect his creation?
That is a great question.
I don't understand why people think the fact of evolution negates god.
In the scientific community their is no debate about evolution. It is an observable fact of our reality.
Originally posted by John Matrix
Why answer your own question?
The creationist science view uses the exact same evidence to demonstrate their view is a logical and rational explanation, and I see nothing that disproves their model either.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I believe in is just the same as what you believe. You have faith in the Theory to the point of bias, there is no evidence that the Theory is correct, that's why the Theory keeps changing.