For those thinking evolution is a big hoax...

Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

Ug, the Bible does not contradict evolution. I believe it. God used evolution.

At 4/29/2012 4:09:37 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

Ug, the Bible does not contradict evolution. I believe it. God used evolution.

And that is fine -- I'm talking about those that believe evolution is nothing but a made-up lie to discredit the bible.

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence

Bad argument. I can say the exact same thing about seven day creationist scientist.

I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

What's the difference...?

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

I'm working on some articles on evolution for some scholarly papers. Care to debate macroevolution to test my arguments?

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

Macro and Micro evolution are the same things. Micro+ cumulative generations=macro.

At 4/29/2012 4:52:07 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

Macro and Micro evolution are the same things. Micro+ cumulative generations=macro.

They are different, though similar.

At 4/29/2012 4:16:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

What's the difference...?

Micro involves inter-species change. Macro is the change from one species to another.

At 4/29/2012 5:19:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:16:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

What's the difference...?

Micro involves inter-species change. Macro is the change from one species to another.

Micro evolution would eventually lead to a change from one species to another given enough time. To change into a different species, the original species' reproductive physiology would have to under go enough micro evolution until, eventually, it would no longer be able to successfully mate with members of the original species (if you define species as a class of organisms that are able to mate with one another).

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

I know that micro evolution exists, I was born! I don't believe in macro evolution, no evidence.

At 4/29/2012 8:52:01 PM, GodSands wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

I know that micro evolution exists, I was born! I don't believe in macro evolution, no evidence.

Actually there is a lot of evidence.

At 4/29/2012 8:52:01 PM, GodSands wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

I know that micro evolution exists, I was born! I don't believe in macro evolution, no evidence.

Only the Fossil Record, DNA Evidence, Molecular Evidence, Physiological Evidence, etc. indicate that this is true . . . but yeah, no evidence.

Macro evolution has even been empirically observed by examining viruses. One scientist even created a new species of amoeba by making a small change and sparking macroevolution. Macroevolution is the culmination of the changes that occur in microevolution. If macro did not exist, there would be no reason to have micro.

Speciation has been observed.

That is all.

At 4/30/2012 8:12:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
Speciation has been observed.

That is all.

For proof:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 4/29/2012 4:09:37 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

Ugh, the Bible does not contradict evolution. I believe it. God used evolution.

That's a cop-out answer.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

At 4/29/2012 4:09:37 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

Ug, the Bible does not contradict evolution. I believe it. God used evolution.

The Fool: can you quote those lines pls.

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

That right, Scientist are wrong about thier own scientific fact. lol

At 5/1/2012 8:10:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

That right, Scientist are wrong about thier own scientific fact. lol

Care to expand on what a fundementalist is??

At 5/1/2012 8:11:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 5/1/2012 8:10:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

That right, Scientist are wrong about thier own scientific fact. lol

Care to expand on what a fundementalist is??

Those atheists like Microsuck who hate everything about religion and attack it with every breath and are intolerant of religious people.

because the atheist agenda is made up purely of people who hate all religion.

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

Welcome to the Wall of Fail.

At 5/2/2012 6:32:28 AM, Microsuck wrote:

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

Welcome to the Wall of Fail.

Note: If you don't know what is wrong with clash's statement, read this FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org...

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact.

Correct, but only in the sense that theories and facts are two different things.
There is, however, the Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Evolution.

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions.

As do all scientific theories.

At 5/2/2012 6:58:14 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact.

Correct, but only in the sense that theories and facts are two different things.
There is, however, the Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Evolution.

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions.

As do all scientific theories.

Correct. The definition of a theory is a well supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments and explains them in a coherent way.

[Source: Fairbanks, Daniel J. "What Is Evolution?" Evolving: The Human Effect and Why It Matters. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012. 16. Print.]

At 4/29/2012 8:52:01 PM, GodSands wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:15:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I believe in Micro Evolution, not as much Macro.

I know that micro evolution exists, I was born! I don't believe in macro evolution, no evidence.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be 'micro evolution'. Evolution works on gene pools, not individuals. Perhaps you meant mutation?

At 5/1/2012 6:31:08 PM, Clash wrote:
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact.

The theory of evolution is the over-arching explanation of common descent and the origin of the species. Common descent is a fact.

Although it has many things in it which are right, it also has many errors and unanswered questions. And as 1dustpelt said, God could indeed have used evolution. This doesn't contradict the Quran either. In fact, to say that the evolution of species happened only by pure chance, is something only fundamentalist Atheist's can say.

Only fundamental atheists who don't understand natural selection.

At 4/29/2012 4:13:23 PM, Koopin wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence

Bad argument. I can say the exact same thing about seven day creationist scientist.

I dunno. "Creationists just make stuff up without any evidence" sounds a lot more plausible to me. :P