Is Evolution Grammatically Correct?

[Temujin]

Correct. And yet STILL evolutionists have ZERO evidence that there is no Creator behind fossil records, genetics, biochemistry or morphology, even IF such criteria were as persuasive as you so gullibly believe. And neither do you.

Indeed, for the simple reason that it makes no difference. It isn't the job of scientists to look for evidence of a Creator, let alone test it. The majority of those who work in science, including evolutionary sciences, do believe in a Creator. Many of them are Christians. Evolution has nothing to say about a Creator. It just explains how the world of biology works. If you insist that what evolution says about the world is inconsistent with your Creator, then you are wrong. It's not your Creator that evolution disagrees with, it's your view of how the world works.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Indeed, for the simple reason that it makes no difference. It isn't the job of scientists to look for evidence of a Creator, let alone test it. The majority of those who work in science, including evolutionary sciences, do believe in a Creator. Many of them are Christians.

Exactly. That's because they are wiser than atheists such as you.

 

[Temujin]

Exactly. That's because they are wiser than atheists such as you.

And yet they agree with me over evolution rather than you.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

And yet they agree with me over evolution rather than you.

Wow. So you figured out that EVOLUTIONISTS believe in EVOLUTION. You're a genius.

 

[Temujin]

Wow. So you figured out that EVOLUTIONISTS believe in EVOLUTION. You're a genius.

And you figured out that they are wise to do so. Well done.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

And you figured out that they are wise to do so. Well done.

WRONG! I merely pointed out that they are wiser than wiseguys like you who don't believe creatures have a Creator.

 

[Temujin]

WRONG! I merely pointed out that they are wiser than wiseguys like you who don't believe creatures have a Creator.

But what has this to do with evolution. Your position is that evolution is false because creatures are created. Science shows that you are wrong, that evolution happens whether or not there is a Creator. I, together with all biologists, even those who do believe in a Creator are quite clear that evolution happens. Your peculiar word games and claims of clever ancestors are shown to be rubbish.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

But what has this to do with evolution. Your position is that evolution is false because creatures are created. Science shows that you are wrong

Science shows no such thing. Science speculates without proof. That's why it's called a theory. No one talks about the "theory of gravity."

 

[The Pixie]

So that makes retarded people who can drive cars and use Twitter smarter than Disraeli who had to ride a horse and write letters? LOL

No, I never said that.

I pointed out that mankind knows more today that a thousand years ago. To pretend otherwise on an internet forum is both ironic AND stupid.

Should we suppose all BIscuits are baked twice just because the word starts "BI"?

What are "scuits?

Wow., you really take quote-mining to the extreme, stiggy, just quoting six letters from one word, and ignoring the first two letters to make a trite point.

You know I said biscuit. You know it refutes your argument. You respond the only way you can, by ignoring the simple fact that you have been defeated.

Did you know enCYCLOpaedias are not circular, by the way?

What are "paedias?"

And again. rather that address the point, you choose to quote just seven letters from one word, and ignoring the first seven letters to make a trite point.

You know I said encyclopaedia. You know it refutes your argument. You respond the only way you can, by ignoring the simple fact that you have been defeated.

Okay, but they do have overwhelming abundance of evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, from biochemistry, from biogeography, from morphology...

Meanwhile, creationists have your argument about your Angle-saxon ancestors...

Correct.

At least you can admit that.

And yet STILL evolutionists have ZERO evidence that there is no Creator behind fossil records, genetics, biochemistry or morphology, even IF such criteria were as persuasive as you so gullibly believe. And neither do you.

We have no evidence for or against creationism. Perhaps God created the universe last Thursday, including creating all those fossils, and billions of people with false memories. I can give you zero evidence that that is not the case, or that it is the case.

But we do have overwhelming abundance of evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, from biochemistry, from biogeography, from morphology...

 

[mikeT]

Science speculates without proof.

So do you, yet you never seem to consider this a liability for your conclusions. Why is that?

That's why it's called a theory.

Science isn't called a theory; it's called science.

No one talks about the "theory of gravity."

Yes, they absolutely do.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

No, I never said that.

I pointed out that mankind knows more today that a thousand years ago.

"Mankind" doesn't even know how life got on earth, much less itself.

Wow., you really take quote-mining to the extreme, stiggy, just quoting six letters from one word, and ignoring the first two letters to make a trite point.

Correct. And as simplistic as that is you still can't seem to follow it.

You know I said biscuit.

Correct. You sure did. And a BIcycle is two cycles. A BIscuit is not two scuits. There is no such word. Biscuit is not a compound word. You screwed up.

You know I said encyclopaedia.

Correct. And I pointed out that there is no paedia forr cyclo to refer to, as we have for bi and cycle. You gave a dumb example

We have no evidence for or against creationism.

Except FOR, i.e. the CREATURES.

But we do have overwhelming abundance of evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, from biochemistry, from biogeography, from morphology...

And yet STILL evolutionists have ZERO evidence that there is no Creator behind fossil records, genetics, biochemistry or morphology, even IF such criteria were as persuasive as you so gullibly believe. And neither do you.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

So do you,

Correct. That's why unlike you guys I never said I have proof.

Science isn't called a theory;

No one said it was.

it's called science.

Correct. You're good at tautologies, at least.

Yes, they absolutely do.

And yet they don't.

 

[Tiburon]

Science shows no such thing. Science speculates without proof. That's why it's called a theory. No one talks about the "theory of gravity."

Actually they do.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Actually they do.

Gravity is real. Here's an experiment you can try to prove it:

1. Pick up a book.

2. Raise it in the air,

3. Let go of the book.

4. Watch it head in the direction of the center of the earth.

Now describe an experiment you can similarly do at home to prove evolution.

 

[Tiburon]

Gravity is real. Here's an experiment you can try to prove it:

1. Pick up a book.

2. Raise it in the air,

3. Let go of the book.

4. Watch it head in the direction of the center of the earth.

Now describe an experiment you can similarly do at home to prove evolution.

Yes but how and why gravity works is still a theory.
Is science limited to those experiments you can do at home?

 

[Furion]

Yes but how and why gravity works is still a theory.
Is science limited to those experiments you can do at home?

Here is your experiment for evolution.

1. Pick up a mirror

2. Look at it

3. Declare an ape is looking at you.

4. Watch yourself hunger for the nana.

Only good monkeys will pass the experiment.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Yes but how and why gravity works is still a theory.

No, here's the difference. Fist we prove the existence of gravity by observation, and then we develop a theory as to how it works. That first step has never been taken with evolution. Thus it remains a mere theory.

 

[mikeT]

No, here's the difference. Fist we prove the existence of gravity by observation, and then we develop a theory as to how it works. That first step has never been taken with evolution.

The "existence of" evolution has been observed multiple times. Go read about Darwins work with finches.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

The "existence of" evolution has been observed multiple times.

Nope, not even once.

 

[Whatsisface]

No, here's the difference. Fist we prove the existence of gravity by observation, and then we develop a theory as to how it works. That first step has never been taken with evolution. Thus it remains a mere theory.

That's exactly how the theory of evolution came about, observation then the explanation. On The Origin of Species came about that way.

This is the way theory is defined in the scientific world, and applies to evolution...

"A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses".