Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Didn't you hear? Google is the inerrant word of God!
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.
#2 Total Post Count
i see non of yoiu are game to answer my 2 questions-cant find the answer in your text books i guess
You didn't miss it; you chose to ignore it. Now we are choosing to ignore your questions rather than repeat ourselves until we run out of breath. Fair is fair, after all.
#2 Total Post Count
that is because my questions where not answered because done of you are game to answer it
for future readers of this thread
note the people on here did not answer my two questions
about science and the BBC lieing about the Wilberforce Huxley debate and thus intentionally perpetuating a myth
no more said
1- I do not work for the BBC but I guess that the answer would be be cause this is TV, not Science. In fact because media like to tell nice story that seel time, even if sometimes they are not fully based on reality and science. I could provide many more example but I will limit myself to one, a book publisher providing a book about the so-called debunking of evolution written by a philosopher withut any understanding of evolution as its is now: Gamahucher press....
2- "Science" do not lie or tell anything. At best a nice story that do not really reflect is being told. However as you have pointed out, historian can freely tell the correct history. But as a matter of fact considering that the science behind evolution has slightly increased since Darwin, it is not really relevant anyway.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
what i fail to realize about this debate is why does it matter? I honestly don't care who and what debated in 1860 - that's something historians, not scientists, may be interested in.
And gamila, the reason why scientists seem dogmatic to the untrained eye is that it is oftentimes very hard to recognize crazy and/or stupid people putting forward random theories, because science is so vast today that you can't be an expert in anything. In science, how it works is you put forward your data/argument/hypothesis/whatever and it gets reviewed and scrutinized by the people that are experts in that particular field. If they find the argument solid, then it gets labeled as "possibly true" and published in a peer-reviewed journal. This does not mean that false things don't get published - but this process was designed to make it so that at any one moment the material presented consists of the opinion of a large part of the experts in the area. That way, when I read an article I don't have vast knowledge on I have the guarantee that someone who knows a lot more than me in the field has said "It's not completely crap, you can read it".
On google, on the other hand, you will most likely find all sorts of random crap that any cook put forward. And in the vast majority of cases, things you find on google that are unable to be traced back to a legitimate source will end up being bull.
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
Hi Colin. Remember me? We've met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.
A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You're just the latest. The guy's not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You're certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:
1) you're stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun
Back to you Colin: I'll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.
Till we meet again.
this is a good example of the fact that science has no method
some say the scientific method is falsification
but even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory
if falsification is the scientific method
darwins theory was shown to be false
that should have been the end of darwins theory
Indeed, natural selection has been shown to be a meaningless term.
See http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm (the fifth thesis).
It should be replaced by the notion of adaptation (as the reason for survival),
which (ultimately) means that creatures have the inborn capacity to act upon
and react to the environment. (Some will argue that this capacity comes from the genes, somehow, but no one has ever shown how this can be. A true puzzle for biologists!).
Adaptation as a principle is totally compatible with a spiritual vision on life.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests