Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Ostroeuropa]

I thought this was going to be an intelligent conversation... all I see is either you accept evolution or you're an idiot... i was hoping to actually see debate and conversation.. if you're going to discuss something should there not be discussion? and not immature bashing?...

Well, that is pretty much the only alternative.
The real debate is punctuated equilibirum or not.
And THAT you can have an intelligent debate about.
Whether or not evolution EXISTS? Yeh, thats an Idiots VS People who accept evolution thing.
If you want an intelligent debate instead of people asserting stupid or flat out wrong things, and evolution supporters mocking them, look for a debate about the type of evolution that is happening.

[Somali Caliphate]

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... nking.html

A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in January, 1988 in Gemini (no.18, pp.68). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

A change in the entropy (dS) of a system is the infinitesimal transfer of heat (δQ) to a closed system driving a reversible process, divided by the equilibrium temperature (T) of the system.[2]

The Earth isn't a closed system.

Dr. Duane Gish, an American biochemist has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... nking.html





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

The Earth isn't a closed system.

Dr. Duane Gish, an American biochemist has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.

1. It is.
2. The sun.
3. Glycose.
4. Fat strains and amino acids.

GOOD JOB you have clearly not looked up the response to this question, only the question and said
"I havn't seen an anwser! HURRRRR this must disprove evolution!" without googling for, you know, the answer.

[Chinese Regions]

Okay.

Basically, I just believe that man evolved from monkey. Or is that too ridiculous for NSG?

What if I told you.
You are still a monkey.

We are primates but we aren't monkeys.

[Chinese Regions]

We never started.
We're apes.
There is a significant difference.

Apes are subset of monkeys.
Humans are subset of apes.
Thus humans are monkeys.

Apes aren't monkeys either.

[Big Jim P]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... nking.html





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

The Earth isn't a closed system.

Dr. Duane Gish, an American biochemist has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.

so god would be the control mechanism?

[Mavorpen]

I'm glad that you used Archaeopteryx as your example of an animal between a dinosaur and a bird, because it has been shown to be just a species of bird and not some transitional between a dinosaur and a bird:

Actually no. Archaeopteryx is a genus that of early bird that is transitional between modern birds and feathered dinosaurs. I never said it's not a species of bird.

[Mavorpen]

=
The Earth isn't a closed system.

Dr. Duane Gish, an American biochemist has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.

1. The Earth is an open system.
2.

3. It does.
4. Natural Selection.

[Somali Caliphate]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

The scientific evidence does exist and that's why I accept it.
It is not a religion and fails the definition.
It lives up to the definitions.
We've showed this to you and you have either not understood, or are misrepresenting.
So, which is it, are you an idiot or a liar?
Because evolution DOES exist.
The theory of evolution explains how it works.
Same as gravity DOES exist.
The theory of gravity explains how it works.

[Mavorpen]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Poe.

[Big Jim P]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Poe.

No. Active stupidity.

[Immoren]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Poe.

I guess.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Because it's true. Here. A nice, to-the-point source.

It's not a religion because it meets none of the definitions, and natural selection meets all of the conditions of a scientific theory.

[Mavorpen]

Poe.

No. Active stupidity.

He literally dismissed evidence because it was TOO MUCH, SPAMMED us with quotes and shit without linking them, and is now claiming there is no evidence. I refuse to accept someone is that stupid.

[Somali Caliphate]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

[Ostroeuropa]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

Have you seen the steve list?
It's a list 10 times the length of that one of biologists who accept evolutionary theory
ALL NAMED STEVE.
That is how few scientists there are who reject evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

That is how woefully out of step creationism is.
It's also been shown that the list you provided was obtained deceptively, and many people on it have since withdrawn their names.
The question asked was:
"Do you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection."
many of the names included are punctuated equilibrium scientists, and thus do not accept evolution by natural selection, however DO accept evolution by punctuated equilibrium.

[Mavorpen]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

And?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

Yeah, thousands of people still believe the Earth is flat too. How about you stop ignoring all the replies we give to your claims and start reading and responding to them.

[Immoren]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

*Huhom*

[Ostroeuropa]

Have a look at this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

*Huhom*

Well, they have to lie to make their ideas seem plausible.
What does THAT say about them.
Around 90% of the names included have requested their names be removed as the list was obtained deceptively.

[Divair]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Look at all this non-existent evidence.

Fuck it, evidence time.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

[Big Jim P]

No. Active stupidity.

He literally dismissed evidence because it was TOO MUCH, SPAMMED us with quotes and shit without linking them, and is now claiming there is no evidence. I refuse to accept someone is that stupid.

The evidence is there. Obviously someone is that stupid.

[Chinese Regions]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Evolution has a lot of scientific evidence. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god and both can coincide.

[Big Jim P]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Evolution has a lot of scientific evidence. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god and both can coincide.

Belief in god is fine (whatever gets you through your day), but denial of reality is not.