Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

I have given a link to a peer reviewed article multiple times:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
... and 29 other examples from a lengthy resource, all with sources.

Check SIRIUS online scientific database, and type in macroevolution, and you will find many examples of peer reviewed articles that confirm the subject.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Hey nutjob. It is obvious you dont understand the topics you are refering too. These things have been studied at great length and put through the wringer of peer review. Some of these posters are being a little rude but it is only because you are so obviously just repeating the standard creationist rhetoric that has been brought up time and time again. If you genuinly want to discuss this topic you will have to make an effort to educate yourself on this and not just repeat the same old tired argument.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Nope.

When I talk about evolution I am talking about:

The Big Bang
Cosmic evolution
& Biological evolution

It is just semantics.

What word would you like me to use that encompasses all three theories? Let me know so that I don't keep hearing these semantic arguments that misdirect the heart of the message.

No it's not semantics at all.

Evolution and the big bang theory are two completely seperate theories.
You only think that they are the same because many evolutionists believe in the big bang theory.

What word would I like you to use.
No word can emcompass these opinions, seperate words are required.

The big bang theory is a theory on how everything started.
Evolution, despite how things started, is the theory on how we progressed.

These are not the same thing whatsoever and this should have been the first post in this uncivil thread.

I could use BBCBE.

It stands for Big Bang Cosmic & Biological Evolution.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


Thank you puzzleshere. I was looking for something like this but this is perfect.

Now nutjob if you would like to discuss the processes of evolution that is great. But to deny that evolution takes place is just absurd and will not be met with any serious comment.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Hey nutjob. It is obvious you dont understand the topics you are refering too. These things have been studied at great length and put through the wringer of peer review. Some of these posters are being a little rude but it is only because you are so obviously just repeating the standard creationist rhetoric that has been brought up time and time again. If you genuinly want to discuss this topic you will have to make an effort to educate yourself on this and not just repeat the same old tired argument.

I am happy to discuss and debate. It only becomes a tired argument when you don't accept that believing in the big bang, abiogenesis & macroevolution requires a religious belief.

I cannot prove that the God of the bible exists and is our creator but I do believe it, in the same way you cannot prove the big bang, abiogenesis & macroevolution.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
I am sorry but I am not going to repeat all three when I am discussing all three.

To keep it simple I will call it evolution and when I am being specific I will use the terms:


Big bang

Cosmic evolution (or cosmology)

Macroevolution

Microevolution


For these to be scientific a line must be drawn between each one. Hence evolution.

I think, as I stated before, that that line of thought is flawed.
You either use the scientific method or you don't.
You can't pick and choose when to use science and when to invent your definitions of terms already used by science.
You think the Big Bang Theory is flawed? Perfect, let's discuss the Theory of the Big Bang.
You think the model proposed by the Theory of Evolution is flawed? That is a stand-alone discussion, in which we use our knowledge of the biological sciences to advance.

I am interested in the advance of scientific knowledge.
If someone proposes an alternative sound SCIENTIFIC model to explain the gradual changes observed in lifeforms, I assure you, Scientists and me will be thrilled.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by puzzlesphere

 

Thank you puzzleshere. I was looking for something like this but this is perfect.

Now nutjob if you would like to discuss the processes of evolution that is great. But to deny that evolution takes place is just absurd and will not be met with any serious comment.

Microevolution does take place.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


That paper is talking about "macroevolution", the more specific term for it is "Key innovation".

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Also another point,

Genesis refers to the origin of life. You could be refering to a religious view of genesis, or or even abiogenesis. Abiogenesis refers to the process of life starting from nonliving material. A ( meaning without) bio ( meaning life) genesis (meaning the start or beginning). Your body is a collection of non living materials organized into a form that we recognize as life. Your body started as nonliving material. It was organized by the processes of dna.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

That paper is talking about "macroevolution", the more specific term for it is "Key innovation".

Like I said. Give me just ONE example of macroevolution being observed from a peer reviewed source.

It has to be true macroevolution, not an example of where a living organism has lost something.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It is only refering to the amount of time that the ongoing processes of evolution have taken place.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Also there is a post not far above this that links to a number of them.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

It's a logical fallacy to attempt to prove an opinion is right by quoting ONE PERSON, and an appeal to portrayed authorities.

You did not give an opinion by posting that image.

How about you give us 'your' opinion then, instead of slamming other members who are putting theirs out there.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Believing in facts isn't religious, and lumping different theories together is disingenuous.


I accept evolution because it has been proven, and as of yet nothing has disproved it.
I am leaning towards Abiogenesis being correct within our current understanding because the isolated theoretical models are coming very close to describing reality when applied contextually.
The Big Bang theory I am still on the fence, and don't "believe" it, as you put it, because as of yet it hasn't adequately been explained. I lean more towards the theories of the Holographic Universe rather than the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Also another point,

Genesis refers to the origin of life. You could be refering to a religious view of genesis, or or even abiogenesis. Abiogenesis refers to the process of life starting from nonliving material. A ( meaning without) bio ( meaning life) genesis (meaning the start or beginning). Your body is a collection of non living materials organized into a form that we recognize as life. Your body started as nonliving material. It was organized by the processes of dna.

Yes.

The difference is that I believe in a Creator that exists outside of time, space & matter. Not one that exists within the confines of it's laws.

This Creator spoke everything into existence. He created man from the dust of the earth (abiogenesis). I will freely admit that my belief is religious.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Believing in facts isn't religious, and lumping different theories together is disingenuous.


I accept evolution because it has been proven, and as of yet nothing has disproved it.
I am leaning towards Abiogenesis being correct within our current understanding because the isolated theoretical models are coming very close to describing reality when applied contextually.
The Big Bang theory I am still on the fence, and don't "believe" it, as you put it, because as of yet it hasn't adequately been explained. I lean more towards the theories of the Holographic Universe rather than the Big Bang.

Only microevolution has been proven.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

Also there is a post not far above this that links to a number of them.

edit on 20-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)

Birds were created by God.

Dinosaurs were created by God.

Here is a link to my religious belief: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It is only refering to the amount of time that the ongoing processes of evolution have taken place.

Wrong.

Macro refers to sudden & large genetic changes.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

Oh, Lord.
Okay. I'm really done now. Gonna watch "Hoarders" and leave this craziness for a while.
Sorry, OP. I just ---- so want people to wake up!
G'nght then.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Ok. So do you believe that humans have always existed in the physical form that we exist in today?