Quote from Ash

Bloodfruit, go die.


"No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."
-Stephen Hawking

No matter how much a theory is proven right, even one contridictive observation will make it incorrect, an event upon which scientists must either adjust it to fit this observation, or leave the entire theory behind.

I'd be interested to hear an observation that contridicts evolution.

Many things contradict (lrn2\spell) evolution. Why are you so biased towards evolution? Do you not even consider other theories?

Quote from Ash

Yeah, I suppose a well-evolved species would never be stupid enough to write a book like that.


But wait... Who's to say we're well-evolved? Hundreds of medical problems can be explained by showing that we evolved for millions of years as quadripeds and then suddenly our spines curved up in the span of a few thousand years and we started walking upright. Your mom probably has lower back pains because she's supposed to be walking on our fours. I wouldn't try suggesting that to her, though, because she may be PMSing at the time.

Now insulting? It's true atheists have no morals.

Quote from E=mc_cubed

Many things contradict (lrn2\spell) evolution. Why are you so biased towards evolution? Do you not even consider other theories?



Now insulting? It's true atheists have no morals.

Other theories? Contridictions? What? Where? I've got my sandbags set up, so fire away.

Actually, Dragon077, Alot of Christians believe in micro-evolution. What you posted before about being able to view it is only within a species. I dont see how a creature can change from one species to another.

Very well said Ash. I'll be back tomorrow with a few things evolution is wrong about.

I also ask everyone here to talk about the Big Bang Theory, since that usually coinsides with evolution.

Quote from Delphinus19

Actually, Dragon077, Alot of Christians believe in micro-evolution. What you posted before about being able to view it is only within a species. I dont see how a creature can change from one species to another.

Very well said Ash. I'll be back tomorrow with a few things evolution is wrong about.

I also ask everyone here to talk about the Big Bang Theory, since that usually coinsides with evolution.

Do you understand the definition of "Species"? It seems that few skeptics of evolution do.

A species is a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring. That's all.

Lets use the science class favorite of the peppered moth as an example.

Let's say we have a forest. This forest has a species of moths, the white peppered moth, or Biston betularia f. typica. These moths are interbreeding, so they are all definately the same species. There are a few darker-colored moths, too, but their population is dwindling because they are easily seen against the white-grey wood of the trees in the forest, and thus are more often eaten by the birds in the area.

Fetherby Big-Bucks Incorporated decides to make a shoe factory nearby, and the black smoke from the factory makes the trunks of the trees in the forest turn dark brown, almost black. Now, the white moths aren't as hard to see. In fact, the roles have reversed, and now the darker moths are harder to see than the white ones. The darker ones survive longer, so they reproduce more than the lighter ones. When they give birth to a lighter one, that lighter one doesn't survive long, but if they give birth to a darker one, it survives even longer. In fact, some of the ones they give birth to are just randomly a bit darker. This pattern continues, and the long chain of somewhat-darker moths and somewhat lighter ones ends up making enough of a difference that there are now very few white moths and quite a lot of dark ones.

Now, lets say that a group of these white moths migrates a few miles east, to where there are white-colored trees. This takes several generations, but still happens. Now the white ones and the dark ones are in seperate areas, simply because they naturally gravitate to places they can survive better in.

These groups don't see each other for a very long time. They both grow independantly of each other, respectively darker and lighter due to the occasional birth of a genetically darker or lighter one.


20 years pass, and a small group of white moths ends up near the black ones. They attempt to mate, but since their DNA has become so different, their babies come out retarted and die soon. Now we have two species. Two different species. One turned into another. That's evolution.


/thread, unless you can find a flaw in the process.

Why would there DNA change? Thats the main part I don't get.

Mutations. When DNA is being copied, sometimes there are deletions, transpositions, etc. because the process is imperfect.

Also, when two organisms reproduce, each gives half of it's genes to the baby at about random, so combinations of genes are mixed. A blue-eyed blonde haired girl and a green-eyed redheaded boy may give birth to a green-eyed blonde haired boy.

Oh, Theres the word. Mutation. It seems a lot of supporters of Evolution don't know what that means. Mutation is used to describe a breakdown in some thing. If we got to the way we are by mutation alone, we would be retarded blobs of skin.

"1. Biology.
a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.
2. the act or process of changing.
3. a change or alteration, as in form or nature."


From what I can tell, it just means a change... Can you cite your source for your definition?

Ash, I'm sorry, I was wrong. Usually mutations are harmless and don't effect the DNA either way. But at times it may help a creature to survive. Just as unlikely and being helpful, it is harmful, making a creature weak.

I got my definitions mixed up and I'm sorry. But like I said, tomorrow I will give you a list of a few flaws in the Theory of Evolution as well as in the Big Bang Theory. I wrote a paper on it, and it is at my school and I can't get to it until tomorrow.

Post the ones on evolution, but keep the big bang to another thread.

Quote from Ash

"No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."
-Stephen Hawking

awesome, my physics teacher referred to this quote last year. thanks for posting it.

i firmly believe that the only people who do not find the theory of evolution believable are people who do not understand the theory, and i have a feeling delphinus is going to support my belief a little more.

Pagan, I see how people believe in it, I'm just not entirely convinced by it. Most of its elements are unproven.

Quote from E=mc_cubed

Many things contradict (lrn2\spell) evolution. Why are you so biased towards evolution? Do you not even consider other theories?



Now insulting? It's true atheists have no morals.

Atheists can have just as many morals as any religious person..
Difference is, atheists have there own morals, instead of a book telling them what morals they should have.

Not a religious debate. So, Nodbarnacle, take that over to E=mc_cubed's thread. And yell at him for being stupid like everyone there is.

Quote from E=mc_cubed

It's true atheists have no morals.

Watch your words very carefully. Composure is very important in debates, if you don't control it you start saying things like this. And this statement is starting an argument you cannot and will not win.