Surely an acknowledgement of evolution would not be harmful to society would it? In fact, I would argue that it is helpful. For example, the prediction that bacteria will evolve to become resistant to antibiotics seems like it does more to help society than to harm it. No?
This reply is typical of you and others in this debate. A question is asked to which you folks give a Profound" Nuh-Uh" in order to run away from answering the one question you always avoid. What is your alternate explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?
Correction. I've provided evidence that refutes evolution, and I used your sources to do so. I'm gleefully providing evidence that refutes evolution, while using your sources. I will continue to provide evidence that refutes evolution, while using your sources. Now to the hard part. You know that evolution is bad science. The evidence you've provided shows that. What is the real reason you hang on to the notion of that it's real? Seriously. Why do you insist on accepting something that's entirely created by guess work? We know the reason isn't science simply because we both know that the evidence doesn't support it. What is the real reason? Be honest.
Only if it was solid science. It's not. It's based on guess work. The theory of evolution is based on guess work. Lying to society is harmful. This has nothing to do with evolution, unless you want to limit evolution to merely adaptation and not species gradually transitioning into another. There is no evidence of that happening. That's the big lie.
Apparently this is important to you. It's not to me. "Don't know, don't care" is what you're going to get. I'm interested in exposing the fallacies of evolution. Maybe you should start another thread for those who want to engage in your topic.
IF and only IF evolution were true it would it would be so bad. What's bad is that evolution is being taught as a fact. It's not and the evidence that attempts to support it are very weak. It should be taught as guess work or wishful thinking and not as a fact.
Most theories have at least some element of guesswork. And many are woefully incomplete. We don't immediately pass them off as lying to society because of it. I see no reason we should treat evolution any different. Do you? Well, yes it does. That is one of it's predictions. That organisms adapt to their environment with the ultimate goal of increasing their odds of survival. If they can do it on small timescales with small changes then it's reasonable to hypothesize that this can occur over bigger timescales resulting in bigger changes. There is evidence of that. It's just not compelling enough to convince everyone. Which is why you are on one side of the argument and I'm on the other. And that's okay. But, at least I throw my lot in with a theory that is tenable because "I don't want to know" or "it doesn't matter" isn't good enough for me and there isn't a better alternative.
Huh? biologists done even know what life is? Seems you cant respond so you dismiss with an entirely false premise, how expected.
That seems to be ChemEngineer's debate methodology. Make bogus assertions Ignore responses Make bogus assertions Ignore responses Threaten "Ignore List" Make bogus assertions Impose "Ignore List" After a while, the only person left to debate with will be Prunepicker.
I'm pretty sure ChemEngineer skipped "threaten ignore list" and went straight to "impose ignore list" with me. That's sad really because I avoid calling people names, bashing a people group that they may be part of, belittling them, or otherwise try to come across as superior. It's just a rule of conduct I reserve for myself, but I guess I struck a nerve when I challenged a claim of his in another thread. If I acted inappropriately then I am genuinely sorry for that, but I don't think I did so...
Some folks just can't handle anything other than an echo chamber. Don't sweat it. You're in good company with the rest of us allegedly put on his ignore list for the crime of rebutting him with evidence.
Except evolution myth doesn't depend on genetic adaptation, Darwin's main discovery, it depends on radical ongoing actual mutations, which are fantastically improbable statistically, almost always harmful, not beneficial.
Stories about Peter Rabbit aren't harmful in and of themselves, either, they just aren't empirical facts and no one attempts to teach them as facts, so yes, there is indeed a difference in how something is taught, and as already pointed out most of the defense of the evolution myth is done to support other agendas, not 'science'. Unless you're fine with your kid's Biology teacher teaching your kids rabbits can talk and think like humans.
Science has moved way past Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection,which is nowadays included in a set of theories from a wide field of scientific study, called the Modern evolutionary synthesis, which collectively explain how evolution occurs.
Already know all the handwaves, but thanks; they all trace back to Stephen Jay Gould's assorted collections of ad hoc reductionist speculations. My favorite is the 'punctuated equilibrium' one and all its variations. They read like Onion articles and send ups from The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
You probably don't realize this is backwards; it's the proponents that are obliged to prove their theories are factual, not the other way around.
Already have. You haven't provided any empirical evidence, just noise and made up rationalizations that 'sound good' to you. you would like to think so, but it's those that advance a theory that are required to prove it, with facts, not imaginary speculations.
You chemists and bio-chemists usually do the best job at examining empirical methodologies, which is no surprise, as chemistry is by far the most empirical of sciences, with agronomists coming in a close second historically.
